Post-class: Rousseau

After Thursday’s class, I want to touch on two things that I’ve thought about in the interim.

First, I want to take issue with Rousseau’s claim that one can understand how good/just the government is based on population size and growth. He writes,

What is the goal of political association? It is the preservation and prosperity of its members. And what is the surest sign that they are preserved and prospering? It is their number and their population…All other things being equal, the government under which, without external means, without naturalizations, without colonies, the citizens become populous and multiply the most, is infallibly the best government (191).

This seems, to me, to be one of Rousseau’s weakest points. I know that population growth isn’t the only indicator he sees, but he seems to lobby pretty heavily for it. A primary objection is that prosperity and population growth aren’t necessarily positively correlated. One could argue that there is a negative correlation (which is more based on economics—low industrialization tends to mean higher birth rates) between the two variables. Indeed, prosperity and population size aren’t necessarily positively correlated either.

When one looks at a statistical account like the 2005 UN Human Development Report, one finds that those countries with high population growth generally don’t have what Rousseau would call ‘good governance.’ In fact, UAE, Qatar, Djibouti, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan are the top 5 in the category—not exactly a Who’s Who of good Rousseauian governments. And the world’s most populous countries, China and India, couldn’t be considered good Rousseauian governments either. (Although, I don’t think Rousseau would consider any of the world’s governments ‘good’ by his definition). To my mind (and perhaps I’m completely off base) this seems to be a fair refutation of Rousseau’s point. It may be interesting to pursue an actual statistical analysis of such a problem at some point, but I’ll leave that for another day.

Second, and more briefly, it occurs to me that there may be a correlation between Rousseau’s notion of the freedom one possesses under the general will, and the freedom promised in the Christian faith. In both cases, the abdication of oneself and one’s ‘rights’ is complete. However, one finds freedom precisely because of that abdication. As a Christian, one does not partially submit to God’s Will and experience freedom. So also in Rousseau’s system, where one experiences freedom only by consenting to be part of the general will. Just some food for thought. Have a great long weekend!

Pre-class: Rousseau

In reading Rousseau, I can't help but wonder what he would think of our structure of government in modern America. Prof. Jackson makes a good point when talking about the un-Lockeian (and in some senses Rousseauian) aspects of the US Constitution, but I think Rousseau would be rather disappointed with the way in which our government is actualized.

First, Rousseau seems to...well...hate the idea of a representative government. For him, the idea that a relatively small group can represent the general will, without being overtaken by private will, is just plain wrong.

Sovereignty cannot be represented for the same reason that it cannot be alienated. It consists essentially in the general will, and the will does not allow of being represented. It is either itself or something else; there is nothing in between. (198)

In fact, he would say that we, like the English of his day, are slaves because of our representative government (cf. 198).

Second, I think Rousseau would level heavy criticism against the enormity of the US government’s bureaucratic structure. The entirety of Book 2, Ch 2 is an argument against large bureaucracies, saying that, “the more numerous the magistrates, the weaker the government” (177). He also argues that large bureaucracies are slow and inefficient—that “the fruits of deliberation are often lost by dint of deliberation” (178). Touché.

Third, I think Rousseau would be disappointed at the exceeding power of the executive in the US governmental structure. The idea that the executive would have the power to sign executive agreements and enact binding policies without the consent even of the representatives, let alone the general will, would seemingly be anathema. I think, also, that Rousseau would be a bit uneasy at the Bush administration's application of his argument that the executive should have increased authority during times when national security is threatened.

There are more reasons rumbling around my head, but I digress for now.

A final quick observation: Rousseau’s views on Christian theology and the place of religion in civil society are markedly different than previous authors. Is this a natural progression, or were there specific reasons for the departure?