1. Poli 64 Modern Political Thought TURN YOUR PHONE OFF! October 18 1989 East Germany and Hungary move toward democracy On October 18, 1989, the Iron Curtain nations of East Germany and Hungary take significant steps toward ending the communist domination of their countries to replace it with more democratic politics and free market economies. In Hungary, the Communist Party had disbanded on October 7. This action was followed by the razing of the barbed wire fence that had for years separated Hungary from Austria. The destruction of the fence effectively marked the end of the Berlin Wall as an impediment to travel between East and West Germany, since East Germans could now simply travel to Hungary, enter Austria, and go on from there to West Germany. Not surprisingly, the Berlin Wall came down shortly thereafter.

2. Rousseau Jeopardy! Answer: It is inalienable, indivisible, always right, and nearly impossible to know. It is not to be confused with what individuals want, or even what everybody wants. It is always exactly what it must be. The question: What is THE GENERAL WILL?

3. The inequalities of modern citizens Superficial talents Sources of distinction Objects of contempt Integrity Rhetorical skillResolute action Fortune Glory Self-interest Citizenship Who are our heroes??? How did we get like this? Whence these inequalities???

4. Rousseau on the origins of inequality (or, how we got here) Knowing the origin of inequality requires knowing human nature in its ‘natural’ state, but no such state exists, and may never have existed. ‘State of nature’ arguments are tautologies; they presuppose what they ‘prove.’ The only real truths about human nature are those that take us for what we are, and help us see the difference between: *what we have made ourselves and what we could be *what we would be without society, without speech, without reason and what society has made us *what we did -- or could have done – to get to here and what can do about it

5. Rousseau on the origins of inequality (or, the paradox of society) -- Society, by way of reason, “smothers” our nature Human nature: Self-preservation Pity Physical (natural) inequality Social nature: Domination Indifference Conventional inequality Dispositions: Condition: The transformation of man: Survival difficulties Mutual dependence Language and property Reason and conventions

6. Rousseau on the origins of inequality (or, the paradox of society) -- Society, by way of reason, “smothers” our nature Human nature: Self-preservation Pity Physical (natural) inequality Social nature: Domination Indifference Conventional inequality Dispositions: Condition: The transformation of man: Survival difficulties Mutual dependence Language and property Reason and conventions

7. Rousseau on the origins of inequality (or, the paradox of society) -- Society, by way of reason, “smothers” our nature Human nature: Self-preservation Pity Physical (natural) inequality Social nature: Domination Indifference Conventional inequality Dispositions: Condition: The transformation of man: Survival difficulties Mutual dependence Language and property Reason and conventions

8. Corruption comes from human vice (passions for idleness, vanity, distinction) Property is the embodiment of vice, and thus a precipitant of corruption: 1. Property multiplies “needs,” burdens, and fears 2. Property enables unjustified distinctions, generating envy and social discontent 3. Property becomes the means of ambition – distinction acquired by private interests -- and ambition is secured by domination The dangers of proper: Violence and insecurity for those who have it and those who don’t.

9. The paradox of society: “The vices that make social institutions necessary are the same ones that make their abuses inevitable.” The desire for domination is the vice that makes social institutions necessary – and the vice that makes the corruption of social institutions inevitable. But property also requires security, and this makes civil society possible 1. Force is unstable:Power is secured by right, when obedience becomes duty 2. Right is reciprocal: No one would give up natural liberty just to be dominated; laws must serve all equally or they allow for the growth of corruption 3. A good society is a society of equality and reciprocity Those with the most to lose must convince everyone else to respect property – and this they can do only by promising equality and reciprocity. Natural inequalities are moot,social inequalities are conventional, conventions presuppose reciprocity, but social inequalities are non-reciprocal.

10. Summary: Rousseau’s redemption of republicanism 1. We’re in a bad way. Corruption is rampant. 2. It’s our own fault. Each believes s/he can benefit from corruption, but everyone suffers because of selfishness. Preoccupation with security for property is the cause and the result of selfishness. 3. Security – and freedom -- is impossible without self-control. But no one will forebear unless: A. Everyone gets the same benefits from the civil association. (If anyone suffers, everyone is in danger of suffering). EQUALITY B. Everyone shares the same burdens. (If anyone gets off easy, they are taking advantage of everyone else’s efforts). RECIPROCITY

11. Rousseau on the Social Contract (or, how to redeem the promise of society) Origins of society Justification: equality and reciprocity Reality: inequality for domination Society makes it possible to realize our humanity The challenge: turn force into right and obedience into duty The conventions of reasonable consent -- Strength is unstable -- Slavery is non-reciprocal 1. Total alienation of all rights to the community Effect: complete equality 2. Commitment to the public good: agree to be directed by the General Will 3. Participation in the exercise of sovereign power The conditions of sovereignty 1. The General Will is inalienable 2. The General Will is indivisible 3. The General Will is never wrong 4. The General Will is impossible to discover; hence the need for “legislators”

12. The conditions of sovereignty 1. The General Will is inalienable 2. The General Will is indivisible 3. The General Will is never wrong 4. The General Will is impossible to discover; hence the need for “legislators” The will of the body politic is the interest of the whole public: The body politic cannot exist without the security of all members The interest of each member as citizen is coextensive with the interest of the whole body Some fundamental features of the sovereign power: Sovereignty is absolute; thus freedom requires participation in sovereign power The interests of individuals as citizens must always take precedence over their interests as private persons The sovereign body politic can only represent itself No part or faction of the association can arrogate sovereignty Individuals may misunderstand what the public good requires The influence of private interests, the limitations of human knowledge, the difficulties of unanticipated consequences, the contingencies of historical change, must be recognized. We must not assume that we are “free”; we can only be free by continuing to participate in the exercise of sovereign power

13. The Challenge of Citizenship (or how to become a “legislator”) The General Will – and the aim of laws -- must be liberty and equality The difficulties of these ideals are no excuse for not trying to realize them Individuals are both citizens – as members of the sovereign power and subjects -- as private persons in relation to the state The challenge for citizens: Private interest must never be allowed to subvert the public good -- Natural inequalities are irrelevant -- Conventional inequalities must be “power-free” Laws are not enough; vigilance is the cost of liberty and equality: Apathy is a sure sign of degeneracy Representative government is only good for citizens who are slaves to their interests The challenge of good citizenship is to become a “legislator”: A “moral” being Cognizant of human nature, but not swayed by it Dedicated to the common – not one’s own -- happiness Willing to forbear in claims to power or sovereignty

14. Sovereignty and government -- It is not laws, but the power to make laws, that is the “heart” of the state -- Government is not sovereignty; it is merely the executor of the sovereign will *Government mediates relations between private persons *The ideal government is a democracy -- Those making the law are in the best position to know how it should be interpreted and enforced -- But: *It is dangerous for those who make the law to execute it *Modern societies cannot be democracies If you want freedom, you must have a democracy, and if you want a democracy, you must control your “human nature”and strive to be like “a god” Democracies must be small societies Democrats must be morally rigid Democracies must be radically egalitarian Democracies must be simple societies Democracies are subject to civil strife

15. The Classical and the Modern Political Ideals We can no longer enjoy the liberty of the ancients, which consisted in an active and constant participation in collective power. Our freedom must consist of peaceful enjoyment and private independence. The share which in antiquity everyone held in national sovereignty was by no means an abstract presumption as it is in our own day. The will of each individual had real influence: the exercise of this will was a vivid and repeated pleasure. Consequently the ancients were ready to make many a sacrifice to preserve their political rights and their share in the administration of the state. Everybody, feeling with pride all that his suffrage was worth, found in this awareness of his personal importance a great compensation. This compensation no longer exists for us today. Lost in the multitude, the individual can almost never perceive the influence he exercises. Never does his will impress itself upon the whole; nothing confirms in his eyes his own cooperation. The exercise of political rights, therefore, offers us but a part of the pleasures that the ancients found in it, while at the same time the progress of civilization, the commercial tendency of the age, the communication amongst peoples, have infinitely multiplied and varied the means of personal happiness. It follows that we must be far more attached than the ancients to our individual independence. For the ancients when they sacrificed that independence to their political rights, sacrificed less to obtain more; while in making the same sacrifice we would give more to obtain less. The aim of the ancients was the sharing of social power among the citizens of the same fatherland: this is what they called liberty. The aim of the moderns is the enjoyment of security in private pleasures; and they call liberty the guarantees accorded by institutions to these pleasures. Benjamin Constant, 1816

17. BACK

18. Abe Lizzy and Susan Martin Bill Brittany and Madonna Alan OR