In the following paper, we will be assessing and demonstrating an argument that has been brought forward by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his novel entitled, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. This will be concerning whether or not Rousseau is right in his argument that striving for excellence or improvement is a negative feature, responsible for the ills of society. In order to reach a conclusion for the given question, I will begin by analyzing his idea of “perfectibility” and considering whether it is a strong and valid stance for Rousseau to take on the issue. Various arguments will be proposed in order to demonstrate why I support the claim Rousseau makes regarding how striving for excellence can be a negative feature in society. In order to further analyze this stance, we will look into how Rousseau believes the state of nature was before civilization took place. According to him, the time when civilization began, is when inequality, class systems and competitiveness erupted, therefore leading to the downfall of society. By comparing Rousseau’s view on the state of nature to another theorist it will further clarify his strong opinion regarding the original state. Another argument will be concerning, why the continuous ambition of humans can often lead to unhappiness and a personal downfall. By referencing a scenario regarding the guardian/child relationship concerning when the mentality of desire for more can in fact go wrong, it illustrates how this ambition can have long term effects on not only society, but individuals. This also proves how this societal norm is enstilled in individuals from a young age. I will also question whether this pattern regarding the constant need for more, that is deeply rooted in society will ever change in a positively effective way.
To begin, I will be analyzing Rousseau’s idea of “perfectibility” and how he explains it to be. In the theory of perfectibility, Rousseau says that “the faculty of self-perfection, a faculty which, with the aid of circumstances, successively develops all others, and resides among us as much in the species as in the individual” (Rousseau, 25). In other words, Rousseau believes that this idea of perfectibility is responsible for mans misfortune. He believes that it is an aspect which has negatively impacted society since civilization took place. It is a feature in which individuals strive to achieve more in order to reach what society deems the “perfect life”. This has created the mentality for people to always want more and to strive in order to achieve as much as possible. Rousseau explains how the freedom of choices and possibilities for humans are limitless, which as a result leave room for both positive and negative habits. As a result, “this uncertain power of freedom has turned the human being into an animal destined not to contemplate eternal truths, but rather to grapple in ever-changing ways with ever-changing circumstances…producing a unique and potentially agonizing history” (Rousseau, xv). By this, Rousseau is explaining that with the continuous changes in society, individuals are continuously wanting more, and what is considered to be the best. As a result this can cause competitiveness between individuals, as well as class divisions, and unhappiness. The more that we own, ‘the more of an attachment we form towards these things’. Without this attachment, the feeling of loss would be foreign to us, and therefore we would not constantly be worried about losing things.
In this first argument, I will be discussing Rousseau’s position and theory on the state of nature before civilization took place, in order to further demonstrate the large amount of corruption present in today’s society. To prove this, I will be comparing Rousseau’s beliefs concerning the original state of nature, to Thomas Hobbes beliefs regarding this. Before civilization took place, Rousseau believes that individuals were “inherently good”. He explains human beings before civilization took place to be, “untouched by culture, still blissfully ignorant of his own “perfectibility”, as a creature of unconscious freedom and perfect innocence…living only in the present, untroubled by any memory of the past, uninterested in what might happen in the future, peacefully at one with his world” (Rousseau, xvi). This meaning that, human beings were peaceful and unbothered by other things going on in the world. They were unconcerned with material wealth, and property as opposed to modern society. Rousseau explains how after civilization occurred, inequality was a lasting result. The constant want for excellence became apparent. Along with new inventions being created, and property becoming available for ownership came inequality, which caused this selfish feature to grow within human beings. However, this continuous want for new creations and goods, is something that most of society is guilty of. There are many people living their lives with far less goods than others, and who barely have the means they need in order to survive. If there was not a constant want for material wealth, then this situation would not be such a concerning issue in the world. There is a great divide between those who are living with barely anything, and those with such a large amount of wealth that they use it for unnecessary purposes. If Rousseau’s state of nature was still present in today’s society, then the issues of inequality, class systems and competitiveness in terms of living situations, personal qualities and wealth, would not play such a prominent role. People would not be concerned with these unimportant aspects of life which as a result, would make individuals much happier, and unafraid of the loss of success or material items.
To counter-argue Rousseau’s idea of the original state of nature, I will now raise Thomas Hobbes view as an objection. In Hobbes view, he would argue that human beings are, “naturally intrepid and seeks only to attack and to fight” (Rousseau, 20). By this he means that in his opinion, man is naturally evil and prone to violence and fighting. However, to this Rousseau would explain how if human beings were inherently bad, they would not experience the feeling of pity, which he argues plays a prominent role in the original state. Rousseau says, “granting to man the only natural virtue, which the most passionate detractor of human virtues could not deny him, I mean that of pity” (Rousseau, 20). Rousseau argues this by saying that individuals in their natural state would be ‘happy and feel empathy for those who are suffering’. He believes that Hobbes’ description would better fit the state of nature ‘after civilization took place’.
In this next argument, I will argue the reasoning as to why human kind’s continuous ambition and their continuous strive for success, often leads to downfall and unhappiness. In many cases, human beings witness individuals and their peers surrounding them being successful and having a great deal of material goods, which they may possibly want for themselves as well. This is also a common instance in terms of qualities that we wish to possess. If this is unattainable for the given individual, it can in turn cause people to be unsatisfied with their own lifestyle, and to wish that they had more. Seeing another person with the qualities that you wish to possess or the lifestyle you want to live, can create competition, as well as a division amongst them. Rousseau demonstrates the extreme division and inequality within society by giving some ways in which it occurs, “the extreme inequality in our lifestyle: excessive idleness among some, excessive labour among others…” (Rousseau, 22). The competition that occurs regarding material goods, property, and success between individuals as a result of this, often creates a large amount of unhappiness. The pressure to constantly achieve more and do more with your life, in order to reach the goals you have aspired for, and to secure all of the material goods you wish to have, creates unattainable standards for individual’s to reach. This is about believing that material goods and a successful career, as well as other aspects of your life, can create happiness, while instead they are contributing to the significant downfall of society. If human beings were satisfied with only what is essential in order to live a good and healthy life, as opposed to comparing themselves and their lifestyles to others, this want and need for more material goods and success would not be necessary or such a large priority. This internal and external pressure to always want more and not to settle, is the kind of mentality that can also at times cause individuals to become selfish and unhappy. In addition, it creates competitiveness and class systems within society, which is something that Rousseau believes would not have occurred before the civilization of human beings took place.
A scenario that will be used in order to demonstrate the negative effects that too much ambition and pressure regarding the strive for success can have is involving the guardian/child relationship. The amount of pressure placed on children by parents or guardians from a young age can enstill this mentality early on in their lives, and have an overwhelming impact on how they adapt when they fall short of perfection. An article written by, Madeline Levine explains how, “privileged adolescents are experiencing epidemic rates of depression, anxiety disorders, and substance abuse… materialism, pressure to achieve, perfectionism, disconnection–are combining to create a crisis in America's culture of affluence” (Levine). Many parents teach their children from a young age that in order to be happy in life you must be successful, you must achieve perfection, and always strive to do better and get more. Placing in their minds the idea that if perfection is not achieved then they will be unhappy. This can create a ‘great downfall and large amount of unhappiness within the individual’ (Levine). Looking at this relationship, is an important way to assist in recognizing the negative impact that this added pressure can have on an individual’s life and future. It creates the mentality from a young age that nothing is ever good enough, and that you always need to achieve and get more in life, in order to be happy and successful.
The amount of pressure that the parent/guardian places on their child can also contribute to the class division, and competitiveness within society. If civilization did not occur, people would not be so concerned with achieving more, and becoming successful in order to be happy. Civilization created competitiveness related to jobs, material wealth, and property which contributes to the class division present. If parents teach their children that they need to be the best and achieve perfectibility, this will enstil competitiveness to do better than others from a young age.
I will now discuss another objection that someone could make concerning Rousseau’s negative opinion on striving to achieve excellence and improvement. This being, that many could argue that the strive for excellence in order to better your life in the future should be considered a good thing. Despite the fact that this could be positive to a certain extent, it can at times reach an excessive amount. By consistently wanting more no matter how much you have or the position you are in, it can create downfall when certain things are not attainable. Rousseau would argue that this is the mentality which is creating competitiveness and class systems within our society. If civilization did not occur then class divisions would be non-existent. As a result, we would then be considered happier. Also, without being competitive regarding personal features we would in turn have no reason to try and outdo other individuals. Therefore, eliminating the amount of stress and pressure on individuals to be as successful as possible.
In this final argument, I will be questioning whether or not there is a way to possibly end or change the pattern of constant want for excellence and improvement. Without this want for improvement, there would be a large effect on the amount of happiness present in society, that is also very common in successful people. Due to the fact, that this has been a norm within society for an extremely long time, it would be very difficult to break this trend. This would not be attainable on a large-scale due to the fact that it is so common, and many individuals naturally do this without even considering the consequences, and the personal impact that it may have. Due to the common and deeply rooted belief that you need to be successful in life, and earn a large amount of money in order to be happy, this is not going to be a trend that ever ends. With the creation and production of new inventions to ‘better society’, there is always going to be a want for the newest thing, because it is considered to be the best.
Therefore, when raising the question of, whether Rousseau is right to argue that striving for excellence or improvement is a negative feature, that is responsible for the ills of society, we can conclude that this stance is a strong one to support. By agreeing with this statement and providing the given arguments, we notice that Rousseau’s view on “perfectibility” and striving for excellence is a deeply rooted ideal of society that can have negative impacts. From the objections that arose and were discussed, we notice that without this aspect of human life, there is good reason to believe that human beings would be much more satisfied. Unfortunately, as discussed there is not a likely chance that this trend will ever change due to the fact that it is now a natural thing that people do, and has been taught to many children from a young age. Despite the fact that the amount of stress present in individuals would likely decrease without this want for more, it is not realistic to believe that it would happen on a large scale in an effective way. In conclusion, these arguments support the reasoning behind why I support Rousseau’s view on perfectibility and why it is indeed correct.