Rousseau and the paradoxes of property

Pierson, Chris

doi:10.1177/1474885112449586

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 10 publications

(8 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This formulation resolved the paradox that arises from Rousseau's critique of inequality and the nature of first possessory claims, which he advances in the Discourse on Inequality and his defence of property in The Social Contract. 42 But it did not placate the anarchists, who continued to argue, with Rousseau, that both property and slavery do 'violence to nature', 43 and they also rejected his contention that the reign of force ends where law begins.…”

Section: Private Property Domination and The 'Transformation Of Slavmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anarchism and non-domination

Kinna

Prichard

2019

Journal of Political Ideologies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article we recover the classical anarchist deployment of republican tropes of non-domination, tyranny and slavery, to expose the conservative limits of the contemporary neo-Roman republican revival. For the anarchists, the modern nation state and the institution of private property are antithetical to freedom as non-domination, acting as structural constraints to freedom rather than the means for its realisation. We reexamine the grounds of this critique to advance two arguments. First, that a commitment to either the state or private property represents an unwarranted positive moral and ethical commitment that skews the negative theory of freedom contemporary republicans seek to develop. Second, the prior moral commitment to the state renders neo-Roman republicanism fundamentally conservative. Anarchist theories of freedom as non-domination push much further than the contemporary republican revival seems to permit, opening new possibilities for institutional and constitutional innovation while remaining consistent with the core republican normative value of non-domination.

show abstract

Section: Private Property Domination and The 'Transformation Of Slavmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anarchism and non-domination

Kinna

Prichard

2019

Journal of Political Ideologies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Others, of course, have argued that Emile is a natural man in civil society and noticed that a large part of the book is devoted to learning independence in commercial society (Bachofen ; Bloom ; Cooper , 62; Melzer ). The recent renewal of interest for Rousseau's economic thought (Friden ; Hanley ; Neuhouser ; Pierson ; Spector ) has also greatly improved our understanding of Rousseau's theory of property and inequality and his views on commercial society. Yet much of this attention is focused on other economic texts (e.g., Discourse on Political Economy ; Hanley ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The question of property in Rousseau is too complex to be adequately treated in this article. For further analysis, see Spector (), Pierson (), and Peled ().…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rousseau on Freedom in Commercial Society

Rousselière

2015

American J Political Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rousseau consistently declares that commercial society prevents us from being free because it makes us dependent on others and on endless desires in ways we cannot control. Yet, in Emile, Rousseau makes the surprising claim that it is possible for an elite to be free in commercial society. This possibility reveals a third way between the model of man and of citizen, that is, the model of natural man in society. I argue that it provides an original way of resisting dependence through a combination of distance from corrupt values and adaptation to the mechanisms of the economic market. Emile's ultimate function, however, is critical in addition to being practical and pedagogical. By following Emile's experiences, the reader learns the unbearably high cost of commercial society: Freedom within it is impoverished and available only to the few.

show abstract

“…On Wollstonecraft in relation to Rousseau and property, see Taylor , chapter 1. On Rousseau and property, see Pierson . Pierson does not refer to Wollstonecraft but is useful for tracing Rousseau's influence on her.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…James Tully claims that Locke saw property as a political construct (Tully ). See Waldron ; ; and Wood for opposing views, and Pierson on Locke and Rousseau.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mary Wollstonecraft's Feminist Critique of Property: On Becoming a Thief from Principle

Halldenius¹

2014

Hypatia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The scholarship on Mary Wollstonecraft (1759–1797) is divided concerning her views on women's role in public life, property rights, and distribution of wealth. Her critique of inequality of wealth is undisputed, but is it a complaint only of inequality or does it strike more forcefully at the institution of property? The argument in this article is that Wollstonecraft's feminism is partly defined by a radical critique of property, intertwined with her conception of rights. Dissociating herself from the conceptualization of rights in terms of self‐ownership, she casts economic independence—a necessary political criterion for personal freedom—in terms of fair reward for work, not ownership. Her critique of property moves beyond issues of redistribution to a feminist appraisal of a property structure that turns people into either owners or owned, rights‐holders or things acquired. The main characters in Wollstonecraft's last novel—Maria, who is rich but has nothing, and Jemima, who steals as a matter of principle—illustrate the commodification of women in a society where even rights are regarded as possessions.

show abstract

Rousseau and the paradoxes of property

Cited by 11 publications

References 10 publications

Anarchism and non-domination

Anarchism and non-domination

Rousseau on Freedom in Commercial Society

Mary Wollstonecraft's Feminist Critique of Property: On Becoming a Thief from Principle

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About