As I read through Jean Jacques Rousseau's "On The Origins of Inequality", I came to realize just how much of the fundamental tenets of "equality" today, derive from this small booklet written by the French Philosopher in 1754. It is therefore with this in mind that I find it of pressing importance to address specific claims made by Rousseau and thereby individuals in modern society today.
Rousseau attempts an explanation of man in his natural state [1], and the state which he describes man in, is a condition that is void of all Government, of all civility and stripped of all signs of modernity...a cave man in other words. It is the contention of Rousseau therefore that institutions are the primary cause of inequality since it requires mankind to adapt in a way that is not natural to his predisposition. [2] This perspective on man and the origin of inequality, remains as can be seen, to this day a popular one. Countless times I've heard it claimed, that if two individuals of two entirely different races are born in the wild and left to fend for themselves void of education, civilization and other "luxuries" there would be absolutely no distinguishable difference between these individuals at all. That, they, would in fact be completely equal. The suggestion however, is a flawed one, one which we might be able to forgive Rousseau, but not modern man for accepting it as being an evident fact. What modern man conveniently forgets (and what Rousseau may not have known) is that man's natural state is never a constant, we are organic creatures and like any other organism we adapt and evolve with one single purpose in mind - survival. Thus to state that our "natural condition" is that of the caveman is an inaccurate estimation, institutionalizing and organizing ourselves into a community exponentially increased our ability to survive whatever may come our way. Of course even this is an imperfect method and it can in some cases even threaten the survival of the organism, that aside man has laboured throughout thousands of years, to find out the best way to Govern, that is to say to extract the absolute maximum from the community and thereby to ensure maximum survivability of the organism.
More astonishingly is the fact that Rousseau makes note of the fact that the Negro man in the Caribbean has no future sense at all[3], stating that he would sell his cotton in the morning then come back later crying for it back the afternoon, not having realized that he may have needed it later on. This Rousseau believes is man's natural predisposition, based on the notion that the negro man is closer to man's natural state than the European. The issue with this however, is that there is little consideration placed on the fact that different races have different temporealisation and tempocognition, that is to say that each one perceives things differently and in different time spans. If our natural predisposition is, as Rousseau contends, to have no sense of future needs and wants, then European man would never have foreseen the need for cultivating crops, or for storing large quantities of food, or for preparing proper housing for the winter. It could be argued that, the increase in population demanded that we create these sort of preparations, and that it was only as a result of this that man foresaw the need to store. However, this contention is flawed as well, it was through agriculture that our population expanded rapidly, and if not for a future sense, we'd have had no way of foreseeing the future starvation that would result from a lack of proper preparation. It is not "civility" the arts or "education" which created this future insight, but the manner in which European man's mind biologically functions.
In support of the contention that any perceived natural differences are merely institutional, Rousseau cites an example as evidence [4] It is his contention that, if man is to forsake all inclinations and behave in a sheepish manner (to do precisely alike with no variation) man would immediately be far more equal than he is in a society. But this in itself suggest a contradiction of his previous assertions, because it would indicate that man would have to actively force himself to forsake such things as communication, behavioral differences, likes and dislikes, and behave in precisely the same manner as all others. Thus making this an unnatural condition, and not a natural state. That which is natural comes without force, and is a logical sequence of adaptations that lead inextricably toward a single harmonious goal.
As can be seen from this brief review, there is a lot of Rousseau's beliefs that still remains pretty common in modern society. It is commonly believed by people, that institutionalizing is the cause of the inequality between European and Negro, that it is "Socio-Environmental" factors that create this rift between the success of one and the failures of another, the argument remains to this day that, when placed in exactly the same environment, both will have equal success and thrive equally. And as I've shown this is a flawed manner of thought. It is man that creates his environment not the environment that creates man, and it is precisely because of the biological differences between them that this rift exists. Whether you build up one area or not, the end result will remain the same, one due to a lack of future sense, would see no need for improvement and only concern himself with issues that relate to the present, the other will always seek to advance, always finding a need for it. I am certain that there are those who would argue that it would be the case, because the one group lacks the proper education that the other one has, however, consider why this is the case? It is not as though they have been denied this opportunity. "Yes, but they have a culture that attacks education" indeed! why's that? Perhaps because they see no need for this? Different races - different values. Not even compelled education at Harvard would create a "socio-environment" that is equal to that of European man.
[1] Rousseau, Jean Jacques, Discourse on The Origin of Inequality, Dover Publications Inc, 2004 P. 4 - 6
[2] Ibid. P. 24 - 25
[3] Ibid. P. 7 - 12
[4] Ibid P. 24 - 25
