that Locke is proposing there is always room for abuse as well as the right to resist and, thus,
moderation or even compromise is deemed necessary. In the bottom line, the Lockean model
is a liberal capitalist one and capitalism’s main argument for its leg itimacy is that it channels
man’s natural competitiveness into the market, making it, supposedly, healthier.
With Rousseau, things are somewhat different since he presents his political thought
seemingly separated from his understanding of human nature. Nevertheless, its notion
remains equally central both to his assessment of the current state of man and to his social
contact theory. Rousseau’s state of nature is understood as a primitive, pre -political and
asocial state which is much different to what Hobbes or Locke are describing. However, the
relation between this state of nature as is described in the first part of the Second Discourse
and the subsequent one in the second part where he accounts for the appearance of pre-
political social practices is very obscure. 13 Nonetheless, it is that initial ‘pure state of nature’
that is central to Rousseau’s theoretical system. For Rousseau, man in his original natural
condition is equated with an animal that possesses physical passions associated with survival
and reproduction but lacks any social, moral, and rational faculties. The absence of these
faculties enabled humans to live a solitary and peaceful life. Solitary because although no one
can deny the natural sexual urges ‘In the primitive state…Males and females united
fortuitously, depending on encounter, occasion, and desire…they left each other with the
same ease’. 14 Therefore, there is a dichotomy between this physical human in its pure form
and the moral human which has passions and needs associated with the interaction and
conscious regard for other fellow humans, hence, with society.
13 Peter J. Steinberger, ‘Hobbes, Rousseau and the Modern Conception of the State’, The Journal of Politics, 70.3 (2008), 595-611 (p. 597). 14 Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The First and Second Discourses , Trans. Roger D. and Judith R. Masters, (New York: St. Martin's, 1964), pp 120-121.
29
Made with FlippingBook HTML5