A paper explaining Rosseau's arguments about the detrimental psychological effects wrought upon society by the rise of modern day civilization, written for my Theoretical Foundations of Modern Politics class.

1. Mira McKee (mkm3475) Optional Paper #4 GOV351D – Stauffer
Due: Thursday, December 5th
Optional Paper #4 Topic #3: Explain Rousseau’s arguments in the Second Discourse about the
psychological effects of the rise of civilization.
In 1753, back in the times when academies of the arts and sciences existed to gather likeminded
people in the pursuit of cultivating knowledge, the Academy of Dijon asked a question whose
answer would change the world forevermore. The question posed by the Academy was as
follows: “What is the origin of inequality among men, and is it authorized by the natural law?”
The answer that has had the biggest impact on the world, though not deemed the winner by the
Academy, came from one Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a Genevan philosopher living in Paris at the
height of the enlightenment, in the form of a book: The Discourse of the Origin of Inequality
Among Men (also known as Rousseau’s Second Discourse). His answer followed his main idea
that people are, by nature, good, and that they have become corrupted by various historical
happenings that caused the development of civilization. Though Rousseau acknowledges (or at
least implies) that there are areas wherein which the state of nature is definitively worse than a
civilized society, he ultimately argues that civilization and the rise of it have led to numerous
irrevocable psychological effects for the humans that have to endure it. I believe that by
expanding on concepts such as pride, perfectibility, and property, through showing multiple
epochs in history and key developments in each, he shows the extreme difference in psychology
of people in civilized society and those in the state of nature, and the developments that caused
this difference to arise.
The heart of Rousseau’s argument, and the context in which it is set, all boils down to his
concept of the “state of nature.” The state of nature is an idea popularized in 1651 by Thomas
Hobbes and expanded upon in 1689 by John Locke, that discusses the natural state of man (i.e.,

2. Mira McKee (mkm3475) Optional Paper #4 GOV351D – Stauffer
Due: Thursday, December 5th
before politics, civilization, and modernity as a whole). In Hobbes’ view, the state of nature is a
place without a concept of justice, and life in it is (famously) “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and
short.” Locke’s view is slightly less grim, but still both praise the development of civilization
and politics as solutions to problems that were inherent to the natural state of man. Though their
takes on the state of nature are important to the evolution of philosophy and human thought, a
major impact that each had were to inspire the later thinker, Rousseau, and ultimately inspire the
writing of his Second Discourse. Where these thinkers were radicals fighting against traditional
lines of thinking, Rousseau rode the wave of the modern movement that they helped create, and
pushed the world toward even more modern thinking, all while questioning modernity.
Rousseau’s idea of the state of nature revolves around the idea that natural man lacks reason but
is, overall, good. He faults “previous thinkers” of all kinds for where they went wrong: in his
eyes, no previous philosopher correctly defined the state of nature because none of them went far
back enough. In Rousseau’s view, to simply remove the notion of law and civilization from a
group of people could not provide an accurate picture of the state of nature. Thus, in his Second
Discourse, he is sure to go back further and find what he believes to be the true origin of man,
then essentially trace through different stages of human history wherein which different
developments led to the slow degradation of the psychology of mankind.
In Rousseau’s rendition of the life of man in the state of nature, we start to get the first real taste
of his true view of modernity. He paints a picture of the simple yet stunning life that natural man
gets to enjoy—a life of sitting under oak trees, sipping from streams, soaking up the sunlight,
and beyond. This man fears pain, but not death; like an animal, he has enough of a sense of self-
preservation to avoid harmful scenarios, but has no real concept of his existence, or of its

3. Mira McKee (mkm3475) Optional Paper #4 GOV351D – Stauffer
Due: Thursday, December 5th
eventual ending. In this sense, his needs are satisfied and, thus, he is happy. The line of thinking
here is essentially that happiness is tied to the meeting of our needs, and the simpler our needs,
the easier the attainment of happiness. Thus, in the state of nature, full of simpler needs and a
lack of concept of death (or any existentialism that comes along with it), happiness is easier to
achieve and easier to keep. This implies that, by direct contrast, civilized society, inherent with
its never-ending set of imposed needs, makes the pursuit of happiness a lofty quest that is likely
to end in a lower level of overall happiness for man in civilized society than in the state of
nature. Rousseau argues that this state was the simplest time for man, and that we could’ve
remained happy had we remained in that state.
The thought that causes Rousseau to shift his writing style to explaining the development of
human history is the thought that humans are not social by nature, and that, in fact, their lack of a
natural need for togetherness (as well as no real need for the development of language) implies a
monumental shift in human psychology and thought. This huge shift that humanity has
incurred—from this lack of a real need for togetherness back in the state of nature, to what we
have today, constantly living with or being surrounded by other people—implies the existence of
the state of nature, as well as the existence of a huge change that got us to where we are today.
Throughout the Second Discourse, Rousseau defines four major developments, all of which led
to the eventual degradation of human character. He starts in the state of nature and conveys the
simplicity of life for men within it. After discussing his view of the state of nature, Rousseau
moves on to discussing the development of civilization, which starts with an in-between time of
growth for humans, and ends with his current day society, after answering the Academy’s
question to his satisfaction.

4. Mira McKee (mkm3475) Optional Paper #4 GOV351D – Stauffer
Due: Thursday, December 5th
One of the first aspects of changing human psychology that Rousseau discusses, and the first
theme that I will choose to focus on, is the invention of the concept of pride. He traces this back
to the changing physicality of nascent man who, once he started adapting to nature’s many
obstacles, became stronger, faster, and more agile. As savage man learned to hunt animals and
assert his dominance as a species, mankind had its first development of pride. This pride
increased as population of man increased, where nascent men got to compare themselves to
others, compete, and at times, win. Rousseau argues that this came along after the true
development of reason. “It is reason that engenders pride,” Rousseau says, “and reflection that
fortifies it.” Though Rousseau calls this pre-society post-state of nature time the beginning of
inequality, he also claims that it was “the happiest epoch, representing a middle way between”
the state of nature and civilized society, again underscoring his idea that the days closer to the
state of nature had much to offer, and that in fact the rise of civilization ultimately caused the
decrepitude of mankind. Here, we find the first steps toward inequality—when people started
comparing themselves to others around them, and developing vanity, they are ultimately made to
be more unhappy.
The next major theme that Rousseau touches on that led to a fundamental change in human
psychology is the idea of perfectibility. Perfectibility, also known as the “faculty of perfecting
[one]self,” is a construct unknown to the state of nature that is, according to Rousseau, “the
source of all man’s misfortunes.” One of the few things that differentiate humans and animals is
man’s ability for free agency, which can typically be a good thing, but can also often lead him to
his demise. It leads to the idea of perfectibility that we’ve constructed and Rousseau argues that

5. Mira McKee (mkm3475) Optional Paper #4 GOV351D – Stauffer
Due: Thursday, December 5th
this idea of human perfectibility, as well as the actualization of it, has reduced our overall ability
for happiness. Because of this concept that makes us so aware of our flaws and of our growing to
desire to do better and be better, we become our own harshest critic, and we are no longer as
happy as we would be if left to the ignorance existent in the state of nature. This growing idea of
perfectibility coincides with our need for progress and growth, which only continues to
accelerate once the first few developments began, and before man knew it, he had built
civilization.
The final theme that Rousseau touches on that led to a fundamental change in human psychology
was the invention of the concept of property. He goes on in his rendition of history to explain
that nascent people eventually found the time and tools to build huts to stay in, which may sound
like the simple addition of a safe place to sleep, but that he argues was a major point of
development in human psychology as it pertains to the development of civilization. This is the
first “revolution” that Rousseau mentions. The concept began when the first man who found a
plot of ground thought of saying “this is mine” to people “simple enough to believe him.” This
man, according to Rousseau, is the true founder of civil society. Whereas Locke found the right
of the pursuit of property to be a natural one, Rousseau sees the development of property as an
irreversible event that led to many adverse psychological effects. From the development of the
concept of property, we see two huge effects: firstly, that people gained a level of convenience
that they previously hadn’t had, leading to a weakening of their bodies and minds and a lessening
of their overall ability, and secondly, that families started living together, leading to the
formation of the concept of conjugal love. Property also begins to shape Rousseau’s further
arguments and discussions of further revolutions, including the institution of the magistracy

6. Mira McKee (mkm3475) Optional Paper #4 GOV351D – Stauffer
Due: Thursday, December 5th
(which authorizes the divide between the powerful and the weak) and the changing of legitimate
power into arbitrary (which authorizes the divide between master and slave).
In the last pages of Rousseau’s Second Discourse, he states, “Observation fully confirms what
reflection teaches us on this subject: savage man and civilized man differ so much in the bottom
of their hearts and inclinations that what constitutes the supreme happiness of the one would
reduce the other to despair.” He concludes by reinforcing what his whole Second Discourse was
based on: the idea that there had to have been a sweeping, fundamental change in the psychology
and character of man from the time of the state of nature to the time of civilization. Through his
thoughts and explanation of the development of human history, especially on key topics like
pride, perfectibility, and property, and their effects on overall human capacity for happiness, we
see his true argument come to life: that the rise of civilization ultimately was a detrimental move
for man, and that we would have all been happier had we simply stayed in the state of nature.