Clyde 1

Austin Clyde
Professor Tamar Abramov
CAAP Humanities
12 August 2015
Modern Men: Subjects of Necessity

In Rousseau’s discourse on inequality the author states the savage man is a “free

agent” (88). He continues to argue that modern man takes property to be his freedom.

Man’s freedom emerges from possessions. Owning and protecting property has, for

modern man, become equivalent to freedom. Rousseau argues that man is a slave to his

property because losing property becomes too much to bear, man must work perpetually

to protect it. Rousseau presented that if the rich need a service and the poor need their

aid, then one will have to deceive the other for a deal (119). The basic system of bartering

with property requires unequal relationships. Men had become subjects and masters of

each other as a consequence of these exchanges.. If man cannot rid himself property,

could he ever obtain freedom? In this paper I will argue that Rousseau idealizes the

savage’s freedom in order to demonstrate that man can obtain liberty by changing his

relationships with others and property to embracing his natural pity.

Men are equal to each other in the state of nature. Of course, there exists natural

inequality, but this type of inequality did not cause the natural man to compare himself to

others—the original man had no comparative language. When discussing a man being

unequal to a man, comparison is necessary. Rousseau argues that “purely abstract entities

are conceivably only by means of words,” and so without language there is no ability to

conceive of difference (95). Inequality is rooted in difference. Without recognizing

difference between men, the original man was able to live as a part of the general making

it hard to imagine that “one man should have more need than another man” (97). A
 Clyde 2

consequence of this equality, from no individuation, is total freedom from each other.

Men in the state of nature had “no kind of moral relationship between [each other] or any

known duties” (98). Without duties or relations, there was no force acting on men’s

natural whims. This is precisely the kind of freedom that originates from equality and

will be lost in the modern man.

Property became a necessity for modern men, imposing certain kinds of actions

onto men. The rise of society gave men leisure time. In this leisure, men created new

commodities that “degenerated into actual needs” (113). Something that is necessary is

fundamental for existence, in the case of man. When lacking a necessity, men experience

some sense of pain, suffering, or depravation, or in extreme cases death. Necessities

become forces that act on men because part of man is a “concern was self-preservation”

(86). Men become subjects to their necessities. To make the claim that a “human

institution,” property, is a necessity is to make men subjects of their own or other men’s

property (128). This kind of relationship to the world caused men to “sacrifice pleasure,

repose, wealth, power, even life for the sake of preserving” property (126). Protecting

property becomes a force just as strong as hunger. Thus property imposes a force on

individuals, inhibiting their natural freedoms.

Modern man had more necessities than the savage man. For the savage, eating,

sleeping, and reproduction, were the only essential conditions for life. Once property

became a necessity, it brought along many other one. Political structures formed and thus

became a new necessity for man. The arts and sciences developed becoming a necessity

for man. Judgment, and acting within culture, become a necessity for man. Land is a

finite resource—property in general is. It is inconceivable to imagine enough of anything

 Clyde 3

to allow each man however much he wanted. A consequence of this is that with property

as a necessity, some men will always be without it. If someone has property, then it is

assumed that some will not. Though it may not seem as important as having food or

sleep, because property became a constructed necessity for man, it is equally essential.

With these superfluities seeming necessary, men had to subjugate each other in

order to obtain them. The men who were subjects always desired, and the men who were

masters were worried with protecting their property. Subjects were “obliged to receive

their substances” (120). Rousseau calls the rich vulnerable because they can lose

property. This made them “take more precautions for their own protections” (124). In

order to obtain this protection the rich men created politics to make “their adversaries

their defenders” (121). The poor who “ran towards their chains” became subjects to the

domination of the rich (122). When using the imagery of chains, Rousseau is evoking a

force that holds someone back. It is in the fabric of politics and exchange that require this

bartering of freedom. In order for politics to function, it requires that someone is

subjugated and others are not.

Relationships on subjugation perpetuate inequality. With political systems, the

poor entered chains that would maintain their status. Rousseau calls it “the utmost folly

on their part to strip themselves voluntarily” of freedom, “the only good they still

possessed” (124). The rich are able to “dispose at will what he possesses” (128). When

exchanges between the two groups occur, the only good the poor can give is liberty. The

rich can provide objects. The poor are “giving up a life” by exchanging liberty and

submitting to a life of subjugation (128). Because exchanges require giving and taking,

every exchange either makes a man richer or poorer. Every exchange based on
 Clyde 4

subjugation, then, makes man more unequal.

In order to be free, men must be equal. In society, men are “forced to compare

themselves with one another” (132). As men are not equal in society, the differences

present themselves as judgments. These judgments produced in men “some kind of

reflection” (110). This reflection was produced by men’s factually of perfectibility, which

allowed men to alter their behavior. The notion that when men are around each other,

comparison is bound to occur, demonstrates that behavior of man is constantly being

changed in a certain way. Behavior is conforming to a society. This is a force that urges

men to do something, causing them to lose their liberty. So if men can be equal, then they

can be free since this comparative force will not drive men to take certain actions. There

would be free agency, just like the savage.

The solution for inequality is being pitiful in relationships. Rousseau calls The

final sentence of the discourse states “it is contrary to the laws of nature…that a handful

of people should gorge themselves with superfluities while the hungry multitude goes in

want of necessity” (137). The original man had pity for others, a natural aversion to

witness the suffering of others. The relationship of exchange with property caused this

relationship to others to muted. Men had to subjugate each other and this is where

equality was lost. With this loss, men could not be free. The solution then, a route for

men to re-obtain equality, is by embracing this pity for others—which may require a

different understanding of property. This pity would not allow the inequality of

necessities. Whenever someone is lacking a necessity, they experience pain and so

engaging with others with pity would mean protecting their necessities. This would affect

inequality and would begin the process of freeing men from the chains of lacking
 Clyde 5

necessity.

Property has become addictive for man. The system of subjugation that arose

from ownership and protection would create a society of unequal men. This made men

lose their original freedom from outside forces such as comparison. The impact of a

paradigm shift to pitying others is that men would not be able to stand while some suffer

without necessity. When men have their needs, natural or human-constructed, and there is

no comparison to others to be made, liberty will always follow. The original savage with

few needs and few ideas was the freest—not a single force beside himself affected his

agency.