Resuming where we left off, Rousseau observes that "Gods would be needed to give laws to men." (p. 286) He speaks here, not to advocate theocracy, but to point out the difficulties involved in making good law. The legislator has tremendous power, but while he needs to possess the power to make laws, he should not have the power over men, that is, the power to enforce them. Tyranny ensues when we combine the legislative authority with sovereign power. (p. 286)
The laws must be suited to the men who are to abide by them. But some men are unruly and will not abide by good laws. There seems to be a contradiction here, but I think what Rousseau is saying is that while there is some variation between people, and therefore of laws which would suit them, some people will not even abide by good law. (p. 287) The injunction to cast not your pearls before swine is good advice, but I'm not certain it fits with the general will.
We come to a curious quote: "Free peoples, remember this maxim: Freedom can be acquired, but it can never be recovered." (p. 288) As Rousseau was an undoubted influence on the Revolutionaries, this strikes me as intriguing. He follows this by pointing out that nations, like people, age. But nations may occasionally experience a resurgence, too. He offers another amusing quip: "The Russians will never be civilized because they were civilized too early." (p.288)
He argues that man may change laws for the worse. (p. 288) Obviously, this is true, but this does not seem consistent with the idea of the general will. He also asserts that "the force of the State creates the freedom of its member." (p. 289) Yet force is the antithesis of freedom.
Aside from the types of laws, fundamental or political, and criminal, the most important of all is engraved on the hearts of its citizens. (p. 289) This strikes me as one of the wisest things Rousseau has said thus far.
Government is defined as follows: "An intermediate body established between the subjects and the sovereign for their mutual communication, charged with the execution of the laws and the maintenance of civil as well as political freedom." (p. 289)
Of the different forms of government, we have democracy: in which "there are more citizens who are magistrates than are private citizens"; aristocracy: in which "there are more simple citizens than magistrates"; and monarchy, in which there is a single magistrate. (p. 290) Different forms of government are better in different cases, but in general, the larger the state, the fewer should be the magistrates.
Making explicit what he implied before, Rousseau notes: "It is not good for him who makes the laws to execute them..." (p. 291) Despite some of his inclinations towards democracy, a true one cannot exist. But he is speaking here of an assembly of citizens, rather than some form of indirect democracy. "If there were a people of Gods, it would govern itself democratically. Such a perfect government is not suited to men." (p. 291)
Finally, there are three kinds of aristocracy: natural, elective and hereditary. "The first is suited to simple peoples. The third is the worst of all governments. The second is the best; it is aristocracy so-called." (p. 292)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Eric: We come to a curious quote: "Free peoples, remember this maxim: Freedom can be acquired, but it can never be recovered." (p. 288) As Rousseau was an undoubted influence on the Revolutionaries, this strikes me as intriguing.
PJ: Yes, this is curious, particularly since it is addressed to an already free people. I think the claim is that true freedom (=civic, political, moral freedom) is a social accomplishment, not a natural state to which we must return (this in spite of Rousseau's own yearnings for some sort of Romantic Eden). Or maybe a better interpretation, considering the immediate context, is that political freedom must always assume a shape specific to the people constituting that political society, and that the effort to revive a past way of life is bound to fail. The point of this section and the next, as you note, is decidedly conservative, an interesting counterpoint to the radically democratic sentiments animating other sections. The most important form of law, he says, "the true constitution of the state" is its "mores, customs, and especially of opinion" (289). Social revolution, then, must emerge organically out of the will of the people. Would that the Bush administration had better studied their Rousseau!
Eric: He also asserts that "the force of the State creates the freedom of its member." (p. 289) Yet force is the antithesis of freedom.
PJ: Ah-ha, but recall the paradoxical structure of the general will, which is said to yield "a form of association that defends and protects the person and goods of each associate with all the common force, and by means of which each one, uniting with all, nevertheless obeys only himself and remains free as before" (281). Freedom, as we see again in Kant, is construed in terms of rational self-legislation. It's opposite is not force, but appetite.
Eric: Government is defined as follows: "An intermediate body established between the subjects and the sovereign for their mutual communication, charged with the execution of the laws and the maintenance of civil as well as political freedom." (p. 289)
PJ: Yes, we see here again the priority of society over government. Here's a particularly strong statement of the position: "if the people promises simply to obey, it dissolves itself by that act; it loses the status of a people. The moment there is a master, there is no longer a sovereign, and from then on the body politic is destroyed" (283). Notice, too, his near indifference to the institutional structure of government. He employs the same taxonomies developed by the Ancients (we saw them in Plato, and they appear again in Aristotle and in Polybius' analysis of Roman Republicanism); yet, whereas for the Ancients the whole issue was to figure out which configuration was most just or most stable, for Rousseau, this question has become merely incidental, wholly subordinated to the question of what kind of society can ensure the freedom of each of its members.
Would that the Bush administration had better studied their Rousseau!
Indeed. Revolutions from above can only be maintained by force. True social reform must be built from the ground up; it takes longer, but its foundation is surer.
...for Rousseau, this question has become merely incidental, wholly subordinated to the question of what kind of society can ensure the freedom of each of its members.
That's a really good point. I've been reading through Aristotle's Politics, and noticed much the same thing.
Post a Comment