The Enlightenment, a transformative period in European intellectual history, was defined by its emphasis on reason, individual freedom, and the reform of societal institutions. Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Jean le Rond d'Alembert were two central figures in this movement, each offering a distinct perspective on society, culture, and morality. Rousseau, known for his advocacy of natural human goodness, was deeply critical of modern institutions, particularly those of urban life, which he believed corrupted individuals by distancing them from nature. D’Alembert, a mathematician and philosopher, co-edited the Encyclopédie, a foundational work of the Enlightenment that embodied the movement’s faith in reason and progress. His views were more optimistic, especially concerning the potential of cultural institutions like theater to foster civic engagement and moral reflection.

These contrasting views would come to a head in Rousseau’s Letter to d’Alembert on the topic of public theater in Geneva. While d'Alembert praised the role of theater in Paris and suggested its introduction to Rousseau’s native Geneva, Rousseau was adamantly opposed. Their exchange on this issue reveals deeper philosophical tensions regarding the role of culture, morality, and governance in shaping society.

At the heart of their disagreement was a broader debate about the city as both a built environment and a political unit. Rousseau and d’Alembert’s ideas offer insights into how cities—whether in the form of vibrant cultural hubs like Paris or more austere, religious centers like Geneva—shaped the moral character of their citizens. In the case of Paris, a bustling metropolis filled with theaters, salons, and intellectual exchanges, cultural life was seen as a tool for enlightenment. However, Geneva, a small and conservative republic, avoided the spectacle of public entertainment, in part because of its Calvinist heritage. Rousseau believed this was one of Geneva’s strengths, a protection against the moral decay that could accompany public spectacles like theater.

Paris, during the Enlightenment, was marked by its dense cultural life and its numerous theaters. D’Alembert, a Parisian intellectual, saw this flourishing cultural scene as a sign of progress. He believed theater had the power to educate the masses by reflecting human nature and promoting moral behavior. D’Alembert’s optimism is encapsulated in his belief that "The theater makes virtue lovable; it accomplishes a great miracle in doing what nature and reason do before it." He viewed theater as a platform where the complexities of human nature could be explored, helping the audience engage with moral questions and develop a deeper understanding of virtue.

Rousseau viewed Paris as a city where theater distracted individuals from their moral responsibilities by glorifying their basest passions. He believed that rather than cultivating virtue, theater reinforced the public’s vanity and superficial desires. He warned d’Alembert, “The stage is, in general, a painting of the human passions, the original of which is in every heart. But if the painter neglected to flatter these passions, the spectators would soon be repelled and would not want to see themselves in a light that made them despise themselves.” For Rousseau, the problem was that theater encouraged passion over reason and led to moral detachment from reality.

The contrast between Paris, a bustling cultural hub, and Geneva, a conservative city, highlighted the philosophical divide between the two thinkers. Rousseau saw Geneva’s lack of theaters as a conscious moral decision that preserved the city’s purity and prevented the moral corruption he believed theater introduced. He believed that theater, by focusing on the superficial and the emotional, distracted individuals from their true moral duties. The influence of Calvinism in Geneva had led to a society where moral guidance was provided not by cultural institutions like theater, but by the church and public opinion. Rousseau saw this as a more natural and effective way to cultivate virtue, as it emphasized personal responsibility and community judgment over the artificial spectacles of the stage.

D’Alembert, on the other hand, believed that cultural institutions like theater were essential for the intellectual and moral development of society. In his view, the stage provided a space where complex moral issues could be explored and where audiences could reflect on their own lives and decisions. This reflective process, d’Alembert argued, was key to fostering a more enlightened and virtuous society. He saw Paris, with its thriving cultural scene, as a model of progress and intellectual growth, and he believed that Geneva could benefit from the same cultural richness.

Rousseau’s opposition to theater in Geneva was also tied to his broader critique of modern society. He believed that the growth of cities, with their emphasis on commerce, entertainment, and spectacle, had led to a decline in moral values. For Rousseau, virtue was rooted in simplicity, nature, and the absence of artifice. He argued that in small cities like Geneva, where public opinion and religious authority played a central role in shaping behavior, there was less need for artificial forms of entertainment like theater. Rousseau argued that theater promoted vanity and superficial desires, diverting people’s attention from genuine moral responsibilities and fostering superficiality in public life. Rousseau’s skepticism of urban life and its cultural institutions was part of his larger critique of modernity, which he believed had corrupted the natural goodness of humanity.

Rousseau’s critique of modernity extended beyond theater and urban life to the very institutions that shaped behavior. He believed cities, with their artificial structures of governance, religion, and cultural norms, corrupted the natural goodness of humanity. As he wrote, “Man is one, I admit it, but man modified by religion, governments, laws, customs, prejudices, and climates becomes so different from himself.” For Rousseau, urban institutions—including theaters—transformed individuals, distancing them from their natural virtues and encouraging the pursuit of superficial values. In his view, cities led people toward artificial desires and distractions, which weakened their moral compass.

D’Alembert, on the other hand, viewed urban life as a catalyst for intellectual and moral growth. He argued that cities, with their cultural diversity, offered opportunities for individuals to engage with new ideas. Theater, in his view, was a space where complex human emotions could be explored and reflected upon. By watching these representations on stage, audiences could come to a deeper understanding of themselves and their moral responsibilities. D’Alembert believed that theater, by depicting the complexities of human nature, played an essential role in fostering self-reflection and moral improvement. His belief in the power of reason and education to perfect humanity lay at the core of his defense of theater.

The contrast between Rousseau and d’Alembert’s views on theater also extended to their ideas about gender and the portrayal of women on stage. Rousseau was particularly critical of how the theater idealized women, portraying them as objects of desire rather than autonomous individuals. He believed that this distorted the natural balance between men and women, degrading both sexes. As Rousseau noted, “What succeeds in making this image dangerous is precisely what is done to make them agreeable.” This, he argued, flattered the audience’s desires, rather than offering a true reflection of reality. For Rousseau, the theater’s portrayal of women contributed to the broader moral decay of society by encouraging superficiality and undermining genuine, virtuous relationships.

Rousseau critiqued the portrayal of love and virtue in theater, arguing that these themes were often presented in a distorted manner that misled the audience. The theater, he claimed, idealized love, particularly in its depiction of women, turning them into mere objects of desire rather than representing natural and virtuous relationships. As he wrote, “What succeeds in making this image dangerous is precisely what is done to make them agreeable. Love never rages on the stage other than indecently.” For Rousseau, this portrayal encouraged superficial emotions and passions, distracting the audience from genuine moral reflection and cultivating a misguided understanding of virtue.

D’Alembert, on the other hand, believed that the theater could provide a more nuanced portrayal of gender relations. He saw the stage as a space where complex human emotions, including love and desire, could be explored in depth. For d’Alembert, the portrayal of women on stage was not necessarily harmful, as it allowed audiences to reflect on the dynamics of human relationships and the moral questions they raised. He believed that the theater’s depiction of love and desire could help individuals better understand their own emotions and relationships, fostering greater self-awareness and moral growth.

The broader debate between Rousseau and d’Alembert on the role of theater reflects their differing views on the nature of virtue. For Rousseau, virtue was rooted in simplicity, nature, and the absence of artifice. He believed that cities, with their theaters and distractions, corrupted this natural virtue by encouraging vanity, superficiality, and the pursuit of pleasure over moral development. D’Alembert, however, saw virtue as something that could be cultivated through education and reason, with cultural institutions like theater playing an important role in this process. He believed that the stage, by presenting the complexities of human nature, could help individuals develop a deeper understanding of themselves and their society, fostering moral reflection and improvement.

D’Alembert’s view of the city, however, as a space for intellectual and cultural growth, resonates with the contemporary vision of cities as hubs of innovation, diversity, and creativity. His belief that theater could help foster civic responsibility and moral reflection is reflected in modern urban policies that promote access to the arts as a means of improving quality of life and encouraging social cohesion. D’Alembert’s idea that “the love of the beautiful is a sentiment as natural to the human heart as the love of self” underpins the modern belief in the importance of aesthetic experiences in shaping a well-rounded, virtuous citizenry. His view suggests that cultural institutions, far from being distractions, are essential components of a vibrant, enlightened society.

This debate resonates with challenges faced by cities today. In modern urban environments, the question of how cultural institutions like theater and media influence public morality remains a critical issue. Rousseau’s skepticism toward these institutions can be seen in contemporary critiques of mass media and popular culture, where concerns are raised about the ways in which entertainment can distract people from meaningful engagement with the world and promote superficial values. On the other hand, d’Alembert’s optimism about the potential for cultural institutions to foster reflection and moral growth is echoed in arguments about the educational and civic value of media, art, and public discourse.

The city, as both a built environment and a political entity, plays a central role in shaping the lives of its inhabitants. As the course this article addresses notes, cities are far more than just buildings and streets; they are centers of social and cultural life, where individuals and groups express themselves and interact. Rousseau and d’Alembert’s differing views on the role of theater and cultural institutions reflect the multidimensional nature of cities as places where both the aesthetics of life and the political realities of governance intersect. For Rousseau, the city, particularly one like Paris, was a place of corruption, where cultural institutions distracted citizens from the pursuit of virtue and encouraged them to embrace artificiality over natural goodness. D’Alembert, on the other hand, saw cities as centers of intellectual and cultural growth, where institutions like the theater could serve as tools for enlightenment, allowing citizens to reflect on their lives and cultivate virtue.

The Enlightenment’s emphasis on reason and the power of education to improve society is central to both Rousseau and d’Alembert’s thought, though they arrived at different conclusions about how best to achieve this. Rousseau believed that the best way to cultivate virtue was through a return to simplicity and nature, away from the distractions of urban life and its cultural institutions. In his view, cities like Paris, with their theaters and public spectacles, promoted a kind of social life that was disconnected from the natural virtues of honesty, humility, and civic responsibility. He argued that "The good use of time makes time even more precious, and the better one puts it to use, the less one can find to lose." For Rousseau, the pursuit of entertainment and leisure was a misuse of time that could have been spent cultivating moral character and engaging in productive activities.

D’Alembert, however, believed that cultural institutions like the theater could help guide people toward virtue by offering them a reflection of human nature. He saw the theater as a place where reason and emotion could be reconciled, allowing the audience to better understand themselves and their place in society. His belief in the theater’s educational potential was rooted in his broader optimism about the power of reason to improve human life. He argued that the depiction of human passions on stage could help people recognize their own weaknesses and strive for moral improvement, stating that "The source of the concern which attaches us to what is decent, and which inspires us with aversion for evil, is in us, and not in the plays." This reflects his belief that cultural institutions could activate the innate moral sense within individuals, guiding them toward better behavior.

Both Rousseau and d’Alembert were concerned with the question of how cities shape the morals of their inhabitants, and their debate over the role of theater offers insights into the broader Enlightenment discussion about virtue and society. In the context of the city, Rousseau’s and d’Alembert’s views provide important insights into how urban environments can shape the morals and behavior of their inhabitants. Rousseau’s suspicion of the city’s cultural institutions aligns with the concerns of modern urban critics who argue that cities, with their dense populations and constant stimulation, can erode individual autonomy and encourage conformity. Rousseau’s belief that “by what means can the government get a hold on morals? I answered that it is by public opinion” reflects his view that civic virtue is best maintained through the judgment of one’s peers, rather than through artificial cultural spectacles like theater. This is echoed today in arguments that emphasize the importance of community involvement, grassroots organizing, and local governance in shaping public morality.

Their exchange touches on key issues that continue to resonate in discussions about the impact of media, culture, and public institutions on civic life. The city, as both a physical space and a social entity, plays a central role in shaping the lives of its citizens, and the institutions within it—whether theaters, schools, or places of worship—serve as crucial sites where public morality is debated, reinforced, or undermined.