Rousseau envisaged society being united by the use of the general will. He argued that the general will would be in the best interest of the society as a
whole; a person had to be guided away from their own desires, known as particular will, to what is best for the interests of the entire group. An individual does not have to adopt the general will for every decision – only on important matters that will affect other people. For example, a Government may decide to assume that every person in their society is willing to be placed onto a National Donor Database, as there is a shortage of donors. This benefits the society in general, as more people in need are able to have transplants. To opt out of this programme would be to benefit one’s self and follow one’s own desire.
Rousseau argues that another benefit of following the general will is that the individual gains moral liberty. If a person ceases acting on their instinct and acts according to the laws society has set this brings about freedom from selfish acts. ‘For to be driven by appetite alone is slavery, and obedience to the law one has prescribed for oneself is liberty.’ (Rousseau: Cress (ed.) 1987, bk1, ch.1, p.141). An individual who follows their own desires is tied to these needs, whereas someone who obeys the laws dictated to them is free, as they are not driven by their own desires.
A reasonable objection to Rousseau’s philosophy is that freedom gained by an individual following the majority, to gain something they do not particularly desire, despite their own point of view, does not increase the individual’s freedom. ‘If my private opinion had prevailed, I would have done something other than what I wanted. In that case I would not have been free.’ (Rousseau:
Cress (ed.) 1987, bk4, ch.2, p.206). If an individual acts upon their private opinion then they would not get what they want as their opinion differs to the general. Rousseau’s contribution to French society helped the Revolutionaries to set up a political system that would put the interests of the population above the individuals own desires.
Another influential character linked with the French revolution was the artist Jacques-Louis David. He painted the controversial painting ‘The Lictors Returning to Brutus the bodies if his Sons’, in 1789. It is oil on canvas and its size is 325 x 422cm. David creates the illusion of depth by the using perspective lines which converge to draw the viewer’s vision to the main figures of the females, mourning the loss of Brutus’ sons, inside the piece. The artist manages to create depth and along with the use of a broad tonal range (very bright to very dark colour), generates a dramatic scene. The figures of the females, within the picture plane, are bathed in bright light, the figures of Brutus and the bodies of his dead sons, are cast in shadow.
The tradition of grand art had become well established in France by the eighteenth century, and the style of David’s Brutus could be categorised as an historical painting. It epitomises the moral and religious concerns of the times. David may have studied Greek and Roman sculptures to improve his sense of human proportion.
The story of Brutus was popular with the educated sections of the French public during the eighteenth century and refers to a turbulent time in Roman History. It
could easily have been linked to the politically tumultuous time in France when it was exhibited publicly.
Brutus had spearheaded the fight which overthrew the monarchy and established the Roman Republic. His sons, however, participated in a conspiracy to restore the monarchy. In Brutus’ role as a judge, he was called upon to deliver a verdict and immediately condemned his sons to death. Brutus’ unwavering act for the good of Rome could be seen as political heroism and an ultimate act of self-sacrifice. The viewing public may have seen this as a dark omen of what was to come in France as there was great discontent with autocratic rule.
1789, the year David completed the piece, was a year of political turmoil which led to discussions on the ‘Declaration of the rights of man and the citizen’, in the August of that year. It was easy for the French viewing public to build a connection between political events and anti-royalist, pro-republican sentiment; David’s pictures were seen as a republican manifesto and raised his reputation as an artist. The painting was exhibited at a time when the citizens of France strongly desired an alternative form of government. The political climate at the time of Brutus being exhibited may have meant that the painting had political connotations and could have been viewed by the French public as a political motivator.
Rousseau and David were both amongst a number of intellectuals in French society known as the Enlightenment movement. Both David’s paintings and Rousseau’s ideology conveyed belief in unity and what was in the best interest for society, instead of the individual. They were opposed to tyranny and were frustrated with autocratic rule. This spurred the French public’s desire for an alternative government, which would put the needs of the people first. During the revolution it seemed that many people could relate to Rousseau’s writings and David’s paintings. They helped to ignite a passion amongst the French general public and helped the Revolutionaries to change French politics.
Word Count: 1,073
Bibliography:
Marwick A, History, Classicism and Revolution, Block 3, 2nd edn, The Open University, Milton Keynes
