On Rousseau’s Second Discourse:
The Noble Savage
Rousseau’s analysis on the animal or “savage” condition is intriguing at the very least. I enjoy the most from Rousseau his ability to construct and build on his arguments—which he does rather well both within his texts and by building on his philosophy’s over the course of his career. He inlays his arguments well when he begins by discussing the elements of the beast and its consciousness, then proceeds to juxtapose the human, then finally leads to an analysis of the noble savage.
On animals in nature:
“I see in any animal nothing but an ingenious machine to which nature has given senses in order to wind itself up and, to a point, protect itself against everything that tends to destroy or to disturb it.” [15]
Rousseau perceives the same thing in the modern human being, “with the difference that Nature alone does everything in the operations of the Beast, whereas man is a free agent” — and here arises the ever-old argument for freewill and its force on our standings in society, which is quite prevalent in Rouseeau’s Second Discourse.
“Every animal has ideas, since it has senses; up to a point it even combines its ideas…” just like humans!
“Some Philosophers have even suggested that there is a greater difference between one given man and another than there is between a given man and a given beast” [16].
Rousseau writes that it is man’s ability to think and act freely that distinguishes him from beast.
On Perfection & Ambition: “Amour Propre”
As an extension to his argument on free will, another distinguishing feature between man and animal, Rousseau argues, is the concept of self-perfection.
“…the Beast, which has acquired nothing and also has nothing to lose, always keeps its instinct, man, losing through old age or other accidents all that his perfectibility has made him acquire…” [17].
“At the root of the Noble Savage myth is this basic truth: the savage is good, but he's also violent. This is why Rousseau propounded the need for contracts between the savage and society. The savage also shows that in order to understand the need for civilization and culture, mankind needs to see barbarism. One could not exist without the other.”
Finally, are we, as a society, on a positive trajectory from “savagery” to prosperity? How do you define these two elements?
“Regardless of what the moralists say about it, human understanding owes much to the Passions.” [19].
“We seek to know only because we desire to enjoy, and it is not possible to conceive of why someone without desires or fears would take the trouble of reasoning.” [19].
French director and screen writer Bruno Dumont makes an interesting claim I encourage you all to consider and possibly even challenge:
“At the root of the Noble Savage myth is this basic truth: the savage is good, but he's also violent. This is why Rousseau propounded the need for contracts between the savage and society. The savage also shows that in order to understand the need for civilization and culture, mankind needs to see barbarism. One could not exist without the other.”
—Bruno Dumont
What do you think?
Is savagery a lesson on the importance of civilization? Or is civilization inherently corrupting as well? We touched on this a little when the professor began discussing Rousseau’s influence in educational theory with his famous text “Emile.”
Do you think the “state of nature” is as peaceful and prosperous before our modern conception of society? Do you think the state of nature or savagery was ever the ideal as Rousseau seems to believe? Is an ideal every plausible in our conception of human history?
Finally, are we, as a society, on a positive trajectory from “savagery” to prosperity? How do you define these two elements?
~ Are you Team Civilization or Team Nature? ~
Rana, I really enjoyed your discussion of Rousseau's text and the important questions you posed at the end. As I read the Discourse, however, I asked myself if things are truly that black and white; whether or not it is civilization versus nature, or if the two overlap in any way. I have found that in a lot of ways, even that which is considered nature is, in a lot of ways, civilized. For example, you would not consider ants to be particularly civilized beings, yet their entire nature revolves around gathering food for their queen. I think there are many animals that demonstrate how even they have their own form of civilized culture. Thus I wonder if the two can go hand in hand, and if our conception of each civilization and nature should include the other, to create a more holistic view of the world we live in.
ReplyDelete