![]() ![]() One of the paradoxes of Robespierre’s Republic of Virtue is that the author from whom he so largely borrowed did not really consider himself virtuous. It does so by shifting between the theatrical and novelistic generic conventions identified in his prior engagements with popular audiences, thus generating a reading experience that orients readers to continuously revisit their constitution as a collective audience. Emile does not simply present precepts to be embraced but intervenes into the underlying communicative dynamics that need to obtain for Rousseau's conception of collective self-legislation. ![]() In contrast to the above debate, I turn to Emile to argue that in this work Rousseau attempts to shape readers in distinct and crucial ways. I argue that such attempts to determine the compatibility of Rousseau's different "projects" obscures his broader engagement with his contemporary popular audiences-particularly those associated with the theater and the novel-and the political implications therein. Rousseau's interpreters often disagree over whether the Emile prepares its protagonist for membership in the Social Contract's political community or presents him as an alternative to it. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |