HUM 617, Rousseau, Peter Moons

Rousseau’s Views on The Corrupting Effects of Society and Technology

By Peter Moons

Jean-Jacques Rousseau's argument on the corrupting effects of society is that

these develop as people group together in ever-larger communities. Rousseau notes

that as society develops, great disparities emerge: "inequality" and "abuse of wealth"1

arise just as the rich chase money and the poor commit "brigandage."2 If these negative

manifestations of society continue, violence will result. Moreover, as governments

develop, citizens will have contempt for laws that "change daily;" they will also disfavor

evil being employed to correct actions of lesser evil.3 Additionally, Rousseau notes the

ill effects of mob rule as well as the imposition of rule and administration of civil society

by a corrupt and/or unjust leader.4 What is the solution that Rousseau recommends?

Increasing virtue and "morality" while addressing the "physical inequality" in society are

two requirements. These actions are necessary because man cannot return to the state

of nature whence he came.

In the state of nature, a healthy self- love kept man alive. Contrast this

experience with the decrease in pity in modern civilization. Rousseau does not mention

God, or His compassion, or influencing man to have compassion for others. If there is

compassion, the government is its provider. Thus, if the vanity of man in the state of

nature continues in a civilization devoid of pity, a rough form of society will ensue. This

new paradigm will combine greed by the rich and anti-social behavior by the poor,

resulting in a worsening situation. Rousseau will argue that a better civilization can
 HUM 617, Rousseau, Peter Moons
2

develop once the focus is on compassion, which will mean the government will have to

‘spread the wealth around’ through redistribution schemes; many citizens may not like

this while other will welcome such methods.

For Rousseau, technology worsens injustice. Rousseau’s economic philosophy

promotes capitalism and the division of labor in the market. Of course, this contrasts

with man in the state of nature and there are two points on technology-induced injustice.

First, on the theory side, technology will decrease the amount of labor needed by the

owners of the means of production. The result is that workers are thrown out of their

jobs and back into the vast ranks of the unemployed (and then seek new work and/or

new skills…or not).

Concurrently, technology is advancing at an exponential, not linear, rate and the

previously valuable skills held by the workers quickly pass their expiration date. The

real-world example of the injustice is that no one will hire a 55-year-old former middle

manager, whose job went to China and the profits from which went to a banker on Wall

Street. This ex-manager does not have the skills to dominate in the information age; the

economic paradigm shifted from under her feet.

Secondly, also on the theory side of Rousseau, capitalism is hyper-competitive,

and this pervades the job-market, life-styles, and socio-economic classes. The injustice

comes from the ultra-consumerism that results in capitalistic societies. People in this

environment become über-consumers, even though they may not have the money to
 HUM 617, Rousseau, Peter Moons
3

afford expensive consumer items outright, as they vainly compete for status. The

introduction of technology into this equation only makes the market economy more

selfish, surreptitiously stimulating unsustainable consumerism.

Rousseau noted the freedom that is inherent in the state of nature and this is

juxtaposed against a society that would have three factors enabling a more controlled

environment: technology, a division of labor, and a market. Technology would only

heighten the ‘man-as-cog-in-the-machine’ mindset, as Fritz Lang’s Metropolis

emphasized. The result can certainly be an increase in injustice. Thus are visible the

dialectics intrinsic in Rousseau’s philosophy: the state of nature versus modern society,

natural versus artificial, equality versus inequality, and freedom versus exploitation.

1
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1992) 53.
2
Ibid., 55.
3
Ibid., 4.
4
Ibid.