Texts:1974 Rousseau and the Dilemma of Authority: Difference between revisions
Created page with "__NOTITLE__ {{Setup|tick=Texts}} <div class="cent"> <h1>Rousseau and the Dilemma of Authority</h1> <h3>by Robbie McClintock</h3> <blockquote>Published in the <i>History of Education Quarterly</i>, Vol. XIV, No. 3, Fall 1974, pp. 309-333.</blockquote> </div><div class="nums"> <p>In reflecting on Rousseau and authority, one should face first the perennial problem of Rousseau's own authority. Many reject the thoughts because they reprove the thinker. Rousseau celebrate..." |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
<p>All this does not ipso facto establish the authority of Rousseau, but it does raise some doubts about the <i>ad hominem</i> effort to undercut it. If the work should have any authority it should have it by virtue of the superior meaning of its arguments. Whether the origin of Rousseau's thought was in rigor or in self-indulgence tells us little about the meaning of his arguments. Even if Bantock is right about Rousseau's character, it is not a decisive mark against Rousseau's ideas. Our tradition is rich in carefully wrought stupidities and in profound but off-hand truths. Although we can soundly judge a thinker by his thought, we cannot so well judge the thought by its thinker. Hence the problem of Rousseau's authority is best put off until the end when we are ready to judge the man by his work, not the work by the man.</p> | <p>All this does not ipso facto establish the authority of Rousseau, but it does raise some doubts about the <i>ad hominem</i> effort to undercut it. If the work should have any authority it should have it by virtue of the superior meaning of its arguments. Whether the origin of Rousseau's thought was in rigor or in self-indulgence tells us little about the meaning of his arguments. Even if Bantock is right about Rousseau's character, it is not a decisive mark against Rousseau's ideas. Our tradition is rich in carefully wrought stupidities and in profound but off-hand truths. Although we can soundly judge a thinker by his thought, we cannot so well judge the thought by its thinker. Hence the problem of Rousseau's authority is best put off until the end when we are ready to judge the man by his work, not the work by the man.</p> | ||
< | <h3>Rousseau and the modalities of authority</h3> | ||
<p>Throughout his work Rousseau reflected on authority. In his personal experience, he repeatedly had to face conflicts with authority in one or another form, and in his writing, he made the effort to understand authority one of its great unifying themes. He thought about diverse forms of authority personal, political, social, and pedagogical authority.<ref>Judith N. Shklar has examined the various forms of authority in Rousseau's work very well and I am much indebted to her essay, "Rousseau's Images of Authority"(1964) reprinted in Maurice Cranston and Richard S. Peters, eds., <i>Hobbes and Rousseau: A Collection of Critical Essays</i> (Garden City, 1972), pp. 333-365, and to her book, <i>Men and Citizens: A Study of Rousseau's Social Theory</i>, (Cambridge, 1969).</ref> Further, each form could be considered according to two modalities, which might be called the descriptive, or authority as it is, and the formative, or authority as it ought to be. For understanding Rousseau, it is much more important to explore these modalities of authority than to concentrate on its forms, for when the modalities are properly taken into account, the distinction between the forms diminishes greatly in significance and Rousseau can be seen to have had a remarkably unified, consistent conception of authority running through his work.</p> | <p>Throughout his work Rousseau reflected on authority. In his personal experience, he repeatedly had to face conflicts with authority in one or another form, and in his writing, he made the effort to understand authority one of its great unifying themes. He thought about diverse forms of authority personal, political, social, and pedagogical authority.<ref>Judith N. Shklar has examined the various forms of authority in Rousseau's work very well and I am much indebted to her essay, "Rousseau's Images of Authority"(1964) reprinted in Maurice Cranston and Richard S. Peters, eds., <i>Hobbes and Rousseau: A Collection of Critical Essays</i> (Garden City, 1972), pp. 333-365, and to her book, <i>Men and Citizens: A Study of Rousseau's Social Theory</i>, (Cambridge, 1969).</ref> Further, each form could be considered according to two modalities, which might be called the descriptive, or authority as it is, and the formative, or authority as it ought to be. For understanding Rousseau, it is much more important to explore these modalities of authority than to concentrate on its forms, for when the modalities are properly taken into account, the distinction between the forms diminishes greatly in significance and Rousseau can be seen to have had a remarkably unified, consistent conception of authority running through his work.</p> | ||