Previous
Preface
Themes
Key
LitCharts assigns a color and icon to each theme in Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, which you can use to track the themes throughout the work.
Critique of the Enlightenment
Natural vs. Artificial Inequality
Morality and Self-Preservation
The Illusion of Progress
Summary
Analysis
Rousseau begins his exploration of human inequality by rejecting speculative attempts to reconstruct the physical evolution of humankind. He avoids conjectures about the primitive human form—whether humans once resembled animals, walked on all fours, or were covered in fur—and focuses instead on a hypothetical natural state where humans existed as they are today. In this state, humans were devoid of tools, language, and societal structures, relying purely on instinct and natural faculties. Rousseau argues that efforts to imagine an earlier, more animal-like form of humanity are futile because they are speculative and unsupported by evidence from comparative anatomy or natural philosophy. Thus, his inquiry assumes that primitive humans walked upright, used their hands as we do, and observed the world around them with eyes capable of surveying the vastness of nature.
While many Enlightenment thinkers sought to explain human nature through historical or biological progress, Rousseau resists this impulse, emphasizing instead a philosophical reconstruction of the past human condition. This approach aligns with his belief that civilization corrupts rather than refines humanity. His assumption that early humans resembled modern ones allows him to sidestep scientific debates and focus on the social and moral implications of inequality rather than its physical origins. This decision also contrasts with the (at the time) emerging fields of anthropology and comparative anatomy, which sought to explain human development through material evidence rather than theoretical models.
Themes
Stripping primitive humans of all acquired skills, Rousseau envisions them as simple creatures, equipped only with their natural faculties. They were less strong or agile than other animals but compensated with a balanced and versatile constitution. These humans satisfied their basic needs with minimal effort, finding sustenance under the nearest tree or by a stream and resting without concern. Nature, in its unspoiled state, provided abundantly, and humans lived among other animals, imitating their behaviors and adopting their instincts. This adaptability made humans uniquely capable of drawing sustenance from diverse sources, giving them an advantage over species limited to a single instinct or diet.
By portraying early humans as self-sufficient and naturally adapted to their surroundings, Rousseau challenges the idea that civilization represents progress. He suggests that primitive humans, rather than struggling for survival, lived in a state of ease, relying on nature’s abundance. This perspective stands in stark contrast to thinkers like Thomas Hobbes, who saw the state of nature as chaotic and violent. Rousseau’s argument reflects a Romanticized vision of pre-civilized life, reinforcing his belief that society, rather than nature, is the source of human suffering.
Themes
Primitive humans, accustomed to environmental hardships and constant exposure to danger, developed robust physiques through necessity. They endured extreme weather and defended themselves from predators without weapons or shelter. Over time, this lifestyle forged strong, resilient bodies, passing this vitality to their offspring. By contrast, civilized life, Rousseau argues, diminishes both physical and mental strength by replacing natural necessities with artificial conveniences.
Rousseau’s claim that hardship strengthened early humans directly challenges the Enlightenment ideal of progress. While many of his contemporaries believed that technological advancements improved human life, Rousseau argues that civilization has made people weaker, both physically and mentally. His belief that necessity fosters resilience suggests an admiration for simpler, self-reliant ways of life, echoing classical ideals of virtue through hardship. This argument also draws on medical theories of the time, which associated bodily health with exposure to natural elements rather than the comforts of urban life.
Themes
Rousseau highlights the physical prowess of natural humans, who relied solely on their bodies for survival. Without tools or machines, they developed extraordinary strength and agility. A primitive human could easily break a branch, throw a stone great distances, climb trees, or flee predators—all without the aids of hatchets, slings, ladders, or horses. These skills, honed through constant practice, far surpassed the abilities of civilized humans burdened by their dependence on tools. Rousseau imagines a contest between a “savage” and a civilized man: stripped of their machines, the “savage” would easily prevail due to his ability to rely entirely on his natural strength and instincts. In this natural state, humans carried their capabilities “whole and entire” with them at all times, an advantage lost in modern life.
When Rousseau was writing, the Industrial Revolution had not yet begun, but mechanization was already changing labor and daily life. Rousseau’s vision of a physically capable, independent human contrasts with emerging concerns about the effects of specialization and division of labor, concerns that would later be central to thinkers like Marx who Rousseau heavily influenced. Rousseau’s imagined contest between a “savage” and a civilized man illustrates his broader belief that human potential has been dulled by the conveniences of modern society.
Themes
Get the entire Discourse on the Origin of Inequality LitChart as a printable PDF.
Addressing the natural temperament of humans, Rousseau disputes the claims of philosophers like Hobbes, who characterized humans in a state of nature as inherently aggressive and warlike. Rousseau counters that primitive humans, though cautious and timid when encountering the unfamiliar, quickly adapted to their environment. Early encounters with animals taught them to measure their own strength against potential threats. Over time, humans learned that their agility and resourcefulness often outweighed the strength of predators, and wild animals became wary of humans as formidable adversaries. For Rousseau, the mutual respect between humans and animals in this state ensured a balance in which humans were rarely preyed upon.
Rousseau’s challenge to Hobbes’s view of human nature is fundamental to his argument. Rather than seeing early humans as violent and competitive, he portrays them as cautious but ultimately peaceful. This shift has political implications, as it undermines the justification for strong, authoritarian government as a necessary check on human aggression. Instead, Rousseau suggests that war and conflict arise not from nature but from social structures. His vision of mutual respect between humans and animals also reflects an emerging awareness of the importance of ecological balance, a perspective that would later influence Romantic and environmentalist thought.
Themes
Natural infirmities, such as infancy, old age, and sickness, presented the most formidable challenges to primitive humans. Rousseau claims that while infancy and old age are universal conditions, sickness is primarily a product of civilized life. In the state of nature, humans faced few diseases and relied on their natural vigor to heal from injuries. Rousseau contrasts this with civilized societies, where medicine often treats ailments caused by the conditions of civilization: poor diets, excessive labor, and the stresses of societal life. In nature, humans rarely needed physicians because their simpler lives spared them from most illnesses. Even injured animals, Rousseau notes, recover without medical intervention, their bodies healing through time and instinct.
Rousseau’s claim that sickness is primarily a product of civilization extends his critique of progress. By attributing disease to artificial lifestyles, Rousseau anticipates later critiques of industrialization’s impact on health. His comparison to animals recovering without medical intervention supports his argument that nature provides all that is necessary for well-being. This view aligns with early criticisms of medical practices that often did more harm than good, as well as broader Enlightenment debates about whether scientific advancements actually improved human life.
Themes
Rousseau critiques the impact of social structures on human health and happiness, arguing that the inequalities of wealth and status in society exacerbate physical and mental suffering. The rich indulge in excessive consumption, while the poor face malnutrition and overwork. These disparities create a host of diseases and miseries unknown in the natural state. Rousseau suggests that these ills arise because civilization violates the natural simplicity of human life, replacing it with a system that prioritizes artificial needs over genuine well-being.
Rousseau’s attack on wealth and social inequality as causes of suffering directly challenges the economic structures of his time. The growing gap between rich and poor in 18th-century Europe, fueled by mercantilism and early capitalism, reinforced class divisions. By arguing that civilization creates artificial needs that drive misery, he presents a radical critique of economic and social hierarchies. This idea would later influence revolutionary thought, particularly in the French Revolution, where Rousseau’s writings became a key inspiration for those advocating for social and political reform.
Themes
Rousseau identifies pity as a central virtue of natural humanity. This innate sentiment tempers self-interest and fosters mutual preservation. Pity compels humans to assist others in distress, acting as an instinctual substitute for laws and moral codes. Rousseau emphasizes that this quality is most potent in the state of nature, where humans are less insulated by reason and reflection. In contrast, civilized humans are shaped by philosophy and self-interest, and they often suppress their natural compassion. Rousseau argues that pity, rather than complex moral reasoning, forms the foundation of social virtues such as generosity, clemency, and benevolence.
Rousseau’s emphasis on pity as a natural virtue offers an alternative to traditional moral philosophy. Instead of deriving morality from reason, as many Enlightenment thinkers did, Rousseau roots it in instinct and emotion. This idea challenges the dominant rationalist ethics of figures like Kant and instead aligns with later Romantic notions of emotion as a guide to moral behavior. By arguing that civilization suppresses natural compassion, Rousseau critiques the way social structures encourage selfishness, reinforcing his broader argument that inequality is an artificial condition.
Themes
Love, in its physical and moral dimensions, provides another point of contrast between natural and civilized humanity. In the natural state, love is a simple instinct directed at reproduction, devoid of the preferences and attachments seen in society. These emotional complexities, Rousseau argues, are products of civilization, where notions of beauty, taste, and exclusivity fuel jealousy and conflict. Primitive humans experienced fewer and less intense passions, leading to a more harmonious existence. Society, by cultivating desire and vanity, transformed love into a source of rivalry and misery.
Rousseau’s claim that emotional complexity leads to jealousy and conflict challenges the notion that cultural refinement improves human relationships. This perspective aligns with his critique of vanity and artificial desires, suggesting that modern notions of love are shaped by social expectations rather than genuine feeling. His ideas anticipate later psychological theories about the ways social conditioning shapes personal relationships.
Themes
Rousseau turns to the development of language, which he sees as a crucial turning point in human history. He outlines the immense difficulties involved in creating languages, from the need to establish signs for ideas to the formation of grammar and syntax. This process, requiring countless generations, fundamentally changed human interaction, enabling cooperation and the transmission of knowledge. Yet Rousseau notes that the invention of language depended on a degree of social organization that itself required communication, creating a paradox of mutual dependence. Language and society, Rousseau concludes, evolved together, each shaping the other.
Rousseau’s discussion of language as a turning point in human history highlights the paradox of civilization. By acknowledging that communication requires some level of social organization, Rousseau raises questions about how society originally formed. This paradox reflects a broader philosophical challenge: if language and society co-evolved, which came first? His argument also engages with contemporary linguistic debates, as 18th-century scholars were beginning to explore the origins of language scientifically.
Themes
Primitive humans, living in isolation and lacking the means to communicate abstract ideas, had little capacity for reflection or foresight. Their lives were confined to immediate needs, and their understanding remained static for generations. Rousseau argues that this lack of development was not a deficiency but a state of peace and contentment, free from the ambitions and anxieties of civilized life. In this context, natural inequalities had minimal impact, as humans had no need to compare themselves or compete for resources.
Rousseau’s portrayal of early humans as content despite their lack of progress challenges the Enlightenment belief in continuous advancement. He suggests that ambition and competition, not necessity, drive societal change. This idea aligns with his overall argument that inequality is a social, rather than natural, phenomenon. His vision of a peaceful, static existence contrasts with the growing emphasis on commerce and innovation in his time, reinforcing his skepticism about whether modernization truly improves human life.
Themes
Rousseau critiques the concept of natural inequality, suggesting that much of what is considered natural is actually the product of societal influences. He argues that education, environment, and lifestyle create disparities in strength and intellect, amplifying the minor differences found in nature. In the natural state, where all humans lived similarly, these inequalities were insignificant. Society, by introducing property, labor, and law, magnified these differences, creating hierarchies and dependencies unknown in the natural state.
By arguing that most inequalities are socially constructed, Rousseau undermines the justification for rigid class structures. His claim that education and environment shape human abilities challenges the idea that some people are naturally superior to others. Ultimately, Rousseau presents civilization as the root cause of inequality, challenging the assumption that societal development necessarily leads to human progress.
Themes
