In my essay, I will first examine what Rousseau means by state of nature and giving some details with examples, then I will be talking about forcing to be free. In this essay, my defending argument is that we cannot talk about forcing to be free because there is no force behind the freedom and there is no freedom with the force.
Table of Contents
- Introduction: The Question of Forced Freedom
- Rousseau's Conception of the State of Nature and Social Contract
- The Author's Counter-Argument on Freedom and Force
- Societal Conventions and the Normalisation of Reality
- Rousseau's View on Family and Independence
- Critique of Rousseau's Idea of Forced Freedom
- The Role of Power Relations in Freedom
- Conclusion: Re-evaluating Freedom and Societal Rules
- Bibliography
Objective & Thematic Focuses
This essay fundamentally explores Jean-Jacques Rousseau's concept of citizens being "forced to be free" within the social contract, critically examining the meaning, strengths, and weaknesses of this argument. The author's primary objective is to defend the position that true freedom cannot exist when accompanied by force, and that societal rules inherently limit freedom, even in the "state of nature."
- Interpretation of Rousseau's "forcing to be free."
- Analysis of Rousseau's 'state of nature' concept.
- Examination of the social contract tradition and its implications for individual freedom.
- The role of societal norms and constructed rights in shaping freedom.
- Critique of power dynamics and their influence on the experience of freedom.
- The relationship between obedience to rules and the possibility of freedom.
Excerpt from the Book
Modern Theories of Freedom
QUESTION: What does Rousseau mean when he writes that the social contract “forces” citizens “to be free”? What are the strengths and weaknesses of his argument? In my essay, I will first examine what Rousseau means by state of nature and giving some details with examples, then I will be talking about forcing to be free. In this essay, my defending argument is that we cannot talk about forcing to be free because there is no force behind the freedom and there is no freedom with the force.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau is one of the thinkers of social contract tradition. First, we need to define what is state of nature according to him. In the state of nature, he thinks that humans have more freedom than today's societies. On his book “On the Social Contract” he talks as in the following: "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. He who believes himself the master of others does not escape being more of a slave than they." (Rousseau, 1987, 141) He supports the idea of limit of freedom in the society within the socialisation process where we learn norms of the society we are born into. This process makes us to get out of the state of nature. With that, we are forcing to be free from the state of nature. This side of the argument seems to be very clear and yet at the same time very unobvious. Even if we are freed from the state of nature, we have another rules in the constructed societies. The only thing that changed is the way of the rules that we follow. In here, I defend the argument of freedom's limits and those limits are not only in the constructed societies rather it is also in state of nature, in other terms it is in everywhere we can face.
After the emergence of more crowded societies, whether it be industrial revolution or agricultural revolution, humans created some laws that is construction of the mind, we started to talk about our rights. As he talks: “Nevertheless, this right does not come from nature. It is therefore founded upon convention.” (Rousseau, 1987,141) From these constructed rights, Rousseau supports the idea of freedom that comes from these rights, and that where we have “the force". This cannot be a force, rather it is the normalisation of the reality. What I mean here is, the convention we create is the reflection of our minds to get out from the state of nature. The rights that we talk about, they are only socially constructed- and yet important-, the rights we have, there is no force behind it. The normalisation of reality is the combination of the ideas that reflected in the constructed societies.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: The Question of Forced Freedom: This section introduces Rousseau's provocative idea of individuals being "forced to be free" under the social contract and lays out the author's primary thesis, which challenges the notion of freedom coexisting with force.
Rousseau's Conception of the State of Nature and Social Contract: The essay delves into Rousseau's definitions of the state of nature, the constraints of societal life, and his famous quote on humanity being born free yet everywhere in chains, establishing the theoretical foundation for the discussion.
The Author's Counter-Argument on Freedom and Force: Here, the author begins to articulate their argument that freedom inherently lacks force and that limits on freedom exist universally, both within constructed societies and in the state of nature.
Societal Conventions and the Normalisation of Reality: This part examines how human-made laws and conventions, rather than inherent force, lead to the "normalisation of reality" that governs rights and societal behavior, further distancing society from a pure state of nature.
Rousseau's View on Family and Independence: The essay explores Rousseau's perspective on the family unit as the most ancient society, discussing how children gain independence from parental authority and how this relates to broader societal freedom.
Critique of Rousseau's Idea of Forced Freedom: The author critically analyzes Rousseau's claim that individuals can be forced to be free, questioning the source and nature of this "force" and suggesting that it is more about adherence to the rule of law in a democratic state.
The Role of Power Relations in Freedom: This section argues against the simple correlation between freedom and individual power, proposing that societal institutions and power relations often lead to oppression rather than true liberation.
Conclusion: Re-evaluating Freedom and Societal Rules: The essay concludes by reiterating the author's central argument that genuine freedom cannot be forced and is largely contingent upon obedience to societal rules, challenging the literal interpretation of Rousseau's controversial statement.
Keywords
Rousseau, freedom, social contract, state of nature, political philosophy, societal rules, force, autonomy, human rights, socialisation, oppression, common good, conventions, independence, power relations.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this work fundamentally about?
This work fundamentally explores Jean-Jacques Rousseau's paradoxical statement that citizens can be "forced to be free" within the social contract, critically analyzing its meaning, inherent strengths, and weaknesses from the author's perspective.
What are the central thematic fields?
The central thematic fields include political philosophy, theories of freedom, the social contract tradition, Rousseau's concept of the state of nature, the role of societal norms, and the interplay between individual liberty and collective rules.
What is the primary goal or research question?
The primary goal is to examine Rousseau's claim about "forcing to be free" and to argue that freedom cannot genuinely exist alongside force, and that societal structures inherently impose limitations on freedom.
Which scientific method is used?
The work employs a critical-analytical method, interpreting and evaluating the philosophical concepts presented by Rousseau through logical argumentation and drawing upon established texts within political philosophy.
What is covered in the main part?
The main part covers Rousseau's views on the state of nature and the social contract, the author's detailed critique of the idea of "forcing to be free," discussions on societal conventions, family structures, and the impact of power relations on freedom.
Which keywords characterize the work?
Key terms characterizing the work include Rousseau, freedom, social contract, state of nature, political philosophy, societal rules, force, autonomy, socialisation, and power relations.
How does the author challenge Rousseau's idea of "forcing to be free"?
The author challenges Rousseau by arguing that freedom cannot be a product of force, suggesting instead that what Rousseau describes might be the "normalisation of reality" or adherence to the rule of law rather than genuine, uncoerced freedom.
What role does the concept of "normalisation of reality" play in the author's argument?
The "normalisation of reality" is crucial to the author's argument, as it explains how conventions and socially constructed ideas become ingrained, influencing behavior and perception of freedom without explicit external force.
How does the author link freedom to power dynamics within society?
The author argues that freedom is often intertwined with power relations, asserting that societal institutions, instead of granting freedom, often rely on oppression to standardize behavior and limit individuals' genuine power.
- Citation du texte
- Özden Bulutbeyaz (Auteur), 2021, Rousseau and Social Contract, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1669778
