The Goal of Part II of War, Conflict, and Bloodshed is to attempt to contradict Hobbes's point that human motivation primarily derives from self-interest. By hereby providing evidence of the contrary a hard task we are set upon. We shall adhere to Rousseau for a major part of this text.
The following quote is one, if not the most famous, of Rousseaus that perfectly summarizes his view on human nature:
"Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains. Those who think themselves the masters of others are indeed greater slaves than they." ― Jean-Jacques Rousseau [1]
On one hand, Rousseau firmly rejects the belief that a strong and despotic sovereign is necessary for a working state, as Hobbes famously argued. "Man was born free", is a statement of the freedom and natural liberty we have, but unfortunately tormented by society, cruel despotic states, monarchs, and other human beings ― hence everywhere in chains man is. On the other hand, Rousseau agrees with Hobbes that legitimized political authority only comes from a social contract, one which every citizen must agree upon. That is for mutual preservation, as every man is keen on survival, but not according to Rousseau because of self-preserving motivation. By the second sentence of the quote, Rousseau indeed testifies that even at the top of the hierarchy in restrictive monarchies, oligarchies, and so forth, in chains they all are. Even more so, because illusionary the reality for them is. Pretentious, a mere facade and superficial reality are made to be in the eyes of those greedy and soaked in power.
Upfront it seems that after all Hobbes' and Rousseau's views are not that different. They agree on the principle of the solution, that is, a social contract is necessary. They differ on the solution. Hobbes sees that more authority and order are required because Man is naturally wild and self-interested. Meanwhile, Rousseau sees that Man is in its most precious and freest state in her nature. The question and problem therefore remains, how do we build a society that does not intervene too strongly in Man's natural liberty? Because both by recent evidence and evidence of years, decades, and centuries, we have been torn over and over again in conflict. Worst of all non-the-technology, or-evolution, or-intellectual developments of recent years seem to have faded the war-waging spirit of Man. Moreover, the advancement in the aforementioned fields seems to put us all in more danger than ever before. Let the Russian unauthorized and illegal invasion of Ukraine be the full manifestation of it.
One answer to at this point almost axiom-impossible question could be education. In Europe, the level of education and investment in peace-keeping and universal preservation of peace in recent decades have just skyrocketed. The most recent official war in Europe (before the Russo-Ukrainian conflict) was the Kosovo War, in 1999. And in general, Europe has been relatively peaceful after World War II. Perhaps it was the shock and the sentiment that a world war shall never again happen. But I believe that it was more, it was a determination to tell and teach the tales of Europe's darkest events in history to the next generations, to cement that it is all of our responsibility that it shall never again happen.
Propaganda, nationalistic rhetoric, and preservation are most effective when taught and inbred in the brains of children. Just by looking at how blindly a majority of Russians support the invasion of Ukraine, and videos showing schoolchildren marching and shouting proudly yet innocently in support of atrocities committed by the invading Russian forces ― something remarkably similar to Nazi Germany. Perhaps part of it is the relatively new phenomenon of disinformation that has emerged in the recent decade with the evolving global reach of the internet and media.
The importance of education cannot be denied.
Returning back to Rousseau, the evidence of bad and wrong (ignorant) education could support the argument that perhaps conflict is not explained that easily to be "just in our blood". Perhaps it is actually something shaped by the society and structure of corruption, greed, and authority we are surrounded with. But that sounds like Hobbes was right, we have a self-preserving motivator. But perhaps it has not been woken until the aforementioned categories apply.
But why have we then not done anything if an inherent quality of self-preservation may be activated in us? Well, the most obvious answer could be of a psychological nature. It is simply more advantageous to inhibit the behavior of larger social units.[2] It is of no reasonable reason one would go against his herd. Accordingly, Rousseau argues in The Social Contract, Book I, Chapter II that a monarch has nothing to fear, just like Robinson Crusoe on his island, as long as he was the only inhabitant. The reverse logic could be used here. The monarch, an authoritarian has all to fear, and just because of that the citizens would have nothing to fear, it would make perfect sense to follow the pack. Another reason not to act would be the fear of retribution. In Russia we have countless examples, Navalny being the most recent.
The monarch's need to fear threats, both internal and external, often leads to paranoia and hallucinations that drive even the clearest minds crazy. Not being able to trust anyone is a clear indicator of a road to conflict. Suspicion arises and can only be subdued by taking every imaginary enemy in every corner out, literally. But like a vampire, a simple taste of the blood is never enough.
Rousseau presents the paradoxical nature of not non-justifying the use of force:
‘As long as a people is constrained to obey, it does well to obey; as soon as it can shake off the yoke, it does even better to shake it off. If its right to do so is challenged, it can answer that: it gets its liberty back by the same ‘right’—namely, force— that took it away in the first place. Any justification for taking it away equally justifies taking it back; and if there was no justification for its being taken away ― no justification for taking it back is called for.' [3]
By unfortunate causality, this leads to what we have now come to call "conflict". Partly it could be understood that it is now out of our hands ― unless, a universal non-justification, a non-allowance of force would be called upon ― in unity Man could stand once more. But only hopeless dreams these are ― beauty shall never rise again, someone has shouted, and unknowingly Man follows.
Rousseau sees the naturally free man, that is, Man freest naturally, by opposing Aristotle's foundation of the existence of a natural slave:
“Every man having been born free and master of himself, no one else may under any pretext whatever subject him without his consent. To assert that the son of a slave is born a slave is to assert that he is not born a man.”
Something else Rousseau was preoccupied with was the individual man's responsibility in the face of a world that was now reborn as naturally unequal. [4] Should we just sit back, and watch the world burn down in flames ― [just because it is not in our backyard] ― or must we actively help and support those in need? The present conflict in Ukraine is yet again an essential example. Most of the European countries, as well as the United States, Australia, and so forth, have already taken their stand in placing sanctions on the invading Russians, removing the luxurious lifestyles of the Russian oligarchs, by denying bank access ― yet, an additional question arises, because the most harm is done to Russian citizens, most innocent bystanders, I suppose. But that is a question for another time. Additionally, Finland among many other countries has provided Ukraine with military assistance in the form of weaponry and ammunition, as well as humanitarian aid. A question remains, should we do more? The aim of this blog, is on no account, to provide a correct answer or to answer the question at all, dear apologies, but perhaps Rousseau's quote provides some clue:
“To be sane in a world of madman is in itself madness.”[5] ― Jean-Jacques Rousseau
What is 'enough'? What is our responsibility? To die watching or die acting? Is die-acting a manifestation of recklessness, or a true ethical hero, possessing morals?
Returning to our roots, the ultimate where it all began, Hobbes versus Rousseau, let all the evidence provided hitherto found a second conclusion. Rousseau lays the foundation that walking on the self-assuming and self-preserving path is of grave danger to Mankind, as well as oneself. Yet it is just a continuation of our history, from the first societies. Hobbes found the brutality to be because of a lack of authority and order, Man needed guidance from a sovereign. But now Rousseau's view of human nature as good provides us with an alternative. What if it is the civil society that has brought conflict and danger upon us? But the question of how to counter the deep-within evil remains unanswered.
“Civilization is a hopeless race to discover remedies for the evils it produces.”[6] ― Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Unless, of course, the universal would present Mankind with newborn hope.
Let these final words summarize Part II of War, Conflict and Bloodshed:
“The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows, "Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.” ― Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality [7]
Oliver Kuivasto, O.K
Footnotes:
[1] The Social Contract, Book I, Chapter I
[2] ― Book 1, Chapter II of The Social Contract:
[...]As humanity flourished, it became advantageous to inhabit social units larger than individual families by forming communities, and this led to the emergence of governments.[...]
[3] On The Social Contract, Book I, Chapter II
[4] Albeit that is not the same thing as agreeing that natural equality exists. Man has made it naturally exist (in the monarchic and despotic world).
[5] You can probably guess who the "madman" might be.
[6] It truly is.
Comentários