COURSERA COURSE: THE MODERN AND THE POSTMODERN WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY Peer Assessment 2 Compare the role of historical

l progress in the ideas of two of the following: Kant, Rousseau, Marx, and Flaubert. In your essay, you should put the emphasis on role, not on an accounting of specific progress. Explain how progress works in each thinkers ideas. Does the thinker see historical progress in positive light or a negative light? What does it mean to progress? Do not use historical events to show history progressing, and do not try to develop a catch-all definition of historical progress.

THE ROLE OF HISTORICAL PROGRESS IN JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU AND KARL MARX Mario Ramos Salas

For the present peer assessment I will address the notion of historical progress through the works and ideas of Jean Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx. To accomplish such goal, firstly, I will present a general overview of both authors core ideas regarding their understanding of said notion by comparing the distinctive features of their particular views and, secondly, even though both thinkers have different approaches regarding the role of history and its function in shaping society, I will briefly elaborate on how Marxs and Rousseaus arguments may be interpreted in conjoint and complementary manner. Initially, thus, one must first determine the lens or the scope through which both thinkers had read and interpret history, and how, consequently, they developed their own foundation to critique Modernity. In this sense, the role that Rousseau attributed to historical progress is conditioned by his Idea of Nature under which, prior to reason, men were solely governed by the principles of selfpreservation and by the innate abhorrence to see beings suffer that resemble him, i.e. experiencing compassion, as stated on the Discourse on the Origins of Inequality. Moreover, he asserts that the role of historical progress is to gradually lead men to a state of corruption and degeneration. Said outcome he would argue unfolds due to the process of socialization experienced by the primitive men, which when comparing himself to its equals, sooner than later, starts acting for others, i.e. holding false appearances, in return for public

praise. Consequently, human vanity arises as a result of the social requirement to fulfil false necessities and inequality acquire a new form not as the natural differences between men but rather in the form of privileges which some may enjoy and others may not. This fact creates a new sense of satisfaction in perceiving the pain of others due to their dispossession; a separation, a breach, among men flourishes which Rousseau argues is unnatural and in contradiction to our innate instinct of compassion. Marxs approach regarding the role of historical progress on the other hand is neither concerned with the question of the origin of inequality nor sustains the view that historical progress develops in a degenerative fashion. As a matter of fact, he defends the thesis that the role of historical progress is fundamental to the thorough understanding of history itself as a force capable to promote change in societal life. The role of historical progress in Marx is veiled by the light of Hegels dialectic materialism. According to the Hegelian tradition, this means that Truth arises in history throughout the conflict of two opposite and antagonistic forces (the clash between a thesis and an antithesis) that, as a result of their confrontation, bring forth a divergent product from those aforementioned forces that gave birth to it (as a synthesis). In accordance with the circumstances of his time, Marx was concerned in applying the Hegelian concepts to the conditions that industrialization had brought about. Thus, the well known phrase from the Communist Manifesto which states that the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles means in Marxs context that the intertwined relationship between the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie is of a dialectical nature. Therefore, the contradiction that must be resolved through the role of historical progress according to Marx is the contradiction arising from the alienation which the worker experiences towards his own labor, while its labor should be the mean by which the worker should gain knowledge of himself. However, even though Rousseau and Marx have dissimilar responses regarding the main role which historical progress plays as stated above one should not overlook certain points in common between both thinkers. For example, both authors pay due regard to the societal problem arising from the notorious differences arising between the oppressor and the oppressed way of living. In Marxists terms, such concern is clearly translated through the concept of class struggle but, nonetheless, Rousseaus analyses in his Second Discourse points out the exact same problem: the institution of the political state is based upon the end that the poor the proletariat should stay poor, and the rich the bourgeoisie should prevail enjoying its wealth at the expense of others. Thus, one may conclude that, besides the time-frame separating thinkers, the concern and interest in dealing with the problem of the distribution wealth in a pragmatic manner is far more important than a simple disagreement in theoretical arguments.