Freud, Rousseau, and Society

In greater detail the King compares Hal to the Hotspur, explaining that Hotspur has a greater claim to the throne than Hal simply because of his prowess and merit, “He hath more worthy interest to the state than thou, the shadow of succession.,” (3.2. (Compare Hotspur’s relationship with the brash and boastful, magician, Glendower with Hal’s to Falstaff’s. Both scold the other after a set of monstrous lies.) The alienation of and betrayal by Glendower is a comment on the necessity of courtesy in successful rule. This opposition between Hal and Hotspur is emphasized in the following scene, where we find Prince Hal in the tavern with the drunken Falstaff, while his rival, Hotspur is preparing for a rebellion. These first two scenes set up a contrast between Hal and Hotspur that seems to recreate the Richard/ Bolingbrook binary. At first thought, Hotspur seems to be the easy winner, for all Hal does is spend his time with his friends gallivanting around, stealing and drinking. Hotspur, on the other hand, has returned from a battle in which he defeated the Scots led by Glendower. He has taken many.

Both Freund and Rousseau describe society in terms of sacrifices made by the individual and the benefits he receives in return. Rousseau speaks in terms of the social contract, a rational agreement between people. Freud's civilization is an instrument for the repression of instincts of the aggressive type, but a 'process in the service of Eros.'

Rousseau's community is essentially synthetic, resulting from human reason, not instinct. The group is a problem-solving device, for the general good, to overcome obstacles to human existence which the individual alone could not handle (book I, chapter 6, pg. 59). Humans form groups in order to accomplish tasks for the general good, but there is always the possibility that the ideas of the group are mistaken, so in actuality, society may not always work for the general good. A democracy would be a nearly ideal form of decision-making, because it is representative of the general will, an idea which Rousseau holds as fundamental to a well-run nation. The general will should be the basis of government. A law is an expression of the general will, and since each citizen is a part of the general will, to obey the law means only to obey your own will. Rousseau's contention is that one must not sacrifice to be a citizen - or not quite: the individual sacrifices his particular freedom but then gets it back in the form of a greater general freedom.

Freud's society is formed in part because of mutual need, but there is more. The aggressive instincts would pull groups apart if it weren't for the Eros in man, the instinct to unite people into groups; additionally, scapegoats are available for left-over aggression. Society is an uneasy equilibrium of these three forces. War is an example of just how uneasy the balance is. Freud's civilization has no real contract in the sense of Rousseau, but he does make an indirect contract which forces the desire of the individual to conform to society's commands. 'The super-ego takes the place of the parental function, and thenceforward observes, guides, and threatens the ego in just the same way as the parents acted to the child before' (A.M., pg. 89). In this way the societal values (which are embodied in the laws) are transmitted through the parents to the individual. Thus, one automatically submits to the repression of desires because the super-ego is a cultural product. Freud's goal here is the repression and sublimation of natural desires, for these make co-existence impossible. Sublimation is more effective and less wasteful than repression.

'Every member of the community,' says Rousseau, 'gives himself to it ... with all his resources, including all his goods.' How then can Rousseau keep up his idea of something for nothing? 'The state, vis-a-vis its own members, becomes master of all their goods ...' The definition of vis-a-vis in Webster's leads me to think that he means that the state and the citizen operate together in the custodianship of property. In a sense, then, the state owns property through the individual, so that he has not given it up. Rousseaus's social contract is a considerably more complicated concept than Freud's.

According to Freud, we make sacrifices to join civilization; we must suffer our natural instincts to be repressed. And Freudian society has benefits; that of 'the advantages of work in common' for the common good. Rousseau's society either does or doesn't require sacrifices from us; I think he wants to say that it doesn't. And Rousseau's society has advantages; 'the state has been established to achieve ... the common good.' Freud sees civilization as the answer to some of the problems of the human condition; Rousseau also sees that 'the human race will perish if it does not change its mode of existence' into the state. Both Freud and Rousseau, then, see the state as saving us from the problems of the human condition, but each sees the problems of the human condition somewhat differently, or emphasizes different aspects of the problems of the human condition, and so constructs the saving state in a somewhat different light.

Freund, Hobbes, and the Metaphor of the Ant

Or,

All about Ants (an animalistic, albeit apt, alliteration): an altogether asinine, and amazingly anemic, article

In their considerations of the origin of civilization, both Freud and Hobbes turn to ants to illuminate human society. There are both similarities and differences in their explanations of why the state is not like the anthill, which they both consider to be at least partially ideal (perhaps because both have materialistic tendancies). Both view man's nature negatively and see the community as the cure for the human condition.

The first of the six reasons Hobbes gives for the ant-gap is that men have ambition, a 'joy consisting in comparing himself with other men,' which makes a person work sometimes against others, instead of working for the common good (both Freud and Hobbes think that comparing one's self with others is fundamentally an unsympathetic atitude, against Rousseau and others). Freud would generally agree with this, restating it as manifestation of the Oedipus complex and the outwardly directed aggressive instincts.

The second reason given in the Leviathan for the ant-gap is that men have ideas of 'honor and dignity' which are connected with possession (a person 'owns' these things) and from possession arises envy and jealousy and finally war. Freud's final ideas about human conflict credit uncontrolled instinct with the origin of war. Freud says that aggression creates property, i.e., war leads to possession, while Hobbes says that possession leads to war.

Hobbes' third reason is that men have specialization and that some men are leaders, whose reasonings have lead them to different ideas and conflict results when these diverse thoughts are put into implementation.

His fourth reason is that ants have no speech and so cannot lie or provoke unrest.

In his fifth reason, he apparently attempts to make the point that, unprovoked, an ant will not attack his fellow, while humans spend their periods of peace in brewing maliciousnes and discontent.

The sixth reason for the ant-gap given in Leviathan is that ants are by nature cooperative, whereas humans live together by synthesis, and something 'else besides covenant' is required 'to make their agreement constant and lasting, which is common power' to enforce unity. Freud does not agree, because he says that the community is an organic creation, the expression of eros which is the instinct to unite people. But Freud does opine that society needs scapegoats.

The ant comparison is one which could be made only with this kind of animal, because some animals exhibit possessive and individualistic tendancies. Ants are not lazy. They carefully identify objects, scrupulously distinguish between things that are alike and things that are different, and make sure that everything is in the place where it belongs.

Both of these thinkers agree that communal living requires sacrifice. Hobbes tells us to give up our power and instinct to survive. Freud asks us to surrender similar concepts in the repression of natural instincts, that is, to develop the ego and the super-ego to govern the id.

This is the Anknupfungspunkt of these two Weltanschauungen: that the state is a solution to the human dilema, but not a free one.

Shakespeare, Falstaff,
and Honor

Falstaff's definition of honor is a very functional one. Honor cannot mend a wound, is nothing more than a word of air, does the dead no good, and cannot abide by the living, being vulnerable to slander. Honor is merely a painted insignia, an external token of non-intrinsic traits. So he defines honor as used in the sense that Hotspur uses it (and rejects it). But in so refuting the value of this type of honor, he demonstrates in word and action that he has his own version of honor.

Falstaff's ethics are utilitarian: its goal and its means are self-preservation. He serves this ideal with integrity and consistnacy throughout the plot. This theory of action is not as egocentric as it may, at first glance, seem. To look out for one's own existence is to faster the almost divine spark of life in man - to be 'the true and perfect image of life.' The powerful phrasing (original 'Life' probably capitalized) would certainly carry almost religious connotations to Elizabethian people. And Shakespeare uses, at the end of the play, one of the most powerful western artistic (mythical) symbols: the resurrection motif. Death, the appearance of, an aura of, or a symbol of, is removed from a character. This is done to Falstaff in a striking scene. Such a motif certainly shows that the Bard intended Sir Jack to be received as a positive character, a protagonist, a good guy. (Note, however, that both the death and the resurrection are phony; so we are left to ask whether Flastaff may live a 'counterfeit' life even as he had a 'counterfeit' death.) He may commit an understandable surrender to human weakness at the end in stabbing an already dead body and claiming credit for the slaying, and he may not have performed in the usual manner on the battlefield, but he did see through the useless style of honor presented by the younger Percy, and his actions were entirely consistent with his own code. Not only are these actions tolerated by just about everybody in the play, but he continues in his habits at the end of the play, with no sign of stopping.

Percy's honor is based on receiving external praise, a corruption of honor. If honor is based on external things, and not on intrinsic qualities and the action they cause, then honor can be put on anyone. This type of honor also metamorphoses its victim into a petty praise-seeker. Hal points out this (II.iv) in mimicking a body-count. Hotspur dies and is discredited - slain by the main character in the narrative. No-one, on stage or off, mourns him, or even misses him. Through out the play he is censured by many, from his first stage appearance (I.iii).

Compare And Contrast Hal And Hotspur Video

Hal is a practical person, who would like to carry out Falstaff's honor system, but the practicalities of being a future king do not permit such a lifestyle. He must take Falstaff's abstract theory - Falstaff lives on the level of theory, choices and consequences being clear cut, like a flow chart - and make it practical for himself. He cannot afford to take great liberties in personal conduct, but he cannot compromise his integrity too far, for Hotspur is one who compromised too far in an attempt to make honor a strictly practical affair. 'I am not of Percy's mind,' says Hal. When Hal allows Sir Jack to claim credit for Hotspur's death (V.iv) and allows John to perform a perfunctory glory-gaining role (V.v.), these are deliberately modest (non-praise-seeking) actions, not seeking the type of honor which Hotspur sought. Why? Hal has learned from Sir Jack: praise, and Percy's style of honor, cannot heal a wound, are useless.

Compare And Contrast Hal And Hotspur Quotes

Hal and Falstaff are of one mind regarding the Ersatz honor. Hal's acquisition of honor is closely linked with Falstaff: his soliloquous plans for reformation are made in the first tavern-style scene, a scene in which (Falstaff?) appears, and long before Percy makes any kind of appearance. The product which Hal eventually becomes is one shaped from the beginning on by Sir Jack. Falstaff carries a theoretical ideal of honor, Hotspur has a corrupted and perverted honor, and Hal tries to make honor workable. In doing this, he may acquire some of the appearances of external honor (III.ii), but these fripperies are fleeting.

Compare And Contrast Hal And Hotspur Pictures

Falstaff proves to be one originator of honor, passing it on to Hal, who uses it in a slightly altered form, having nothing to do with the purely external forms of honor.