PDA

View Full Version : Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains



Hartley
05-15-2014, 09:47 PM
"Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains" was the first sentence of Rousseau's The Social Contract. I'd like to ask, what do those words mean to you?

Tooting Carmen
05-15-2014, 09:52 PM
That we have a lot of customs and conventions imposed upon us that are pointless and repressive, along with serious socioeconomic inequalities.

Hartley
05-15-2014, 09:56 PM
To provide some context... That man is born free is Rousseau's foundational premise. He begins with the idea that freedom is man's natural state. The natural state of man is vulnerability, not just as infants but also as grown adults. The lone individual has always been at risk, especially at risk from groups of other men. His survival strategy has always been to align himself with a group, to cast his individual volition, i.e. his freedom, to the safety of the sovereign group. The natural state of a truly free man who stands outside the group can be best observed in feral human beings, of which most examples do not even walk erectly and all live Hobbes' nasty, brutish and short lives. .

Freedom is an abstract ideal, a cognitive construct created to better arrange the group dynamic, or if one prefers: oppressive institutions.

Felix Volkbein
05-15-2014, 10:01 PM
There's little reason to believe man is born free. Biology imposes chains on man from the moment of birth.

The "state of nature" seems to have originated as a Scholastic thought experiment (it predates Hobbes), but has historically been interpreted in too literal a sense.

Hartley
05-15-2014, 10:08 PM
There's little reason to believe man is born free. Biology imposes chains on man from the moment of birth.

You are interpreting the quote literally when it's profundity is due to it being a far-reaching metaphor about the advent of civilization.

By 'free' he alludes to how human beings are born without emotional maturity, without language, without a concept of law, and generally without the tools to live in a complex society with people with whom they might have very little in common, yet we have developed restrictions (and it's reassuring that someone like Rousseau calls them "chains") that enable most men to grow up into adults who can keep their hands to themselves. That's the fundamental human achievement of civilization. We trade off barbarism for security and prosperity.


The "state of nature" seems to have originated as a Scholastic thought experiment (it predates Hobbes), but has historically been interpreted in too literal a sense.

Can you elaborate?

Felix Volkbein
05-15-2014, 11:08 PM
The lone individual has always been at risk, especially at risk from groups of other men. His survival strategy has always been to align himself with a group, to cast his individual volition, i.e. his freedom, to the safety of the sovereign group. The natural state of a truly free man who stands outside the group can be best observed in feral human beings, of which most examples do not even walk erectly and all live Hobbes' nasty, brutish and short lives. .


But this is a category error, because the individual is not ontologically prior to society or the collective. The individual is shaped and operates within the context of a given society -- its values, its customs, its material conditions, its worldview, etc. Rousseau and his philosophy are examples of this: the exalted place granted to the individual (and its by-product "the rights of man") is itself the offspring of centuries of Western thought, derived as it is from Greco-Roman philosophy and Christian theology. Without the alien influence of the West, a country like China would've never produced someone with Rousseau's assumptions, many of which he takes for granted.

Likewise, the romanticization of the primitive, which Rousseau did much to popularize, is something that takes hold primarily among people who are materially comfortable, i.e. the middle and upper classes.

And, yes, there is a biological component here, because different groups have different personality traits and cognitive potential. A group that has never advanced beyond the basic tribal unit, and possesses very few members with the capacity for high levels of abstract thought, like sub-Saharan Africans, is not going to develop a sophisticated legal system or jurisprudence. Not without fundamental alterations to their gene pool.

As a result, there's little reason that societies with very different values, material conditions, and biological dispositions would or should embrace "freedom as an abstract ideal" in the sense Rousseau advocates.

Hartley
05-16-2014, 07:19 PM
As a result, there's little reason that societies with very different values, material conditions, and biological dispositions would or should embrace "freedom as an abstract ideal" in the sense Rousseau advocates.

Unfortunately, I can tell that you have not read Rousseau. Rousseau made this observation about "man being born free, yet being in chains everywhere", while trying to find an answer to the question about just what constitutes a legitimate authority, if there even is such a thing in society. It's a question of Justice, and what gives the right to any state or institution to impose its will on any human being.

You're confusing his ideology with the likes of Locke or the classical economists.

Rosseau was not an individualist; he did not advocate that we embrace "freedom as an abstract ideal".

Hàkon
05-16-2014, 09:37 PM
I regard a man's natural state to be a possession of his, constituted by the frames of his inherited limitations which also dictate his ability to transcend them, his usage of this possession is in turn undeniably regulated by the laws (norms, values, material state etc.) of the environment in which he's found; as he never will exist out of (this) context, he has never and will never be fully in power of said possession, only the degree of the infringement is adjustable.

Felix Volkbein
05-16-2014, 10:22 PM
You're confusing his ideology with the likes of Locke or the classical economists.

Rosseau was not an individualist; he did not advocate that we embrace "freedom as an abstract ideal".

What are you talking about? These are your own words. Do you not remember when you wrote two posts ago?



Freedom is an abstract ideal, a cognitive construct created to better arrange the group dynamic, or if one prefers: oppressive institutions.

And it certainly is true that Rousseau contrasted modern society with the kind of freedom he imagined existed in the state of nature, and that while the institutions of modern society placed necessary limits on freedom, we should still strive to approximate the freedom of the state of nature. But the latter was an abstract ideal. I mean, christ. I don't mind philosophical discussion or disagreement, but can you at least follow your own line of thought?

I'm also using "individualism" in a different sense than you are, but here I should've been more specific. You are correct that Rousseau is very different from the Anglo-liberal individualism of John Locke, and I would never conflate them. But Rousseau's preliminary assumptions are individualist in the sense that he starts with a radically abstracted individual as his basic unit of analysis. It was this tendency, which is something firmly rooted in the Western philosophical tradition, that I criticized above. This is what I meant when I said "the individual is not ontologically prior to society."

Of course, Rousseau's conclusions diverge greatly from those of the Anglo tradition, because for him freedom is linked with sociality rather than with self-interest and he is willing to subordinate individual desires to the collective will. Because men often run back towards their chains, they must sometimes be "forced to be free." Etc. There are both individualist and collectivist strains in Rousseau, just as there are democratic and totalitarian strains, progressive and atavistic strains, etc. He's one of the most contradictory and complex thinkers ever.

Anglojew
05-16-2014, 10:43 PM
We are constrained, restricted and limited by webs of our own invention -be they social, economic or cultural- we need to surpass our own self-imposed limitations in order to reach our glorious, utopian, potential.

Linebacker
05-16-2014, 10:57 PM
I don't see anyone holding me in chains.I can walk out and do whatever the hell I want.Thats pretty "free" to me.

I got no debts to any bank or person,I got shitloads of money,I am not dependant on anyone or anything.

Hartley
05-16-2014, 11:04 PM
What are you talking about? These are your own words. Do you not remember when you wrote two posts ago?

I wrote "Freedom is an abstract ideal, a cognitive construct created to better arrange the group dynamic, or if one prefers: oppressive institutions."

If you cannot differentiate between the embracing (/advocacy) of an abstract ideal and the mentioning that such an "ideal" is merely a cognitive construct that could be described as an oppressive institution by those who oppose the concept (Locke et al), then I think you've misunderstood the scope of the debate and the depth of Rousseau.


Of course, Rousseau's conclusions diverge greatly from those of the Anglo tradition, because for him freedom is linked with sociality rather than with self-interest and he is willing to subordinate individual desires to the collective will. Because men often run back towards their chains, they must sometimes be "forced to be free." Etc. There are both individualist and collectivist strains in Rousseau, just as there are democratic and totalitarian strains, progressive and atavistic strains, etc. He's one of the most contradictory and complex thinkers ever.

Agreed, obviously.

Your "critique" of Rousseau is built atop a profound misunderstanding of his work:


But this is a category error, because the individual is not ontologically prior to society or the collective. The individual is shaped and operates within the context of a given society -- its values, its customs, its material conditions, its worldview, etc.

Rousseau would never deny this. Obviously there's no such thing as a human as we know it existing independently of the above. The objective of such thought experiments is to imagine a time in human history when the above conditions did not apply - and there was certainly a time when such conditions did not apply. The savagery of early modern humans evolved overtime into complex civilization. Rousseau desires to understand the foundations of this evolution; the foundations of the legitimacy of the state. Why did we trade the savagery of absolute freedom for security yet restrictions imposed on our behavior? It's quite clear, in fact strikingly intuitive, why. Rousseau is profound in that he conflates freedom and savagery, and chains and civilization. By noting this tradeoff, Rousseau essentially admits that absolute freedom is undesirable and should not be pursued. This is what distinguishes him from Locke & co., in that the latter's ideology was moulded and shaped by the desire for negative liberty and the complete freedom to act and think as one wishes.

Felix Volkbein
05-16-2014, 11:39 PM
I wrote "Freedom is an abstract ideal, a cognitive construct created to better arrange the group dynamic, or if one prefers: oppressive institutions."

If you cannot differentiate between the embracing (/advocacy) of an abstract ideal and the mentioning that such an "ideal" is merely a cognitive construct that could be described as an oppressive institution by those who oppose the concept (Locke et al), then I think you've misunderstood the scope of the debate and the depth of Rousseau.

...But both Locke and Rousseau clearly advocate their ideals as positive goods, just as Marx clearly advocated communism despite assuming the role of a dispassionate scientific analyst. They're just as prescriptive as they are descriptive. The normative component is obvious in the bolded section above.


Rousseau would never deny this. Obviously there's no such thing as a human as we know it existing independently of the above. The objective of such thought experiments is to imagine a time in human history when the above conditions did not apply - and there was certainly a time when such conditions did not apply.

I didn't misunderstand at all. This is exactly what I said was problematic. For one, not all savages developed more complex civilizational forms. Some didn't develop much at all. Your implicit assumption is that all peoples followed the same trajectory, but they didn't. And even among those who did evolve more complex civilizations, the nature of their social forms could differ markedly.


By noting this tradeoff, Rousseau essentially admits that absolute freedom is undesirable and should not be pursued. This is what distinguishes him from Locke & co., in that the latter's ideology was moulded and shaped by the desire for negative liberty and the complete freedom to act and think as one wishes.

This is obviously a simplification of Locke, who acknowledged that some limitations needed to be imposed on freedom for the maintenance of the social order, e.g. his position that atheists and Catholics could not be tolerated. It's hard to find champions of absolute freedom prior to the emergence of anarchism.

Hartley
05-17-2014, 12:01 AM
...But both Locke and Rousseau clearly advocate their ideals as positive goods, just as Marx clearly advocated communism despite assuming the role of a dispassionate scientific analyst. They're just as prescriptive as they are descriptive. The normative component is obvious in the bolded section above.

I believe that there's a conceptual distinction to be made between advocating freedom and individualism, and on the other hand supporting the subordination of the individual to the collective as a compromise; using an abstract ideal as a cognitive construct to better arrange the group dynamic. It's interesting to see different writers from the same period drawing different conclusions from similarly sketched-out thought experiments.

Rousseau is essentially recognizing the futility of Locke's position. I'm not convinced that Rousseau views his position as positive; while he praises it in the sense that the subordination of the individual to the collective was a necessary step in the advent of civilization, he constantly alludes to the problematic nature of certain restrictions on behavior as well as the potential tyranny that could arise when such thinking is used as a justification for artificial restrictions.


For one, not all savages developed more complex civilizational forms. Some didn't develop much at all. Your implicit assumption is that all peoples followed the same trajectory, but they didn't. And even among those who did evolve more complex civilizations, the nature of their social forms could differ markedly.

You're right, of course, but the Western tradition of this (as you rightfully noted) Scholastic thought experiment was to approximate and generalize the development of the legitimacy of the state. The point being that most if not all collectives emerged due to individuals recognizing their weakness as a lone wolf and much-improved strength as a group in terms of predatory skills, security, prosperity and the chance to produce offspring. I believe that this would be constant throughout all cultures, even savagely-backwards ones.


This is obviously a simplification of Locke, who acknowledged that some limitations needed to be imposed on freedom for the maintenance of the social order, e.g. his position that atheists and Catholics could not be tolerated. It's hard to find champions of absolute freedom prior to the emergence of anarchism.

I simplified for illustrative purposes. The dichotomy between negative and positive liberty lies at the heart of this discussion, with Rousseau ardently in the latter camp and the classical liberals in the former.

Locke was radical for the time period, one must not forget.

Felix Volkbein
05-17-2014, 12:28 AM
I believe that there's a conceptual distinction to be made between advocating freedom and individualism, and on the other hand supporting the subordination of the individual to the collective as a compromise; using an abstract ideal as a cognitive construct to better arrange the group dynamic. It's interesting to see different writers from the same period drawing different conclusions from similarly sketched-out thought experiments.

Rousseau is essentially recognizing the futility of Locke's position. I'm not convinced that Rousseau views his position as positive; while he praises it in the sense that the subordination of the individual to the collective was a necessary step in the advent of civilization, he constantly alludes to the problematic nature of certain restrictions on behavior as well as the potential tyranny that could arise when such thinking is used as a justification for artificial restrictions.

As I said, I don't deny the differences between Locke and Rousseau and your sketch is accurate, but I wasn't responding to that. You were trying to claim that Rousseau's concept of freedom was purely descriptive and not normative. I disagree. I think there's definitely both a descriptive and normative aspect to Rousseau's entire corpus.


You're right, of course, but the Western tradition of this (as you rightfully noted) Scholastic thought experiment was to approximate and generalize the development of the legitimacy of the state. The point being that most if not all collectives emerged due to individuals recognizing their weakness as a lone wolf and much-improved strength as a group in terms of predatory skills, security, prosperity and the chance to produce offspring. I believe that this would be constant throughout all cultures, even savagely-backwards ones.

I disagree with this as well. It's equally plausible that man was already tribal the moment he became homo sapiens. All of the great apes with the possible exception of orangutans live in groups. There's no reason to believe that "most if not all collectives emerged due to individuals recognizing their weakness as a lone wolf." If there's evidence that man ever went through a "lone wolf" stage, please furnish it. Even if this were only a thought experiment, I'd still think that it's a spurious one which would lead to lots of erroneous conclusions.

LightHouse89
05-17-2014, 01:02 AM
"Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains" was the first sentence of Rousseau's The Social Contract. I'd like to ask, what do those words mean to you?

democracy is a fallacy and the quicker each country relies this the better. Why reform democracy when it is not real? Our leaders pimp us out to the IMF and World Banking System.....only an idiot believes in freedom. News flash majority doesn't rule.