Strauss, Leo. "Transcript of Seminar on Rousseau." University of Chicago, 1962. Leo Strauss Archives. https://leostrausscenter.uchicago.edu  

Transcripts to a seminar given by Leo Strauss at the University of Chicago in 1962.

Excerpt:

Leo Strauss: I will speak about Rousseau in general and, starting from the most external side, of the way in which he is generally discussed today in this country. To the extent that I know the current literature, Rousseau is today frequently contrasted unfavorably with Locke, and I believe much of the present–day understanding of Rousseau which is available to us is exactly this understanding. The view is this: Locke [is] in a way the father of liberal democracy. [The] simple proof [is] the direct relation of the Declaration of Independence to Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government. Rousseau, [on the other hand], is called a totalitarian, and especially the connection between Rousseau and the French Jacobins is mentioned in this connection. Related to this is [that] the key term in Locke is property. Locke used the word property in a large sense, implying also the body, life, and liberty; but the comprehensive term is property, and this of course throws also some light on how he understands life, and liberty: as forms of property. Property is the key word.

In Rousseau, in contradistinction, the key words, one would say, are liberty and equality, surely not property.Furthermore, Locke is well known as a man much concerned with a reservation of or for the individual of a private sphere; and therefore, connected with that, he is known and praised as the author of letters on tolerance. Rousseau, on the other hand, is understood to be opposed to this reservation of a private sphere; the famous formula, the social contract, means that the individuals surrender themselves and all their powers to the society. So one can call this totalitarianism. One point I mention right away: Whenever one speaks of the totalitarianism of Rousseau, one must in simple fairness say that Rousseau has absolutely nothing to do with present–day totalitarianism, because the totalitarianism which Rousseau praises is the totalitarianism of society, not of the government. That is practically of some importance. You know, when we speak today of totalitarianism, we mean the totalitarianism of government and only indirectly of society. Rousseau speaks only [of], one could say admits and demands only, the totalitarianism of society. To explain this contrast with Locke: Locke, tolerance; Rousseau, a teaching of civil religion, a state religion. The last point in this overall survey of the difference between Rousseau and Locke [is that] Locke stands for representative government (1688) and Rousseau for direct democracy: no representative assemblies, but the citizen body assembling in a town–meeting, as it were, is the legislator. These are the undeniable facts; crude, but undeniable facts.

Online:
Leo Strauss Archive