Part 1
Rousseau is already alluding to theories which Charles Darwin would later elaborate on; when discussing inequality he argues that the evolutionary changes that occurred in humans in pre-history, would not have occurred consistently across the population and that some would have benefited more than others. Much of what is said in part 1 pertains to Rousseau`s views on the nature of prehistoric man`s existence of which much will be speculation.
He is frequently cross referencing with other writers on the subject, sometimes agreeing and sometimes disagreeing with them. It is worth remembering that this was written in the mid 18th Century and would have exuded a freshness at this time. For the modern audience however there is unlikely to be any ground breaking material here. One attractive passage concerns the way in which Rousseau imagines the process by which man may have learnt to control fire; `How many times did they let their fires go out before they learnt how to rekindle them? And how many times did the knowledge of these secrets die with the one who had discovered it?`. In this build up to part 2, Rousseau suggests that at this time, man was `free` of the burdens of society and civilisation, which he will go on to site as the cause of inequality. He sees a man free from the strutting rivalry found in other animals and in a state of ignorant bliss. Personally, I find this unlikely. There would likely have been a hierarchy with dominant males as in a troop of silverback gorillas or in the group structure of male chimpanzees where a more or less linear order of dominance is observed.
Part 2
In my opinion, we now arrive at the real meat of this work. We begin with the oft-quoted `The true founder of civil society was the first man who, having enclosed a piece of land, thought of saying, `this is mine`, and came across people simple enough to believe him.` Personally I feel that in such a case, the claimant of the land in question would likely have been a dominant male with obvious implications. Rousseau also fails to make any reference to the fact that the first walls or barriers would probably have been as defences against night prowling wild animals, when citing their construction as an early portent of inequality. He goes on to suggest that as soon as man needs to combine forces and work together, that the differences in abilities between men will surface and the real inequalities be evident. Strength, talent, ambition and cunning become desirable. He later remarks on the way in which `men at the pinnacle of opulence and fortune, while the crowd below grovels in obscurity and wretchedness, it is because the former valued the things they enjoy only because others are deprived of them, and even without changing their condition, they would cease to rejoice if the people ceased to suffer.`
Rousseau refers to the rejection by some `savage` cultures of the civilised paraphernalia. `Nothing can overcome the savages` unconquerable revulsion at the prospect of embracing our morals and style of life`. and then `one reads in a thousand places that Frenchmen and other Europeans have voluntarily taken refuge among these people`. I feel this is still relevant today with regard to certain cultures facing domination from foreign `civilisers` who tend to exploit their resources.
In his `Remark about the notes`, Rousseau says `To this book I have appended some notes according to my lazy practice of working in fits and starts`. These notes are quite extensive and make up a significant part of the work. Despite the author`s casual remark that `there will be little ill done` if some chose not to read them, I personally found much of merit to be found here and would recommend their reading.
