noting that other political thinkers, including Rousseau’s republican influences Machiavelli and Montesquieu, had commented on the political uses of religion (Kelly’s and Master’s notes to Rousseau (1995), 264 n. 130). This admonition should remind us that our interpretations of Rousseau’s civil religion have surely been colored by two-and-a-half centuries of liberal argument that church-state separation is essential to liberty (a position with which I agree). But as a matter of interpretive practice we cannot assume that Rousseau started from this premise, and I believe that he framed the issues very differently in his own mind. Rousseau’s body politic metaphor can help clarify this matter too, albeit only indirectly. Rousseau referred to the body politic a few in his discussion of civil religion, but only in passing. Organic metaphors do not directly constitute the concept: if they did, we would expect Rousseau to refer to civil religion as the medicine of the body politic, or as the sinews which hold it together, or something similar, but nowhere does he do so. On the other hand, as I have argued, Rousseau did think that organic integrity was essential to the health and survival of the political body. The function of civil religion was to maintain the organic unity and integrity of the body politic, preventing its dissolution and death from factional infighting. If we start with this “unity imperative” in mind, then closely follow Rousseau’s argument about civil religion (Bk. IV Ch. VIII of Du contrat social), and finally add a bit of historical context, we can arrive at a reasonable explanation. This section of my interpretation will require many readers to set aside, for analytical purposes, their own mindsets about freedom and religion. Rousseau, in essence, argues that it is not a separation of religion and politics that brings an end to religious factionalism, but a unity of the two – exactly the opposite of the liberal position. In Bk. IV Ch. VIII, he begins by observing that religious wars did not occur under the polytheistic paganism of antiquity (OC 3.460-62; CW 4.216-17). Rousseau offers varied
Janata, Jaromír. 2001. Masochism: The Mystery of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Danbury, CT: Rutledge. John of Salisbury. [1159] 1990. Policraticus. Cary J. Nederman, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kantorowicz, Ernst H. [1957] 1997. The King's Two Bodies. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Kelly, Christopher. 1987. “’To Persuade Without Convincing’: The Language of Rousseau’s Legislator.” American Journal of Political Science 31 (2): 321-335. _______________.1997. Rousseau and the Case for (and against) Censorship.” The Journal of Politics 59 (4): 1232-1251. Kelly, George Armstrong. 1986. “Mortal Man, Immortal Society?: Political Metaphors in Eighteenth-Century France.” Political Theory 14 (1): 5-29. de La Mettrie, Julien Offray. [1748] 1996. machine. In Machine Man and Other Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ____________________________. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh. New York: Basic Books. Lonrigg, James. 1997. “Medicine in the Classical World.” In Western Medicine: An Illustrated History, Louden, Irvine, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Manin, Bernard. 1987. “On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation.” Political Theory 15 (3): Marsilius of Padua. [1324] 1956. The Defensor pacis, Alan Gerwirth, trans. New York: Harper and Row.
Skinner, Quentin. 1996. Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Saccaro-Battisti, Giuseppe. 1983. “Changing Metaphors of Political Structures.” Journal of the History of 44 (1): 31-54. Sreenivasan, 2000. “What Is the General Will?” The Philosophical Review 109 (4): Thakurdas, Frank. 1976. Rousseau and the Concept of the General Will: The Pursuit of an Elusive Concept. Calcutta : Minerva Associates. Vesalius, Andreas. [1543] 1967. De humani corporis fabrica libri septem. Basileæ : ex officina Ioannis Oporini. Robert Paul. 1971. In Defense of Anarchism. New York, Harper & Row. Jeffery Zavadil is a faculty associate at Arizona State University.