Note: this is part 1 of my review of Rousseau’s Discourse on the Origin of Inequality (1754)

Rousseau’s Discourse begins with a “Dedication to the Republic of Geneva” signed by none other than “J. J. Rousseau” himself and dated 12 June 1754 (and postmarked, so to speak, from Chambéry, a small Alpine town in southeast France). Rousseau’s dedication to his hometown is relatively brief and obsequious, consisting of only 23 paragraphs — with just about every single one of them heaping almost unbridled adulation on his fellow Genevans — so much so that one is left wondering what the true level of Rousseau’s sincerity is! Despite its brevity and fawning nature, Rousseau’s dedication is worth reading on its own merits because the Swiss author introduces two important puzzles or topics in this part of the Discourse:

1. The problem of constitutional design: what is the optimal level of democracy, and what is the optimal political unit, a small city-state or a large nation-state?
2. The problem of luxury markets: what is the relation between the pursuit of luxury and male virtue (and, I might add, between luxury and female chastity)?

For starters, Rousseau’s ideal political constitution consists of a small city-state in which “all the individuals [are] well known to one another” (Para. 2) and in which strict procedural limits are placed on democracy. By way of example, although Rousseau prefers a small city-state in which “the right of legislation [is] vested in all the citizens” (Para. 8), at the same time he would limit this law-making power, allowing only the magistrates to propose new legislation: “each man should not be at liberty to propose new laws at pleasure; [instead] this right should belong exclusively to the magistrates” (Para. 9). As such, my first question for Rousseau is this: who are these magistrates? Are they judges? The chief executive? Or someone else entirely? Also, how are they appointed, and why should we trust them?

The other important topic introduced in the dedication is the problem of luxury. Rousseau not only rails against the “vanities of luxury” (Para. 20); he specifically decries “the grandeur of palaces, the beauty of equipages, sumptuous furniture, the pomp of public entertainments, and all the refinements of luxury and effeminacy” (Para. 22). In addition, he praises his fellow Genevans for their self-reliance: “You are neither so wealthy to be enervated by effeminacy … nor poor enough to require more assistance from abroad than your own industry is sufficient to procure you” (Para. 13). For Rousseau, simply put, there is an inverse relation between luxury and virtue. But this observation begs the question: how exactly does the pursuit of luxury make men more effeminate and women less chaste? That is my second question for the Swiss author.

I will now conclude this post with one last question for Rousseau: dude, why are you so damn paranoid?! Specifically, why do you adopt such a sinister tone towards the end, where you write, “Beware particularly, as the last piece of advice I shall give you, of sinister constructions and venemous rumours, the secret motives of which are often more dangerous that the actions at which they are levelled” (Para. 15). What in the hell is Rousseau talking about here, and why does his warning sound so ominous?!