Scan barcode
A review by sbenzell
Discourse on the Origin of Inequality by Jean-Jacques Rousseau
3.0
The man is clearly a brilliant and evocative writer. And I want to believe that man is fundamentally good, and this is supposedly a work in that vein, but it's more like an argument that man is fundamentally aloof and indifferent to others?
The essay takes a LONG time to actually getting around to answering the title question, and the answer is technology + prices, which, well, makes sense. To quote:
" But from the moment one man began to stand in need of the help of another; from the moment it appeared advantageous to any one man to have enough provisions for two, equality disappeared, property was introduced, work became indispensable, and vast forests became smiling fields, which man had to water with the sweat of his brow, and where slavery and misery were soon seen to germinate and grow up with the crops.
Metallurgy and agriculture were the two arts which produced this great revolution...
In this state of affairs, equality might have been sustained, had the talents of individuals been equal, and had, for example, the use of iron and the consumption of commodities always exactly balanced each other; but, as there was nothing to preserve this balance, it was soon disturbed"
This seems basically right to me -- specialization and technology are what create wealth, so they are necessary for inequality.
I tried to include this quote in some forthcoming research about inequality in the US, but Erik B was against it. "Rousseau -- isn't he that anti-technology fanatic? We're pro-technology here *winking smile*".
As much as it pained me to eliminate such an erudite reference, I get where Erik's coming from. Rousseau's vision is disturbingly anti-progress, and to the extent he inspired Marx and other socialists, perhaps that strain has always been a dormant corruption.
Another angle -- Rousseau says inequality is artificial; Peterson says it's innate. Two metaphors: the solitary ape, and the hierarchical lobster. Which way modern man? IDK I guess humans are humans, not lobsters or apes.
The essay takes a LONG time to actually getting around to answering the title question, and the answer is technology + prices, which, well, makes sense. To quote:
" But from the moment one man began to stand in need of the help of another; from the moment it appeared advantageous to any one man to have enough provisions for two, equality disappeared, property was introduced, work became indispensable, and vast forests became smiling fields, which man had to water with the sweat of his brow, and where slavery and misery were soon seen to germinate and grow up with the crops.
Metallurgy and agriculture were the two arts which produced this great revolution...
In this state of affairs, equality might have been sustained, had the talents of individuals been equal, and had, for example, the use of iron and the consumption of commodities always exactly balanced each other; but, as there was nothing to preserve this balance, it was soon disturbed"
This seems basically right to me -- specialization and technology are what create wealth, so they are necessary for inequality.
I tried to include this quote in some forthcoming research about inequality in the US, but Erik B was against it. "Rousseau -- isn't he that anti-technology fanatic? We're pro-technology here *winking smile*".
As much as it pained me to eliminate such an erudite reference, I get where Erik's coming from. Rousseau's vision is disturbingly anti-progress, and to the extent he inspired Marx and other socialists, perhaps that strain has always been a dormant corruption.
Another angle -- Rousseau says inequality is artificial; Peterson says it's innate. Two metaphors: the solitary ape, and the hierarchical lobster. Which way modern man? IDK I guess humans are humans, not lobsters or apes.