Rousseau and Wollstonecraft on the State of Nature and Society
Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality among Men and Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Woman are a culmination of the Enlightenment thought on the natural rights of mankind, man’s place in society, and the Social Contract. Rousseau evaluated the works of Enlightenment philosophers before him like Thomas Hobbes and John Locke.
He began to expand and challenge the ideas presented about the natural rights of man and the Social Contract. Rousseau was interested in reviewing and evaluating the ideas of the philosophers before and of his time because he desired to discover what caused his experiences with society, especially his time in abject poverty. Wollstonecraft, like Rousseau, evaluated the ideas of Enlightenment thinkers, especially Rousseau’s, to understand experiences of women in society and how the treatment of women and their position in society conflicted with the Enlightenment ideals. Thus, both Rousseau and Wollstonecraft’s own ideas were deeply related to their own personal lives, and affect the arguments that they make in the Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality among Men and A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, respectively.
Rousseau defines man’s true state of nature as a noble savage who is completely self-sufficient and argues that man was duped by the powerful and wealthy into entering into a Social Contract because of his experiences in abject poverty. Wollstonecraft, on the other hand, argues that men and women are equal in the true state of nature and attacks Rousseau’s confinement of women in the state of nature and society to only the traditional roles of wife and mother, which she argues because of her experiences as a women in a patriarchal society. Wollstonecraft concludes her arguments against Rousseau by asserting that men and women should leave the barbarous state of nature and enter into a Social Contract, but restore the equality of the state of nature through proper education.
Background on Rousseau
Rousseau was born in Geneva in 1712. Due to a number of unfortunate events, Rousseau essentially raised himself without “parental affection or guidance”, which fostered “youthful rebellion” and “enlightened self-interest” in him. He then chose “a vagabond life for several years,” which forced him to “live on charity” and suffer the “frustrations and humiliations of being poor.
Rousseau finally reached Paris at the age of thirty, but had incredible difficulty breaking into the intellectual scene there because he was exploited by his wealthy superior at the jobs he took, had to battle prejudices against the poor, and had to develop a reputation without having any connections. Rousseau argues that “the rich man… conceived the most calculated project” to destroy “natural freedom for all time” because of his own experiences with poverty, especially his exploitation, because it is a concept that figures prominently into his argument.
Analysis of Rousseau
Rousseau begins the argument by idealizing man without the influence of society. He asserts that “man in the state of nature hardly needs remedies”, from which he extols the power, strength, independence, and inherent morality of this state. Rousseau illustrates man’s natural state as a lifestyle that no one would desire to leave and reaches its pinnacle when “[e]ach family [becomes] a little society all the better united because reciprocal affection and freedom [are] its only bonds.”
However, the state of nature is destroyed by the rich who connive against all others to deceive them into entering a Social Contract so the rich can protect themselves and their property. The rich use the concept of property to maintain their dominance over the poor, and allow the poor to believe under the idea of property that the disparity between the rich and the poor is acceptable. Ultimately, the actual state of society is saturated with the “usurpations of the rich [and] the banditry of the poor” because of “the right of property”. Rousseau attacks property and the rich’s abuse of their power because of his own experiences with exploitation, which motivates his support of man’s return to a state that abnegates the current “contract between the people and the leaders.
Background on Wollstonecraft
Mary Wollstonecraft was born in London in 1759 into a dysfunctional family life. Her father was a selfish and brutal man, who abused her mother, and her mother played up the role of victim as much as possible- Wollstonecraft would have preferred outright rebellion. In a radical and bold step, Wollstonecraft convinced her family to let her move out of the house and become financially independent; her family was in the middle-class before she left and while independent she was able to maintain a moderate income either as a governess or writer. Ironically, she, at one point, moves back to her home to financially and physically care for her father-this is where her writing career germinates.
In addition to her father, Mary has more challenging experiences with males in her life. For instance, she is scorned by Gilbert Imlay, a man she briefly carries on a love affair with, who leaves her with an illegitimate child. During the time before she writes A Vindication on the Rights of Women, she was also exposed to the beginning of the French Revolution and became familiarized with Rousseau’s ideas and writings. Wollstonecraft argues that Rousseau’s opinion on men should extend to women because of her experiences as a woman but especially because her disagreement with Rousseau’s argument for traditional roles for women on the basis of her womanhood.
Analysis of Wollstonecraft
Wollstonecraft is in general agreement with Rousseau’s political ideologies, social philosophy, and assertion of man’s natural rights. She identifies some of the same issues with society that Rousseau does, and sees a return to natural state as the solution too; however, Wollstonecraft’s state of nature is refined and avoids “the apotheosis of savage virtues.” For instance, Wollstonecraft shares “Rousseau’s disdain for aristocratic claims to privilege and power” because she identifies only “false-refinement, immorality, and vanity” as the qualities of the rich and asserts that the middle-class is in a much more natural state, which is a product of virtue developed through hard work.
Rousseau and Wollstonecraft both champion the middle-class, but Wollstonecraft’s middle-class includes women as active contributors that are equal in virtue and rational capabilities to men when their natural states are properly educated. Wollstonecraft emphasizes education as the route to restoring women to their natural state of equality with men. Wollstonecraft’s call for a proper education comes with an accusation against men for saddling women with “a mistaken education, a narrow, uncultivated mind, and many sexual prejudices.” Wollstonecraft has identified a problem with the Social Contract between men and women that she sees supported by Rousseau, a philosopher whose ideas she generally agrees with; thus, she incisively criticizes his traditional ideas about women in an attempt to restore the natural state of equality between men and women.
Rousseau and Wollstonecraft crave a return to mankind’s state of nature in order to repair society and social relations. Rousseau points out that man must remove himself from the oppression and control of the rich by becoming a self-sufficient, noble savage because of his own experiences with destitution. However, Rousseau falls prey to the assumptions of the society he criticizes concerning women. He reduces women to beings that exist to inspire and participate in “conjugal love” and create children so that “paternal love” can be enjoyed. This is also a breakdown in his philosophy because in making women subordinate to men, Rousseau is making them into a kind of property, a concept he abhors; he cites property as the tool that is abused in order to create the pernicious, existent inequality.
Wollstonecraft latches on to the fallacies present within Rousseau’s work because of the personal challenges she faced as a woman in the eighteenth century. She illustrates the problems created by reducing women to a confined role and preventing them from developing through education; she struggled against a repressive family environment and was responsible for her own education. Ultimately, Wollstonecraft desires a return to a state of nature that is enriched by the education of the mind with knowledge and virtue for both men and women, which results in their equality and social, emotional, and intellectual friendship. Rousseau and Wollstonecraft are Enlightenment thinkers who have applied their personal experiences to a societal concept, resulting in unique arguments about the state of nature and the Social Contract.
References
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality among Men, Helena Rosenblatt, ed., New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2011.
Karen Spierling, History 200: Europe’s Scientific Revolution and “Enlightenment”, Apr 14, 2011.
Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Miriam Brody, ed., New York: Penguin’s Books Ltd, 2004.
