Comparing John Locke And Jean-Jacques Rousseau's State Of Nature

The theory of the state of nature has been explored by many scholars (John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and John Rawls), which can help us better understand how gender fits into the different concepts of the state of nature. Mankind was brought into this world in a state of nature (pre-social condition) and had to give up liberties for self-preservation under a ruled society for the sole survival of man, or to better themselves. When describing the beginning of civilization, it’s vital to understand the different interpretations of how mankind created social contracts to avoid the state of nature. Two definitions of the state of nature that are important to understand is that of John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s. But more importantly, within the state of nature lies each author’s definition of gender and how it shows the structural similarity and differences between the two. For Rousseau, the state of nature is a state in which civilization doesn’t exist and people remain good and peaceful, yet can be corrupted by civilization, which is the root of inequality, hence gender inequality as well. For Locke, the state of nature exists any time there is no government (no superior where a state of war is possible), but it’s not chaotic because humans are rational and we …show more content…
For instance, Rousseau’s state of nature believes that man has total freedom because no man has authority over another due to how rare it is to come into contact with others compared to Locke’s state of nature that states that morals act as a known norm that forces people to value not only their life, health, liberty or possessions, but others’ as well. In Locke’s state of “perfect freedom” man gears their actions towards