Melville's political thought in Moby-Dick Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Herman Melville was greatly influenced by the philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Since Rousseau died in 1778, 41 years before Melville was born, Melville had access to all of Rousseau's writings. Rousseau's political philosophy evolved as he grew up and there is evidence of a tension in Moby-Dick between earlier and later philosophy. Rousseau's early works discuss the ideal of the noble savage, embodied by Queequeg. His later works, particularly the Social Contract, espouse the belief that all people must unite for the common good; this idea appears on the Pequod as crew members must abandon differences such as race to ensure their own safety. While Melville always vacillates between the two dominant theories of Rousseau's philosophy, in the end he seems to choose the latter. Queequeg, who embodies the ideal of the noble savage, and Ahab, who represents the savage in a state of war, both die. The character who portrays his initial philosophy as well as the character who hinders his later philosophy are both killed. It is only Ishmael who survives; it is only Ishmael who unswervingly upholds the Rousseauian social contract. Melville was greatly indebted to the three most influential philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries: Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. While Melville relied primarily on Rousseau, Rousseau himself depended heavily on Hobbes and Locke. In his early philosophy, Rousseau discarded the idea of ​​original sin and believed that all people were born completely pure and free from sin. This was informed by Locke's idea of ​​the tabula rasa, which is simply a Latin phrase meaning "clean slate." Rousseau interpreted this idea to mean that one cannot come into the world with prejudices or evil tendencies. In Émile he writes: "We place as an indisputable maxim that the first movements of nature are always right: in the human heart there is no original evil. There is not a single vice that cannot be said of." how and where it entered" (Cook 1). Since humans must be intrinsically good, the corruption evident in the world must come from somewhere; Rousseau believed that society, education, and government are all corrupting forces. In Fragments of Freedom explains that one of the greatest chimeras of philosophy is having to seek a form of government in which citizens can be free and virtuous only by the force of laws. It is only in solitary life that freedom and innocence can be found. and we can be sure that the era of the first establishment of societies was that of the birth of crime and slavery (Rousseau 12)It should be noted that he believes that perfection is only possible in the "solitary life", as this will become important in development. of his later ideas.Conflict and corruption occur when there is an imbalance between desires and the ability to satisfy them (Cuoco 21). the exacerbation of imbalances between people's desires and their ability to satiate them by providing them with an increase in knowledge without an increase in power. Rousseau's later philosophy was influenced by the work of Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes believed that people were driven solely by self-interest and selfish goals. In his work Leviathan, Hobbes states: “it is evident that during the time when men live without a common power to hold them all in subjection, they are in that condition which is called war;and such a war as that of every man against every Man." Unless people give up certain rights to governmental power, they have the ability to do what they want without fear of governmental repercussions. However, people become so protective of of their own rights without regard to the rights of others that each person is at war with everyone else. It is here that Rousseau "in the Social Contract proposes to reconcile [self] interest with freedom and the common good" (McKenzie 209- 210). If people give up certain rights and freedoms, everyone can be better off. People will work to create a better society because it is in their interest to do so. Furthermore, people will only give up their rights if there is a guarantee of protection, which it usually takes the form of government. Remembered that Rousseau never abandons his ideal of man in the state of nature; he realizes that the ideal can only exist in isolation. Because humans, by nature, do not live in isolation, they must work together, even if only for their own protection. The character who most clearly exemplifies Rousseau's early philosophy in Moby-Dick is Queequeg. Although other characters, such as Daggoo, Tashtego, Pip, and Fleece, come close to representing Rousseau's ideals, none are as indicative of them as Queequeg. One of the ways Melville shows the nobility of savages is through the juxtaposition of Christian and non-Christian characters. The term Christian is used because not all crew members or background characters are necessarily Christian. They live, however, in a predominantly Christian society and have been influenced by a supposed Christian morality. While the Pequod has representatives from nations around the world, most of the Caucasian characters come from traditionally Christian countries, such as America and Spain. For this reason they were necessarily subject to the morals and customs of their societies. Therefore, they can be seen as representatives of Christian morality. The behavior displayed by each of the groups rarely meets the expectations placed on them. Christianity, although its teachings are very peaceful in theory, is not the most peaceful religion in practice. However, Christians are still expected to act in accordance with their professed beliefs. On the other hand, idol worshipers, like Queequeg, are expected to be inherently vicious and carnal people to whom the concepts of compassion and mercy are completely foreign. In the novel, this is in direct opposition to the characters' actions. For example, on the ship Moss, which took Quequeeg and Ishmael to Nantucket, a young man imitated and made fun of Quequeeg behind his back. The young man "wondered that two such beings should be so sociable; as if a white man were anything more dignified than a whitened negro" (Melville 76). Queequeg, realizing this, threw it into the air. He put it back and thought no more about it (76). This scene tells a lot about Queequeg and the Westerners in this novel, most of whom have a tendency to speak before they think. The young man here is similar in many ways to most of the Westerners in the novel. This scene foreshadows a more intense one between Daggoo and the Spanish sailor. Verbally attacks Queequeg without being provoked. Then, when Quequeeg gets the upper hand, he runs away from the captain. There is very little brave or noble about him. When Ishmael explains that the captain thinks he meant to kill the young man, Queequeg scoffs and says "he bevy small-e fish-e; Queequeg no kill-e so small-e fish-e; Queequeg kill-e great whale" ( 76-77)! That said, not killing the young man shows that Queequeg holds no grudges and that he is capable of forgiving, which cannot be done.say of most Westerners in the novel. It also introduces a theme that will be present throughout the novel: namely, that people are aware of their inherent dignity and humanity and will respond when that dignity is violated. While this is not necessarily a point taken directly from Rousseau, it derives from his political philosophy as it speaks to the inherent nobility of savages. Immediately after this scene, the mainsail breaks away and throws the young man into the sea. Queequeg, having secured the mainsail, also jumps overboard, recklessly ignoring the possible consequences to himself, and proceeds to rescue the young man. He doesn't think he deserves any special credit for saving another life - a life that moments before had insulted his own; all he asks for is some cool water to clean himself with. He lived the unexpressed philosophy that “we cannibals must help these Christians” (78). In a few pages Melville outlines Rousseau's ideal. Queequeg is shown to be selfless and to do what is right simply because it is right, rather than doing it for material or political gain. He is also ignorant, a positive characteristic from the point of view of Rousseau's philosophy. Queequeg is completely devoid of scholastic knowledge; he knows enough to live without possessing unnecessary knowledge that would lead him to have desires beyond his means of realization. Although it is an anthropological mistake to judge another culture by one's own standards, this does not mean that this does not occur. In the social microcosm of the Pequod, the savages are forced to frequent a fairly homogeneous, mostly Western society. Westerners, even Ishmael, have a sense of their own superiority when exposed to the ignorance of savages. For example, Queequeg told Ishmael the story of the first time he saw a wheelbarrow. Not wanting to appear ignorant, he lifted the wheelbarrow and carried it. Ishmael responds, “Didn’t the people laugh” (74)? This shows that Ishmael also still holds some prejudices, even if they are unconscious. This example does not justify any superiority on the part of Christians. It actually works towards equality. Using another anecdote, Queequeg demonstrates that Christians would be just as out of place in his kingdom as he is in their kingdom. It is the story of a sea captain who unwittingly washes his hands in punch at Queequeg's sister's wedding. Ishmael would be no more or less out of place in Rokovoko than Queequeg is in Nantucket. Being different is not an attribute that can be used as a value judgment. This is prescient of Melville. Furthermore, Queequeg is of royal blood. By having the legitimate and final heir of a royal bloodline die, Melville may be expressing his preference for governments in which power is not passed down through bloodlines. If Melville believes that all men are equal partners in the social contract, then it would make sense that he would prefer a republic to a monarchy. In an ideal republic, all men have the opportunity, indeed the duty, to contribute to the well-being of all. In a monarchy, a family, a bloodline, is elevated above everyone else. Ideally, a family or even a person has the burden of maintaining the well-being of an entire people while that same people are excluded from the political process. Due to the absolute investment of power in a central body, corruption and tyranny can easily develop, whereas in the republic power is dispersed among a larger number of people and leaves less opportunity for oppression. It is not only the standards of American and Christian society that are imposed on savages, but also their morality. Queequeg, who is the son of a king, came to the Christian lands to learn how to make his ownbetter and happier people than they actually were. As soon as he arrived, however, he realized that Christians could be «miserable and wicked; infinitely more than all the pagans of his father" (72). The only reason Queequeg does not return to his home is that Christianity has actually degraded him and he does not want to defile the pure throne of thirty pagan kings by remaining so long in the company of Christians. As is evident during the scene at the Spouter Inn, Queequeg has been slightly civilized by living in the company of Westerners for so long. He has become civilized enough to be self-aware, but still too wild to know what to be self-aware of. She undresses in front of Ishmael, but has to put her boots under the bed. Society acts on him as a corrupting influence. Although he resists corruption more than anyone else in the novel, this does him no good. He dies. His death is equivalent to Melville's resignation to the impossibility of human perfection in the present state. Rousseau necessarily came to the same conclusion as he continued to further develop his philosophy in the Social Contract. Man, since he is by nature a social being, cannot return to the solitary state of nature. For this reason, man is intrinsically incapable of being perfected. After Melville gives up the pursuit of human perfection, he adheres to Rousseau's later philosophy. However, this is not immediately evident anywhere in the text. Melville struggles and vacillates between the two ideologies throughout the novel. It is only in the epilogue that it becomes clear that he preferred the social contract to the idea of ​​the noble savage. One of the first key scenes in which the ideas of the Social Contract are identifiable is in chapter LXXII. This chapter demonstrates the belief that all people depend on each other. They are shown to be dependent on each other because they have given up their natural freedoms for their mutual survival. Queequeg must descend onto the back of the whale. There is only a small part of the whale above the water and it has to be able to balance on the whale and not fall into the shark-infested water or hit the ship just a few meters away. To try to secure Queequeg, a monkey rope is tied between him and Ishmael. The fact that their destinies are united symbolizes how all people depend on each other (Grejda 97). Ishmael comes to a similar conclusion when he realizes that his fate is inexorably linked to that of Queequeg. He sees that no matter how careful he may be, one mistake Queequeg makes could result in his death. He follows the logical procession of this line of thought to its inevitable end: everyone depends on everyone else even if they are not aware of that dependence (337). Ishmael is a perfect example of Rousseau's philosophy. It shows that for the necessities of life people are completely subject to the actions of others. A person's mistake often affects more than himself. Furthermore, Ishmael shows that humans can never be perfected. Towards the end of his speech, he seems to state that while a person can escape the influence of the actions of others, he cannot escape them all. Human beings are inherently social, but humanity has never existed and can never exist in a state in which circumstances would allow for its perfectibility. If Queequeg is the personification of Rousseau's idea of ​​man in his natural state, Ahab is the epitome of that of Thomas Hobbes. All the men of the Pequod entered into a contract, both literally and figuratively. They have surrendered their natural rights to Ahab, who is the common power that holds them in subjection, for their protection. According to this social contract, Ahab has power overof them as long as he uses his power for their benefit and protection. In his monomaniacal pursuit of Moby Dick, Ahab has returned to the state of nature. The state of nature within society creates a state of war. Unknown to the crew, except for Starbuck, a state of war exists between the crew members, who still participate in the social contract, and Ahab, who does not, because Ahab only cares about his natural rights to life . do as he chooses. He violates the contract because he subjects the crew to his will for his own purposes rather than for their benefit. Starbuck is not the new ideal, but he comes closer to it than anyone else in the novel. He took Ahab's musket while Ahab slept, decided it was the best thing to do because it would save so many lives, then decided not to kill his captain in cold blood. He subjects his actions to Ahab's totalitarian will (Melville 527-529). Starbuck would have been ideal if he had Ahab's power. Without power, Starbuck's righteousness is as useless as Queegqueg's nobility: neither can prevent his inevitable death. Furthermore, if Starbuck had possessed the power from the beginning, he would not have had the same opportunity to display his lack of resolve and ability to protect both himself and his crewmates. As first officer, Starbuck is almost as responsible for protecting the crew as Ahab. While his failure is not as obvious as Ahab's, it is still a failure. He cannot be the complete ideal because he has not fulfilled his part of the social contract. In the epilogue it is revealed that Ishmael is the only survivor of the sinking of the Peqoud. There is a twofold reason for Ishmael's survival. Besides the obvious reason that someone must live for the story to be told, it shows the final triumph of Rousseau's later philosophy for Melville. Ishmael is the only true representation of the idea of ​​the social contract. While it may be true that savages contributed more to Pequod society, they still represented Rousseau's first philosophy for Melville. Starbuck came close to the ideal, but betrayed that ideal by knowingly allowing the crew to die in Ahab's pursuit of the whale. Ishmael represents the idea of ​​the social contract for several reasons. First, he understands it and is able to explain it to some extent, as is evident in chapter LXXII. Secondly, he does what he can and works for the protection of everyone. He does whatever he is commanded by the higher power, which in this case is Ahab, often through Starbuck, Stubb, and Flask. This is a requirement of the social contract. If one's rights are surrendered to a government authority, that authority will now have those rights over its citizens and can force them to conform to its will for the protection of the whole. While the tasks they are given may seem trivial or menial at times, they are still tasks that must be accomplished in order for the ship to run smoothly and safely. Third, it recognizes, as the book goes on to say, that all people are equal. In the state of nature, they are intrinsically equal, as Hobbes says in the opening lines of Leviathan: Nature hath made men thus equal in faculties of body and mind, though sometimes a man is found manifestly stronger in body or mind . faster mind than another, yet, when all is taken into account, the difference between man and man is not so considerable as that one man can claim for himself any benefit to which another cannot claim as well as he ( Hobbes). equal by nature, they must also be equal when they conclude a contract together. Ishmael undoubtedly has flaws: he is not an ideal and does not pretend to be. 1990.