JJR: yeah, you know me

Before I begin, I would like to apologize for the egregious spelling/grammar errors that appeared in my last post. I mistakenly published non-spell checked text. This is not to say that my spell-checked posts contain excellent spelling and grammar.

Anyway, Rousseau.

Something that is really interesting to me, but we did not touch on at all in class is the distinction that Rousseau makes between the physical control over the citizen's body and ideological control over the citizen's thoughts.

"The strongest is never strong enough to be master all the time, unless he transforms force into right and obedience into duty." (143)

Up until this point in the class, all* the thinker that we have been reading have left the hole that a government rightfully rules, if a government continues to rule. Here Rousseau asserts that the master's physical control must be back by a “right” claim. The material domination of the government must be back by a construction of "right," but that construction of right is not necessarily the way that right, according to Rousseau, should be understood.

Rousseau makes a distinction between the "right"of the collective will, Rousseau's sovereign, and the "right" of the government. "We have two distinct moral persons, namely the government and the sovereign." (181, top)

This is different from Locke**, Hobbes, and Machiavelli, all of whom conflate the sovereign and the collective will--arguing that the sovereign is the manifestation of that general will. Rouseau argues that the government's "right" can be merely a mechanism of control (see 143).

But, you say, Machiavelli spoke of domination using the customs of the dominated to rule, Hobbes wrote about the importance of language and its usage--that "truth is the right ordering of words". So, how then can one claim that Rousseau is unique in his understanding of the use of vocabulary to control?

Rousseau is unique in pointing-out that the construction of "right" and "duty" are instruments of power that and are not necessarily the "right" and "duty" of the people. Machiavelli's observation is broader; it deals with the adoption of customs to aid domination, not the construction of a concept to dominate. Hobbes is merely concerned with keeping to precise language as to not obscure the truth.

Rousseau is concerned with the creation of an understanding; a particular understanding of “right” and "duty.” again, "The strongest is never strong enough to be master all the time, unless he transforms force into right and obedience into duty."(143)

In sum, Rousseau contributes to the literature by pointing out that the conception of "right" as an extension of "force" is faulty "let us agree that force does not bring about right."

It think this is particularly interesting, this transformation of “force” into “right,” when combined with Rousseau's observation that society lifts a mans soul out of ignorance, but often beats that soul down to a place that is worse then the state of nature.

I find this interesting because when you combine the two concepts, "right" as an extension of "force" and the society's creation and repression of a mans soul--you get a sort of primitive conception of Foucault's Knowledge/Power relationship.

"There is no power relation with out the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge [in Rousseau’s case “right”]...the soul inhibits him and brings him into existence..."(D & P 27-30) Of course there are quite a few theoretical break throughs between Rousseau and Foucault (ie Heidegger), but the foundation of the concepts of power and knowledge and the soul are there.

OK, now on to something more straight forward.

Elizabeth argued in her blog that Rousseau’s vision for how political society should be organized would come in conflict with such concepts as economies of scale.

I disagree.

First, Rousseau was writing before a time when economies of scale had really developed into a concept—a few years after Rousseau the idea of diminishing marginal returns would come to light.

Second, I do not see why small governance structures would not be able gain a comparative advantage is certain sectors and trade with each other.

In fact, a more Rousseauian world may even increase productivity.

In present times, and since the dawn of capitalism, production has been inefficient, not because of lack of economies of scale, but because an unproductive class of owners that has possession of the means of production and can charge workers outrageous rents (I know that that this claim has an underlying normative assumption, but I am not that post-enlightenment) to work. In situations where factory workers have been able to democratize the work place, oust the inefficient bosses, and produce without the extortions of the owner class, production has been more efficient.

So I think that Rousseau may be on to something there.

*With the possible exception of Thucydidies--I think the jury is out on this one and would welcome comments.

** Locke asserts that a revolution is just when it is successful.