A Review of Discourse on Inequality, a Book by Jean-Jacques Rousseau

“The moral part of love is an artificial sentiment, born of usage in society, and cultivated by women with much skill and care in order to establish their empire over men, and so make dominant the sex that ought to obey”. How does Rousseau explore relationships between love, gender and power in the Discourse on Inequality?

Rousseau creates a patriarchist relationship between love, gender, and power in the Discourse on Inequality. This can be easily outlined in a metaphorical triangle; placing gender at the upper peak, with power and love on the lowest two points.

Gender is at the top of the triangle where its relationship is forced to divide, because he believes that female and male are the only two genders, and are completely different in all ways except that they are both gendered human beings. The female gender thus connects to love as it seems to Rousseau that is our prime reason for existence; whilst male connects to power.

The horizontal line that connects power to love and vice versa is a relationship that women supposedly created out of deceit by using love to gain power. Rousseau’s point of view is that women are meant to be below men, but because of love they have created power for themselves over men; yet this ‘power’ holds little strength behind it. Jean-Jacques Rousseau connects love, gender, and power in relationships that promote inequality to its full potential.

To begin Rousseau claims “the question I am to examine tells me that I am going to speak to men, for such questions are not raised by those who are afraid of acknowledging truth”.

Get quality help now

KarrieWrites

Verified

Proficient in: Jean-Jacques Rousseau

5 (339)

“ KarrieWrites did such a phenomenal job on this assignment! He completed it prior to its deadline and was thorough and informative. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

When examining his proclamation, it is made unambiguous that the subject Rousseau is speaking to is male and strictly not female for their supposed fear of the truth. This statement creates an outline of the Genevan woman; timid, submissive and obedient, and lacking intelligence or curiosity. The way that Rousseau sees a woman is central to reproduction believing that she exists in the wild before civilization, solely for this and to fulfill the needs of a man. All the while there is no mention of her wellbeing during this time, yet an immense focus on the male’s life and his contentment with independence and the world he lives in.

The contentment man feels in the wild by himself, is contrasted with the “sweetest sentiments known to man, conjugal love and paternal love”. Whereas Rousseau describes how “mutual affection and liberty” were the only uniting factors therefore suggesting equality among, the previous savages of man and woman and now, family. As the couple lived together in “a rather softer life” a routine began where the woman stayed in the hut, parenting the children and cleaning up, while the man used his strength to hunt. The mere word of “soft” suggests that a life taking care of children and living in huts portrays a less intense and hardworking job, and the strict confinements and limitations to gender roles in Rousseau’s society are imminent. Rousseau does value women, and is quite amazed at some of their abilities such as walking and carrying their child at the same time, yet fits women into a small realm where there is no room to grow nor change. He likes women as he believes them to be, and no other way.

Understanding the relationship between women and power in the metaphorical triangle, it is evident that it is a very thin connection that holds only through a single element. Rousseau makes no connection of love between a male and female savage of a primitive time, and believes that reproduction is “only a purely animal act” and once “the need [is] satisfied” (p.109) the two sexes split, hardly recognizing each other again. This concept is derived from his belief that the savage man is not largely different from a beast, where romantic love is unknown and self preservation is the most important. When language and community are formed, it is where we see romantic love surface and the element holding love to power is “assuring the happiness of the other”; other being man. He states “the destiny of your sex will always be to govern ours” through “sweetness and prudence maintaining its peace and good morals”.. This statement brings the assumption that women hold power, yet when further examined we see that only women who have the desired, traditionally feminine, traits do. The diction used on page 65 where most of the Genevan woman is described is extremely sexist. Adjectives such as “precious”, “innocent”, “simple”, and “modest❞ are used, yet when talking about man or a woman who does not act correctly he uses “barbarous”, “loose” and “puerile”. The man and woman are not an equal person, yet rather have very distinct qualities that pertain to both, and when acting otherwise you are considered unworthy: as Rousseau believes.

A noteworthy quote in the Discourse on Inequality is; “happy are we so long as your chaste power, exerted solely within the marriage bond, makes itself felt only for the glory of the state and the wellbeing of the public”. This quote can solely describe a woman’s only power in Rousseau’s view; sex. Within this power there are even certain limitations, such as limiting a woman’s ability to have sex strictly after marriage and gives no indication of choice in the matter. Not only is it clear a woman’s power is limited to sex, but also to her ability to remain “chaste” until marriage. Power was a driving factor of Rousseau’s writing, believing that once one man had more than another it created power and consequentially inequality. This power can be portrayed within relationships where an individual may be better looking or stronger and thus “jealousy awakens with love”. This is a turning point in Rousseau’s writing whereas inequality is sparked and relationships are discussed and the inequality desire and advantages bring. Its questionable whether Rousseau believes that love is at fault for equality, he certainly does believe it contributed and could be the reason why he believes that the ideal society would be man only, perhaps because women bring love and lust. 

Its remarkable how Rousseau writes with an aura of flattery towards women while he describes their place in society. He degrades them through limiting their power to sex, he confines them when describing which qualities are appropriate and which are not, and he restricts them while keeping their sexual desires only towards men and only during marriage; as though men have control over a woman’s body. Although, it is understood that the population was unforgiving to bisexual, gay and lesbian tendencies, the opinion is purely unappreciated in the 21st century, and it is truly shocking that he can write, with what sounds like, praise.

Another aspect of relationships that Rousseau describes is the restraint they bring. He describes how men are the only gender who does not want commitment, yet women trap them forcing them to commit. Believing “all men are born free, but yet live in chains” is part of Rousseau’s argument, the chains refer to the constraints of society. These restraints limit independence and range from living under a master/ king, owning possessions and property, to being married. Rousseau believes a man should be independent and free, and women are holding men back from that by creating the moral part of love; marriage. “The moral part of love is an artificial sentiment, born of usage in society, and cultivated by women with much skill and care in order to establish their empire over men, and so make dominant the sex that ought to obey”.

The quote above is the clearest what a woman was to Rousseau. To start, he identifies the “moral part of love” to be marriage, and claiming it to be a fake romanticism only used in society. Although the latter is true, marriage is solely a societal aspect, the sentiment that marriage holds is true to the state, and to the two individuals who decide to unite through love. The mere thought that women have created marriage to deceive men into commitment is degrading and ultimately untrue. Marriage, which can rarely be enforced by the state but not in this circumstance, is fundamentally built upon love as two people join to celebrate and express thus.

Secondly, that women are “the sex that ought to obey” shows inequality at Rousseau’s peak, placing men above women, and portraying men as the dominant and women as the obedient. Additionally, Rousseau makes a direct connection between obedience and slavery later in his writing (cf. 134) only further pushing his discriminating views against women. Thankfully, it is made clear that Rousseau’s relationships he creates between gender, power and love do differ than those of his time; such as Voltaire who believes “women are capable of doing everything we do”. Voltaire’s questioning of why? (179) gives us faith that Rousseau’s weak connection of women to power and men’s stronger connection to power, was solely his own, and an opinion at best.

Yet any 21st century reader can see the irony in that while he was searching for the answer of when inequality began; he was enforcing and creating inequality around him. His opinion on woman’s sexual intercourse, body rights and abilities is how Rousseau explores the connections of love, gender and power in the Discourse on Inequality. He explores these concepts through inequality; rather than equality which would change his opinion immensely on the topics. As mentioned earlier, although Rousseau remains a remarkable writer and was certainly a critical thinker, he does not represent the mass of men in the 18th century and that is critical to remember while reading Rousseau’s work. He applied his views on inequality and likewise power towards women and leaves the Genevan woman with little control over her own actions and behaviour, all the while maintaining an intelligent and thought through front. His closemindedness creates relationships between love, power and gender that are incomplete and struggling, and how he comes to his conclusions on these relationships is even more jaded.