Prof: So today is Jean
Jacques Rousseau--
I mean, one of the most
fascinating people in terms of
his life and his ideas and the
way how he reasons.
He is a provocative,
a provocateur,
and an extraordinary genius,
in more than one ways.
There are few people whom I
disagree so strongly than in
many propositions of Jean
Jacques Rousseau.
But there are few people who
turn my mind on so much than
Jean Jacques.
 
So who was this character?
 
Let me just give you a very
brief overview.
He was born in Geneva,
which was a city-state at that
time--ruled by Calvin for
awhile, a Calvinist stronghold.
We will talk about this when it
comes to Max Weber and The
Protestant Ethic.
 
Calvin ruled Geneva with an
iron hand.
That's where he was born.
 
His father was Isaac Rousseau.
 
He was a watchmaker and a
Calvinist.
Well he did run into some
trouble.
I don't know exactly what the
trouble was.
I think he was in debt,
so he jumped the boat and went
to Istanbul, disappeared;
we don't know much about him
beyond that.
 
So at a very early age of ten
he was a kind of orphan.
Then in 1728 he moved to France.
 
And there was a wonderful lady,
about ten years his senior,
Mrs. Warens,
who was running a home.
<<Professor
Szelényi invites students
to take seats>>
 
Prof: Anyway,
so he met Mrs. Warens,
who was a Roman Catholic,
and her mission was to convert
these Calvinists to their proper
faith,
Roman Catholicism-- and took
young boys into her home.
But who knows,
it looks like she had more
interests in people,
rather than religion.
So he arrived '28 to Annency.
 
Right?
 
Age of 16, a good-looking,
nice guy.
Madame Warens is still a
younger lady.
Here you can see,
you know, Madame Warens and
Jean Jacques,
meeting in 1728.
Very romantic stuff, right?
 
Well and here well another
picture.
You know?
 
Well I don't blame Jean
Jacques,
>
 
at the age of 16,
to convert to Roman Catholicism
from the cold Calvinist
religion, and meanwhile being a
bit romantic.
 
Right?
 
Well Jean Jacques is one of
those few people who wrote a
Confession--a very funny
book.
He has a sense of self-irony
and self-criticism.
Whether this is genuine,
or he thought this will be the
way how to sell the book--hard
to tell.
But it's worth reading.
 
It actually was published
posthumously.
And he said Madame de Warens
shaped his character;
undoubtedly she did.
 
And this affair--affair,
who knows, but it looks like it
was an affair--fascinated people
later on.
I think I already cracked this
joke in the introductory
lecture.
 
A wonderful French writer,
Stendhal,
in his superb novel,
Le Rouge et la Noir,
was inspired by this
interesting affair--
a sixteen -year -old boy and a
twenty-eight -year -old woman.
And, in fact,
the story of Julien Sorel--it
means Jean Jacques Rousseau--and
Madame de Renal--de Warens--is
really the core of the story.
 
So if you have not read Le
Rouge et la Noir,
this is a must for an Ivy
League graduate.
You don't want to get a degree
from Yale not having read
Stendhal, Le Rouge et la
Noir.
It's, of course, in English.
 
But, you know, enough is enough.
 
In '42, several years later,
Rousseau has now bigger aims
and he moves to Paris.
 
And he becomes the secretary of
Comte de Montaigue who is a
French ambassador to Venice.
 
And there are a lot of nice
things--interesting
things--about Rousseau,
but he was not an easy guy,
and somehow he always ran into
trouble.
So he ran into trouble in
Venice, and in order to avoid
arrest and trouble--
I don't know exactly what he
did, probably something
financially not quite correct--
he had to jump and leave Venice
and Comte de Montaigue.
He moves to Paris,
and he knows how to find good
friends.
 
He also will know how to make
great enemies from his good
friends.
 
So he meets Diderot.
 
And we already know Diderot,
and we know already
Encyclopédie and
the French Enlightenment.
And he was asked to write an
article on music for the
Encyclopédie.
 
And this is Diderot.
 
Okay, and then he meets
Thérèse Lavasseur.
He was staying in a hotel,
and Thérèse
Lavasseur was a maid in this
hotel,
and a long-lasting relationship
develops between the two which--
well I already told you,
don't worry if you don't marry
instantly.
 
He was not married instantly
either.
It took him some time to decide
that this date should actually
culminate in a legal marriage.
 
She became a companion for all
of his life.
Well I would not bet my life
that she was,
for the rest of life,
the only woman in his life,
but certainly she was his
companion.
I don't know about her.
 
They married in '68.
 
So you can see it took some
time for Rousseau to say,
"Well this is something
which should end up in a
marriage."
 
And here is--okay,
here you can see that,
right?--Thérèse
and Jean Jacques.
Well I hope you don't mind I
show you these pictures;
they don't tell all that much.
 
Well Jean Jacques,
as I said, was an extraordinary
genius.
 
He is not only a philosopher,
not only a social scientist,
not only a scientist--he was
writing on science as well--he
was an artist.
 
And well, you know,
anybody can write a novel,
right?
 
I am sure half of this class
considered at one point in your
life that you will write poetry
or you will write a novel.
Right?
 
It's easy;
you sit down and you write a
novel.
 
My life is a novel, right?
 
Most people say that.
 
But Jean Jacques wrote an opera.
 
Probably few of you considered
to write an opera.
Right?
 
That needs skills. Right?
 
And he did one,
Le Devin du Village.
I own a CD.
 
It's a wonderful opera.
 
He's a great composer. Right?
 
Well that's quite unusual.
 
And, to make it even more
interesting,
he was in an intense debate--he
was always in an intense debate
with everybody--
but he was in an intense debate
with Rameau.
 
And those of you who are a
little familiar with music,
you know Rameau.
 
Rameau was the greatest French
composer of the eighteenth
century, and they had a big
debate because Rousseau believed
in the Italian opera.
 
Right?
 
He believed that the melody
should have precedence over
harmony,
and Rameau wanted to create a
French opera in which,
you know, melody is not so
important,
and in fact the harmony is more
important.
 
It was a revolutionary break.
 
Rameau paves,
you know--creates a new space
for the new music.
 
In some ways he's beginning to
pave the way,
what we eventually will know as
modern music--an extraordinary
composer.
 
Well and Rousseau believed in
bel canto,
Pavarotti.
 
I know, of course there was no
Pavarotti at that time.
But you know what bel
canto is--Ave Maria.
Right?
 
You create a cry,
you can sing it.
Right?
 
That's what he really believed
in, unlike Rameau who was much
more analytical and emphasized
harmony.
Interestingly,
the person whom I think is the
greatest composer of all
history,
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart,
loved Rousseau,
and he wrote an opera what can
be very rarely seen--
occasionally you can catch it
in the Metropolitan Opera of
Arts,
once in a decade-- Bastien
und Bastienne,
which was actually inspired by
Le Devin du Village.
 
Go on amazon.com,
you can buy Rameau,
you can buy Bastien und
Bastienne,
and you can buy Le Devin du
Village,
and you can see the differences.
 
And he, of course,
publishes a novel,
Julie, or La Nouvelle
Héloise,
which at that time was an
influential novel.
I don't think too many people
read it today.
Well this is Rameau,
and Rameau shadowed modern
music.
 
Gluck, in particular,
follows from Rameau.
In fact, you know,
Mozart will be changing in his
lifetime.
 
We will talk--well I
thought--if there is a musician
you can read a little Rameau
here.
Interestingly,
you know, Mozart did not stick
quite to the Italian opera over
his life.
You've probably heard
Zauberflöte;
The Magic Flute, is the
first German opera.
The earlier Mozart is very much
Italian opera.
Later in life,
Mozart tried to create German
opera, which has some
similarities with the French
music--not quite,
because it's more romantic.
Okay, he is also a philosopher,
scientist, political
theorist--I also would say
sociologist and political
scientist.
 
The first piece of work is
actually science,
art, and study of society.
 
Then in 1755,
he writes a very interesting
book--
if you have spare time,
read it--Discourse on the
Origins of Inequality--
Again, a very provocative book.
 
In some ways there is some sort
of Hobbesian idea behind that.
He said, well it starts with
love, but if you are really in
love, well you tend to be
jealous.
Right?
 
If you are deeply in love,
passionately in love,
then you don't like that the
person who is the object of your
love may have a love in somebody
else;
then you are jealous.
 
And the idea is--this is the
origins of inequality;
we are jealous, right?
 
There is one precious good--to
put it with Hobbes--
we all desire,
and if somebody else desires it
as well,
and has a shot at it,
to get it, then we become
jealous, right?
We want to grab it,
we want to monopolize it.
So this is a source of
inequality, right?
Well an interesting idea, right?
 
Have you ever experienced that?
 
Did you have occasionally a
little sense of jealousy in you,
and thinking no,
this other one should not have
the one I do have?
 
I think you probably did.
 
I did.
 
Okay.
 
And then comes the big year:
'62.
He publishes two major books in
one year, two big scandals:
Social Contract and
Émile.
And I will talk to Social
Contract today,
and Émile.
 
Social Contract is
really a culmination of the
contractarian argument.
 
Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau did
some extraordinary important new
innovations.
 
Right?
 
As we have seen,
in the first contractarian,
Hobbes had a somewhat limited
idea of social contract;
probably realistic but not what
you necessarily like.
He said a social contract is
not something what you concluded
with the authority,
right?
Social contract,
what you entered by fear,
and social contract which was
done previously because you
wanted to have a new contract is
binding on you.
Right?
 
Locke tended to see a social
contract as sort of between the
individual and the commonwealth.
 
This is a nice idea,
that you are bound by a
contract you signed.
 
But, you know,
those of you at least who were
born in these United States,
never signed a contract to
accept the Constitution.
 
I am a naturalized citizen.
 
You can say I signed a
contract.
Right?
 
I had to swear allegiance to
the United States.
At that time I was supposed to
read the Constitution.
I have not read it from cover
to cover.
But anyway, I signed a contract
somewhat unseen--you
know?--suspecting what the
contract is I'm signing.
But most of you,
born in the States,
never signed a contract.
 
Right?
 
It's still binding on you.
 
Right?
 
Unless you decide to abandon
the U.S.
citizenship and become a
citizen of North Korea.
Right?
 
Then you are bound by this
social contract.
So that is, you know,
the difference between Hobbes
and Locke, as we discussed.
 
Now Rousseau,
as we will see,
adds a new, interesting
element.
He said, well,
it's not quite the individuals,
and he introduces the notion of
general will.
There is a general will which
is well above the
individuals--extremely important
idea, has a degree of insights
and realism.
 
It's also a very dangerous idea.
 
Totalitarian regimes very often
advocate it.
General will that you--and I
will quote Jean Jacques for you
when he said,
"the individuals will have
to be forced to be free";
that follows from the idea of
general will.
 
Well he's a complex thinker--
liberal on one hand,
a contractarian on the other
hand, and paves the road to
totalitarianism.
 
He was loved by many liberals,
and he was loved by many
totalitarians--
like Karl Marx loved him,
like Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
loved him,
because of the general will.
 
But Durkheim loved him too,
and he was a liberal.
So there he is.
 
Émile--I will
talk about this.
I already mentioned,
any one of you,
and there are probably a few
people who will end up in
education, you have to read this
book cover to cover.
This is no modern major
education theory without the
book Émile.
 
This is the foundation of
modern educational theory.
Okay, he had a big impact:
a big impact on the American
Constitution,
and the French Revolution.
He's one of the path-breakers
on the French Revolution.
He was also the first who
advocated popular sovereignty,
the abolishment of the Third
Estate, and creating one
popularly elected body.
 
Right?
 
Strong conflict with
Montesquieu who wanted to have
two chambers,
one for the aristocracy and one
for the people;
Rousseau wanted to have one.
Universal suffrage,
except for women;
well he was a male chauvinist
pig in one way.
Well, and as we will see,
the idea of general will were
picked up by the radicals of the
French Revolution,
the Jacobins,
and was picked up by later
Communists of various types,
be it Leninists or Maoists.
Well the general will and
French radicalism led to
bloodshed.
 
Robespierre,
the major disciple and believer
of general will,
his head was also chopped off.
Well, so much about it.
 
Now Rousseau did not live the
French Revolution;
his ideas did, and informed it.
 
He had to move in '62 in exile
because both books created an
outrage, particularly by the
church.
First he went back to Geneva,
but figured out he doesn't like
Geneva any longer.
 
So David Hume,
the conservative philosopher
who admired his work,
invited him to come to England.
And like with everybody else
who was his friend,
he had a fall-out with David
Hume.
He was really a difficult guy,
right?
This is David Hume.
 
And therefore he left England
and he returned to France--lived
for a long time under an assumed
name to make sure he doesn't get
into trouble.
 
Finally, '68,
he married
Thérèse.
 
I will talk about this,
Émile.
They had several children,
and the greatest educational
theorist who tells you how to
raise children,
he put all of his children in
an orphanage.
He was a real bastard,
to put it another way.
And then he was writing his
Confessions,
which was published
posthumously,
and he died in '78,
July 2nd.
So this is the author we will
be discussing today,
and we will also be also
discussing Tuesday.
And I hope I will have enough
time between I get home and
before the limo comes,
so I can put this on the
internet, so you can read this
on the internet.
This is, if right,
the Social Contract.
Yes.
 
Social Contract, 1782.
 
And I don't know why,
but I like to show you the
first editions-- doesn't take me
too much time to find it on the
internet, but occasionally it
does.
Okay, so what the Social
Contract is all about?
Book I is a description how you
move from natural right--from
the state of nature--to
political right.
The second book is the
sovereign and how the sovereign
should be constructed,
created.
This is an issue which Locke
did not pay much attention to.
Right?
 
We will see,
you know, Rousseau himself
likes elected,
selected aristocracy,
but he's beginning to think
about universal suffrage and a
proper constitution of the
sovereign.
Then he has a big section on
government, a section on ancient
Rome and civil religion.
 
I will talk--well I don't have
much time--I will try to talk
about civil religion as well.
 
So what are the major themes?
 
One question is what is
legitimate rule?
And he said rule is only
legitimate when it is arrived at
consent.
 
But, he said,
justice has to be diluted
because general will has to
prevail.
I will have to talk a little
about justice being diluted.
The problem is there is no
universal justice--what you can
arrive at from the individual
will.
There is a general will,
and a conception of the common
good,
and the individual-- whether
the individual is done justice
to,--
it has to be diluted,
it has to be restricted by the
demands of the collective will,
of the collective good.
Now this is a provocative
statement.
It certainly has a kernel of
truth.
It's also a very dangerous
argument because it opens up the
rule for a totalitarian state,
which will tell you,
"Oh, you think this is
your interest?
What you think is your interest
is not really your interest.
Me, the sovereign,
knows what is in your interest,
and I will force you to be
free.
I will force you to understand
what is in your interest."
That is a bit of a tricky
argument which has been abused
in history.
 
That's what the notion diluted
refers to.
Now he advocates for popular
sovereignty and the need for
convention.
 
Well the argument is the
individual express only
individual interests,
and therefore the general will
is not the will of--
not simply the sum total of
individual wills.
 
He is a methodological
collectivist,
as I already pointed out.
 
And then it comes to the
lawgiver.
Well it is the lawgiver who
actually can inspire what he
calls amour-propre.
 
You need a lawgiver--he sees
himself as a lawgiver--
who actually will be able to
tell you why your selfishness is
no good--
why the love of your country
and the community is the right
thing to go.
Okay.
 
And a good government means a
popularly elected legislature.
And the executive is still by
an aristocracy,
by the wise man--that's what he
really means by aristocracy,
an intellectual aristocracy who
is elected.
Well we have somewhat this
notion, that people in
government should be smart,
right?
And we have a bit of concern
with--you know,
in the past there were some
presidents in the United States,
some people in the United
States thought they are not all
that smart.
 
Right?
 
I don't want to name names,
but you can think probably of
some--why some people thought
they are a little on the dumb
side.
 
And they did not earn very much
respect by those who think they
are not smart.
 
Anyway, that's it.
 
So legitimate rule.
 
Well legitimate rule cannot be
based on natural title,
not aristocracy.
 
It has to be authorized by
consent.
Well I'll leave the family
issue, that's--family,
he said, is the only natural
society.
But he said even the family
does not come simply from
nature.
 
There is a social contract in
the family,
and in fact when you grow
up--when you are not a small
child anymore--
then you will realize how much
of a contract it is.
 
Eventually--I hope there is
nobody in this room,
but I suspect there are
probably a very few who at one
point thought enough was enough;
you know, my mother and father
is really a pain,
and therefore I don't want to
do much with them--will break
the contract,
right?
 
It does happen to some people
in their life.
As a father,
I hope it would never happen,
but unfortunately it
occasionally does.
When people are teenagers,
that's when you're beginning to
think about the natural right of
the family as a contract,
and you're beginning to
enter--or some people begin to
enter--
some kind of a new relationship
in the parents and try to
convert the natural dependence
on parents on a contractual
relationship saying,
"Well how come?
 
What do you mean I have to be
back home by eleven p.m.?"
Right?
 
You remember that?
 
Anybody ever questioned that?
 
Right?
 
Tried to negotiate it out.
 
"Oh not eleven."
 
You want it to be one a.m.
 
Right?
 
"I am already sixteen or
seventeen."
You know?
 
That's when you are converting
natural right.
Okay, now there is a transition
from state of nature to the
nature of civil society.
 
Right?
 
Well there is the transition
from the state of nature to
civil society is necessary--
this is a remarkable change,
right?--
where you substitute justice
for instinct of contact--
with morality which was lacking
previously in the state of
nature.
And in civil society,
you know, we deprive ourselves
from some of the advantages,
what we enjoyed in the state of
nature.
 
Nevertheless,
this is a great progress,
what has to be taken on.
 
We will see this also in
Émile.
Well, the second theme is about
the question of diluted justice.
And he said,
you know, the order to admit
justice among us has to be
diluted.
And diluted means,
you know, our individual sense
of justice has to be overruled
by the general will.
And a sovereign needs no
guarantor, and the individuals
will have to be constrained;
otherwise we are in trouble.
And here is the argument why
the individual will have to be
constrained.
 
Individuals cannot just follow
their self-interests,
because the general will have
to prevail.
The common good has to overrule
the selfish individual
interests--a very different type
of argument from the British
liberals.
 
Then he argues for popular
sovereignty, and he prefers to
do so.
 
And this is his single most
important contribution.
This has to be based on a
convention, and a convention has
to be arrived at by the rule of
the majority.
There must be an assembly of
people and--this is also a very
radical, controversial
argument--that they must pool
the resources.
 
It is almost a Communist idea
of having common property of
major resources--a very
problematic argument.
And he also makes this
interesting claim that in the
state of nature we are not
equal--
that's a very different view
from Hobbes--
but we are being made equal by
convention,
what we do with each other.
 
And the problem is this is
really--does it lead to
totalitarianism?
 
He's also advocating for public
possessions as a superior form
of possession--state possession
over resources.
A very problematic
argument--again paves the
foundation towards Marxism and
Communist ideologies.
And well many of the--you know,
all the citations will be on
the internet.
 
So you can read it much more
carefully than you can do it
now.
 
Well then we arrive at the idea
of the general will.
Individual--if this is
something, you believe in Adam
Smith or you believe in Locke,
you will be very
disturbed--individuals express
only private interest.
So there must be a public
interest.
And the general will is sort
of--it's unclear where it is
coming from, but it is certainly
coming over and above the
individuals.
 
And this is the general will,
which is represented in what we
call the commonwealth.
 
The federal authority,
the federal interest expresses
the general will.
 
It is not the will of all.
 
It is the will which serves the
interests of everybody,
rather than the view of
everybody.
Well, as I said,
you know, there is an element
of truth to it.
 
In discussion sections we can
talk about this.
The class will be divided
whether this is acceptable or
not.
 
But those of you who believe in
methodological collectivism will
have to take very seriously the
idea of general will.
And now comes the question of
the lawgivers,
and this is a very important
argument.
Well we are only free when we
obey the law.
Right?
 
That freedom is under
self-imposed law.
Hegel said that freedom is--you
are free when you recognize
necessity, and therefore you
will have to go by the law.
And this will inspire
amour-propre,
the love of the country,
rather than amour de
soi, which is self-love.
 
He makes this distinction
where--I'm afraid I will have to
come back to this Tuesday;
I will have to leave it
now--the distinction between
amour-propre and amour
de soi is a very important
distinction,
and I'll have to elaborate on
this Tuesday.
So I will come back to
Social Contract,
before we go on to
Émile.
 
 
