Emile and the Threefold Meaning of Nature
Rousseau: Emile and the Three Meanings of Nature
The book itself
- Emile is one of Rousseau’s most influential and most heavily criticised works.
- A fictitious account of an educational experiment on a young child.
- The child is removed from society and family and placed in the hands of a tutor.
- Shifted the focus from teacher to student.
- Promoted a feeling for childhood that helped the nuclear family take shape.
The three meanings of nature
- Social significance: education’s first job is to discover the child’s true nature, not to fit them into society’s needs.
- Psychological significance: human action should rest on instinctive judgements, primitive emotions, and natural instincts. The only habit a child should develop is no habit whatsoever.
- Physical significance: education should happen in natural surroundings. Nature is the best teacher; cities are the graves of civilisations.
Rousseau’s Emile is one of those books that has been quoted by people who have not read it. The phrase follow nature is enough on its own to suggest the wrong picture: an education in the open air with no rules and no teacher. The actual book is more careful. Rousseau packs three different meanings into the word nature, and the educator who only catches one of them gets the system badly wrong.
Emile as a book
Before working through the three meanings, the book itself needs a brief sketch. Emile is a fictional account of an experiment in education. A boy named Emile is raised from infancy to early adulthood by a tutor. The tutor is the narrator and is Rousseau in everything but name. The whole work is structured around the boy’s development through successive stages of life.
A key choice in the setup is that Emile is removed from his society and his family and placed entirely in the tutor’s hands. This is not a recommendation that real children should be isolated. It is a thought experiment. Rousseau strips away the social pressures of the eighteenth-century family so he can show what would happen if a child were raised on his principles without competing influences. The reader is supposed to take the result and apply pieces of it to real children who are not isolated.
The book made one large contribution to the history of education: it shifted the focus from teacher to student. Before Emile, the standard question for an educator was what should I teach and how? After Emile, the question became who is this particular child and what does their development need? The shift sounds small. It changed the structure of schooling in every European country over the next century.
Emile also promoted what Rousseau called a feeling for childhood. The book argued that childhood is a real stage of life with its own value, not just a preparation for adulthood. Around this idea, the modern nuclear family eventually took shape: an institution organised partly around the work of raising children rather than only around economic production.
As a thought experiment to show his principles working without competing social influences
It is not a recommendation that real children should be isolated. Rousseau strips away the social pressures of the eighteenth-century family so he can show what his principles would produce when applied without interference. The reader is meant to take the result and apply pieces of it to real children whose families and societies cannot be removed.
First meaning: the social significance of nature
The first of Rousseau’s three meanings of nature is the social one. This is the most important of the three and the one most readers underestimate.
The claim is straightforward. The social significance of education is secondary to the nature of the child. A school exists to serve the child’s developing nature, not to fit the child into society’s needs.
This cuts against the dominant view of his day, in which education was understood as the work of fitting children into the roles society had ready for them. Rousseau reverses the order. Emile is not about meeting society’s needs through schooling; it is about discovering the deep knowledge of the true nature of the person. The child comes first, and the social roles must adjust to what the child’s nature reveals.
The duty this places on the educator is investigation. The laws of a person’s nature must be discovered through careful study. This is not the same as guessing what the child needs or assuming the curriculum already knows it. The educator has to look at the actual child, observe across many weeks and months, and gradually work out what this particular nature requires.
A natural person, Rousseau adds, is not a savage one. The natural child is not a wild creature outside civilisation. The natural child is one whose own nature has been carefully discovered and whose education has been shaped to that nature. The product of a Rousseauian education is more civilised than the product of conventional schooling, not less, because it is fitted to a real person rather than to a stereotype.
There is a complication that Rousseau acknowledges. When a child is placed among other people, the child has to interact with other individuals, and that interaction shapes nature through nurture. Pure nature, separate from any nurture, is an abstraction. Real children are always shaped partly by the people they live with. The Rousseauian educator’s job is to manage this nurture so that it supports rather than corrupts the underlying nature.
Education’s job is to serve the child’s nature, not to fit the child into society’s needs
The social significance of education is secondary to the nature of the child. The educator’s first duty is to discover the laws of this particular child’s nature through careful investigation. A natural person, Rousseau adds, is not a savage; the natural child is one whose education has been fitted to their real nature rather than to a stereotype.
Second meaning: the psychological significance of nature
The second meaning of nature is psychological. Nature, in this sense, refers to the instinctive judgements, primitive emotions, and natural instincts of human beings.
Rousseau’s claim is that human action should be based on these. The instincts and emotions are not obstacles to a good life; they are the foundation of one. A person who has learned to trust their own instincts and emotions, and whose judgements rest on them, has a stable inner life. A person whose instincts and emotions have been replaced by external rules has only the rules to fall back on, and the rules break down under pressure.
To understand the nature of these instincts and emotions, Rousseau says, one must investigate the psychology behind them. This is one of the points where Emile really does deserve the title one of the greatest works on developmental psychology. Rousseau is interested in how a child’s emotional life develops, how a child’s judgement matures, and how the educator can support that development without disrupting it.
The psychological nature is, for Rousseau, more important than the social interactions the child has with peers. This is a striking claim and deserves attention. Most modern accounts of child development would weight peer interaction heavily. Rousseau weights the inner psychological development more heavily because he believes the inner development is what determines whether peer interaction goes well or badly.
The most controversial application is Rousseau’s advice on habits. Children, he says, must not be allowed to develop habits born of social interactions. The only habit a child should be allowed to develop is no habit whatsoever.
This is meant literally and is meant to be uncomfortable. Rousseau argues that habits formed in early childhood become hard to change later, and that early habits are usually copied from the surrounding adults rather than chosen by the child. By keeping the child habit-free in early life, the educator preserves the child’s capacity to choose their own habits later, from a position of mature judgement. The advice is hard to apply in any real family and has been argued with ever since. The underlying point about the danger of premature habit-formation is still worth taking seriously.
Human action should rest on instinctive judgements, primitive emotions, and natural instincts
These are not obstacles to a good life but its foundation. A person whose instincts and emotions have been replaced by external rules has only the rules to fall back on, and the rules break down under pressure. The psychological inner development matters more than peer interaction because the inner life determines whether peer interaction goes well or badly.
Because habits formed in early childhood are hard to change later and are usually copied from surrounding adults
By keeping the child habit-free in early life, the educator preserves the child’s capacity to choose their own habits later, from a position of mature judgement. The rule is a thought-experiment more than a literal recipe; a real child cannot grow up with no habits at all. The underlying caution about premature habit-formation is what to keep.
Third meaning: the physical significance of nature
The third meaning is the physical one. Education, Rousseau argues, should be imparted in natural surroundings, in a natural atmosphere, for a fuller and deeper impact on the student.
The claim is partly practical. A child growing up surrounded by trees, fields, animals, and weather has direct daily contact with the things their education is about. A child growing up entirely indoors in a crowded city has to take most of that contact through pictures, books, and second-hand reports. The first child has the richer learning environment.
The claim is partly philosophical. Rousseau wanted educators to go back to nature or to follow nature in a concrete way: choose, where possible, to do the work of education in natural surroundings rather than in artificial ones. He held that nature is the best teacher and that cities are the graves of civilisations. The second half of that line is rhetorical, but the underlying judgement is serious. A heavily urbanised education, Rousseau argued, loses something the educator cannot put back artificially.
Rousseau himself was a lover of nature in a way that was new for his time. His teachings began a movement of finer and fuller appreciation of nature in European culture. By the end of the eighteenth century, the Romantic poets had taken this further; by the twentieth, the outdoor education and forest-school movements traced their lineage back through Rousseau. The thread is unbroken.
For a modern educator working in a city school, the lesson is not that they should pack up and move to the countryside. The lesson is to find what natural contact they can: a school garden, a weekly outdoor visit, a window box with plants the children tend themselves. The physical significance of nature does not require perfect conditions. It requires the educator to take the physical surroundings seriously as part of what teaches the child.
Education should happen in natural surroundings for a fuller and deeper impact on the student
A child growing up surrounded by trees, fields, animals, and weather has direct daily contact with the things their education is about. Rousseau held that nature is the best teacher and that cities are the graves of civilisations. The line is partly rhetorical, but the underlying judgement is serious: a heavily urbanised education loses something the educator cannot put back artificially.
How was this article?