Ideas do not spontaneously appear. People do not go to bed one night with a certain set of beliefs and wake up in the morning with a new set. The evolution of ideas is a complex process which takes place slowly over many years. It is influenced by countless individuals and always occurs within the context of a particular society. It is important to keep this fundamental precept of intellectual history in mind when discussing the transition between the Enlightenment of the eighteenth-century and the Romanticism of the nineteenth-century. This shift took many decades and involved many individuals. Perhaps the most important of these individuals was the Swiss philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. By looking at key ideas of both the Enlightenment and the Romantic Period, one can see how Rousseau served as a sort of bridge between the two ideological eras.
Let us start chronologically by briefly examining the Enlightenment and some of its core ideas. The name for this era was coined in the nineteenth-century and generally refers to the years between 1688 and 1799.[i] Key elements of this period included reliance upon reason and empirical knowledge in problem solving, and a rejection of, or at the very least a critical reevaluation of, traditional forms of politics, societal structure, religion, etc.[ii] Due to its focus on reason and empiricism, science was held in high regard during this era. It was believed that science, along with the arts, improved not only individuals but all of society as well. This belief in the perfectibility of individuals and society, led, in large part to the American and French revolutions. As we will see, even though Rousseau lived in the time of the Enlightenment and was a major participant in it, he was not entirely convinced of these core assumptions.
Now let us briefly turn our attention to Romanticism. Chronologically speaking, most historians agree to the convention that the Romantic Period occupied the years 1789 to 1832.[iii] In many ways, Romanticism began as a revolt against the ideas of the Enlightenment, a counter to them.[iv] While somewhat similar to the Enlightenment in its rejection of traditional values, the Romantic Period did not exhibit the faith in reason, science, and so-called progress as the earlier period did. This did not constitute an outright rejection of any of these things though. It was merely a statement that these were not the most important things for humanity. Romanticism championed emotions and intuition over reason, and simply a love for and appreciation of nature over science which they often saw as an unnecessary attempt to dominate and change the natural world. There was also a major focus during this time on the individual and the subjective nature and perspective of that individual.[v]
Before looking at Rousseau’s ideas, let us look very briefly at his biography. He was born in Geneva on 28 June 1712.[vi] At age sixteen, he left Geneva and began to wander throughout Europe. He eventually settled in Paris where he tried, with very little initial success, to make his way in the upper-class of Parisian society. Until about 1750 he composed plays and music, again with little success. In 1750, however, he suddenly found himself quite famous among the philosophes after his First Discourse won first place in an annual contest held by the Academy of Dijon. After this, he went on to write several other important works. One of these, Emile, contained ideas about religion some found scandalous. This forced him to flee abroad for several years before returning to France in 1770. He would remain there until his death in 1778.
Perhaps the best works to look at in order to see Rousseau’s dual nature as Enlightenment and Romantic thinker are the first and second discourses. The First Discourse was an answer to the question posed by the Academy of Dijon: “Has the restoration of the sciences and arts tended to purify morals?” In short, Rousseau’s answer to the question was “no.” In the preface to the work, Rousseau makes it clear that he understands his argument runs counter to the dominant thinking of the period stating, “I foresee that I will not easily be forgiven for the side I dared to take. Running counter to everything that men admire today….”[vii] He then goes on to make an historical examination of various civilizations such as Ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, Byzantium, and modern China in an effort to prove that each of these societies was corrupted by the arts and sciences. He argued that it was the corruption brought about by the arts and sciences that led to the problems and downfalls of these civilizations. In his examination of the arts and sciences themselves he states that not only do they lead to corruption, but, in fact, were born of it.[viii] To summarize, he claims that the arts and sciences do not help make people morally better and that they detract from the true goods of life such as patriotism, love of ones friends, and helping the less fortunate.
This is clearly not in keeping with the Age of Enlightenment. The era’s faith in reason is not totally dismissed, but its faith in progress through arts and science is deliberately attack. Whether or not his attack was a successful one is a matter for debate. He is often said to be representing in this discourse anti-Enlightenment thought, or he is anticipating the thought of the Romantic period. I think it could be argued that he is not merely anticipating it, but he is expressing and shaping it already, forty years before it becomes commonplace. He is serving as a bridge between the two eras. One can see in the preface that Rousseau was keenly aware of his future audience and believed they would be most interested in his ideas. He was, of course, correct in this.
While The First Discourse shows Rousseau’s Romantic thought, The Second Discourse shows fairly clearly his Enlightenment thought. Like his previous discourse, this one was also submitted to the contest held by the Academy of Dijon (though not so successfully.) In an essay four times the desired length, Rousseau addressed the topic of “the origin and foundations of inequality among men.[ix] Rousseau attempts to answer the topic by examining the natural state of man and the rise of civilization. The main argument he presents is that all people in their original and natural state were free. People in this natural state led simple and peaceful lives. It was through the rise of civilization, and especially through the acquisition of property, that people lost much of their freedom. He explains that people formed civil societies by entering into a sort of contract with each other. The exchanged some of their freedoms for the perceived benefits and security afford by civilization. However, there is a dark side. Rousseau writes, “All ran to meet their chains thinking they secured their freedom, for although they had enough reason to feel the advantages of a political establishment, they did not have enough experience to foresee its dangers. Those most capable of anticipating the abuses were precisely those who counted on profiting from them.”[x]
While Rousseau’s somewhat pessimistic view of civilization is not quite in keeping with the mainstream of the Enlightenment, his method of analysis is. His approach using the “state of nature” argument and his use of reason to critique society were all common to the era. His idea of the social contract which is first outlined in this work went on to be in important in both Enlightenment and Romantic thought.
In conclusion, due to the time in which he lived, Rousseau was a contributor to the Enlightenment project. One of its greatest, in fact. With his thought though, he not only contributed to it, but also to its successor and beyond. Rousseau is the bridge by which one may travel freely between the ideas of the Enlightenment and the ideas of Romanticism.
Sources:
Bromwich, David. “A Note to the Romantic Self.” Raritan 14.4 (Spring 1995).
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The First and Second Discourses. Edited by Roger D. Masters. Translated by Roger D. and Judith R. Masters. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1964.
Yolton, John W. et al. The Blackwell Companion to the Enlightenment. Oxford: Blackwell, 1991.
[i] See John W. Yolton, ed., The Blackwell Companion to The Enlightenment, (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991), 3 for more information about the dating of the Enlightenment.
[ii] Yolton, 1-9.
[iii] David Bromwich, “A Note on the Romantic Self,” Raritan 14.4 (Spring 1995), paragraph 1.
[iv] Yolton, 460-3.
[v] Bromwich, paragraph 2.
[vi] Yolton, 465-6.
[vii] Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The First and Second Discourses, ed. Roger D. Masters, translated by Roger D. and Judith R. Masters, (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1964), 33.
