Adario and Rousseau: a comparison of "A Discourse on Inequality" and "New Voyages to America." - Kat Lanzalotto
I really enjoyed this week's tutorial session discussing Adario's perspective on laws (and the comparison of French and Huron life) and think it is important to compare his conclusions on society with how Rousseau discusses the transition from a state of nature to civil government. Since Rousseau likely read Lahontan's work, I question the extent to which Adario's ideas are present in A Discourse on Inequality.
To begin, I immediately connected Rousseau's transition from general conventions to laws within society to the different depictions of Adario's Huron life and Lahontan's French customs. In his depiction of nascent government, Rousseau depicts a society of general conventions similar to the Huron way of life. Rousseau describes how, within the first society, there exists a set of norms that "all the individuals committed themselves to observe, conventions of which the community made itself the guarantor towards each individual" (Rousseau 124). Rousseau's state of general conventions aligns with the lawless society of the Hurons, who need no laws since they subscribe to similar norms, namely those of justice and reason, on which Adario writes, "to observe the law imports no more than to observe just and reasonable things" (page 122). While Rousseau presents a scenario in which men diverge from their obligatory norms and avoid punishment. So they subsequently consider trusting a common, public authority and magistrates for "securing obedience to the deliberations of people" (Rousseau 124). The Huron society seems to remain in a state of general conventions. But, considering Rousseau, when the Hurons start breaking their obligations to justice and reason, they will look towards authority.
Like Adario, Rousseau presents a preference for republican freedom. He asserts, "the worst thing to happen to one in the relations between man and man is to find oneself at the mercy of another" (Rousseau 125). Rousseau considers men losing their republican freedom to assert that they live under authority so that their liberty may be protected (as opposed to blindly rushing into slavery to a master in exchange for common security). He notes that it is foolish to surrender one's life to a ruler in exchange for life preservation; people will agree to authority only when it protects them from further losses of republican freedom. Adario would likely take issue with any sort of authority; Adario argues for self-ownership and republican freedom (with no dependence but on the Great Spirit) while Rousseau accounts for such authority for protection. But the latter's analogy in response to politician's who claim men have a "natural propensity to slavery because they witness the patience with which slaves bear their servitude" echos Adario's conception of freedom and criticism of French laws. Rousseau includes a quote by Brasidas which states, "I know the delights of your country, but you cannot know the pleasures of mine," a sentiment eerily similar to Lahontan's comparison of Huron pleasures to French felicity and conveniences (Rousseau 125). Then, he considers a savage man who will not "bend his neck to the yoke [bondage/servitude] which civilized man wears without a murmur" (Rousseau 125). The succeeding thought, "he prefers the most turbulent freedom to the most tranquil subjection," (which Rousseau uses to illustrate that enslaved men should not argue against liberty) almost exactly replicates Adario's ideas on French laws (and the people's slavery and dependence). After discussing the absolute freedom Hurons experience, Adario writes, "thou seest plainly that I am in the right of it; and yet though chooest rather to be a French slave than a free Huron," and calls Frenchmen fools for "he continues in slavery and a state of dependence, while the very brutes [Hurons] enjoy that adorable liberty" (page 125). Overall, there are obvious points of similarity between Adario and Rousseau which make me wonder to what extent many of the Enlightenment thoughts we read this semester are sourced from (or at least consider) native people and other people who are not traditionally involved in the philosophical canon.
I started writing this blog post assuming at least a few parts of Adario's argument could shine through in Rousseau's A Discourse on Inequality. But, as I compared each author's tenets, the two pieces share more philosophical thought than I initially assumed. While I do not want to say that Rousseau plagiarized ideas from Adario, the latter's argument is represented in Rousseau's discussion of inequality, even if Rousseau adapts the ideas and applies them to the different stages of government (which include an authority and laws which Adario would have challenged)
Hi Kat, great post! I definitely agree with you that Rousseau took inspiration from Adario's argument and built off of it during his discourse on inequality. However, where I find the two authors may disagree is the idea of enlightenment. Rousseau argues that "the more the mind became enlightened, the more industry improved" (112). He states that when the heart and mind are exercised, humans unite and strengthen bonds. From this, natural inequalities arise because of physical and mental differences. The linkage that Rousseau is trying to make is that natural inequalities come about in conjunction with development; for example, "the stronger did more productive work, the more adroit did better work, the more ingenious devised ways of abridging his labour" (118).
ReplyDeleteTo me, this sounds like Rousseau is arguing that development is part of an evolutionary shift, or that the process of enlightenment is natural. This would help better explain why he refers to the savages, as savages and stupid brutes. Rousseau argues that savages have remained in a primitive state, one that "was the least subject to revolutions" (115). I interpret this as Rousseau implying that the savage people are savage because they are not enlightened and lack the same ideas of progress that the rest of the human race holds.
By the way that Rousseau describes the "savage peoples" in such a derogatory term makes me believe that he is in favor of development while acknowledging the natural inequalities that arise during the process. I argue that Rousseau's main problem is not with men being enlightened, but with the way that the social contract is set up to defend the rich against the poor. Further, it is possible that Rousseau is arguing against this primitive state that the savages live in because of his warning in the later section. Rousseau states that if the laws were destroyed, then "each individual would return by right to his natural liberty" (129). I take this as a warning to the French that they need to review their laws because if not, they would revert back to the state of nature. I think that Adario would agree with the social contract being unjust but I question how Adario views enlightenment, and if he thinks that the Hurons are primitive in contrast to the Frenchmen. I am curious to see what everyone thinks!
I wanted to add more to my initial post and bring up the example of the French again and comment on Rousseau's later depiction of cases for revolution. I am interested in Rousseau's stages of inequality within government and, specifically, whether he predicted the French Revolution. While predicted is a strong word (perhaps he merely alluded to the circumstances which led to revolution is more apt), Rousseau's outline of inequality's progress have fascinating implications. First, he asserts, laws and property rights are established, then magistrates are institutionalized, and thirdly, power moves from legitimate to arbitrary. Alternatively, the first stage created a rich and poor, the second made a strong and weak, and the final created a master-slave dynamic. But, the consequence of this inequality reminds me of the French Revolution (which came 30 years after Rousseau's "A Discourse on inequality"). After societies reach the end of inequality, it will either cause a revolution or bring the government back to its legitimate state.
ReplyDeleteThe French Revolution developed similarly to how Rousseau dictated the paths of inequality and eventual revolution. The peasants stopped supporting the feudal system under which the French organized society instituted elements of a master-slave dynamic (Rousseau's third epoch). So, as France went bankrupt from the American Revolution and the monarchy was no longer seen as a divinely ordained body (a diving characteristic that Rousseau recognizes as essential for state-making), the nation fell to a revolution and the monarchical regime dissolved. So, while the details are not entirely in line with Rousseau's development of inequality, elements of the French revolution echo his ideas on revolution -- which I think is very cool.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHello Kat,
ReplyDeleteI love your blog post! The entire time I read Rosseau I was stunned by the depth of the connections between his arguments and Adario’s. Even their views on industry being one of the origins of inequality, and subsequently injustice, are similar. I think this can be inferred from the way Adario speaks about French metalworking on (8 & 13), saying it is poor, and that the Huron could easily do without it. Rousseau directly states that metallurgy “first civilized man, and ruined humanity.” They both lambast civilized men for finding profit in the misfortunes of their neighbors. Rousseau refers to opulence, and the powerful desire for it, as one of the leading causes of collapse in a society. His reasoning is that to achieve it the state must tax and subjugate the poor. Adario threw similar criticisms at the French aristocracy, who he criticized for taxing and subjugating the poor to maintain their lifestyles, which revolved around foolish ambition and decadence.
I think we can go a step further with these arguments though if we look at the central themes of both readings. Adario criticizes the legal foundations of French society, specifically the legally protected division of property. He states that these cause unjust inequalities in authority and esteem, which deprive the poor of the opportunity to truly live free lives. Rousseau is arguing throughout his that the creation of legally protected private property was the origin of inequality. Even going so far as to call the first people that allowed a man to designate land as ‘private,’ simple. The two share a clear disdain for the social orders that private property inevitably creates, particularly the nature of the feudal systems that arose in France. Adario criticizes French nobility and people as slaves for thinking that their toil, or in the nobility's case ceaseless plotting and ambition, are in any way conducive to living freely. Rousseau directly attacks societies like feudal France by stating that the easiest way to deprive people of their liberty, and make them embrace tyrannical authority, is to make them think they could be king, or at the least move up in the social order and command men.
The similarities between their arguments run deep into the very foundations of their attacks on society. I wish philosophy could have given more direct acknowledgement to indigenous thinkers like ‘Adario,’ who helped inspire so much of the thought we regard as foundational to egalitarian democracies and republics today.