Against the liberal concept of modernization, the state, and its inherent inequalities

Philosophers have long contemplated and put forth their explanations of the problems of humankind, society and politics. By purporting that these problems are inherent to the natural apolitical condition of human beings, Hobbes borrows from Machiavelli to launch his theory of modern society devoted to the acquisition and maintenance of commodious living by technological dominance over nature instead of each other. Rousseau agrees with Hobbes and Machiavelli somewhat, furthering stating that human beings are naturally asocial. However he argues that Hobbes mistakenly concluded what the state of nature would be like by merely removing those who were already socialized in civil societies. For Rousseau it is the artificially constructed society itself which engenders the problems that affront humankind. The most admired civilized society simply furthers the deprecation of the human species and nature itself, being founded on outright lies to justify inequality. Uncivilized society remains preferable due to the lack of progression and subsequent institutionalization of these lies.

Catapulting his theory for the need of the modern state from Machiavelli, Hobbes argues that human beings are not naturally political but instead driven into society and thus politics. He states that the natural condition of humankind is that of primitive, unrestrained desire -- similar to Sigmund Freud's id unbalanced by an ego and superego. This endless desire is not only for bare necessities like survival, but ultimately translates to a never-ending struggle for power and glory, “a perpetual and restless desire of Power after power, that ceaseth only in Death... because he cannot assure the power and means to live well, which he hath present, without the acquisition of more.” (Hobbes pg. 161 X1). This notion of the human condition is extremely problematic because it would appear that any level of cooperation will be fundamentally unstable and factional due to this extreme form of competition. “Therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies” (Hobbes pg. 184 XIII). To remedy this inherent cyclical conflict, humans are forced into a social contract according to Hobbes. They must agree to cooperate by forfeiting their ultimate right, usage of extreme measures for self-preservation, so society can exist to ensure stability where economic gain is possible. This will only be successful if human beings essentially forgo politics altogether, leaving it to the sovereign “Leviathan” state, so they can concentrate on art, philosophy and material gain to eventually achieve what everyone ultimately desires -- “commodious living”.

It appears Hobbes purports that without the social contract human beings are merely misanthropic, ruggedly individualistic and immature in dire need of a parent sovereign to redirect our inherent conflictual nature so we can live long and prosper. Drawing from Machiavelli, the study of conquests in Western Civilization, and more importantly the recent English Civil War it seems difficult to fault Hobbes.
With the assistance of Locke and others, Hobbes' dream came into reality -- a contemporary liberal society collectively devoted to technological dominance over nature, instead of each other, in order to achieve material well-being and eventually fulfillment. However living in Hobbesian based modern society 100 years later, Rousseau would argue that Hobbes was utterly wrong, essentially due to him being mistaken in theorizing about the natural state of humankind. Rousseau begins his Second Discourses on the Origin of Inequality by quoting Aristotle, “Not in corrupt things, but in those which are well ordered in accordance with nature, should one consider which is natural.” Rousseau argues that Hobbes “drew all his reasons from the consitution of civil man” (Rousseau pg. 192), mistaking the human state of nature as chaotic and conflictual because he theorized about what “civilized people” would be like without the civil society in which they were raised. Rousseau agrees with Machiavelli and Hobbes that humankind is naturally not only apolitical but asocial as well. However problems arise not from the natural condition of humans and being forced into society but from that of the repercussions of residing in an artificially constructed civil society.

Rousseau argues that in a state of nature, without artificially constructed society, human beings have simple animal-like instincts. “His desires do not exceed his physical needs” (Rousseau pg. 116). This includes self-preservation but it is l'amour de soi-même or love of oneself, made benevolent by pity. Since human beings in a state of nature are “the sole spectator to observe him” and “the sole judge of his own merit” this “produces humanity and virtue” not antagonism. However in society, love of oneself is typically transformed into amour-propre or vanity, in turn producing the emulous selfishness described by Hobbes as essential to the natural condition. But since vanity relies on perpetual reaffirmation and recognition solely determined by others it is “a relative sentiment, artificial and born in society” (Rousseau pg. 222). Those who receive the most recognition or highest status claim entitlement to more and more resources and eventually necessitate these newly acquired excess desires as requisite for living. Rousseau states that this creates a weakened sense of existence, due to socialized human beings constantly worrying over fulfilling these newly acquired desires. Rousseau believes it is the source of all human evil due to the increased dependence on others, prevalent exposure to unnecessary desires, and the extremity socialized human beings will go in an attempt to quench this seemingly insatiable amour-propre. For example, those with higher status and thus more resources will exercise their gained influence over less-fortunate others, using it to hypocritically justify oligarchical control and inequality.

Although uncivilized “savage” society still encourages amour-propre, it remains preferable to modern, commercial-technological civil society for Rousseau. Since savage society is less developed there is greater room for self-sufficiency, less required reliance on others, and less exposure to vices. Since those residing in savage society are less socialized than those in modern society, there is greater “restrain[t] by natural pity.” Rousseau identifies that many of the problems caused by amour-propre began with the division of labor, which savage society generally contains to a much smaller degree. He cites an axiom from Locke, “where there is no property, there is no injury” (Rousseau pg. 151). Rousseau points out that great harm and hardship stems from the cutthroat competition that fosters in commercial-technological society, that “our advantage in the detriment of our fellow-men and someone's loss almost always creates another's prosperity” (Rousseau pg. 194). He concludes that as civil society develops “in appearance so many steps toward the perfection of the individual, and in fact toward the decrepitude of the species” due to the quality of life actually greatly decreasing. Rousseau puts forth the examples of “endemic illness engendered... among the multitudes of men gathered together”, “corrupted foodstuffs”, and the general neglect of needs for unnecessary desires (Rousseau pg. 196).

It appears that with the onset of evolutionary biology which essentially demonstrates that social interaction is inherent to the human condition undermines Rousseau's theory of the nature of modern society's problems. However, it would not be too difficult to assert that one simply has a choice in society, if first actualized, between amicable love of oneself and vanity. Rousseau may respond that those in modern society who devote their life to the elevation and maintenance of relative status will ultimately be left disappointed and unhappy. This could quite possibly explain the continual existence of suicide, depression and overall mental disorders unique to modern societies. Further exemplified by the endemic rates of suicide, poverty and substance abuse all too common to indigenous populations throughout the world unforgivingly forced into modernity. Rousseau would agree that the maxim of civilized human beings continuing their search for a panacea to their socialized condition of amour-propre only to be left unfulfilled remains true today. Distractions from the rigors of modernity through the use of applied technologies and substances continue to boom, many times sacrificing long-term well-being for an artificially induced state of temporary happiness.

Hobbes states that the natural condition of humankind forces us into society and politics. Only through redirecting our inherent conflictual nature to material gain will chaos be avoided and stability achieved. However this is opposed by Rousseau who asserts that the problem lies in the ramifications of residing in an artificially constructed society. This will only be solved through rejecting vanity and subsequent status, a careful withdrawal from modern society where possible, and institutionalizing radical individualism and collectivism.

Works Cited
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Edited by C. B. Macpherson. Penguin Classics: London, England, 1985.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The First and Second Discourses. Translated by Roger D. and Judith R. Masters. St. Martin's Press: New York, NY, 1964.