However we encounter problems when people disagree over what is the best course of action to resolve a problem; Rousseau suggests that for any question society faces there is a single correct answer, yet to get to this answer people are to reason in the same way.
While some people may act in their own interests, and should be forced to agree with the general will. While others may be mis-informed and therefore disagree, Rousseau suggests they reasoned incorrectly and have false beliefs, therefore the decision they reached would not have been the one they wanted. However those who disagree not for selfish reasons but for what they believe is for the good of all given all the information available, Rousseau suggests they should also be forced to act in a way they do not want to, his assumption is that these people have reasoned incorrectly because they should come up with the same answer as everyone else.
To encourage people to follow the general will he explains why people should obey the state and by doing so they are actually free. With his opening line within the Social Contract, ‘Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains’ (Rousseau The social Contract 1762) he suggests that mans natural state is to be free; able to do what he wants whenever he wants. Yet living within a society this would seem impossible, ‘and everywhere he is in chains’, suggests man is imprisoned, these chains are not physical but constraints set upon man as laws of society, laws introduced by the general will, the wishes of all or the majority.
Rousseau explains that man can exist in two states, the state of nature and the civil state. The state of nature where the strongest take what they want, and therefore no one owns anything, as there will always be someone stronger who can take your possessions. While the Civil state allows agreed rules and laws to live by, for example proprietary ownership enabling individuals to keep their possessions stopping the strong taking from the weak. By then choosing to live within society, we choose to obey these rules and laws. Rousseau further suggests that we can live within this framework and yet still be free. By obeying the state whose authority is legitimate because it comes from the people, we are in fact only obeying ourselves even if forced to do so.
Consider what evidence there is in Jacques-Louis David’s paintings to show whether David would have agreed with Friedrich’s statement.
We need to understand that David was enthusiastic about the French Revolution and from 1789 participated in political life and in 1791 was elected a deputy of the Convention from Paris. In 1793 he voted for the death of Louis XVI and supported Robespierre, he was made a member of the Committee of Public Safety and artistic director (Davidbiography )
Examining the works of David suggest that the subjects chosen would indicate he would have strongly disagreed with Friedrich. By choosing subjects who are members of the convention during the French revolution such as Marat, he is letting us know these are the people he associates with and therefore would have a connection to. By painting Martyrs of the Revolution he is confirming his belief in the ideas of the Revolutions and the ideology behind it.
The paintings themselves show David imposing his will upon those examining his works directing how they look at the painting; enabling David to present a message in a manner he wants it to be understood. David’s paintings shown in the Introduction to the Humanities Illustration Book are works which are clearly defined, using linear perspective to control how we view these scenes, they force the eye to a specific point or figure in the painting, imposing his idea of how we should understand the pictures. This is done through artistic methods such as placing the setting as a confined area, as if set upon a stage with all the main characters displayed within the enclosed area, such as The Death of Marat, The Death of Socrates. This gives the viewer nowhere else interesting to look but towards the action. While using contrasting colours also allows him to direct you where to look as bright vibrant colours used for the main characters are more pleasing to the eye than the dull dark backgrounds.
David’s paintings are also used to inspire people towards his ideology and that of the time, namely the revolution and later Bonaparte. The painting, The Death of Marat, is used to inspire those who see it, the death of a patriot by those apposed to the revolution make Marat a martyr, inspiring those who’s zeal may be wavering by pointing out here is a great man who died for France, it was such a powerful image at the time that when the painting was presented to the Convention on 15 November 1793, It immediately became the object of extravagant praise. The impact on those viewing would have been dramatic, this man Marat, now immortalized, his body hung limp reminiscent of so many paintings of Christ on the cross would have been a very powerful image used as propaganda to influence people towards David’s cause. Here David is once again imposing his thoughts and views onto others this time using patriotism. Whilst The Death of Socrates depicts a man who is willing to die for his beliefs, Socrates who was given the option to recant his beliefs or to commit suicide by drinking hemlock is seen reaching for the poison chalice while those around him are clearly distressed, yet Socrates defiant with his hand raised up as if to say I will never give up my beliefs and am willing to die for them; is once again sending a message that could influence those who may be waiving, here is a great man doing what is right.
David produces works with the purpose to influence those who view it; he is imposing his ideology onto others, perhaps not in a forceful manner but more by subliminal methods similar to a modern day advertising executive.
(A103 introduction to Humanities page 113)
Davidbiography 29/05/05
(In the words of Rousseau 20/05/05)
