Rousseau and the perversion of gender

The writings of the political philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, have been almost universally considered by feminist theorists to be "misogynist." In this dissertation I reconsider this reading of Rousseau. I argue that Rousseau's writings invariably indicate a much more fluid account of gender and sexual identity than previously granted. I begin by reading Rousseau's Second Discourse in which he imagines a "fictional" time before the advent of history -- the "state of nature." In Rousseau's lyrical account of "nature," sexual difference (and hence gender) is completely absent. Sexual difference is thus clearly not "natural" for Rousseau, but rather an effect of societal relations. Most readers (feminist an otherwise) have conceded that sexual difference is not "natural" according to Rousseau. However, the general consensus has been that Rousseau produces a political argument, endorsing strict gender identities ("masculine" and "feminine") and gender roles (citizen and wife/mother) and consequently a heterosexual familial model as the best antidote to the rapacious individualism of contemporary society. I argue however that Rousseau's (fleeting) nostalgic turn toward more "primitive" and traditional societies (whether ancient Sparta or modern Geneva) is simply that -- fleeting and nostalgic (and indeed imaginary). Rather Rousseau obliquely offers another futural alternative that complicates not only traditional political and familial identifications, but identification itself. And particularly gender identification. Instead, Rousseau "perverts" existing normative models of desire (i.e., heterosexual and familial), pleasure (as phallic and procreative) and identification ("masculine" and "feminine".