The political thought of Melville in Moby-DickSay no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essay Herman Melville was strongly influenced by the philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Because 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 deal with 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 because the crew members must let go of differences such as race in order to ensure their own safety. While Melville still hesitates between the two dominant theories of Rousseau's philosophy, he ultimately seems to choose the second. Queequeg, who embodies the ideal of the noble savage, and Ahab, who represents a savage in a state of war, both die. The character who represents his first philosophy as well as the one who stands in the way of his later philosophy are both killed. Only Ishmael survives; only Ismaël infallibly defends the Rousseauian social contract. Melville was heavily indebted to arguably three of the 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 rejected the idea of ​​original sin and believed that all men are born completely pure and free from sin. This draws on Locke's idea of ​​tabula rasa, which is simply a Latin phrase meaning "blank slate." Rousseau interpreted this idea to mean that one cannot come into the world with prejudices or bad tendencies. To Émile, he wrote: “Let us establish as an incontestable maxim that the first movements of nature are always just: there is no original wickedness in the human heart. There is not a single vice there that cannot be said. how and where it entered" (Cook 1). Because humans must be intrinsically good, the corruption that is evident in the world must come from somewhere; Rousseau believed that society, education, and government were all corrupting forces. He explains in Fragments of Liberty that one of the greatest chimeras of philosophy is to seek a form of government in which citizens can be free and virtuous by the sole force of laws. solitary life that one can find freedom and innocence, and one can be sure that the time of the first founding of societies was that of the birth of crime and slavery (Rousseau 12) He. It is worth noting that he believes that perfection is only possible in the "solitary life", as this will become important in the development of his later ideas. Conflict and corruption arise when there is an imbalance between desires and. the ability to satisfy these desires (Cook 21). Society, government, and education were seen as provoking, exaggerating, and exacerbating imbalances between people's desires and their ability to satisfy their desires by giving them an increase in knowledge without increasing their power. Rousseau's later philosophy was influenced by the work of Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes believed that people are motivated only by their personal interests and selfish pursuits. 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 awe, they are in that condition which is called war; "Unless people give up certain rights to government power, they have the ability to do whatever they want without fear of government repercussions. However, people become so protective of their rights regardless of rights of others, that everyone is at war against everyone else. This is where Rousseau “undertook in the Social Contract to reconcile [personal] interest with freedom and the common good” (McKenzie 209-210). By forcing people to give up certain rights and freedoms, they can all be better off. People will strive to create a better society because it is in their interest to do so. Furthermore, people will not give up. to their rights only if there is a guarantee of protection, which generally takes the form of a government It must be remembered that Rousseau never abandons his ideal of man in the state of nature; the ideal can only exist in isolation. Since humans do not inherently live in isolation, they must work together, if only for their own protection. The character who most clearly illustrates Rousseau's early philosophy in Moby-Dick is Queequeg. While other characters, such as Daggoo, Tashtego, Pip, and Fleece, also come close to Rousseau's ideals, none are as revelatory of them as Queequeg. One of the ways Melville shows the nobility of savages is by juxtaposing Christian and non-Christian characters. The term Christian is used because not all crew or background characters are necessarily Christian. However, they live in a predominantly Christian society and have been influenced by so-called Christian morality. While the Pequod has representatives from nations around the world, most of the Caucasian characters are from traditionally Christian countries, such as America and Spain. For this reason, they were necessarily subject to the morals and mores of their society. Thus, we can consider them 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 a manner consistent with their own beliefs. On the other hand, idol worshipers, like Queequeg, are believed to be inherently vicious and carnal people to whom the concepts of compassion and mercy are completely foreign. In the novel, this is directly opposed to the actions of the characters. For example, on the Moss ship that took Quequeeg and Ishmael to Nantucket, a young man imitated and made fun of Quequeeg behind his back. The young man “marveled that two similar beings could be so complicit; as if a white man were worthier than a whitewashed negro” (Melville 76). Queequeg, realizing this, threw it into the air. He straightened it out and thought no more about it (76). This scene says a lot about Queequeg and the Westerners in this novel, most of whom tend to speak before thinking. The young man here is in many ways similar to most of the Westerners in the novel. This scene foreshadows a more intense scene between Daggoo and the Spanish sailor. He verbally attacks Queequeg without provocation. Then, when Quequeeg gains the upper hand, he flees towards the captain. There is very little courage or nobility about him. When Ishmael explains that the captain thinks he intended to kill the young man, Queequeg scoffs and says "give him a littlefish-e; Queequeg does not kill such a small e-fish; Queequeg kills a big whale". (76-77)! That said, not killing the young man shows that Queequeg has no grudges and is capable of forgiveness, which is not the case with the Most Westerners in the novel It also introduces a theme that will be present throughout the novel: that people are aware of their own inherent dignity and humanity, and that they will react when that dignity is encroached upon. this point is not necessarily taken directly from Rousseau, it arises from his political philosophy insofar as he speaks of the nobility inherent in savages. Immediately after this scene, the mainsail comes loose and throws the young man overboard. Queequeg, after securing the mainsail, also jumps overboard, recklessly ignoring the possible consequences for himself, and sets out to save the young man. He does not think he deserves any special credit for saving one. another life - a life that had insulted his own a few moments ago; all he asks for is fresh water to clean himself. He lived the unspoken philosophy that “we cannibals must help these Christians” (78). In just a few pages, Melville sketches Rousseau's ideal. Queequeg is shown to be selfless and does what is right simply because it is right, as opposed to doing it for material or political gain. He is also ignorant, which is positive from the point of view of Rousseau's philosophy. Queequeg completely lacks academic knowledge; he knows enough to live without possessing useless knowledge that would give him desires beyond his means of attaining. Even if judging another culture by its own standards is an anthropological error, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. In the social microcosm that is the Pequod, the savages are forced to frequent a fairly homogeneous, predominantly Western society. Westerners, and even Ishmael, have a feeling of 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 even Ishmael still retains certain prejudices, even if they were unconscious. This example does not demonstrate any superiority on the part of Christians. This really works towards equality. Using another anecdote, Queequeg proves that Christians would be just as out of place in his kingdom as he is in theirs. It's the story of a sea captain who unwittingly washes his hands with punch at Queequeg's sister's wedding. Ishmael, in Rokovoko, would be no more or less out of place than Queequeg is in Nantucket. Being different is not an attribute that can be used as a value judgment. This is forward thinking on Melville's part. Additionally, Queequeg is of royal blood. By having the heir apparent and last of a royal line die, Melville could express his preference for governments in which power is not transmitted through lineages. 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 possibility, even the duty, to contribute to the well-being of all. In a monarchy, one family, one lineage, is elevated above everyone else. Ideally, a family or even an individual has the responsibility to maintain the well-being of an entire people while those same people are excluded from the political process. Due to the absolute investment of power in a central body, corruption and tyrannycan easily expand, while in the republic power is dispersed among a greater number of people and leaves less opportunity for oppression. It is not only the norms of American and Christian society that are imposed on the savages, but also their morality. Queequeg, son of a king, came to Christian lands to learn how to make his people better and happier than they were. Upon arriving, 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 home is that Christianity has actually degraded him and he does not want to defile the pure throne of thirty pagan kings by having been in the company of Christians for so long. 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 embarrassed, but he is still too wild to know what to be embarrassed about. He undresses in front of Ishmaël, but has to put on his boots under the bed. Society exerts a corrupting influence on him. Although he resists corruption more than anyone else in the novel, it does him no good. He dies. His death amounts to Melville's resignation to the impossibility of human perfection in its current state. Rousseau necessarily arrives at the same conclusion since he further develops his philosophy in the Social Contract. Man, because he is a social being by nature, cannot return to the solitary state of nature. For this reason, man is intrinsically incapable of being perfected. After Melville abandoned the pursuit of man's perfection, he subscribed to Rousseau's later philosophy. This is not immediately apparent at any point in the text, however. Melville struggles and hesitates between the two ideologies throughout the novel. Only in the epilogue does it become clear that he chose the social contract over the idea of ​​the noble savage. One of the first key scenes in which the ideas of the social contract are identifiable is found in Chapter LXXII. The belief that all men depend on each other is demonstrated in this chapter. They are shown to be dependent on each other because they have given up their natural freedoms for their mutual survival. Queequeg must go down on the back of the whale. There is only a small part of the whale above the water, and he must manage to balance on the whale and not fall into the shark-infested water or hit the ship a few meters away . In an attempt to secure Queequeg, a monkey rope is tied between him and Ishmael. The fact that their destinies are united symbolizes the extent to which 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 is, one mistake Queequeg makes could result in his death. He follows the logical procession of this line of thought to its inevitable end: everyone is dependent on everyone else even if he is unconscious of this dependence (337). Ishmaël is a perfect example of Rousseau's philosophy. It shows that for the necessities of life, people are entirely subject to the actions of others. A person's mistake often influences more than just themselves. Ishmael also shows that humans can never be made perfect. Towards the end of his speech, he seems to assert that although one person can escape the influence of the actions of others, not all of them can be escaped. Humans are inherently social, but humanity has never and can never exist in a state where circumstances would permit its perfectibility. If Queequeg is therepersonification of the idea of ​​man in his natural state according to Rousseau, then Ahab is the incarnation of that of Thomas Hobbes. All the men of the Pequod entered into a contract, literally and figuratively. They have surrendered their natural rights to Ahab, who is the common power which holds them in awe, for their protection. According to this social contract, Ahab has power over 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. Unbeknownst to the crew, with the exception of Starbuck, a state of war exists between the crew members, who still participate in the social contract, and Ahab, who does not, because Ahab does not. only cares about his natural rights to do what he wants. He breaks the contract because he submits the crew to his will for his own needs and not for their benefit. Starbuck is not the new ideal, but he comes closer to it than anyone else in the novel. He picked up Ahab's musket while Ahab was sleeping, decided it was the best solution because it would save so many lives, and then decided not to kill his captain in cold blood. He submits his actions to the totalitarian will of Ahab (Melville 527-529). Starbuck would have been ideal if he had the power of Ahab. Without power, Starbuck's righteousness is as useless as Queegqueg's nobility – neither can prevent his inevitable demise. Additionally, if Starbuck had possessed the power from the start, he would not have had the same opportunity to show his lack of determination and ability to protect himself and his crewmates. As first mate, Starbuck is almost as responsible for protecting the crew as Ahab. Even if his failure is not as obvious as that of Ahab, he is nonetheless 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. Ishmael's survival can be explained by two reasons. Aside from the obvious reason that someone must live for the story to be told, this shows the ultimate triumph of Rousseau's later philosophy for Melville. Ishmael is the only true portrait of the idea of ​​the social contract. Although it is true that the savages contributed the most to Pequod society, they nevertheless represent Rousseau's first philosophy for Melville. Starbuck was almost the ideal, but he betrayed that ideal by knowingly allowing the crew to perish 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 chapter LXXII shows. Second, he does what he can and works for the protection of all. He does whatever the higher power, which in this case is Ahab, commands him, often through Starbuck, Stubb, and Flask. It is a requirement of the social contract. If a person's rights are ceded to a government authority, that authority now has those rights over its citizens and can force them to comply with its desire to protect the whole. Although the tasks assigned to it may sometimes seem insignificant or menial, they are nevertheless tasks that must be completed for the ship to operate properly and safely. Third, he recognizes, throughout the book, that all men are equal. In the state of nature, they are intrinsically equal, as Hobbes says in the opening lines of Leviathan: "Nature has made men so equal in the faculties of body and mind, although it is sometimes found a man clearly physically or mentally stronger.”. 1990.