Q: Is amour-propre part of human nature?
In The Discourse on the Origin and Foundational Inequality Among Men, Rousseau provides us with a conjectural history, setting all facts aside, as relying in nothing but nature and his own inferences to resolve what have to have happened to men in order to evolve to the place they are situated in, the place in which the inequalities he is asked to address come into being. In this exercise, Rousseau realizes that the passions that have raised inequality could not exist anywhere but in the state of society. And hence, that amour-propre is not part of human nature, as for it come about, it would be required to put men under the gaze of one another, conditions which did not take place in the state of nature, as men cared only about themselves as a matter of self-preservation, or what he would define as amour de soi-m”me. The following essay will explore this argument by first, presenting how the state of nature exposed by Rousseau would not provide the conditions for amour-propre to exist, followed by the reasons why it is only under the light of society that it can take place.
For Rousseau, in the primitive state of men, the state of nature, egocentrism as well the other passions that gave rise to amour-propre did not existed, and thus, it could not be part of the human nature. In the state of nature, men needed nothing but nature to satisfy their needs. Rousseau states: ‘I see him satisfying his hunger under an oak tree, quenching his thirst at the first stream, finding his bed at the foot of the same tree that supplied his meal; and thus, all his needs were satisfied’ (Rousseau, 2011, p. 47). Hence, the conditions for men to either be brought together through mutual needs or to regard someone other but themselves did not exist. When it came to skills, by living dispersed among the rest of the animals, man measured only but his own strength in order to surpass it (Rousseau, 2011, p.49) and, in finding his self-preservation as his sole concern, his qualities and the improvement of these had only as purpose to attack his prey, or to defend himself from becoming one (Rousseau, 2011, p.52). Man was not only his own spectator, but his own judge, leaving no space for sentiments derived from the comparisons made by regarding other men. The only sentiments he was moved by was amour de soi-m”me; the love for oneself and the source of motivation for animals to stay vigilant for their own preservation (Rousseau, 2011, p.117, note xv).
However, once men became conscious of the gaze of one another, and comparisons started to be made, the need for recognition and the desire to be regarded grew into egocentrism, and the merely reactionary and artificial sentiment of amour-propre took place (Rousseau, 2011, p.117, note xv). But in order for men to became aware of another, men would have to be brought together first, thing that could not have took place in the state of nature, but in only society. It was until only the first revolution that, when under the upheavals of the earth that broke territories apart into islands that men were forced to live together, and under the same kind of life, people grew accustomed to gather with one another. In that moment, according to Rousseau, as ‘Each one began to look at the others, and to want to be looked at himself, and public esteem had a value’ (Rousseau, 2011, p.73) the passions of vanity and egocentrism that nourish the sentiment of amour-propre came into being, as the desires of men went beyond the physical needs that once nature could provide him.
To conclude, amour-propre is not part of human nature, as the conditions for it to exist did not took place in the state of nature, the primitive state of men. For it to do so, it would have been required for men to come together and start to look and compare themselves to one another, circumstances significantly different from the ones nature offered to the solitary savage men, whose needs never went beyond the physical. In contrast, is in society, once men are forced to live together that they become aware of one another, and the passions that lead to amour-propre came to being.
Word count: 725
Bibliography:
Rousseau, J. (2011). The Basic Political Writings. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub. Co.