This piece was written originally in purpose to pass an online course in Coursera: The Modern and the Postmodern (Part 1)
According to Lange MM (2011), philosophical proponents of progress assert that the human condition has improved over the course of history and will continue to improve in terms of the increasing of human well-being over the long term. The progression itself can be defined widely such as having improvement in science and technology, freedom, good quality of life, education, and economic situation; in short, progression is about achieving equality for life opportunity and prosperity among people.
However, the segregation of social class prior to Enlightenment era made it difficult for equality to be established. The distribution of wealth only went to the aristocrats, and the peasants lived only to serve the rich people. This situation was affirmed by the religious institution that they participated in state affair by supporting the position of the aristocrats instead of standing up for the poor.
Contemplating on situation, Rousseau proposed that there are two kinds of inequality: 1) the natural or physical inequality that is by nature, 2) and the moral or political inequality that is because of the common consent of humankind.
Rousseau argued that the political inequality is unjust that it has kept us away from our very natural self and virtue. Originally, according to Rousseau, humans lived without formal law and yet could live in harmony equally; it is the stage between extreme brutes and extreme decadents of civilization. As civilization grew more complex, humans realized that they had to invent the notion of private property in order to preserve selfish happiness and to compare themselves with each other, hence people lost their state of nature. Realizing the need of private property, people began promoting the difference between the owners (rich) and the labors (poor) by manipulating general population to surrender their liberties and therefore instituting inequality through the establishment of state.
Rousseau argued that a state could only exist appropriately through social contract between free and equal people, not inequality, hence the exercise of power is supposed to be executed by the representatives delegated by people. Rousseau thus criticized the situation in which human civilization allowed discrimination and thus oppressed fellow men (for instance the existence of monarchs who overruled the people). Nevertheless, he believed that even the development of science and arts would only aggravate the discrimination because they were born from the vanity.
His view became inspiration for Maximillien Robespierre, an important figure in French Revolution. Robespierre emphasized deeply on inequality happening in France. He was also the one campaigning over the necessity of terror in time of revolution.
Robespierre might be an extremist, but French Revolution significantly altered the course of modern history by inspiring other territories in Europe to eventually overthrow the monarchies while replacing them with republics and liberal democracies. Albeit the path wasn’t smooth, at least it opened a door of possibilities for societies to attempt and strive for a more equal system to be implemented. We could say that this progress happened because of Rousseau’s arguments about inequality.
However, progression for equal rights didn’t seem to forthcome for Gustave Flaubert. To him, revolution and the so-called Enlightenment didn’t actually change anything. Contrary to what Marx believed that when we are awakened to history we would be getting rid of our illusions of peaceful social situation and then it would drive us to do what we’re supposed to do with our sober senses, Flaubert believed that history only repeated itself. The tendency for humans to be corrupt would stay the same no matter what system we implement.
Flaubert’s pessimism toward Enlightenment sounds similar to Rousseau’s skepticism against Enlightenment. However, Flaubert expressed disinterest toward politics and economic emphasis. To him, political writings were hypocritical and shallow that they only pretended to be intellectual and critical. Instead of following the same path as Rousseau, Flaubert turned away to art.
Through his novel “Madame Bovary”, Flaubert demystified the life of bourgeoisie and progress of civilization by portraying romanticism as delusional through the characters he wrote, mainly Emma and Charles Bovary.
Flaubert used romantic style in this novel differently compared to romantic authors; he showed how emotional characters and those who pursued beauties and passions in life would end up miserable. The storyline, instead of depicting exoticism and exaggerated emotionalism, gives more sense of bitter truth and accuracy of harsh reality.
He is one of figures in literature that marked the end of romanticism and the birth of realism. Interestingly, his disengagement from political and economic discourse by turning away into art and literature actually still made him contribute to the political and economic problems faced by society, which is about inequality, not to mention the realistic style in literature that followed after. We can say that Flaubert had inspired many artists and literary authors to also engage with the problem of inequality through art and literature.
No comments:
Post a Comment