Peyton Marrone: “Rousseauian Freedom in the Technological

Rousseauian Freedom in the Technological Age

Peyton Marrone

Technology is a modern instrument that hinders the civil discourse necessary to realize the general will, ultimately fueling political polarization and placing the sovereign in a condition of vulnerability and dependence. The internet and social platforms redefine procedures for civic engagement, which directly destroy the virtuous means both agree upon to practice the common good. Though the internet provides a range of knowledge, it lacks depth of knowledge. Citizenship requires a community that is not disconnected, where all participate in the general will. In the modern online sphere, the internet prevents productive discussion when outsiders around the globe involve themselves in affairs that do not pertain to themselves. Not only is external influence harmful, but a nation’s internal vices of self-interest, greed, and infotainment fuel toxic bipartisanship. Reflecting on the words of the enlightened political thinker Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who similarly wrote during periods of political turmoil, hatred, and confusion, can help to diminish polarization and amplify collaboration to strive for goodness. Rousseau was a Swiss philosopher in the eighteenth century who introduced the concept of the general will. This is a shared will that aims at the common interest of a well-informed, reasonable, and unbiased body. A society driven by the common good is one where each person is conscious about his or her impact on the community. The sovereign, a collective representation of the people, can exercise its freedom as the author of the law.1 In other words, Rousseau articulates how “[n]o one is unjust to himself”; thus, the general will is legitimate because it was realized by the people.2 The general will is not the will of the majority or minority, but alternatively, it is ultimate goodness and wisdom that unifies society. Rousseau acknowledges that the general will is always right and renders private wills illegitimate. Social platforms advertise celebrities and their personal lives, generating a culture where social inequality is celebrated and diverts the public from the general will. Celebrities and mainstream media portray inequality, which is harmful when acquiring 1 Jean-Jacques Rousseau, “On the Social Contract,” in The Basic Political Writings: Second Edition, ed. Donald A. Cress (Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company Inc., 2011), 180. 2 Ibid., 179.

Rousseauian freedom. Rousseau emphasizes how a “high degree of equality in ranks and fortunes” is necessary for a community to participate in the general will.3 Roughly four-and-a-half billion people use social media worldwide, according to an internationally recognized SEO specialist, Brian Dean,4 which means social media is focused on materialistic goods and unscholarly topics, so the online sphere is ineligible to have a beneficial civil discussion.

The general will tends towards equality, but the modern world is full of individuals who desire luxury and money. American culture is especially concerned with comparisons of luxury and fame, but as Rousseau asserts, it “corrupts both the rich and the poor, one by possession, the other by covetousness.”5 Generally, individuals with social media become infatuated with the elite lifestyle, and they attempt to mimic the influencers. They quickly lose sight of what is important to the common good. People on social apps are more worried about their appearance, status, and riches rather than using a platform for academic or socially progressive purposes. The opinions of the rich commonly do not serve the general will. Instead, they serve private will and agendas. To preserve good morals, respect for laws, patriotism, and the general will, citizens in civil society must have rough equality.6 Technology inflates inequalities in wealth. Due to the capitalistic society today and its traditional views about the distribution of wealth, the general will cannot be found because rough equality is unattainable.

Individuals do not care about the common interest of the people in civil society because of prevailing egotism in the present. Social media poisons a person’s virtues and creates a global culture that is driven by self-interest. A social media user is more concerned with likes, comments, and shares than meaningful conversations. The general will cannot be found by conversing politics on social apps, as users are not enlightened. Rousseau firmly asserts that “the private will tends towards giving advantages to some and not to others,” which makes technology an invalid source when the purpose of the general will is to serve all people in a community.7 The notion that a person could or should have the authority to declare the common good is false.

3 Ibid., 199. 4 Brian Dean, “Social Network Usage & Growth Statistics: How Many People Use Social Media in 2021,” October 10, 2021, https://backlinko.com/social-media-users. 5Rousseau, “On the Social Contract,” 199. 6Jean-Jacques Rousseau, “Discourse on Political Economy,” in The Basic Political Writings: Second Edition, ed. Donald A. Cress (Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company Inc., 2011), 137. 7Rousseau, “On the Social Contract,” 170.

Rather, it is unfair for a citizen to act on his or her private will because the results would not serve others. There are distinctions between wealthy and poor, but they do not give one group permission to implement its own desires; all people are equally in need of guidance. German philosopher Jürgen Habermas supports the idea that the union of private individuals in public leads to political change and contributes to the common good.8 When people gather publicly, they can use reason to converse critically and expel biases. The potential for participatory democracy within social media does not occur due to stubbornness to abide by laws and resistance to live by a shared good. The lack of obedience and participation in government makes Rousseauian liberty today unattainable because of hypocrisy and individuals acting against the common good for personal reasons. For the general will to be implemented, all persons must conform to the common interest by virtue. Rousseau proclaims that virtue should reign in order for the private will to support the general will. Total obedience in society—especially with the millions of citizens today—is rare because popular culture praises nonconformity. The motivation behind this behavior is usually the satisfaction of asserting a position separate from the commonwealth, not justice itself. Hypocrisy also masks obedience to laws of the common good. “The worst of all abuses is to obey the laws in appearance only to transgress them in reality,” as Rousseau indicates eloquently.9 In simple terms, pretending to follow laws is a greater evil than being honest and disagreeing publicly. Reaching an agreement can happen when an individual has integrity and is humble while debating with a peer. Social media inadvertently encourages a person to hide behind a screen, numbing a person’s natural human emotions of pity and sympathy for others. Instead of technology creating friendships and uniting people, it has proven to be corrosive to empathy, goodness, and peacefulness. Refusal to cooperate with another person because he or she has different political views is an issue stemming from media in the modern world. Rousseau argued that vices cause sincere friendships to be traded for hatred and betrayal.10 Social platforms and websites encourage bullying, hate speech, gambling, and inappropriate content. None of these uses in the on-

8 Lisa M. Kruse, Dawn R. Norris & Jonathan R. Flinchum, “Social Media as a Public Sphere? Politics on Social Media,” The Sociological Quarterly, (October 27, 2017): 3, http://pdf.xuebalib.com:1262/13q3bVXD3dqW.pdf. 9 Rousseau, “Discourse on Political Economy,” 132. 10 Jean-Jacques Rousseau, “Discourse on the Sciences and the Arts,” in The Basic Political Writings: Second Edition, ed. Donald A. Cress (Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company Inc., 2011), 7.

line public sphere are beneficial to civil society because they harm human virtues. New technology also facilitates addictive behaviors that focus a person’s attention away from what matters and fixate his or her mind on the superficial.11 Investing attention and time into something superficial is wasteful. The community also suffers when a person succumbs to vices, as the general will is only carried out properly when participation is unanimous and the public is enlightened. As a person leans further into negativity on the internet, the initial purpose of gaining wisdom becomes challenging to obtain. In theory, the online realm provides an abundance of knowledge and wisdom to the public, although the internet is not as resourceful as one may expect. The World Wide Web runs the risk of impeding comprehension and placing the sovereign in a state of dangerous vulnerability. The distinction between what one thinks he or she wills versus what he or she truly wills is muddled in the modern era. A study conducted at Cornell University revealed that students who used their laptops during lectures performed significantly worse on exams than those who kept their laptops closed. Surfing the web during time dedicated to learning directly correlated to a decrease in cognitive skills and weakened overall understanding of content.12 As of 2010, the average American spends over eight hours per day on screens. According to Nicholas Carr, people are unknowingly continuing to “train[] their brains to be quick but superficial,” instead of expanding knowledge and eliminating partiality.13 True enlightenment becomes improbable because of society’s dependence on the internet, which consequently lessens intellect. Trading ignorance for wisdom requires disconnecting from technology and joining direct civil conversation. Granted, since citizens rely on devices that serve a multitude of purposes, getting rid of all technology is not possible. However, some measures are required to guard against information warfare. A community that is too large poses challenges to the general will and encourages political polarization. Though Rousseau referred to the size of the sovereign in a broad sense, it is

11 Gabrielle Reina, “Social Media and its Effects on Society,” Digital Commons at Sacred Heart University, (May 5, 2021): 4, https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/ acadfest/2021/all/150/. 12 Helene Hembrooke and Geri Gay, “The Laptop and the Lecture: The Effects of Multitasking in Learning Environments,” Human-Computer Interaction Laboratory Cornell University (2003): 11-13, https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.9.9018&rep=rep1&type=pdf. 13 Nicholas Carr, “Is the internet making us quick but shallow?” CNN, June 7, 2010, 1 http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/06/07/carr.internet.overload/index.html.

clear when a community is being negatively influenced. A community is in danger when political tension is higher than average. As Rousseau indicates, “a body that’s too big for its constitution collapses and perishes, crushed by its own weight.”14 In other words, social platforms put the general will in jeopardy of being altered or corrupted. Technology allows people living in foreign countries to interfere with affairs in another nation not pertaining to them. The World Wide Web facilitates “manipulation of the perception of key issues by making it more difficult to distinguish between authentic and false information,” according to a recent study on the Social Science Research Network.15 In addition to the spread of false information threatening Rousseauian liberty in civil society, individuals in other countries’ views are often not valued. Though it may seem harsh, people’s intentions do not serve the general will of another nation. Rousseau goes as far as to assert that the general will and government should be confined to a small state where people can know each other and gather for discussion.16 The small scale of the public is not feasible in the modern era, due to increased population size, so one might imagine that Rousseau’s ideology would interpret technology as a good instrument because it brings people together. On the contrary, technology is not as productive as one may expect, because social platforms are not restricted to one nation. Furthermore, the general will is compromised by the difficulty of filtering those outside the community. Those outside the community can threaten Rousseauian freedom as much those within. To identify the general will, a public body must rely on the participation of all individuals, though the media and self-righteous people on social platforms often censor ideology. Cancel culture is a danger that makes persons fearful to speak the truth, like Jean le Rond d’Alembert, a contemporary of Rousseau, expressed.17 The rising diversity of people and ideologies in a nation results in disagreements that quickly transform into quarrels. Since communication online conceals human emotion with shortened words and emoticons, individuals become easily offended and closed to productive debate. Rousseau believed that the suppression of ideas and works does not help to reach

14 Rousseau, “On the Social Contract,” 186. 15 Joshua A. Tucker, Andrew Guess, Pablo Barberá, Cristian Vaccari, Alexandra Siegel, Sergey Sanovich, Denis Stukal, and Brendan Nyhan, “Social Media, Political Polarization, and Political Disinformation: A Review of the Scientific Literature,” (March 2018): 28, https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery. 16 Rousseau, “On the Social Contract,” 199. 17 Christopher Kelly, “Rousseau and the Case for (and against) Censorship,” The Journal of Politics 59, no. 4 (1997): 1235, https://doi.org/10.2307/2998599.

the general will. For the general will to be well articulated, each citizen must discern his or her own opinion without partiality in the community.18 An individual’s contribution to discussions about laws and the common interest is valuable. Hence, silencing persons is an injustice to political progression. As Habermas suggests, “The public sphere requires unlimited access to information [and] equal and protected participation.”19 In essence, censorship in the technological age makes civil discourse an unlikely occurrence. Consequently, Rousseauian freedom is less attainable in the modern era due to cancel culture spreading and deepening polarization. The primary political parties are severely divided, and individuals are feeling forced to conform to beliefs instead of honoring intrinsic values.20 To overcome this challenge and agree upon a common good, society must discard strong biases and instead emulate Rousseau’s openness and transparency for civil conversation.21

The twenty-first century’s appeal to online entertainment poses challenges to deliberative democracy and the possibility of actively partaking in the general will. News outlets and individuals often bait audiences with content that is diluted with entertainment to retain declining engagement.22 Maintaining a large audience of citizens is important, though not at the expense of the integrity of timely topics and political issues. Kristina Riegert of Stockholm University asserts that “distinctions between news and entertainment, and between factual and fictional genres [are] increasingly untenable to maintain.”23 Differentiating between reality and fantasy is essential to protect civil society from tyranny and peril. Otherwise, trust in American democracy will be lost, and the public will become further divided. The online sphere does not promote the common interest due to infotainment overpowering the internet’s original communicative purpose. Both serious issues and critical news stories are instead taken lightly by the public, and truth is obscured. Rousseau affirms that “The populace is never corrupted, but it is often tricked.”24 Citizens

18 Rousseau, “On the Social Contract,” 173. 19 Lisa M. Kruse, Dawn R. Norris & Jonathan R. Flinchum, “Social Media as a Public Sphere? Politics on Social Media,” The Sociological Quarterly, (October 27, 2017): 2, http://pdf.xuebalib.com:1262/13q3bVXD3dqW.pdf. 20 Pippa Norris, “Closed Minds? Is a ‘Cancel Culture’ Stifling Academic Freedom and Intellectual Debate in Political Science?” JFK School of Government, (August 5, 2020): 4, https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com. 21 Kelley, “Rousseau and the Case for (and against) Censorship,” 1235. 22 Daya Kishan Thussu, “Infotainment,” Wiley Online Library, November 6, 2015, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/9781118541555.wbiepc152. 23 Kristina Riegert and Sue Collins, “Politainment,” The International Encyclopedia of 23Political Communication, (January 2016): 1, 10.1002/9781118541555.wbiepc157. 24 Rousseau, “On the Social Contract,” 172.

ought to stay alert to identify bias in the media and enlightened to seek reliable sources to agree on the common good collectively. The World Wide Web offers free access to a wide range of diverse people and perspectives, though organizations often curate users’ feeds. An individual’s feed is manufactured by an algorithm for monetary and political purposes. This is especially prevalent during elections and when the political climate is unstable. Information is filtered and personalized so the viewer does not have convenient access to alternative opinions. The political separation of the modern era is a byproduct of corporations desiring to monetize users. Private corporations control media and what an individual views on their news feeds and social feeds. Rousseau would disapprove of current media and argue that “Nothing is more dangerous than the influence of private interests on public affairs.25 Rousseau offers moral and ethical texts from the eighteenth century that critique the ramifications of technology on political debate and the common good of the people today. Negative consequences from media and the internet corrode civil discourse and human decency to establish a general will in society. This is not to deny the advantages of the online sphere. Smart devices are practical for receiving current news and updates on politics. Notifications from apps are quick and efficient compared to newspapers or gatherings in town halls. Nevertheless, a responsible citizen must also be attentive to whether a source is biased, one-sided, or untrue. Seeking guidance from philosophers like Rousseau on fostering goodness on a small scale can benefit the larger community. Moreover, relationships torn by political polarization can be mended, reshaping the public to turn towards virtue.

25 Ibid., 198.

Carr, Nicholas. “Is the internet making us quick but shallow?” CNN, June 7, 2010. http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/ web/06/07/carr.internet.overload/index.html.

Dean, Brian. “Social Network Usage & Growth Statistics: How

Many People Use Social Media in 2021.” October 10, 2021. https://backlinko.com/social-media-users

Hembrooke, Helene and Geri Gay. “The Laptop and the Lec ture: The Effects of Multitasking in Learning Environments.” Human-Computer Interaction Laboratory Cornell University. 2003. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/ download?doi=10.1.1.9.9018&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Kelly, Christopher. “Rousseau and the Case for (and against) Censorship.” The Journal of Politics 59, no. 4 (1997): 1232–51. https://doi.org/10.2307/2998599.

Kruse, Lisa M. Dawn R. Norris & Jonathan R. Flinchum (2017).

“Social Media as a Public Sphere? Politics on Social Media.” The Sociological Quarterly. October 27, 2017. http://pdf.xuebalib.com:1262/13q3bVXD3dqW.pdf

Norris, Pippa. “Closed Minds? Is a ‘Cancel Culture’ Stifling Academic Freedom and Intellectual Debate in Political

Science?” JFK School of Government. August 5, 2020. https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com

Reina, Gabrielle. “Social Media and its Effects on Society.” Digital Commons at Sacred Heart University. May 5, 2021. https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/acadfest/2021/ all/150/

Riegert, Kristina and Sue Collins. “Politainment.” The In ternational Encyclopedia of Political Communication. January 2016.10.1002/9781118541555.wbiepc157

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, ed. Donald A. Cress. Discourse on Political Economy in The Basic Political Writings. Indianapolis:

Hackett Publishing Company, 2011.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, ed. Donald A. Cress. On the Social Contract in The Basic Political Writings. Indianapolis: Hackett

Publishing Company, 2011.

Shane, Scott. “The fake Americans Russia created to influence the election.” The New York Times, September 7, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/us/politics/rus sia-facebook-twitter-election.html

Thussu, Daya Kishan. “Infotainment.” Wiley Online Li brary. November 6, 2015. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ doi/full/10.1002/9781118541555.wbiepc152

Tucker, Joshua A. Andrew Guess, Pablo Barberá, Cristian Vaccari, Alexandra Siegel, Sergey Sanovich, Denis Stukal, and Brendan Nyhan. “Social Media, Political Polarization, and Political Disinformation: A Review of the Scientific

Literature.” March 2018.https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/de livery

45