Emile: On Education

“God makes all things good; man meddles with them and they become evil.” 

Rousseau’s overarching philosophical theme in Emile and other books is that humans grow best in natural settings—the “state of nature”—and that too much social interaction, especially among the frivolous urban elite, corrupts natural wisdom and well-being. 

“Ambition, avarice, tyranny, the mistaken foresight of fathers, their neglect, their harshness, are a hundredfold more harmful to the child than the blind affection of the mother.” 

When parents, especially the men, bring home from the city their acquired corrupt social ambitions, this interferes with their children’s natural growth and warps their education. Children copy their parents, and they begin to interact with peers not through friendship and camaraderie but with the petty cruelty and competition for status that they see in their parents’ behavior. 

“The inner growth of our organs and faculties is the education of nature, the use we learn to make of this growth is the education of men, what we gain by our experience of our surroundings is the education of things.” 

The three forms of learning—from nature, from people, and from things—must work together or the child’s education becomes dislocated. Nature’s basic truths compel obedience, and things teach practical lessons; the best human tutors, then, simply guide their pupils toward the teachings of nature and things, and let natural learning predominate. 

“There is only one man who gets his own way—he who can get it single-handed; therefore freedom, not power, is the greatest good. That man is truly free who desires what he is able to perform, and does what he desires. This is my fundamental maxim.” 

To wield power is to force others to cooperate, but this requires constant vigilance, fear, and uncertainty. The self-reliant person, on the other hand, has the skills and wisdom to obtain results without depending on the approval or compliance of others. His social interactions, at work and in trade, are practical rather than political, cooperative rather than coercive. Thus, the free person can come and go in his dealings with others and need not kowtow or overcome objections to obtain his needs.

“There are two kinds of dependence: dependence on things, which is the work of nature; and dependence on men, which is the work of society. Dependence on things, being non-moral, does no injury to liberty and begets no vices; dependence on men, being out of order, gives rise to every kind of vice, and through this master and slave become mutually depraved.” 

Those who have mastered the skills of creating resources with their own hands have little need to manipulate others into giving them what they want, since they can create what they need and trade the surplus for other goods. Dependence on things requires only that people acknowledge the laws of nature and its materials, whereas dependence on others—as is common among city workers who must bend to the caprices of their bosses—requires corruption, elaborate schemes, obeisance to cruel overlords, and exposure to the many vices of urban life. 

“A man who knew nothing of suffering would be incapable of tenderness towards his fellow-creatures and ignorant of the joys of pity; he would be hard-hearted, unsocial, a very monster among men.“ 

The high-born often are protected from pain as they grow up; they are ignorant of the suffering of the poor outside the walls of their estates; they react with contempt when they see poverty. Rousseau’s student will instead not only witness but interact with people from all walks of life and all strata of society; this will open the student’s heart and inspire efforts to help others. In the end, such a person will display a kindness and goodwill often absent in wealthy and spoiled youths. 

“So there is only one of the child's desires which should never be complied with, the desire for power. Hence, whenever they ask for anything we must pay special attention to their motive in asking. As far as possible give them everything they ask for, provided it can really give them pleasure; refuse everything they demand from mere caprice or love of power.” 

Rousseau wants to break the chain of oppression from on high; to do this, he would teach young people to focus on what they can do to be productive rather than on how they can dominate the people around them. In no event would Rousseau permit the child to be spoiled with overindulgence, which simply trains them to become little tyrants. 

“Nature would have them children before they are men. If we try to invert this order we shall produce a forced fruit immature and flavourless, fruit which will be rotten before it is ripe; we shall have young doctors and old children.” 

The standard pedagogy of Rousseau’s time is to teach scholarly knowledge to young children, as if they need only the information from books to become full adults. Instead, Rousseau teaches them how to learn from nature, how to develop skills and talents, and only later how to read books—and then strictly to deepen their practical knowledge and their understanding of the natural realm. The world of men will come much later. Rushing the intellect produces a child who knows the multiplication tables and the catechism but who can’t find his way out of a forest or employ simple tools to create useful things. 

“Speaking generally, a hard life, when once we have become used to it, increases our pleasant experiences; an easy life prepares the way for innumerable unpleasant experiences.“ 

The child who can withstand calmly a certain amount of pain and frustration will find it easy to do anything he desires, since discomfort has become a small matter. The spoiled child, meanwhile, cannot persist through the awkward and uncomfortable stages of learning, and quickly will bow out, expecting others to provide him with what he wants. 

“‘What is the use of that?’ In future this is the sacred formula, the formula by which he and I test every action of our lives.” 

Practical knowledge forms the foundation for a life of independence. Any information that has no practical application should be set aside. This applies to frivolous philosophical musings, arcane religious teachings, and the latest superficial fashions among swank city dwellers. A stress on the practical will stand the student in good stead for a lifetime; the rest is largely a waste of time. 

“Hitherto I have made no distinction of condition, rank, station, or fortune; nor shall I distinguish between them in the future, since man is the same in every station; the rich man's stomach is no bigger than the poor man's, nor is his digestion any better; the master's arm is neither longer nor stronger than the slave's; a great man is no taller than one of the people, and indeed the natural needs are the same to all, and the means of satisfying them should be equally within the reach of all.“

The modern saying is, “The billionaire puts on his pants one leg at a time.” Every person, deep down inside, is essentially the same as everyone else. Rousseau would not have his pupil awed by power and authority, but inspired by the warmly human. Giving precedence to people simply because they are rich or famous corrupts social interactions. Rousseau’s students will be equally at home with the rich and the poor, the powerful and the unimportant, and will enjoy the company of others regardless of their station in life. 

“He must work like a peasant and think like a philosopher . . .“ 

Hard, persistent work pays off in prosperity; careful and rational thought leads to correct answers about the world and its materials and thus amplifies the power of the work. Along with “How is this useful?”, intelligent effort becomes one of the principles that underpin the tutor’s lessons. 

“Do you wish to establish law and order among the rising passions, prolong the period of their development, so that they may have time to find their proper place as they arise.” 

The longer the tutor can put off the student’s interest in the opposite sex the better, since the student will need a disciplined and well-trained mind to navigate around the pitfalls of romance and sex. Tutor and student will therefore remain focused on the study of nature and the mastery of trade skills. The company of women may overturn all his hard-earned lessons unless the student is intellectually and emotionally strong enough to deal with the powerful emotions that threaten to overwhelm him. 

“Noisy games, violent delight, conceal the disappointment of satiety.” 

The high life of the city provides a merely temporary respite against the meaninglessness of endless recreation. The idle rich can afford to dissipate themselves on such pursuits, but there is no honor in such a life. Though gaming and womanizing provide tempting thrills, it’s much better in the long run to be productive and big-hearted than wasteful and petty.

“Doubt with regard to what we ought to know is a condition too violent for the human mind; it cannot long be endured; in spite of itself the mind decides one way or another, and it prefers to be deceived rather than to believe nothing.” 

People would rather believe in a god they can’t see than have no belief to protect them against uncertainty and meaninglessness. A deity who threatens everlasting hellfire at least guarantees some form of eternal life; without such a promise, the idea of a pointless, painful existence on Earth followed by utter oblivion is beyond most people’s emotional capacity. Instead, their reasoning becomes: God has an eternal plan for each of us; therefore, He exists. This, to Rousseau, is a fallacy, but it’s believed by hundreds of millions of religiously devout people across the world. Those who questioned such beliefs, especially during Rousseau’s era, found themselves exiled, tortured, or even put to death by true believers who couldn’t tolerate any dissent that might reawaken their own anxieties.

“He who begins by selecting a chosen people, and proscribing the rest of mankind, is not our common father; he who consigns to eternal punishment the greater part of his creatures, is not the merciful and gracious God revealed to me by my reason.“ 

A god who would punish most people because they fail to worship him correctly is difficult to reconcile with the God of love proclaimed by Christianity. Rousseau believes, therefore, that most Christians and most religious interpretations misperceive God as an angry and punishing father figure instead of a much-more-likely being of infinite mercy. A god of fathomless power and wisdom would need nothing from humans, especially their worship, but instead would treat each of his creations with constant loving kindness. It is this god, recognized by reason rather than by blind authority, who is worshipped by the Savoyard priest and his disciple, Rousseau. 

“The duty of following and loving the religion of our country does not go so far as to require us to accept doctrines contrary to good morals, such as intolerance. This horrible doctrine sets men in arms against their fellow-men, and makes them all enemies of mankind.“ 

One of the ironies of European history is that its main religion, Christianity, preaches love and tolerance while its adherents kill each other over doctrinal disputes that appear petty to outsiders. By Rousseau’s time, millions already have died in wars fought throughout Europe by governments over the question of whether worshippers might commune privately with God in the Protestant manner, or through the intercession of a church hierarchy, in the Catholic way. Rousseau’s books influence the Founders of the United States, who enact a Bill of Rights that protects worshippers from government interference in the hope that this might prevent religious wars in America. 

“He has scarcely made his entrance into society before he receives a second education quite unlike the first, which teaches him to despise what he esteemed, and esteem what he despised; he learns to consider the teaching of his parents and masters as the jargon of pedants, and the duties they have instilled into him as a childish morality, to be scorned now that he is grown up.” 

Today, it’s commonplace that young people, on leaving home, will encounter ideas and beliefs, perhaps in college, never mentioned to them by their families. Among these ideas are radical ones promulgated by corrupt and depraved people who only desire to exploit the young innocents they encounter. Rousseau warns against this phenomenon in his own time, when overly protected youths become easy prey for the older men of society who recruit newcomers into their world of depravity, greed, lust, and cynicism. It’s vital, then, not to isolate growing children from these facts but to explain, without scolding, how a rakish life can lead to tragedy. As well, teachers should help students build deep foundations of personal competence, independence, and rational thought, traits that will help protect them against the predators of human society. 

“Do not try to make your daughter a good man in defiance of nature. Make her a good woman, and be sure it will be better both for her and us.” 

Even in Rousseau’s time, early feminists argue for the emancipation of women. Rousseau, aware of the problem, takes a different tack: He advises that women perfect their own strengths rather than aping those of the men. A woman's freedom comes not from insisting on rights but on using her natural intelligence to manage her household. 

“A woman's education must therefore be planned in relation to man. To be pleasing in his sight, to win his respect and love, to train him in childhood, to tend him in manhood, to counsel and console, to make his life pleasant and happy, these are the duties of woman for all time, and this is what she should be taught while she is young. The further we depart from this principle, the further we shall be from our goal, and all our precepts will fail to secure her happiness or our own.” 

Men are larger, stronger, and more aggressive; women, to survive safely in men’s company, must become diplomatic, managing men’s pride and emotions so that they come around to the woman’s viewpoint as if it were their own. Thus, women must be taught to serve and obey, at least overtly, the commands of their men. This belief was controversial in Rousseau’s time, and would provoke angry demonstrations if he were to lecture on it today. Still, his purpose is not to keep women in their place but to help them navigate the complexities of raising families with men who see themselves as the leaders. Rousseau’s prescription is subversive: with a certain amount of wit and craft, a woman can effectively run a household while appearing merely to be a dutiful helpmate.

“Woman has more wit, man more genius; woman observes, man reasons; together they provide the clearest light and the profoundest knowledge which is possible to the unaided human mind; in a word, the surest knowledge of self and of others of which the human race is capable.” 

Rousseau believes men and women have minds that work differently, so that each has strengths the other needs. Much as males and females possess bodies with differing shapes and strengths that complement each other, their minds and hearts approach the problems of life in differing ways so that each provides wisdom that both can build on in a relationship and in rearing a family.

“Men say life is short, and I see them doing their best to shorten it. As they do not know how to spend their time they lament the swiftness of its flight, and I perceive that for them it goes only too slowly . . . No one wants to live to-day, no one contents himself with the present hour, all complain that it passes slowly.” 

In their mad rush for pleasure, people chase after frivolous things and neglect the real satisfactions of productive work, helping others, and caring for our loved ones. When life is about fun, there is never enough and days seem empty; when it is about creative service, there is always plenty and days are full. 

“To acquire knowledge, it is not enough to travel hastily through a country. Observation demands eyes, and the power of directing them towards the object we desire to know. There are plenty of people who learn no more from their travels than from their books, because they do not know how to think; because in reading their mind is at least under the guidance of the author, and in their travels they do not know how to see for themselves. Others learn nothing, because they have no desire to learn.” 

Travel offers a chance to learn about humanity through its many cultural and political variations. Travel books, on the other hand, offer portraits of foreign places filtered through the biases of authors, so it’s hard to get a true feel for the place without visiting it directly. Most travelers tour other lands merely for entertainment, but Emile goes with a purpose: To learn about the world, and, in the process, to learn more about himself.