Social Inequality and its Historical Significance
Social inequality is perhaps one the most prevalent political discourses of our time. In fact, the issue antedates the contemporary history. It has become the most prominent discourses in the political arena with many taking various philosophical perspectives. There exists a close nexus between inequality and the dignity of humans. The topic captures the general welfare of people, and therefore it has been at the center of matters of policy and laws. Nonetheless, the proclivity of contemporary intellectuals in discussing the matter is not without foundation. Philosophers and classical intellectuals throughout history discussed the concept with the ample weight it deserves. No thinker in history can be said to be as influential in the discourse as Jean-Jacques Rousseau is. Rousseau was an opponent of modernity whose status quo, he thought was at the center of inequality.
Rousseau's View on Human Equality in Society
Naturally, human beings are good and equal, and it is through social mechanics that they are rendered unequal. Rousseau believes that all human beings should be regarded as equal in all social fronts. Considering that the law is one of the central tools that hold the society together, Rousseau comments thus: "I should have wished then that no one within the State should be able to say he was above the law" (2). That happens to be just one of the thought-provoking opening remarks of his rather passionate and fiery discourse, which apportions the blame of inequality to the ravages of modernity. However, it is yet not plausible how his argument of naturally good humanity falls under the shackles of evil exigencies. It would, therefore, imply, perhaps, that Rousseau is not talking about the goodness from a moral perspective. Instead, his argument opens up the opportunity for a wider panorama that needs more than what meets the casual reader’s eye.
The Nature of Man and Its Relationship to Inequality
Therefore, at the crux of inequality is the nature of man. The nature of man is perhaps the most critical foundation of the argument. Rousseau, for instance, begins with describing the nature of man, whom he views as strong and agile being – organized than animals. Notably, the nature of his discourse is primarily influenced by his background which was characterized by abject poverty and accompanying inequalities which are prevalent in the contemporary society. To him, the man was a social and orderly being who if willing, can exercise equality getting the best out his environment. Thus, it could be a natural disposition of man to stay in equal and productive society. Nonetheless, there appear to be critical and strong opposing forces that shut down this idealism. Unfortunately, the ideal is passive while the realism is active. Therefore, suffice it to say, the more man gets civilized, the more he escapes from the confines of idealism, which apportion him the benefits of equality.
Rousseau's View on the Evolution of Inequality
It is only through the scrutiny of history that one can understand Rousseau position on an equal and ideal society. In other words, one ought to examine the evolution of man from the ideal to the modern and disorganized society that exhibits inequality. Rousseau imagines and postulates an evolution story that appears to be a reconstruction of history – although he denies that (15). Evolution is made of stages wherein each step humans change their material and psychological relations. Similarly, they change on their self-conception. Initially, man lives in solitary, at the stage that Rousseau regards as the original state of the human race. This original state of man is primitive and independent: where man lives more like an animal. His interaction with another human is primarily for biological purposes such as population. At this stage, humans are only good due to the absence of evil among them. Suffice it to say, at this stage; there is no family. And the family being the basic unit of the society, the lack thereof translates to a lack of society.
Natural and Political Inequality
However, as man progresses, as he becomes social, political, and modern, that is when inequality sets in. Inequality per se is twofold: natural (physical) or moral (political). Natural inequality includes facets such as age, health, bodily strength, and the qualities of the mind (Rousseau 11). On the other hand, political inequality is more about the convention and the social norms set upon by people on people. Political inequality emanates from the formation of a society – which leads to some form of social contracts. The norms that are established in the new formation initially are thought to be progressive. Perhaps, one would like to think of the human beings at this level as rational, self-conscious, and moral creature. Nevertheless, the distinguishing characteristics lead to the development of a society that is fragmented and full of deception, dependence, and oppression. The negative aspects of humanity develop from the formation of simple co-operation that were part of Rousseau’s evolutionary story. Thus, inequality is part of the evolutionary process.
The Significance of Political Inequality
Of the two inequalities, natural and political, the latter suffices as Rousseau subject of interest. A focus on the cause of natural inequality is not important since as the name suggests, it is beyond the conception of the human faculty. Rousseau sums this up by stating that it is useless to ask the source of natural inequality. Suffice that to be an elimination of natural inequality from the objects of the discourse. Since humans have little to do with the cause of the inequality, they can barely have any recourse towards the same – hence Rousseau’s referral as useless. The disqualification of natural inequality from the discourse allows ample time and energy to focus on political inequality. For it is this form of moral inequality; caused by man that ails the society. Political inequality is the source of the oppression, deception, and dependence that foments into an evil society. However, the alleged dismissal of the natural inequality as a lacking cure in the present discourse does not mean that it is insignificant among humans. Neither does it mean that it cannot be traceable in the discourse.
The Importance of Nature in Understanding Inequality
In fact, it is only through nature that man can understand the truths behind any origin. The dependence on men as the source of history is often saturated with lies. The origin of things, however, should not be construed as from a factual perspective; instead, the focus should be based a hypothetical consideration that is logical (Rousseau 12). For any historical examination, otherwise, would only open up a Pandora’s Box and irrefutably and would be impossible to prove the facts alleged. Those residual yet infallible truths that are inherent to humans form the correct foundation of the discourse that seeks to explain the sources of inequality. According to Rousseau, anything that emanates from nature is the truth and nothing but the truth. It is not subjected to the subtle human distortion that bends history at their behest for their expedience. Thus, the focus on the natural discourse is significant due to its infallibility. It is the only way through which people regain their power devoid of the evils of political inequality. For it is the distorters of history who strive to entrench political inequality.
The Paradox of Societal Development and Inequality
It is paradoxical that the more a man develops, the more he weakens. Rousseau attributes this development to be the cause to which man’s strengths as an independent being slowly enervates (15). He likens this phenomenon to the domestication of wild animals that renders them relatively weaker in the stable than in the wilderness. However, for man, there is a clique of that take advantage of the situation. Moreover, in the name of civilization and modernity turn other fellow human beings who are weaker in their natural endowments turning them servile. Note that, the purported civility of men leads to their interdependence that ideally will lead to the development of categorization of wants – and their urgency. The holders of the urgent and important needs become the powerful people within the social formation. Consequently, the mere mutual interdependence of men to each other leads to the development and fortification of the bonds of servitude (25). That kind of interdependence is not possible in a state of nature. For in a state of nature, man is purely independent with no social formations. Naturally then, the law of the strongest is of no effect.
Inequality as an Artificial Creation
Thus, man has become wicked as he becomes sociable. For in a natural state, the inequality of man is hardly felt. Nonetheless, the development of man to a social being was mostly accidental – and perhaps against the order of nature – hence the backfire that leads to the rise of the evil society. Even the ineffectual natural inequalities have been exacerbated by discourses pushed by men leading to their culmination and overlap with the political inequalities. "The differences which distinguish men are merely the effect of habit and the different methods of life men adopt in society" (Rousseau 24). There is, therefore, less difference between one man and the other in a natural state although their existence of natural inequalities. Conversely, in a state of society, the difference between each man and the other is so rife since the social institutions elevate even the natural inequalities. The partiality that nature imputes is relatively immaterial in creating a formation that would be detrimental to the beneficiaries. Without the mischief of some fellow human beings, inequality would be unheard of for there would be no competition, where supremacy meant nothing. Inequality is very artificial.
The Evil of Inequality
Therefore, inequality is an evil; and it is so since it is defiance against the order of nature. Inequality might be of two types: the natural and the political, but it is the latter, which renders the coexistence of man to be evil. The former has little to do with the material difference between men in their primitive and natural state. Surprisingly, inequality is a by-product of evolutionary phases of man. Man is either in the natural state or societal state: in the natural, he is independent and strong; in the societal, he has developed effeminate characters and cannot stand on his own. The development of interdependence is what elevates inequality. Here, some mischievous and scheming people will assume supremacy by creating a narrative that will apportion some strengths importance than the others. Inequality, therefore, is an artificial creation of the weak to manipulate the oblivious strong.
Works Cited
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. A discourse on inequality. Penguin, 1984. https://media.8ch.net/freedu/src/1423459726398.pdf
