# Rousseau and Representation

## October 5th, 2020

-   "We can swap pandemic stories some other time, but needless to say, it's been hard on all of us"
    -   Dr. Kirkman's dad apparently passed away this May, and his family wasn't able to visit him because of COVID - it wasn't unexpected because he'd had Alzheimer's for some time, but it was still, obviously, hard
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-   "The true test of whether you're thinking like a philosopher is if you're able to read these seemingly-offensive passages in Rousseau, take a step back, and say, 'well, okay, but what if he is right?' You don't have to agree with him, but you should be able to take him seriously and give his arguments actual thought, and not just reject him because you're being defensive"
    -   Before we get there, though, we have to understand what Rousseau actually means

-   Book III, Chapter 15, Section 5 - "As soon as it has elected its parliament, it is enslaved. "
    -   3 million people in the U.S. have already voted, and according to Rousseau, they have exercised their one, single moment of freedom in the government before going back to the "slavery" of having to live under our representatives - and once we're under Congress, then, Rousseau thinks that we're not free at all!
    -   What Rousseau means by this is that, on his view of democracy, the Sovereign will of the gathered people is the only legitimate law-making authority, and so a single representative CANNOT legitimately make laws on behalf of a whole group of people
        -   So, Rousseau thinks the only truly "free" government is one where the ENTIRE people can vote on each law that would affect them
            -   "We'll see with Young that there are other ways of viewing what the general will is and what it's role is, and how deliberation could make sense, and we can even see that with Locke, a bit - there are contrasting views"
        -   One thing to note: in Rousseau's time, it was possible to know literally everything that was known to Western European human knowledge at the time. It was possible to LITERALLY know all the available research and works on every subject; in the early 19th century, that certainly began to change
            -   "It's been said that Goethe, the German polymath, was the last person who could be said to 'know everything' written down; since then, everyone's been forced to specialize more and more"
            -   U.S. pragmatist John Dewey addressed this in "The People and its Problems," where he argued that the old "town hall" style democracies wouldn't work anymore now that the early 1900s U.S. was a huge, complex country with modern transportation and communication technologies, and so people would HAVE to rely on experts and a "professional" civil service
                -   "For those not familiar, 'Technocracy' is a term that refers to 'rule by expert,' and the first ever proposed one was Plato's republic. Plato - the poor guy - thought philosophers would be the best rulers."
    -   An important question that comes from this: what does it mean to vote?
        -   For Rousseau, making a choice in the voting booth is the only time we're really expressing our freedom - and yet only 60% of the U.S. population votes!
            -   Remember, Rousseau thinks of "freedom" as being the ability to live under laws you choose for yourself
        -   And when we DO vote, it's often "Coke or Pepsi?" - when the questions are chosen for you, what you can vote for is often pretty limited anyway! Is that freedom?
            -   In the U.S., too, many people view voting as an inconvenience - we don't like being interrupted from our own stuff!
            -   Rousseau recognizes this; he attacks the citizens who would pay soldiers instead of going out to fight, who would "buy comfort for money," and basically says that voter apathy is one of the greatest dangers to the state

-   It's hard to imagine having a pure Rousseauvian republic nowadays, but importantly: is it right? Are laws only legitimate when all the people participate? And does that mean large countries like the U.S. can't have legitimate popular sovereignty?
    -   Rousseau also seems to assume a fairly homogenous culture; what about multicultural societies where people fundamentally disagree about what's "good"? Rousseau assumes it's possible to come to a single consensus on what's best, but what if we can't?
        -   "Our last reading, by Iris Young, tries heavily to address this"

-   Anyway, ponder those questions on voting, if the U.S. is a republic at all according to Rousseau, etc.; we'll start Book IV on Wednesday, which is a little bit of a grab-bag, but pretty good