Discourse on the Origin of Inequality

Rousseau innovates the Understanding of Human Nature by reading backward from present conditions of inequality rather than positing an original state and moving forward. The question of inequality is a useful angle for examining human nature as it allows for the comparison of multiple samples. He begins with a common-sense observation that most social divisions have no basis in nature and suggests that philosophers have not gone far enough in peeling back the layers of inequality that have developed over the centuries. The search for human nature must continue until there are absolutely none of the advantages and disadvantages that result from a particular social situation.

Rousseau expects to find that human beings in nature are equal in all important respects. While he cannot prove this on historical grounds, the idea of a state of nature carries with it the assumption that nature exerts itself equally upon all creatures, human and otherwise. Humans might exhibit differences in strength and skill, but those differences would be distributed too randomly to constitute a law of nature privileging some over others. Nature similarly forbids any strict hierarchy of one species over another—some may be prey to others, but any species that endures has achieved a kind of equality within the ecosystem. As a result, the key to Understanding Human Nature is identifying the respects in which human beings are similar not only to one another but to all sentient creatures. Rousseau concludes that equality is founded on instinct and sentiment as all creatures exhibit these qualities, and they do not depend at all on social influence. However, society introduces ideas and practices that dull these original instincts. Rousseau expects that a more fully activated sense of self-preservation and pity will make people disgusted with modern society, which they will recognize as being “founded on piles of quicksand” and a source of immense danger (97).

In Rousseau’s view, exploring the origins of the human condition is not about learning how people used to behave but rather rediscovering an essential part of themselves that has been lost. Those who want to know the truth must not be afraid to challenge conventional wisdom. He believes that those who refuse to ask tough questions about the origins of social power and equate social status with natural ability will never learn the truth about themselves.

Rousseau posits that finding the truth about the human condition requires stripping away all that is extraneous. Religion presents a formidable challenge for him. In the Judeo-Christian view, human beings are made in the image of God, endowed with reason and the right to rule over other creatures. Rousseau’s effort to examine human beings before they were rational and social is thus a heresy. Public disagreement with Christian doctrine was still a frightful prospect in 18th-century Europe, especially in a city like Geneva, which as the former home of John Calvin was an important center of European Protestantism. Rousseau spent many years away from his native city, losing his citizenship in the process, and so he was taking an immense risk by challenging the Christian view of creation soon after returning to Geneva. This may explain why he accepts the biblical account as fact and proposes his view as a purely hypothetical alternative, even though he immediately afterward dismisses all existing accounts of humankind’s origins as false and insists that nature alone tells the truth. His account resembles the Bible in a significant way. Like the story of the Garden of Eden, Rousseau depicts a fall of humanity in which they lost their chance for happiness. But whereas the Christian account offers Jesus Christ as the hope for humanity’s salvation, Rousseau believes that philosophy is the true source of redemption.