Rousseau and the struggle to be free

If Voltaire was the Enlightenment’s scalpel, Jean-Jacques Rousseau was its open wound. There was something raw about him — emotionally volatile, intellectually combustible, and perpetually at war with the civilisation he both shaped and despised. He argued that man is born free but everywhere in chains, then chained himself to every contradiction imaginable. He praised the purity of nature and denounced the corrupting influence of wealth and society — yet spent much of his life supported by rich patrons, enjoying the very comforts he claimed to despise. He championed childhood innocence but abandoned his own children. Even his solitude was theatrical — a man who craved retreat as long as someone noticed he was retreating.

And yet, the world still hasn’t caught up with him — because Rousseau glimpsed a truth we’re still reluctant to face: that progress can enslave as much as it frees, and civilisation, for all its comforts, often deepens our discontent.

In The Social Contract, his radical treatise on political freedom, Rousseau doesn’t offer easy freedom. He asks whether we might collectively choose the limits that dignify us. He believed that freedom wasn’t found in escape, but in mutual obligation — the kind we shape together, not have imposed from above. The general will wasn’t some euphemism for mob rule, despite the way later ideologues tried to weaponise it. It was a philosophical gamble — that people might, under the right conditions, transcend ego and legislate in service of a shared good.

That gamble has never felt more uncertain. We live in a time when freedom is often confused with visibility, and authenticity reduced to performance. Rousseau would be appalled by our curated selves — the seamless avatars that declare uniqueness while chasing likes. He would see in our polished feeds the same artificiality he saw in French salons: endless posturing, ambient cruelty, a culture more interested in appearances than truth. And he would remind us that alienation doesn’t come from oppression alone. It comes from forgetting what we are when nobody’s watching.

In Emile, his controversial novel on education and human development, Rousseau reimagined education as a process not of programming minds, but of liberating them. He believed the child should be allowed to become himself, not trained like a pet, but guided like a growing tree. The modern classroom, with its emphasis on performance, grades, and outcomes, would feel to Rousseau like an assembly line of docility. His vision was less efficient but more human: education was not a preparation for the economy but a preparation for freedom.

And yet, Rousseau betrayed his own ideals. He wrote beautifully of children, then sent his own to orphanages. He preached sincerity while feuding with everyone who dared contradict him. He wrote treatises on humility while obsessing over slights. His life was not a triumph of principle, but a catalogue of internal war. And in that, he may have been the most modern of all Enlightenment thinkers — not because he solved the problem of how to live, but because he exposed just how tangled that problem really is.

His critics, then and now, have been quick to pounce. Voltaire sneered that Rousseau’s writings made you want to crawl on all fours. Others accused him of paving the intellectual path for authoritarianism, mistaking the general will for collectivist tyranny. There is some truth in the danger. But to hold Rousseau accountable for the distortions of his ideas is to misunderstand the man. He wasn’t offering a toolkit for utopia. He was diagnosing the cost of forgetting what it means to be human.

In a world where identity is manufactured, connection outsourced, and autonomy eroded by systems we barely understand, Rousseau remains unnervingly prescient. He wasn’t asking us to return to some pastoral fantasy. He was asking whether the modern self — hyper-socialised, endlessly distracted, emotionally curated — still knows how to feel at home in its own skin.

He didn’t offer answers. He left behind provocations: is your freedom real, or merely permitted? Is your virtue yours, or borrowed from the crowd? And most of all — what have you traded for belonging?

These are not historical questions. They are urgent, present-tense dilemmas.

You might also enjoy:

Voltaire: the Enlightenment’s most fearless thinker

Why Voltaire’s Enlightenment principles — free speech, satire, and scepticism of power — remain urgently relevant in today’s era of censorship, conformity, and digital orthodoxy.

VeridazeXander Veridaze

Socrates in the age of certainty

Why Socrates still matters in an age allergic to doubt — a fearless defender of uncomfortable questions, intellectual humility, and the examined life.

VeridazeXander Veridaze