As some discovered the power of society, and celebrated its independence from the state, its civilising effects and its capacity to moderate the passions of men and women, others began to see in the social world, and in the realms of fashion, luxury, and competition associated with it, a deeply corrupting force - corrupting of morals and the independence of judgment, and consequently corrupting of the state. Where most social contract theorists had traditionally seen society as moderating the brutish character of men and women in the state of nature, allowing the emergence of civil society, and its consequence, civilization, Rousseau turns this story on its head.

His account became profoundly influential for others, even when they disagreed with some of his core ideas - as with Mary Wollstonecraft and her rejection of his relegation of women to the subordinate chattel of man. Nonetheless, the insight into the ways in which social life threatened to render the individual dependent upon the validation they could secure from others was exploited in their critique of contemporary mores.

For class this week please read:

Rousseau,Discourse on the Origin of Inequality (this text is less than 50 pages, so you should be able to ge through most of it. If not, just read enough to get a flavour of Rousseau's ideas on man in the state of nature and his critiques of society).

Wollstonecraft's Vindication of the Rights of Women, ch 13 - and while reading try and see how far you think she is borrowing methods and principles from Rousseau, despite her criticism of him.

Questions to consider

How does Rousseau characterise the condition of man in the state of nature? On what grounds is he critical of modern society? What implications does this have for his wider political theory?

Examine the distinction between amour propre and amour de soi. What conception of free human agency can be recognised at work here?

How far is Wollstonecraft indebted to Rousseau's second Discourse for her analysis of the costs of female ignorance?

Is Frankfurt's distinction between first and second order desires helpfl in thinking about Rousseau's critique and Wollstonecraft's appeal to education?

Suggested secondary reading

Harry Frankfurt, 'Freedom of the Will and the concept of a person', The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 68, No. 1 (Jan. 14, 1971), pp. 5-20

Charles Griswald, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Adam Smith : A Philosophical Encounter (2017) - ebook. This book foucses on Rousseau and Smith's contrasting views on society and the state of nature; a useful bridge between this week and next week's texts!)

Christopher Berry, Essays on Hume, Smith and the Scottish Enlightenment (2018), esp ch 7 and 8 - ebook