The Result of Social Emotions - Dara Schoolcraft
I want to use this blog post as an opportunity to explore the implications of Rousseau's argument that social emotions develop as humans exit the state of nature and begin to form communities and then civil society. He claims that as human interaction increased so too "the heart and mind were exercised" (pg. 114) and humans built relationships and became more social. "Each began to look at others and to want to be looked at himself; and public esteem came to be prized" (pg. 114). They began to take notice of the action's of others outside of themselves and make comparisons. Observations and comparisons soon turned into shame, envy, vanity, etc. All of these social emotions as I will call them are directly related to other people. Without interaction and the "measuring" of respective skills these emotions wouldn't exist. Rousseau argues that these qualities are "fatal to happiness and innocence" (pg, 114). This is beginning of inequality because emotions are asserted that display the key differences between individuals.
At the end of part two Rousseau describes the "civil man". Humans in civil government serve the men they hate and "attach importance to the gaze of the rest of the world and who know how to be happy and satisfied with themselves on the testimony of others rather than on their own"(pg. 136). They base the quality and success of their own lives on the ideas others have of them. Their existence is shaped by the opinions of others. This is one of the main reasons he argues that humans outside of a state of nature are slaves. They are controlled by the arbitrary will of others.
Within the United States we preach of freedom and liberty for all. But under Rousseau's account I think I can argue that we lack republican freedom. As a culture and a society we so greatly value the ideas and opinions of others. In a way, we too are slaves to the perception others have of us. Republican freedom is lack of dominion and we are dominated by fear of disappointing others or not being enough. I think this is especially clear within Gen Z and everyone who has grown up with social media. While having honest intentions to connect people, platforms like facebook, instagram, and tik tok have become way of comparison, and likes and follows forms of approval. All we do is post online looking for the approval or "thumbs up" from our peers and even people we don't know.
Social media has become a place where we create a façade and only present the most perfect curated parts of our lives. We create false realities so others will like us more or think of us in a higher regard. Rousseau describes it as, "he must therefore seek constantly to interest others in his lot and make them see advantage, either real or apparent, for themselves in working for his benefit" (pg. 119). He is explaining the ways in which humans are deceptive and create a false reality. These actions create a vicious cycle because as one person paints a false picture of their life another person believes it to be real and feels they must mimic that level even if they must fabricate it as well.
I think the second part of A Discourse on Inequality should be read within the context of our actions and institutions today and present a warning to those who operate solely for the approval of others. In a way its a prediction of what will happen to individuals and our society if we keep on the same path we are currently on.
I also have another unrelated question to pose to everyone. Rousseau refers to humans in the state of nature as "savages". Why does he use that term if he argues that they exist and act in the optimal place? Do I have bad connotation with the word "savage" while he doesn't?
Hi Dara, I think this is a great presentation of Rousseau's argument about the role of social emotion in inequality and the "corruption" of humanity. I found this part of his argument interesting because I don't think it aligns with modern anthropological thinking around the role of social groups in nature. This article (https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2009.0136#d3e1086) outlines some that thinking, and although parts of it align with Rousseau's account, it says that proto-humans lived in "communities" greater than their immediate family before they were even homo sapiens, and that these communities were characterized by some "degree of structured or repeated style of relationship between individuals (e.g. dominance, submission, friendliness, aggression, etc.)." This description seems to align with the idea of some primitive form of "public esteem [coming] to be prized." Rousseau places this phenomenon much farther down the chain of human social development than modern anthropologists do.
ReplyDeleteHis underestimation of the social capacities of early humans is also obvious to me when we think about chimpanzees or bonobos. These apes live in large bands that, while based in family relations are certainly not the nuclear "huts" that Rousseau describes. The early development of some form of social group implies that the idea of "consideration" that Rousseau fixates on and the inequalities that resulting inequalities are much more fundamental to humanity than he claims.
I definitely agree with you that social media preys on our desire to receive approval from society, but I don't think that those desires are somehow unnatural or strictly negative. I think that without them, we wouldn't be much different from our primate cousins. Maybe that's what Rousseau wants, but I doubt it. More likely he wants to design a government that will remove as many of these "consideration" based hierarchies as possible. The implication of modern anthropological accounts of social development, however, is that complex and seemingly arbitrary social relations, including some form of esteem hierarchy, are not tied to any particular social form but to the nature of humans themselves.
Hi folks! I've got to join in, because the sociology, ethics, and politics of the family is a particular interest of mine. So, one thing to note is that, when he refers to "families," Rousseau probably did not have in mind anything like the modern nuclear family. In his time/place, "families" were everyone living together in a household which, depending on class, could have included extended biological relatives, foster children, and also domestic servants, apprentices, and tutors.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, in some ways, Rousseau might find George's argument congenial: Rousseau's main aim is to demonstrate that philosophers like Hobbes and Locke are importing socialized capacities, interests, and motivations into a fictional "pre-social" human nature. WIth Marx, we will see this idea fully bloom into the view that society (and therefore slavery, alas) IS the natural human condition.
Rousseau definitely thinks that the social emotions are a double-edged sword. They produce a lot of scrambling for domination; but they are also what enable goods like art, friendship and, ultimately, the moral capacity for autonomy.
Hey Dara, I loved reading your blog. I as well reflected on Rousseau's argument on social emotions. The first thing that came to mind was the present emphasis in institutions like colleges that comparison is the theft of joy. I do see how comparison exposes inequality. An example that would highlight this is FGLI (First-Generation, Low-Income) students in top private institutions (The Claremont Colleges, if you will). There is a constant battle with imposter syndrome, and we tend to place our value down without questioning why the gap between success and confidence exists. There is a salient difference in opportunity and privilege, which I agree will (and does) bring negative qualities, which are "fatal to happiness and innocence" (114).
ReplyDeleteOn the note of social media, my first thought was politics, especially when reading this quote, "he must therefore seek constantly to interest others in his lot and make them see advantage, either real or apparent, for themselves in working for his benefit" (119). There is a level of abuse with this constant level of approval. For example, when politicians like democrats and republicans profit off of platforms centered around humanitarian issues, like immigration reform or exclusion. They propose ideas that "will change the system" or "strengthen the system" to the public to gain their interest, but after approval, their promises become distant memories. I even think also on the note of immigration, the passage of naturalization through military enrollment. Children of immigrants take this route, and this concept applies to them because they must put themselves into the hands of the same system that is oppressing their loved ones. Thus, the idea of wanting approval is an issue that touches on multiple aspects of oppressive politics.
Thank you for your post Dara, it helped in forming some thoughts.
Dara, I really liked the connections to the modern day that you made in your blog post. As others have said, Rousseau's argument points out a major flaw in Hobbes and Locke's conception of pre-social humans. One thing that we talked about in my tutorial session was how to think about Adario's conception of human nature. And what I find very important is that the idea of a general "human nature" is widespread and often debated, but the idea itself is problematic. Changes to institutional principles and socialization profoundly impact the "nature" and motivations of humans. One way that I wanted to add to this discussion is Rousseau's description of gender roles. According to Rousseau, gender roles are not a universal truth, but something that came about when families are created after humans have a more secure lifestyle. This really supports the argument against a universal human nature.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if a change in institutions or socialization could possibly avoid this need for approval that Dara and Luis talk about? Or is this something fundamental to the human experience that cannot be changed?
Hi Dara, I really enjoyed your analysis on Rousseau's discourse on the development of social emotions in a modern context. Your connection between lack of republican freedom and a more implicit fear of domination particularly interesting as well. However, I think it is important to separate fear of physical domination by others and versus a more mentally tied one. This made me think of Foucault’s analysis on positive and negative power (Foucault, Michel, 1926-1984. Discipline and Punish : the Birth of the Prison. New York :Pantheon Books, 1977). Foucault argues that power is everywhere, but the way it has been concentrated has changed over time (and I’d argue, in different places as well). He argues that negative power, for example a monarch holding absolute power ruling people based on fear of extreme harm and/or punishment, is worse compared to positive power, which in a more modern context, creates a dynamic in which power is more dispersed and people are controlled by cultural norms and social rules. Social media does have detrimental effects to our well-being and self-perception and has created internal fears that often control us, as you said. However, I’d argue that while this type of control is not ideal, it is still better than fear of physical domination, or negative freedom. This is definitely a modern lens into the idea of republican freedom, but I’m not entirely convinced that it can be completely related to the idea of republican freedom.
ReplyDeleteA small note to George’s point: “...complex and seemingly arbitrary social relations, including some form of esteem hierarchy, are not tied to any particular social form but to the nature of humans themselves.” Complex and seemingly arbitrary social relations (if you define them as seemingly arbitrary, that adds weight to the fact that it is in fact human nature, which is why it would be harder to contextualize) can be tied to human nature itself. However, perhaps socialization and differences in cultures have created situations in which those social relations, while holding the same fundamental ideas, might differ in situations. Maybe it is in human nature to create forms of “esteem hierarchy,” but perhaps it is different social relations that have led to those forms being created in different ways around the world.
Hi Dara!
ReplyDeleteYour comment draws some important connections between our historical pursuit of social esteem for the sake of survival/success, and our modern-day use of social media. I wanted to respond to Walsh’s question about whether changes in socialization or institutions could alter this need for approval that humans seek. I would argue that the desire for approval is an inescapable human desire: as Rousseau writes, “people become accustomed to judging different objects and to making comparisons; gradually they acquire ideas of merit and of beauty, which in turn produce feelings of preference” (114). I think these feelings of preference apply to how we judge other people, and subsequently how we treat them. Thus, we are all compelled to strive to please others in order to secure the social benefits (protection, favors, etc.) that come with being well-liked. Because public esteem serves a survival function, it seems unlikely that we could ever outgrow it.
Because many people in the United States today have secured the basic needs for survival (food, water, shelter, etc.), this need for approval no longer serves a strictly “survival” purpose. However, just as commodities like shelter and warmth evolved from wants to needs in early human history––“people were unhappy losing them without being happy in possessing them”––the desire for social approval has evolved into more of a need than a want (113). While previously, social approval may have been a desire, it has since become a necessity without which people experience depression, anxiety, and even health issues. Perhaps the extent to which we value social approval by way of social media, which does not actually provide any survival benefits, could theoretically be socialized out of us. However, this might require the regression of our society to a point where people are primarily concerned with procuring food, water, and other basic necessities, rather than with acquiring social capital.