Instinct and Intimacy: Political Philosophy and Autobiography in Rousseau

Leonard Adams is a professor of French Studies at the University of
Guelph.

More than 200 years after entering the arena of political polemic,
Jean-Jacques Rousseau remains a focus of continuing debate. Labels
attached to him range from “simplistic” to “psychosomatic” to
“incomprehensible.” Margaret Ogrodnick’s new study represents one
more link in the chain of conflicting opinions and evaluations of
Rousseau that, I believe, will be played out well into the new
millennium. Ogrodnick’s main premises are that Rousseau’s philosophy
is inseparable from his personality, that Rousseau would have it no
other way, and that his autobiographical works, if properly studied,
illuminate his political works. If Ogrodnick’s meticulous analysis
examines the clichés applied to Rousseau’s self-proclaimed uniqueness
and his love of solitude, it also provides new insights into the
connection between Rousseau’s emotions and his passionate plea for
integration between the social, moral, and political needs of the
individual. The goodness of nature is never far removed from the
reasoning of those who, Rousseau hoped, would one day found the ideal
democratic state—a nation administered by compassionate,
freedom-loving, appropriately educated subjects whose norms of civility
and morality derive from the instinctual “primitive passions.”
Ogrodnick explicates the dichotomous amour de soi and amour-propre and
clearly defines the role these qualities play in society. She also takes
issue with those who dismiss Rousseau as a mere political isolationist,
prone to anachronistic ideas and therefore having little to offer to
modern thinking on the contribution the individual must make to social
life. A complete understanding of Rousseau, Ogrodnick argues, inevitably
derives from the totality of his thinking. It demands the application of
psychoanalysis to his rather paradoxical views and behavior. Ogrodnick
thus calls into question the remarks of outstanding Rousseau critics on
matters of interpretation, proposing instead a different set of
parameters of evaluation.

Formulated for the political theorist and not the general reader,
Ogrodnick’s argument is often couched in philosophical language that
demands careful attention to detail and even rereading for a full grasp
of the discourse. But the intellectual rewards are well worth the
effort.