Rousseau (I) A Duty to Know
Because I was born a citizen of a free state and a member of its sovereign body, the very right to vote imposes on me the duty to instruct myself in public affairs, however little my voice may have in them.
Rousseau’s Social Contract asks how can we be free in society – what government do we need? His answers, the questions he raises, are for the most part very interesting and still relevant today. That said, he was writing for a pre-state capitalist audience; reflected in his long excursions into antiquity, and the fashionable classicism of the time.
This important book highlights what is special about a great thinker – the quality of his insights. Many of the arguments are false; made so by later social changes. Nevertheless, even if the facts have changed the penetrating observations remain, raising new questions for our time. Thus when we read Rousseau, as with any great work, we must interpret him within the different social context of today. If we do that, he is no longer a ‘classic’ to be kept in the museum, an exotic specimen for worship and school trips.
Let’s take the quote above.
It is a profound statement. Yet in today’s democracy it sounds somewhat odd. After all, why waste time on public affairs when the pursuit of private profit, the enhancement of private interests, are the goals now. Goals reflected in our public institutions, like the media.
In many ways we have lost ground since the 18th century. Think of the successful PR campaigns by the corporations, the narrow spectrum of mainstream opinion, and the concentration of power and wealth. While the countervailing forces that rose to fight these, the mass left wing parties and trade unions, have been severely weakened.
In some respects the opportunities to instruct ourselves in public affairs have become easier – better education and access to more information. But this must be seen within a wider context: the propaganda more extensive, the societal conditioning more advanced. For over generations we have been trained to accept the rules of state capitalism and representative democracy.
Rousseau’s statement, which should form the opening statement of any political education, assumes a free man with free access to information; it suggests that to know about public affairs is easy. It is not so simple. Today we need to create this free man, by fighting the corporations, widening public opinion, and by creating institutions which provide the education, to allow a person to understand the public realm. For state education itself is changing - its content making it harder for people to intelligently engage with social questions.
How, in the large states, governed by multi-national institutions (something that Rousseau could not have envisaged), do you give someone the sense that they should spend their free time on public affairs? After all, it’s a waste of time, isn’t it? I mean it isn’t going to change anything. Especially when you consider the amount of work needed to get past the official versions (Chomsky: you come home from work do really want to do a research project?).
How do you make it important to the person on the street? For in order to act, and act well, you first have to understand…. You also need the energy to so. Modern life takes it away – the fanaticism of work itself prevents understanding. One answer is to spend less time at work and more time on public affairs. For many years this was understood, but seems have vanished as a practical option.
To create new institutions, and to change the idea of work – not merely for this or that company, but for the community - here's a manifesto for the future! Here’s Kropotkin:
…overwork is repulsive to human nature – not work. Overwork for supplying the few with luxury – not work for the well-being of all. Work, labor, is a physiological necessity, a necessity of spending accumulated bodily energy, a necessity which is health and life itself.
Rousseau’s Social Contract asks how can we be free in society – what government do we need? His answers, the questions he raises, are for the most part very interesting and still relevant today. That said, he was writing for a pre-state capitalist audience; reflected in his long excursions into antiquity, and the fashionable classicism of the time.
This important book highlights what is special about a great thinker – the quality of his insights. Many of the arguments are false; made so by later social changes. Nevertheless, even if the facts have changed the penetrating observations remain, raising new questions for our time. Thus when we read Rousseau, as with any great work, we must interpret him within the different social context of today. If we do that, he is no longer a ‘classic’ to be kept in the museum, an exotic specimen for worship and school trips.
Let’s take the quote above.
It is a profound statement. Yet in today’s democracy it sounds somewhat odd. After all, why waste time on public affairs when the pursuit of private profit, the enhancement of private interests, are the goals now. Goals reflected in our public institutions, like the media.
In many ways we have lost ground since the 18th century. Think of the successful PR campaigns by the corporations, the narrow spectrum of mainstream opinion, and the concentration of power and wealth. While the countervailing forces that rose to fight these, the mass left wing parties and trade unions, have been severely weakened.
In some respects the opportunities to instruct ourselves in public affairs have become easier – better education and access to more information. But this must be seen within a wider context: the propaganda more extensive, the societal conditioning more advanced. For over generations we have been trained to accept the rules of state capitalism and representative democracy.
Rousseau’s statement, which should form the opening statement of any political education, assumes a free man with free access to information; it suggests that to know about public affairs is easy. It is not so simple. Today we need to create this free man, by fighting the corporations, widening public opinion, and by creating institutions which provide the education, to allow a person to understand the public realm. For state education itself is changing - its content making it harder for people to intelligently engage with social questions.
How, in the large states, governed by multi-national institutions (something that Rousseau could not have envisaged), do you give someone the sense that they should spend their free time on public affairs? After all, it’s a waste of time, isn’t it? I mean it isn’t going to change anything. Especially when you consider the amount of work needed to get past the official versions (Chomsky: you come home from work do really want to do a research project?).
How do you make it important to the person on the street? For in order to act, and act well, you first have to understand…. You also need the energy to so. Modern life takes it away – the fanaticism of work itself prevents understanding. One answer is to spend less time at work and more time on public affairs. For many years this was understood, but seems have vanished as a practical option.
To create new institutions, and to change the idea of work – not merely for this or that company, but for the community - here's a manifesto for the future! Here’s Kropotkin:
…overwork is repulsive to human nature – not work. Overwork for supplying the few with luxury – not work for the well-being of all. Work, labor, is a physiological necessity, a necessity of spending accumulated bodily energy, a necessity which is health and life itself.
Comments
Post a Comment