The Social Contract

“Men are born free, yet everywhere are in chains.”- Rousseau 

In continuation with Montaigne and his colonial text, Jean-Jacques Rousseau also stresses on the importance of the hypothetical state of nature because he explains the benefits it has on an individual. This Privative Age reinforces manliness and independence as fruitful and romantic. However, when civil society is introduced, man changes for the worse. Colonialism operates to artificially create happiness -wants and desires- not of necessity. Civil society also creates laws and generally a leader, too. This perspective is reversed from Defoe, who viewed the state of nature as uncivilized and not corruptive. The idea here is that any stimulation of the imagination is artificial and abstracts from nature.

In A Discourse of Inequality, Rousseau diverges from the typical idea of classical Enlightenment, stating that as much a society can help a man grow it can also destroy him. Enlightenment is a philosophical movement that progresses language, and most importantly, reason between human beings.

What I found interesting about both Montaigne and Rousseau is their peeling back of history to develop their ideas about mankind and how nature became corrupted by “art”. Our contemporary ancestors lived in a hypothetical state of nature that is idolized by some, and criticized by others. Both these writers adapt a form of writing that shed light on the representation of Amerindigenes as a whole formed society and not individuals that need to be civilized.

“Redemption from sin is greater then redemption from affliction.”- Robinson Crusoe

When Friday places Crusoe’s foot upon his own head, surrendering to him, he sees him as a higher power that has the right to harm him by free will. Friday's Native resemblance, through his attire and affiliation with other cannibals, allows Crusoe to justify his ownership of Friday and his superiority in the relationship. Robinson Crusoe has been isolated for so long, he still holds a trace of Euro-centricity in his mind. 

There is no hesitation in Crusoe's body language that he strongly believes that his own being will be saved from the saving of this "savage". He is the supposed savior and liberator of the Native stranger, whom he names Friday. The naming of someone else is important in itself, because it marks a claiming structure between the two men.  This suggests the idea of racial discourse and superiority over the "savage" figure. This could possibly be connected to Crusoe’s faith in Christianity, which depicts Amerindigenes as “sub-human” or “less- blessed” than himself and other Euro-Christians. 

The Literal Protestant

There are many ways that I understand the word sacrifice. Jeptha, the play, was confusing because firstly, I had never heard of the biblical story before and secondly, I had not been introduced to many religious texts until this year. In order to understand the political conflict of human sacrifice and the taking of one’s life, I attempted to modernize the issue… What I did to relativize this lecture to my current knowledge was think about a current issue that has been a part of Canada’s legal system recently, assisted suicide and euthanasia. Currently, assisted suicide is illegal in Canada. The importance of this law is what is considered the value that society puts on human life. In Jeptha, Buchanan creates a political battle with a similar question: who has the right to take someone’s life? To support his resistance theory, he is rejecting the monarchical and paternal tyrannical powers that are formed in the story. Jeptha is represented through Christianity, where sacrificial death (like that of Iphis) was a voluntary experience of figurative atonement devoted to the worship of God. In both contexts, whether biblical or modern, rational relativism directs a pattern of ethical humanism.