摘要：The article investigates the relations between men and women in Rousseau’s major works to uncover the possibility of a long-term rule of women over men. Rousseau does provide examples of alternating rule between the sexes. However, given that the rule of prominent women like Sophie and Julie is indirect and more Machiavellian than that of men, I make the case that Rousseau sees straightforward control by women as more consistent with modern conditions (specifically in an indirect-rule as opposed to an instrumental-rationality sense). First, I provide examples of Sophie’s rule in Emile. Sophie rules Emile especially through acts of charity that incline Emile to participate in the project that Sophie has undertaken, making him more capable of willing generally. Second, I show that Julie at Clarens rules a number of the men there and particularly in the administration of the estate. Interestingly, like Sophie’s, her power is communicated through concrete examples of charitable action. Rousseau writes that, as a result, those around her are imbued with the spirit to contribute to the projects of importance to her, which also renders them more apt to will generally. Interestingly, two women as different as Sophie and Julie rule men in the same way: through charity. They do so as the result of a religious education. And, whereas religious education in Rousseau is in general anti-metaphysical, this is especially true for women compared to men. The examples of Sophie and Julie do, therefore, take us into territory of the sexes alternating in rule. But the difference in education suggests that for Rousseau their rule goes deeper and represents a relation more fundamental than the rule of men over women. The possibility is further confirmed through an analysis of Rousseau’s states of nature. At the end of the day, the reevaluation of relations between the sexes in Rousseau’s work is long overdue. I engage a rich scholarly literature and embark on a rereading of several of Rousseau’s works to offer a fresh interpretation that suggests the citizen of Geneva was not only open to a significant increase in the power of women over time, but that he actually favored matriarchy. The argument hopefully underscores the way in which great works are both timely and timeless.
