MODERN LIBERALISM AND PRIDE An Augustinian Perspective

Abstract

In "Toward an Augustinian Liberalism," Paul Weithman argues that modern liberal institutions should be concerned with the political vice of pride as a threat to the neutral, legitimate use of public power that liberalism demands. By directing our attention to pride, Weithman attempts to provide an incentive to and foundation for an Augustinian liberalism that can counteract this threat. While Weithman is right to point to the centrality of pride in understanding the modern liberal tradition, an investigation of the early modern reflections on pride in politics reveals a deeper tension between Augustine and modern liberalism than Weithman's analysis acknowledges. This essay discusses this tension by focusing on Hobbes's account of pride and equality in the commonwealth, asking whether Hobbes can be understood as a thinker in the Augustinian political tradition. In order to provide a background on pride as a political vice, this essay contrasts Aristotelian magnanimity with Augustinian humility. Finally, Aquinas's attempt to reintroduce magnanimity into the Augustinian political tradition is considered as a more consistent development of Augustine's thought, thereby revealing more pointedly the tension between Augustine and modern liberalism. By way of conclusion, the possibility of deflating this tension is briefly addressed by considering Jean Bethke Elshtain's discussion of an Augustinian liberalism that does not rely upon a "secular" conception of human nature.

Re‐Creation and Preservation: Augustine and Hobbes on Pride and Fallen Politics

“…However, he argues that this apparent similarity masks a more fundamental difference in the thinkers' anthropologies. Hobbesian politics “requires relinquishing pride by acknowledging others as our equals and the sovereign as the instrument of peace” (2007, 470). Krom argues that in seeing the human sovereign as the solution to pride, Hobbes grounds his political theory “in a conception of human nature that fails to acknowledge the depths of human wickedness” in humanity's attempt to “replace Creator with creature” (2007, 470–71).…”

“…Hobbesian politics “requires relinquishing pride by acknowledging others as our equals and the sovereign as the instrument of peace” (2007, 470). Krom argues that in seeing the human sovereign as the solution to pride, Hobbes grounds his political theory “in a conception of human nature that fails to acknowledge the depths of human wickedness” in humanity's attempt to “replace Creator with creature” (2007, 470–71). Augustine, on the other hand, presents a more explicitly theological anthropology that sees only the creator as the sufficient remedy for pride.…”

“…Thus, as scholars have recognized, Hobbes presents a political solution to the problem of pride. 8 Michael Krom (2007) also recognizes that Augustine and Hobbes both focus on the need to curb pride. However, he argues that this apparent similarity masks a more fundamental difference in the thinkers' anthropologies.…”

The Ethics of Reflexivity: Pride, Self-Sufficiency, and Modesty

“…Study of Confucius's account of the junzi, the exemplary person, and study of Augustine's account of superbia, or vicious pride, highlight the appeal of the value of humility and the apparently Anti-Aristotelian renunciation of pride. See Sim [2012] and Krom [2007]. Hume discusses emotional pride at length, and both he and Adam Smith argue that the reflexive character trait of greatness of mind is both useful and agreeable to the self and to others.…”