“Love not what you are, but what you may become”
Miguel de Cervantes (1547 – 1616) Spanish author.
“Love not what you are, but what you may become”
Miguel de Cervantes (1547 – 1616) Spanish author.
This was written as part of a University Philosophy module.
It is worth exploring Rousseau’s Amour Propre concept at the beginning of this article for the sake of clarity. Along with that, I will look at Rousseau’s argument that Amour Propre is a central impediment to the possibility of a successful democratic rule, though I will withhold my own views until later on in the article. Before arguing for my own views, I will outline Rousseau’s theory on overcoming the influence of Amour Propre. I will then argue that his view needs adjusting in light of objections raised. Just so Rousseau is fully understood, I am going to reference parts of his general political philosophy that are in direct relation to Amour Propre, and is not meant as a divergence from the topic of this article. Any use of philosophical terminology will be defined at first mention.
We can only attain a successful democratic rule under the influence of Amour Soir, or ‘self-realisation’. This term entails being influenced reasoning and by your own norms and values. Amour Soir is seen as a detachment of Amour Propre, a phrase used to refer to people who prefer adopting artificial values, ready-made by society. That is one Rousseau’s fundamental philosophical claims. How he outlines the essential criteria of Amour Soir in ‘Emile’ is by overcoming the influence of primary and secondary socialisation. Doing so will make us free, and that’s a crucial element to a successful democratic rule. His position on this topic is quite elaborate, so I intend on thoroughly examining it in light of the question.
Rousseau on democracy
To begin with, it is worth explaining Rousseau’s view on democracy, and how that relates to his contractualist theory. No Law could possibly limit the power of a Sovereign, because doing so would entail that there is a higher power than the Sovereign. To put it simply, you cannot have sovereignty over a Sovereign. Doing so implies tyranny, which is an unfavourable political climate, and putting a limit on the power of the Sovereign means maximising Amour Propre. Therefore, it follows that you cannot transfer power from one to another, it is inalienable. Not even part of the power. Because of this, it follows that society must be a democracy. And that is because society is governed by the of the majority. How this argument works is relatively intricate, so therefore I think it is worth formalising it to see how the conclusions follow on from the premises:
Premise 1) limiting the Sovereigns’ power suggests a higher power than the Sovereign.
P2) a higher power implies tyranny.
P3) tyranny moves us towards Amour Propre.
P4) we should avoid Amour Propre.
Conclusion 1) Therefore, we should not limit the power of the sovereign.
P5 1) the sovereign adheres to the will of the majority.
P6) if we limit the power of the Sovereign, then we limit the power of the sovereign.
P7) a democracy is the only solution that satisfies the will of the majority.
C2) Therefore, society must be democratic.
From this, it is clear that the conclusions follow on from the premises, which overall lends it its validity. The argument also seems rationally persuasive, and this is because the argument is made clear and logical. It is easy to be convinced by it. However, I do not think it is wholly sound. I base this on P3. It is unclear how Rousseau argues that tyranny leaves us with a state of Amour Propre. The one thing I want to achieve by pointing this out is that it is a vague premise, and more clarity is essential. However, as a principle of charity, my best interpretation would be that he meant tyranny makes Amour Propre an inevitable conclusion because it allows a shift of focus of values and allows men to “become wicked”. This interpretation follows onto p4, that Amour Propre is therefore something to avoid. P4 is an implicit argument made by Rousseau. I explicitly included it in my formalisation in order to guarantee the validity of the argument.
Essentially, Rousseau’s point is that society should be governed by the general will of the public, and that is what is meant when we use the phrase ‘justice’. It is to act in a way that is in the common interest.
The State of Nature
I have suggested in the previous section that returning to the State of Nature is something that should be avoided. I want to clarify what is meant here so we have a deeper understanding of what Rousseau meant by this. This is a relevant part of the question because the only means of achieving a successful democracy is by abandoning Amour Propre, according to Rousseau, and leaving the State of Nature is a fundamental element of doing so.
Rousseau idealised the State of Nature in a way Hobbes didn’t. Rousseau considered this state to be beautiful in that it allows freedom of the individual as there is no centralised authority that has power over you, yet that itself has its issues. The main concern being that the State of Nature limited our ability to be rational, and that by leaving the State of Nature, we can achieve greater objectives with a centralised authority and work collectively to achieve common interests, such as developing new antibiotics to fight illnesses. However, precautions must be taken upon leaving the State of Nature to avoid the influence of Amour Propre. The precautions are outlined in ‘Emile’, which I will discuss next.
But first, to answer the question, Rousseau thinks that the one central impediment to the possibility of a successful democratic rule is Amour Propre, because Amour Propre does not make us free. And democratic freedom (as a version of freedom) is a core element to the social contract.
I have briefly mentioned Rousseau’s ‘Emile’ already, but I will now elaborate on it with regards to the question of Amour Propre, something Rousseau thought best to avoid. This part of the article will focus on answering what precautions must be taken to overcome or avoid altogether the influence of Amour Propre, and therefore preserve democracy as the main form of government.
Emile’s aim is also to provide guidance in achieving ‘Amour Soir’, and again, we can interpret this to be the antonym of Amour Propre. The former refers to acts that aren’t at the expense of others, whilst the latter refers to acts that are at the expense of others. Rousseau’s romanticised view of human nature is in direct contrast with the Hobbesian view that humans are innately evil. Though for Rousseau, it is artificial greed created by society that is the root of Amour Propre. And to free ourselves from the influence of Amour Propre, we need to rethink the way people are socialised and educated throughout life, and that is exactly what Rousseau tries to do in ‘Emile’.
Rousseau writes Emile, the central character in his book, to be especially sceptical of academic institutions, including the school system, because they contribute towards the corruption of morals, and therefore allowing Amour Propre to flourish. Emile is raised to also value freethought and scepticism. This is principally the case when confronted with religious institutes, in this case, the church. Thinking critically and philosophically about religion is one method of avoiding the influence of Amour Propre, though Rousseau is quick to point out that this does not necessarily mean to abandon religion altogether. Rousseau’s philosophy seems to focus on the reconciliation between his Christianity and his academic works, so we can therefore assume that he means for Emile to be similar. This is one method of removing the influence of Amour Propre. So, if the inability to think for yourself is a symptom of Amour Propre. It entails that people tend to think in herds when influenced by it, especially confronted with political issues. Corollary to this, political parties tend to evolve that only cater to specific interests, creating an atmosphere designed for partisanship and biased voting. Through thinking independently, Rousseau argues, we can ensure the survival of democracy. In conclusion of that, one of Rousseau’s fundamental arguments is to think independently.
I would agree with Rousseau’s reasoning here. It seems intuitive to believe that thinking independently ensures a healthy democracy, but I don’t think that it’s necessarily reasonable to claim that Amour Propre is responsible for restricting us from thinking independently. I base my reasoning on experience: plenty of people’s childhoods seem nowhere near as ideal as Emile’s, and therefore Rousseau would class them as under the influence of Amour Propre. Yet a good proportion of them would still able to think independently and without any bias. Therefore I fail to see how it follows that you must have ‘herd-like’ mentality under Amour Propre, and why it is a threat to the survival of democracy.
Another big issue that Rousseau’s political philosophy raises lies in his view of an ideal education in ‘Emile’. Rousseau describes the relationship Emile has with his tutor, or “master”, and the level of influence that he has over Emile. My initial observation when reading it was just how controlled the relationship between them is. The purpose of Emile’s education is to “free” him, so to speak, but hardly ever in the text was it suggested that Emile had any freedom at all, except maybe to play outside. What I’m trying to say is that Rousseau’s ideal education has no sign of freedom, and he might have a problem with reuniting his desire for a child to be brought up as a freethinker and for his childhood to be so controlled, even from birth. It’s hard to see how Rousseau might respond, but it certainly poses as a problem for him.
 Rousseau, J. and Foxley, B. (1921). Emile, or, Education. 1st ed. London: J.M. Dent & Sons.
 By ‘primary’, I refer to the basic level of education. The education that is provided typically during infancy by guardians, specifically the values and norms associated with their social group.
 By ‘secondary’, I refer to external influences that happens later in life, such as the education system and social media.
 Shemmer, Y. (2017). Political Philosophy, week 10. First Lecture.
 Hobbes, T., Rogers, G. and Schuhmann, K. (2006). Leviathan. Bristol: Thoemmes Continuum, pp.289-97.
 Shemmer, Y. (2017). Political Philosophy, week 10. First Lecture.
 Robinson, D. and Groves, J. (2013). Introducing philosophy. 3rd ed. London: Icon Books LTD, p.85.
My name is Shannon and I am currently an ‘on the ground promoter’ working on Motherlode’s The Good Earth. That means that I am helping to spread the word to as many people as possible about this show which tours Wales in September.
Motherlode’s tagline is Tireless New Theatre, Made in Wales. I saw the last run of rehearsals for ‘The Good Earth’ at Park & Dare Theatre in Treorchy last week. I feel extremely lucky to be working to engage people in the Cardiff area and to have got the chance to watch the performance just before it went on tour to New York. I’m delighted to help spread the word about this production; the themes that it touches on evokes awareness on what has affected Wales as a country in the past and its reaction to moments of hardship. It is an important message of strength and unity, especially during a time when we seem to be so divided.
‘The Good Earth’ echoes concerns over the threat to the Welsh identity and community with its close relation to the Aberfan and Tryweryn tragedies. The play made me feel nostalgic about situations I’ve never personally experienced, and empathetic for the characters’ cause to maintain the integrity of their way of life. It reminded me of Wales’s role in modern Britain, and how drastically that has developed over the years. It was the backlash against apathetic and unjust authorities that helped to fuel the surge of Welsh nationalism that we see today.
The singing, though not appearing to be its fundamental feature, significantly intensified the mood of the play. It had a meditative effect. Kudos to the actors for managing to convey the emotions of deeply relevant issues in many Welsh communities. I am so excited to see the show alongside a Welsh audience when it returns from NYC.
The term socialisation is a common term used by sociologists, psychologists, educationalists, anthropologists and political scientist to describe the lifelong process of learning values, norms and customs of a particular society. It provides individuals with skills and understanding that is necessary for conformity and survival.
There are five main groups that are responsible for the process of socialisation, which I will separately discuss in greater depth.
The family is an example of primary socialisation, it is the earliest stage of a person’s learning about culture, for instance, how to eat with a knife and fork.
(Fact: culture is socially constructed – thus it varies from country to country. Example: Chinese culture teaches that it’s a norm to eat with chopsticks, whereas in Western countries (like the UK), children are taught to eat with a knife and fork.)
Through contact with family members, carers and other children (most likely to be siblings), the child learns basic norms and values of society. Also, what children learn varies according to social class, religion, ethnicity, and even the area in which they live. The family uses sanctions to encourage/discourage a child’s behaviour. For example, praise is given to children who say ‘please’ and ‘thank you’, whereas bad behaviour is treated with negative sanctions, such as depriving children from what they enjoy, or being put on the ‘naughty step’.
Marxist theory: the family socialises children to comply with the unjust Bourgeoisie/Proletariat class system, commonly known as the ruling and working class. So whilst more affluent families educate their children to accept power and authority, the poorer families teach theirs to accept their role in the inferior class.
Feminist Theory: many feminists argue that the family reinforces gender roles through sanctions. They believe that parents are stricter with girls, which teaches them to be more obedient, while boys’ misbehaviours are largely ignored, brushing it off with language like ‘boys will be boys’. The feminist Ann Oakley points out that gender roles are introduced at an early age through dress code and toys. For instance, the girl is encouraged to wear pink and play with dolls and toy kitchens, whereas the boys are encouraged the wear blue and play with toy cars and action figures.
School is an agent of secondary socialisation which teaches pupils the norms and values of society in a formal and informal setting.
(Formal – meaning ‘proper’, or official. In context with this subject, formal education means curriculum-based subjects, which includes geography, Welsh, maths, etc.)
(Informal – meaning ‘improper’, or unofficial. Again, in context with this subject, informal education includes the ‘hidden curriculum’ –a student subconsciously picks up of the way a teacher may act or dress, which influences them to act in a certain way).
Pupils are sanctioned by using formal and informal social control. Formal social control is generally written through school rules, and when they are broken, official sanctions are applied, i.e. expulsion, detention. If a pupil is especially noted for good behaviour or achievements, official sanctions, in this case, could possibly consist of special privileges, praise assemblies etc.
Informal social control is essentially sanctioning, but with fewer, if any, consequences. For example, a pupil is taught that speaking in class is wrong through a verbal warning by a teacher. In the same way, good behaviour is encouraged by a nod of approval from a teacher.
Generally speaking, it is argued that formal social control has a bigger impact on the pupil’s education, yet informal social control still plays an essential part in influencing the pupil into a particular lifestyle and culture.
Lastly, school educates people on an intellectual level, in contrast to the family, who teaches it on an emotional level.
Peer groups consists of members with similar backgrounds or attributes. They tend to live in the same area and attend the same schools, which proves that peer groups can play a fundamental role on socialisation because they usually spend a great deal of time together.
The most obvious and well-known associated term would be ‘peer pressure’, meaning the the individual is under pressure to look and act in a certain way in order to be socially accepted by their peers. Rejection as a sanction is usually enforced when that member fails to conform to peer pressure.
Evans and Chandler once stated that peer pressure influences children to want the latest items, like Iphones and other expensive gadgets.
Often, peer groups can form subcultures that have norms and values that differ from mainstream society. Paul Willis’s study of working-class boys from London showed that they tended to form a ‘Lad-culture’ that rejected the ‘unfair’ class system and created alternative coping strategies to deal with educational failure, for instance, misbehaviour in class. So essentially, a person’s self-esteem, background or ideologies can influence which peer group they are attracted to, whether they have a negative or positive effect on that individual.
Paid employment is a term that will play a significant role in nearly every person’s lives in our society. When a worker is new to a particular job, he/she must learn to conform to its norms, values and rules, or face (in)formal sanctions. This process is called re-socialisation.
The mass media is a very prominent agency within society. Ranging from music, the internet, television, radio, magazines, newspapers and film, it allows mass communication and globalisation from all corners of the earth. As a result of the mass media being so large, it can influence and socialise people in more ways than any other social agency.
The mass media tends to focus on the distribution of role models that can have a positive and negative effect on the way males and females think and act. Bad role models, such as Kim Kardashian, can teach girls and boys to favour their looks and to destroy their self-esteem when they compare their lives to the (unrealistic) ones of the celebrities they admire.
The mass media also teaches social norms. For instance, the media tends to condemn murderers, which subconsciously teaches that it’s wrong and undesirable to copy it. Then again, especially with the popularity with gaming, games like GTA can potentially influence people to act in a negative way. For instance, the Norwegian serial killer, Anders Breivik, was allegedly playing hours and hours of violent video games before committing his atrocious crimes. On the other hand, some dispute that video gaming was no catalyst for his actions. Anders Breivik is rightfully demonised by the media, which reinforces the point that the mass media can influence one’s moral values.