Politics and the Arts: Letter to M. D'Alembert on the Theatre (Agora Editions)

Excellent. thank you very much.

Timeless piece with a reasonable price for paperback, very fast deliver. Hope to see it available @ Kindle to be able to use text searches and other addictive features of the the app!

In this work Rousseau took to task the French theater and, to a great extent, much of what passed for enlightened thinking about censorship and republican government. It is difficult for a modern reader to tolerate his arguments after they have largely been displaced by the concepts of our own Media age: the essential goodness of total freedom of the arts, uncensored publications, and all that goes with these. Rousseau's rhetorical criticism of the theater, and the French Enlightenment figures, such as Voltaire, is carefully considered and extensive. He separates the intellectual deceits from what he considers bedrock issues, such as the absolute importance of a virtuous citenzry, and offers up a strict, severe Calvinist indictment of the foibles of passing off political thought as scientific reasoning. Rousseau makes no cheap arguments - his attack on the French theater is not predicated on some cheap vulgar play deserving of our disdain, but instead he confronts Moliere's masterpiece, the Misanthrope. And Rousseau shows in a magnificent reading of the play, which he admires, how Moliere deliberately subverts the truth for the effect of comedy. In this, Rousseau believes, virtue has been damaged more than we recognize. Rousseau believes comedy, and comic characters, strike at the heart of society's greatest strengths, pride in civic virtue, unity of purpose, repect for its leaders. He concludes that the theater is far more dangerous than the simple divertisement and amusement we think it, that supporters would have us believe. And he roundly rails against those who suggest the theater has the ability to improve society. Much of what Rousseau argues echoes in our own society. However reactionary it all sounds at first, there is a deeply troubling truth in the pictures he draws of the duplicity behind Enlightenment pronouncements. He is also quick to point out conceited Philosophical attitudes devoid of any strict self-appraisal or self-criticism. Much of what he writes sounds almost upside down from modern accepted belief. Harsh it certainly is, but Rousseau is very challenging, and his final words, for this essay was written near the end of his life, are not easily dismissed as final rantings of old age and bitterness with the future. Although I am certainly not a conservative, I would suspect this book would be interesting to anyone holding such political views. For others, it offers a chance to see the darker side of what many of us take too readily for granted: freedom of press, an open - wide-open - popular theater (i.e. the movies) and the certaintude that many Democrats have in the absolute rightness of their beliefs. Rousseau throws buckets of cold water on all of us, and plays Prince Hal as King to our infatuation with the Falstaffian ethos. There is an excellent and very necessary introduction by Allan Bloom.

I give JJR 4 of 5 for effort. It is an exmination of the effect of the public arts on the citizen's character and behavior. Most of the argument are familiar to the reader , in JJRs day theatre was controversial , would audiences mimic stage behaviors? Will we have roaming mobs of assassins like Marcus Brutus and his gang? And what of the competition among women for rich adornments for these public events? And what of the fake image of love the arts give men and women so real marriage is a shocking reality without the successful love that occupies most stage shows ? And since love demands youth - will not our elder citizens be demeaned as unworthy in the eyes of the young? In short, won't we go to H#LL in a Handbag? JJR says yes but he is not so convincing on morality more convincing on gender relations, he admits the piece is opinion , not philosophy and it shows. He tries to say public morals are corrupted by stage vice like the arguments against 60s music but he offers no evidence. Those of use who went to the Rolling Stones shows did not become bank robbers.IMHO, far more convincing is the effects of the popular arts on male & female perceptions of love and marriage. They create a false image of the nature of the opposite gender to both sexes that ends in a very rude awakening upon marriage and a more difficult life. The false image is demanded by the genre of theatre , a normal boring life with a miserable ending is of no interest to a paying public - a fictional love is required. So it is that men and women are led to their doom with " I do" having chosen the wrong partner based on what they see in popular culture.All in all a good addition to the thinker's book shelf - if you like it check out Emile too - it is excellent - IMHO his magnum opus.