Politics and the Arts: Letter to M. D'Alembert on the Theatre

by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Allan Bloom (Translator)

This excellent translation makes available a classic work central to one of the most interesting controversies of the eighteenth the quarrel between Rousseau and Voltaire. Besides containing some of the most sensitive literary criticism ever written (especially of Molière), the book is an excellent introduction to the principles of classical political thought. It demonstrates the paradoxes of Rousseau's thought and clearly displays the temperament that led him to repudiate the hopes of the Enlightenment.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Politics, Economics, Classics

196 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1960

About the author

Genevan philosopher and writer Jean Jacques Rousseau held that society usually corrupts the essentially good individual; his works include The Social Contract and Émile (both 1762).

This important figure in the history contributed to political and moral psychology and influenced later thinkers. Own firmly negative view saw the post-hoc rationalizers of self-interest, apologists for various forms of tyranny, as playing a role in the modern alienation from natural impulse of humanity to compassion. The concern to find a way of preserving human freedom in a world of increasingly dependence for the satisfaction of their needs dominates work. This concerns a material dimension and a more important psychological dimensions. Rousseau a fact that in the modern world, humans come to derive their very sense of self from the opinions as corrosive of freedom and destructive of authenticity. In maturity, he principally explores the first political route, aimed at constructing institutions that allow for the co-existence of equal sovereign citizens in a community; the second route to achieving and protecting freedom, a project for child development and education, fosters autonomy and avoids the development of the most destructive forms of self-interest. Rousseau thinks or the possible co-existence of humans in relations of equality and freedom despite his consistent and overwhelming pessimism that humanity will escape from a dystopia of alienation, oppression, and unfreedom. In addition to contributions, Rousseau acted as a composer, a music theorist, the pioneer of modern autobiography, a novelist, and a botanist. Appreciation of the wonders of nature and his stress on the importance of emotion made Rousseau an influence on and anticipator of the romantic movement. To a very large extent, the interests and concerns that mark his work also inform these other activities, and contributions of Rousseau in ostensibly other fields often serve to illuminate his commitments and arguments.

Reviews

[Victoria Hawco · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don't always agree with what he says, but damn do I like the way he says it.

[Maggie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Blah blah

[Varad · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a crucial yet neglected work by Rousseau, which stands midway between the Second Discourse and the Social Contract. Much of what Rousseau says about the theater and the role of women is anathema to our liberal values, yet it is essential to understanding Rousseau's republicanism and his conception of society and the common good. It is also a critical document for assessing his tempestuous relationship to Geneva, his homeland. One of the most interesting things in the book is the last section, which contains what might be Rousseau's most fulsome praise of ancient Sparta. Rousseau was the eighteenth-century's greateast admirer, even idolator, of Sparta. Yet in the Letter his encomia cross from enthusiastic to the fervid. Because that praise exemplifies so much of what was fundamental in Rousseau's thinking, both it and the Letter as a whole are mandatory reading for anyone who wishes to understand him.



Published Friday, 15 June 2012

[Ashley Vaught · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nobody knows the trouble Rousseau’s seen.

As much as I treasure and esteem the systematic work of Hegel and Kant, neither of them have the passion that R evinces upon this or that page. His insights are so profound ... one of my mentors would say of Kant that he had no idea how far his investigations would take him. I think of Rousseau it can be said that his insights were so profound that he could not hold to them. He had to betray his own realizations.

Here is a book about the theatre, ostensibly, but what it really addresses is the power and danger of mass culture. It foresees television and film long before the inventions making them possible had been conceived. Right now my favorite section is the seventh part, in which among other things Rousseau states the dangers of populism.

Yet his comments on the power of the imagination are also telling.

[Mehmet · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have read this book with an enjoyment and interest that I never had thought Rousseau could provide to me, and I am much bewildered and happy that it did. I recommend it heavily, and can vouch for how potent it is for a small volume. It is an absolutely stellar work, defending a very difficult proposition with immense rhetorical power and great sensitivity and tact. It raises questions where I thought none had existed, challenged beliefs that I had held with ease in ways I didn't realize were possible, and entertained notions that in fact greatly benefited ones I already had. Its readings of Plato's Ion and Republic and Aristotle's Poetics are superb, and the application of its conclusions from those readings on to modern drama makes for incisive and unique criticism. Its theory on what amusement is and how it should be, deserves special note in its boldness. The provided introduction makes for a great addition to the volume, and the translation itself is exquisite. It is somewhat entertaining to see how his opinions on drama dovetails quite interestingly with that of St. Augustine. A lot of what makes Rousseau unbearable in other writings is simply absent here. If I hadn't read the Reveries, this would have convinced me that the great man had left on a high note of writing and controversy.

[Gabrielle Huston · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read for HUMS3000 at Carleton University.

A very interesting and unusual read. This text was meant to offset some of the other authors we are reading about from the Enlightenment, because Rousseau was unique among his contemporaries for believing that progress wasn't necessarily a good thing. I found this text so interesting because, while I disagree with him a lot (in particular about his long pages dedicated to women's roles in society), I also find he does have nuggets of wisdom and things that I feel like I see in life. One quote that struck me was:

"Never in a monarchy can the opulence of an individual put him above the prince; but, in a republic, it can easily put him above the laws. Then the government no longer has force, and the rich are always the true sovereign."

I think many of us in the 21st century can relate to that. These days we're so prone to saying someone is right or they're wrong, that is nice to examine someone's thoughts at large and acknowledge that some of it is good and some of it is bad.

[Kyle · Rating 4 out of 5]

An amusing idea at first, former philosophic colleagues battling over a paragraph one entered into the encyclopedia, with Rousseau taking the austere path of morality and finding fault with every aspect of the proposed civic theatre. Yet the more he looks into the assumed wonton immorality of actors (especially actresses) and their craft, the more he reveals his unenlightened (by today’s standards) view of gender politics. As much as he invokes the Spartan lifestyle for his little republic, he negatively influences a true appreciation of the dramatic arts as the vehicle of a empathetic community. No doubt d’Alembert rolled his eyes at the flood of ignorance pouring forth from the future author of the Social Contract.

[Ryan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant.

[Mary East · Rating 1 out of 5]

can we critique the theater without being crazy sexist? maybe?

[Bernadette · Rating 3 out of 5]

read this for Honors 401
Rousseau as an Enlightenment and anti-Enlightenment thinker: proponent and critic

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

ROUSSEAU’S ARGUMENT AGAINST THE THEATER

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) was a Genevan philosopher, writer, and composer of the 18th century. He wrote other books such as 'The Social Contract,' 'The Confessions,' 'The Creed of a Priest of Savoy,' 'Emile: Or On Education,' etc.

This book contains the 1758 letter that Rousseau wrote to d’Alembert, in response to an article d’Alembert wrote for the Encyclopedia, in which he suggested that Geneva should have a theater. Perhaps surprisingly, given that Rousseau was somewhat of a composer [e.g., Rousseau: 'Le Devin du Village', he opposed such a theater. But his letter also gives his ideas on many other issues.

Rousseau states, “in general, I am the friend of every peaceful religion in which the Eternal Being is served according to the reason he gave us. When a man cannot believe what he finds absurd, it is not his fault; it is that of his reason. And how shall I conceive that God would punish him for not having made for himself an understanding contrary to the one he received from Him?... Certainly the orthodox, who see no absurdity in the mysteries, are obliged to believe them. But if the Socinians find the mysteries absurd, what can be said to them?... They will begin by proving to you that it is an absurdity to reason about what cannot be understood. What to do, then? Leave them alone.” (Pg. 11-12)

He states, “I maintain that, if the Scripture itself gave us some idea of God unworthy of Him, we would have to reject it on that point, just as you reject in geometry the demonstrations which lead to absurd conclusions. For, of whatever authenticity the sacred text may be, it is still more believable that the Bible was altered than that God is unjust or malevolent.” (Pg. 13)

He contends, “If the beauty of virtue were the product of art, virtue would long ago have been disfigured! … even if I am again to be regarded as wicked for daring to assert that man is born good, I think it and believe that I have proved it. The source of the concern which attaches us to what is decent and which inspires us to aversion for evil is in us and not in the plays. There is no art for producing this concern, but only for taking advantage of it. The love of the beautiful is a sentiment as natural to the human heart as the love of self; it is not born out of an arrangement of scenes; the author does not bring it; he finds it there; and out of this pure sentiment, to which he appeals, are born the sweet tears that he causes to flow.” (Pg. 23)

He argues, “the moral effect of the theater can never be good or salutary in itself, since… we find no real kind of utility without drawbacks which outweigh it. Now, as a consequence of its very lack of utility, the theater, which can to nothing to improve morals (manners), can do much toward changing them. In encouraging all our penchants, it gives a new ascendency to those which dominate us. The continual emotion which is felt in the theater excites us, enervates us, enfeebles us, and makes us less able to resist our passions. And the sterile interest taken in virtue serves only to satisfy our vanity without obliging us to practice it.” (Pg. 57)

He observes, “I will be asked who forces the poor to go to the theater. I answer: first, those who establish it and give them the temptation. In the second place, their very poverty … makes some relaxation necessary for the poor in order to bear it. They do not consider themselves unhappy because they work without respite when everybody else does the same; but is it not cruel to the one who works to be deprived of the recreations of the idle?... this very amusement which provides a means of economy for the rich, doubly weakens the poor, either by a real increase in expenses or by less zeal for work…” (Pg. 114-115)

This letter is one of Rousseau’s most fascinating works; and the kinds of issues he addresses actually seem quite “modern,” in terms of debates taking place nowadays about contemporary culture.

[Rose · Rating 3 out of 5]

I disagree with almost all of it (between Rousseau's attitude to women, and his vehement disapproval of theatre and emotive tales, we we're never going to agree here), but it has been helpful to read nonetheless, and has been, in terms of writing style, an easy read.

[nathan · Rating 2 out of 5]

I tried my hardest to finish this slog of a treatise, but I simply couldn't get through it all. "Politics and the Arts" is Rousseau's response to Monsieur D'Alembert's public letter explaining the need for the establishment of a theatre in Geneva. Rousseau responded with a lengthy explanation as to why this was a bad idea, offering up a stew of just-so reasonings, half-remembered explications of the moral and aesthetic content of Moliere's most famous plays, complaints about women's political empowerment, and fallacious claims about authenticity to make his argument. It is, to put it simply, a mess of contradictions, oversimplifications, and biases masquerading as facts. The translation, however, is clear and good, as are Bloom's extensive footnotes, warranting a two-star rating instead of a one-star rating.

[dameolga · Rating 3 out of 5]

Finally finished it!!--not that it's a difficult text to read. In fact, of all the texts I had to read for my Enlightenment and Critics class, Politics and the Arts is one of the more straightforward ones. Though I certainly don't agree with some of Rousseau's beliefs (especially as I'm female), Rousseau does offer wonderful insights into the negative effects of the "modern public" and the culture of theater. He both seems like a conservative, old man by today's standards yet also very liberal, especially with regards to the subject of sex. Can't say I would like Rousseau personally if I met him, but pretty interesting read.

[Michael · Rating 3 out of 5]

Rouseau's justification of censorship. He reviews most of the standard arguments: uncensored material undermines the morals of citizens, women and minors. For Rousseau, the enemy to be censored is theatrical performance rather than political writing. However, the basic premise is the same: we need to be protected from ourselves.

[Ginger Gonzales-Price · Rating 4 out of 5]

Maybe it's because I read this after Plato's _Republic_ and Aristotle's _Poetics_, but this was a breath of fresh air. Bloom's translation is wonderful; this text was very accessible. The section about women is pretty offensive and antiquated, but that was really only a relatively small section of the discourse.

[Joe Sacksteder · Rating 2 out of 5]

I like the part where Rousseau scandalously endorses dancing by unmarried youngsters under strict, collective surveillance. (I mean, he's crazy, but not Puritan crazy.) And the part where, to reinforce creepy gender roles, he offers as supporting evidence his current vantage of pigeons fucking.

[cait · Rating 4 out of 5]

rousseau says don’t allow actresses into the theater bc they increase vice, and instead only allow actors who crossdress BUT be careful of the actors that like crossdressing for the stage bc they too are there to tempt you into vice…..okay loserrrrr

[Paola O. · Rating 3 out of 5]

DNF...60%
pacing was insufferable. the content was managable and enjoyable at sometimes. Got repetitive and drawn-out.