A Philosophical Critique of the works of

Jean Jacques Rousseau

By
Amit Mittal
FPM 15003
Date: 11/10/2015
Submitted to:
Prof. S Chakraborty

Indian Institute of Management

Lucknow
 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICITY

This is to certify that the term paper entitled A Philosophical Critique of the works of Jean Jacques
Rousseau by Amit Mittal is an original work and has not been submitted earlier either to Indian
Institute of Management Lucknow or any other Institutions in PARTIAL or complete fulfillment
of the requirements for the Term Paper report for a Doctoral Degree. None of the material here is
presented or approved for any other purpose than a report on the subject of Philosophy of
Management undertaken by him in Term V of the FPM program at Indian Institute of Management,
Lucknow.

Sd/-

AMIT MITTAL

10-11-2015

Lucknow
Table of Contents
Rousseau’s Works ................................................................................................................................... 4
What kind(s) of reality the author assumes? Answer with justifications. .............................................. 6
Epistemology........................................................................................................................................... 7
Methodological approach ....................................................................................................................... 8
Compare the approach taken by your chosen author with those of others who examined similar issues.
................................................................................................................................................................ 9
Hobbes, Locke, Hume and Rousseau Comparison Grid ............................................................. 10
Final assessment ................................................................................................................................... 12
References ............................................................................................................................................ 13
Rousseau’s Works
Rousseau was a litterateur, philosopher and composer of Eighteenth century France. His prolific
authorship was based on his personal experiences and in his time, induced a great transparency into
the literature of the age which also frequently led to his books being banned by the establishment for
bold views on closet religionism of the catholics or even the general will. He remained pro
establishment despite these ‘outbursts’ in his literature as his model of a republican democracy also
extolled the role of the wealthy and even that of the monarch, albeit selected by the people in
disseminating a rule of law , education and conduct of society in general. According to Masters (1968:
ix), Rousseau’s major works were intended to “live beyond his century and were directed to the
discovery of ‘truths which matter for the happiness of the human race.’”

He began his writing career with contributions to his friend Diderot’s encyclopedia in which he
contributed articles on music, a specific one on ‘Spectacles’ showing his disdain for art’s bourgeois
spirit, a framework that permeated his social contract and his conception of democracy that affects
political thought till date. His early essay in the encyclopedia and subsequent letters explain his
discomfort with the arts spreading the thoughts of society formation as people frequenting the
theatre were in general misguided from fair and just thought in looking for entertainment and
frequently corrupted by theatre for it to be a vehicle of political revolution. Also, his treatment of arts
goes to Rousseau’s conception of a dual goods economy, the Arts discussed in the provision of three
categories of goods, luxury goods, physical necessities and true riches.

His next work was submitted to the University for an Award Competition and he published two essays,
the first in 1750 a Discourse on the Arts and the Sciences and his next in 1755, Discourse on the Origins
of Inequality. He published some of his philosophy in fictional form, with his treatise on sentiment
entitled Julie: the new Heloise establishing the background also for his political thought and for
modern romanticism in general. Along with his Discourse on the origin of Inequality his treatise on The
Social Contract are critical to the foundation of modern political thought. His effort at opera, which
was staged with the help of his philosopher friends, was also an insight into the man’s thoughts on
how theater should be an epitome of moderateness and not a wasteful expenditure of the rich that
relied on immorality and some or other contraventions of social laws. His Devin du la village was not
a popular work.

In his exposition of the General will, The Social Contract, where he defined the rulers in alignment with
Locke as only being by the consent of the people, the legitimacy granted to the government by the
people cannot be confused with the legislator’s power and ability to supplement the lacks of the
people in administering law and order and managing the affairs of the state. Thus Rousseau remains
grounded in his state of nature and reflects on amour propre, the pride of living in society as the source
of the sacrifice for powers of government on able people, frequently from the wealthy and even kings
more in the nature of historical Greek city states and the Roman concept of the powerful Senate.

His works were frequently misconstrued and used as pretexts for forces of tyranny including that of
Robospierre and Saint Just’s reign of Terror post the French Revolution which Rousseau did not
survive. This was more so because his romantic school machinations meant for example that others
were to be forced into acquiescence if they differed from the general will, Doughty(2014)

In 1762, Along with The Social Contract he also published a quasi novel Emile, his Treatise on Education
that delineated the critical nature of his philosophy and his vision of the role of the state describing in
the nature of the life of Emile, the protagonist his blueprint for the ‘natural’ education for man to
become a citizen. He believed in a 30 year schooling of the child, the first ten years in scholarly
tradition with books, another ten years in a trade of his choice

He based his writings in the state of nature and impounded the belief of supremacy of authenticity
above all else. In the turmoil of his age, he struggled to distance himself from the political extreme
movement that was an important historical artefact of the age of enlightenment or the Renaissance
movement. His love for historical thought and an appreciation of the democracy of his city state of
Geneva (in Switzerland) shaped his own thoughts and discourses around the general will of the people,
a republican state and the democracy of the people even as he discussed historical thought, the force
of religion and all aspects of natural ‘man’ in his treatises as an expression of his own higher state and
not the idealistic thought of a third person. He was the proponent of society as the root of amour
propre that love of esteem which cast man to see all justice and being from the view of society and
that which caused corruption of thought and living.

Amour propre caused man to struggle with his own amour de soi or self-love. Society was a negative
influence on the natural state of man and his self-love was converted into pride. Amour propre thus
is artificial and made him compare himself to others creating fear and pleasure in the pain and
weakness of others.

Rousseau’s reasoning illuminates the deception of the people by amour propre and convinces them
to think anew yet he remains grounded in history and sometimes prescribes laborious details in a
more positivist school of thought than recognizing the differing alternatives. In his literature however,
Rousseau invokes frequent metaphors and similes evoking visions to represent amour propre and the
obstacles to seeing ourselves properly and the new vision itself, Scott(2014). Emile adopts Rousseau’s
system of the natural goodness of man and touches the subjects of human psychology, morality,
religion, sexuality, gender, politics and the umbrella of education that must harness this natural
goodness and his amour propre to make him a functioning citizen.

He is also credited with the first autobiography which is titled Confessions and a later dialectical
vignette called Dialogues:Rousseau, Judge of Jean Jacques apparently because of frequent
displacements in his life, giving way to a persecution mania. The work deals with his assumed criticisms
of Rousseau in the public domain and his patient answers to them

He is also credited with his own operatic version of Pygmalion, bringing the tale down to earth and
using it also to espouse his philosophies connections in Emile and Social Contract. The penultimate
book of Emile also includes the concise form of The Social contract similarly

He has also written counsel to governments of Corsica and Poland on writing of a constitution and
establishing a government which show his panache and ease with the conception of a rural democracy
with the family as the last functioning unit given his conception of man being free and equal in his
state of nature

He also has a lesser known work on the origin of languages, acquiescing with the general thought that
language and civilization have evolved together.

What kind(s) of reality the author assumes? Answer with justifications.

Ontologically, Rousseau’s work is defined by a real state of nature in which man suffers by being forced
to live in a society as a compromise of his authenticity. He, however uses the foundation of the state
of nature merely as a construct to establish the differences between the individual will and the general
will and the delineation of a governance system close to modern democracy but with a different role
for the citizen under the general wills of the people and the legislator appointed under the general
will but more capable and able to establish laws and impart education and work as the executive. This
apt use of vision and logical reasoning establishes his relativism in the real school of philosophers in
line with the constructivist paradigm

Yet he is largely based in reality and his epistemological and methodological leanings also establish
him in both the critical and Constructivist school but not outside Post positivism as he struggles to
establish a new order for the people and by the people

The philosopher is well founded in theory and while he recognizes the reality his early works establish
the grounds for espousing and delivering a latent construct based on moral inequalities and not the
physical inequalities of man
He argued moral inequality is endemic to a civil society and relates to and causes differences in power
and wealth.

His conception of general will, is popularised thru the metaphor in the social contract, “Everywhere
man is born free, yet he is in chains”. Before that in his discourse on inequality he suggests, “The first
man who having fenced in a piece of land..founder of civil society”(Wikipedia). In the Discourse on
inequality he discusses the interactions of amour de soi as well as pity and compassion for others .
Apart from his compassion, man’s free will allows him to work under his principles and his ambition
or “perfectibility” are innate to the construct of natural man that ontologically presupposes a future
for man different from animals and gives him purpose in society which he later expounds in the social
contract as a step of steps leading to the general will, another relative construct that creates a well
founded theory for the future of man in civil society and a republican / democratic form of governance

Rousseasu’s work is instructive for other philosophers and management theorists in the critical and
constructivist paradigms as a recognised social constructivist, or a Radical Structuralist in the Burrell
and Morgan construction of paradigms using his role a s a passionate participant to resocialize history
and establishing formative values for man and society. He establishes historical insights and argues
specific instances to establish a comprehensive structural analysis and builds up the rhetorical
conclusion leaving himself sensitive to misuse by his audience. He gets identified for his smaller
diatribes in his grand social contract to get banned by the regals of France and then equally unkindly I
used by the Revolutionaries a s a frequent excuse to justify killings of nobles ad those who did not
agree with the revolution

Epistemology
As is clear from the ontological origins of Rousseau’s work, all the authors constructs are developed
through an interactive discussion with the audience. His use of metaphor ad wit and the device of
literary fiction and metaphors only engages a wider audience as he creates a basis in the nature of
man and the distinction is amour de soi and amour propre to discuss and argue the nature of man,
society and of free will. This interactivist, subjectivist epistemology however remains grounded in
reality for the audiences to comprehend even as he expounds its effects in the success of ta republican
democracy and that of the abstract general will with more characters in fiction playing to his chosen
reality and treating his educated, socialised audience to a new vision for the future established for his
benefit as a new social epistemology.
He does not shy from flexibly using the discourse of method of the positivist or Cartesian schools using
Descartes and Aristotle to establish the new society and his constructs on the Education of man, yet
his flexibility transcends that flexibility in establishing alternatives to his relativist construction of a
new social contract also found in agreement with other contemporaries who believe that man is born
free and equal

Even in Emile, his discourse on Education itself, he drives in the importance of epistemology for his
philosophy in a natural state where the man Emile uses Books and learning of a trade for imparting
education and establishing a citizen Emile as part of a civic society

His discourses have to use critical arguments frequently and this methodology is required because of
the Interactivist epistemology chosen and to argue his audience to change their minds from their
conception of reality to a new alternative

His conception of amour propre and amour de soi establish subjective boundaries for his arguments
that are later replaced by his boundaries of individual free will and general will as he established the
parameters of man’s requirements to extend his being and then extends his canvas to that of a society
where such a man can live in a rural democracy close to his natural state

Methodological approach
Though at an aggregate level one can see an interventionist approach, his frequent use of critical
argument to separate free man from social man and a citizen bound by his duties in the general will,
Rousseau thus needs both critical argument and a frequent dialectic hermeneutical style to deliver
the idea state a s a dialogue between two proponents both representing free men and educated
citizens of a world that must make their decision

His inquiry into the man’s freedoms and roles of a government show understanding and a patient
revisiting of man’s successful history that appeals to logical reasoning, though he is not bound to
reaching a single minded conclusion

He uses critical theory to establish his structural and historical insights of the free will and general will
and the role of the legislator or head of the family or the teacher and society in education of a man,
yet he does so with a goal to establishing a new consensus with a citizen worth y of more moderation
and a sophisticated reconstruction of the abstract new truth through vicarious appeals to metaphors
and similes, even fictionalised idylls, advocating the powers of altruism and empowerment as the basis
of social man. He uses the roles of both a transformative intellectual and a passionate participant, yet
not shying away from utilizing historical situatedness to popularise a new construct having proved it
with an issue of application in real society
His vision of education was also based on hi definition of state of nature. Hi construct of republican
democracy is also instructive in modern times in reflecting on the right basis for constructing a new
form of rule of law or adding or subtracting the duties of governments and institutions

Compare the approach taken by your chosen author with those of others
who examined similar issues.
Rousseau’s conception of the state of nature was distinct from that of his contemporaries. Hobbes’
state of nature induced fear in man and man’s primary motivation to live in society is to surrender his
natural rights to gain the protection of a society and Locke then diverges from the same to understand
these motivations as protection of man’s property rights. Hume does not put his faith in the consent
of the people but espouses war as the basis of civilised society. Rousseau’s body of work yet
discourages economic analysis as the centrepiece of social thought and society and also celebrates
the noble savage as man from pre society and chose as examples the tribals of colonies conquered by
France and others. He is frequently celebrated for his discourses on the importance of equality and
may be credited as influence also on socialism and communism, yet his concept of the democracy as
idealised in Geneva that was in itself ruled by a council of wealthy families of the city, as he fervently
portrayed a role for the legislator that represented the general will of the people to be yet a social
notch above the people. His view of property is also different from Locke’s central tenet on unlimited
property rights as the binding force of a society to be enforced by the executive. Rousseau’s also
believes in the state maintaining individual property rights but only the moderate property of the
small working proprietor is sacred. He expounded that an unlimited property right was the source of
exploitation and unfreedom.

Yet, though in his Letteres Morals, Rousseau returns to the Cartesian or positivist method to espouse
Descartes’ cause, his faith in a near totalitarian thought frequently puts him in cahoots with dictators
like Hitler born of quasi democracies. The quest for reason however as adopted by Rousseau remains
more in the critical thought as he argues with fact and reasoning to establish the frameworks for a
new order and he is recognised as one with Hobbes, Hume and Locke in the constructivist school or
of social constructivism

Educators such as Frederich Frobel and John Dewey have been able to use his ideas in Emile to
encourage the constructivism paradigm of individualised instruction, student freedom and self
realization. His vision of education was also based on hi definition of state of nature
His conception of democracy abhorred thus the urban squalor that hoarded wealth as he abhorred
the relentless pursuit of Cartesian knowledge. He was one with other philosophers of the age of
enlightenment in bringing forth a greater role for the social sciences. He thus frequently exchanged
dialectical wit with his contemporaries like Voltaire and Diderot and his predecessors including
Aristotle in his literature. His work sees the influence of Descartes whom he frequently appreciates.
With Descartes, his critical and constructivist leanings merge in a meditative discourse to argue out
the preponderance of Cartesian or positivist, scientific thought and can be seen as foundational to the
birth of both paradigms of theory building in Critical and Constructivist thoughts from his post
positivist anti Cartesian argumentation. Descartes’ Discourse on Method was instrumental in
espousing a Cartesian school of philosophy that made social sciences subject to a technical method
and tightly bound constructs that are also ascribed to Rousseau’s conception of the general will. Yet
Rousseau broke from the Cartesian method and applied critical argumentation for establishing
Romanticism of the Noble Savage as his ideal construct of man unspoiled by society and the general
will as distinct from the construct of the legislator thus chosen by the general will to govern. The
legislator thus propounds a scheme of governance that is not mechanistic and realises man as a
socially bound being who must be civilised as an educated citizen

Similarly, his criticism of liberalism and of Lockeian property rights did form a more recognizable basis
of the US declaration of the founding fathers. He was however not a critic of Locke but agreed with
him in the constructs of the state of nature and the nature of man to a greater extent, relying on
educated citizen’s argument to make his point.

Hobbes, Locke, Hume and Rousseau Comparison Grid

Hobbes Locke Rousseau Hume

The state of nature is a Men exist in the state of Men in a state of nature State of war
state of war. No nature in perfect freedom are free and equal. In a
morality to do what they want. The state of nature, men are
exists. Everyone lives state of nature is not “Noble
State of Nature
in constant fear. No necessarily good or bad. It Savages”. Civilization is
one is really free, but, is chaotic. So, men do give it what corrupted him.
since even the up to secure the advantages
“weakest” could kill of civilized society.
 the “strongest” men
ARE equal.

Men are Equal Men are equal subject to Men are free and Equal Men are equal
Similarities property being protected
by the state

No consent from Governments need the Governments exist by No obligation of

citizen whose welfare consent of the public consent of the public citizen’s consent

Consent is the government’s

Individual wills are
charge
subordinate to the
general (collective) will.

Hobbes Locke Rousseau Hume

Subservient to the Part of the State apparatus Governments guarantee Owned by the
Institutions state and ensure future growth education and against state
corrupting institutions

To impose law and To secure natural rights, To bring people into To impose civil
Purpose of
order to prevent the namely man’s property and harmony. To unite them order and fund
Government
state of war. liberty. under the “General Will”. war

Subservient to the Government saves from The citizen is a general Subservient to

The rights and
state oppression and guarantees part of the executive but the state
duties of the
unlimited property rights the legislator is the
citizen
supreme governor

Governments are Representation ensures Representation is not

designed to control, that governments are enough. Citizens cannot
not necessarily responsive to the delegate their civic
represent. people. Representation is a duties. They must be
Representation safeguard against actively involved.
oppression.
Rousseau favors a more
direct democracy to enact
the general will.

Governments must be 1. Governments must be 1. Governments must

designed to protect the
designed to protect the be responsive and
Impact on people from the
people from government. aligned with the
Founders
themselves. general will.
2. Natural Rights must
be secured.
 2. People make a
nation, not
institutions.

Final assessment
Rousseau is an original thinker burdened with the historical baggage of having to establish a new
station for civil society and man and was transitioning between a monarchic history of Europe to a
new world conception he had to deliver in theory and account for in social practice. HE however
discarded the positivist paradigms along with contemporaries and used some interactive
epistemology to establish with inductive reasoning and vision new constructs that created the
constructivist paradigm of inquiry while using tenets of positivist and ciritcal paradigms to deliver the
new age conceptions that were radical yet did not justify their frequent misuse by the masses . Yet he
understood the nature of authentic man as the subject matter of society and established enough
reasoning on fresh institutions and his work went more towards establishing democracy as we know
it today. He is frequently studied , despite history having coloured his production and remains
instrumental in creating new thought and research by intellectuals and social scientists in the fields of
management, philosophy, organization and Economics
References
Bennett Jonathan, The Social Contract b y Jean-Jacques Rousseau, earlymoderntexts.com
http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/rousseau1762.pdf

Clement, Koffman, et al(2014). Rousseau’s child, Swiss Journal of Psychology, 73(2), 105-110.

Constant, Benjamin, (2010). The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with that of the Moderns, 1819
Lectures to the Athenee Royal de Paris.

Cooper, Laurence, (2004). Between Eros and will to power, American Political Science Review, 98(1).

Doughty, Howard A., (2014). Rousseau and Representative Democracy Reconsidered: Rehabilitating
the General Will, The Innovaton Journal, 19(1).

Ellis, Joseph, Comparing Marx and Rousseau, Blog,

http://polisciprof.blogspot.in/2007/02/comparing-marx-and-rousseau.html

Frieden, Bertil, (1999). The Problem of unique goods as factors of production: Rousseau on the art
and the economy, History of Political Economy, 31.

Graham, Henry Gray, (1906) Rousseau,

https://ia902606.us.archive.org/29/items/rousseau00grahuoft/rousseau00grahuoft.pdf

Hayek, Frederich,(1978) The errors of constructivism (Chapter I), New Studies in Philosophy, Politics
and the History of Ideas, Routledge and Kegan , London.

Incoprom, The democracy according to Rousseau, memo.fr ,

http://www.memo.fr/en/article.aspx?ID=JJR_IDE_040.

Hachette Multimdeia, The democracy, memo.fr,

http://www.memo.fr/en/article.aspx?ID=THE_POL_006.

Inston, Kevin,(2010). Representing the unrepresentable: Rousseau's legislator and the impossible
object of the people, Contemporary Political Theory, 9(4), 393-413.

Null, Wesley,(2004).Is Constructivism traditional, The Educational Forum, 68,180-188.

Scott, John, (2005). Rousseau’s anti-agenda-setting agenda and Contemporary Democratic Theory,
American Political Science Review, 99(1).

Scott, John, (2005). The illustrative education of Rousseau’s Emile, American Political Science
Review, 108(3).
Vauleon, Florian,(2014). Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the science of management: the illusion of free
will, Journal of Management History, 20(1), 99-113.

Wikipedia page on Jean Jacques Rousseau, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau

Yale University, (2008). Democracy and Participation: Rousseau's Discourse

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFY6Kvardnw

https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/hlrcomparison/hlrcomparisongrid.htm