Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-495rp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-06T11:41:06.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bad Education: Pity, Moral Learning, and the Limits of Rousseauan Friendship

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2014

John Warner
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite a recent resurgence of interest in friendship and a seemingly inexhaustible fascination with Rousseau, scholars have neglected Rousseau's conception of friendship. The work that does exist emphasizes friendship's ability to inculcate virtue, and moors Rousseau to the classical notion that friendship catalyzes ethical improvement. However, Rousseau lowers the aim of friendship by decoupling it from the process of moral learning and putting limits on the degree of intimacy between friends. The argument is made in four steps. First, Rousseau's theory of friendship differs from its relevant predecessors in both origin and end. Second, the effort to ground friendship in pity bounds emotional intimacy, since pity introduces elements of character difference as well as sameness. Third, Rousseauan friendship fails to catalyze virtue and is successful instead in providing consolation. Finally, the essay considers the function of friendship in a Rousseauan polity.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 76 , Issue 2 , Spring 2014 , pp. 243 - 266
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Pangle, Lorraine, Aristotle's Philosophy of Friendship (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008)Google Scholar; Burger, Ronna, “Hunting Together or Philosophizing Together: Friendship and Eros in Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics,” in Love and Friendship, ed. Velasquez, Eduardo (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2003), 37–60Google Scholar.

2 On friendship's political importance, see Aristotle, , Nicomachean Ethics, trans. Ross, David, rev. Ackrill, J. L. and Urmson, J. O. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998)Google Scholar, 1155a10.

3 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, The Confessions and Correspondence, Including the Letters to Malesherbes, ed. Kelly, Christopher, Masters, Roger D., and Stillman, Peter G., trans. Kelly, Christopher (Hanover: University Press of New England, 1995), 308, 361Google Scholar.

4 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, Julie, or the New Heloise, in Collected Writings of Rousseau, vol. 6, trans. Stewart, Phillip and Vaché, Jean, ed. Masters, Roger D. and Kelly, Christopher (Hanover: University Press of New England, 1997)Google Scholar.

5 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, Emile, or On Education, trans. Bloom, Allan (New York: Basic Books, 1979)Google Scholar, 233n; Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, The First and Second Discourses, trans. Masters, Roger and Masters, Judith (New York: St. Martin's, 1964), 38Google Scholar.

6 Reisert, Joseph, Rousseau: Friend of Virtue (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003), 80, 94Google Scholar.

7 Reisert, Friend of Virtue: since “each [friend] regards the other as almost a part of himself,” and since friendship is “the sole relationship within which education to virtue can take place,” it is clear Reisert conceives of Rousseau as carrying the classical ideal forward along these two key dimensions (Friend of Virtue, 80).

8 Bloom, Allan, Love and Friendship (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1993)Google Scholar; Orwin, Clifford, “Rousseau and the Discovery of Political Compassion,” in The Legacy of Rousseau, ed. Orwin, Clifford and Tarcov, Nathan (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), 296–320Google Scholar; Boyd, Richard, “Pity's Pathologies Portrayed: Rousseau and the Limits of Democratic Compassion,” Political Theory 32 (2004): 519–46Google Scholar.

9 For a rehabilitation of Rousseauan compassion, see esp. Marks, Jonathan, “Rousseau's Discriminating Defense of Compassion,” American Political Science Review 101 (2007): 727–40Google Scholar.

10 Cicero and Montaigne were very influential in Rousseau's age and known to Rousseau himself. Thus I treat their theories of friendship as important parts of the intellectual context Rousseau seeks to reshape. On Cicero, see Wood, Neal, Cicero's Social and Political Thought (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988)Google Scholar, 3; and Garsten, Bryan, Saving Persuasion: In Defense of Rhetoric (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006)Google Scholar, 60. On Montaigne, see Marchi, Dudley M., Montaigne Among the Moderns: Receptions of the “Essais” (Providence: Berghahn Books, 1994)Google Scholar; and Fontana, Biancamaria, Montaigne's Politics: Authority and Governance in the “Essays” (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008), 24–25Google Scholar.

11 Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1155a20, 1158b1.

12 Cicero, De amicitia §5, §7.

13 de Montaigne, Michel, The Complete Essays, trans. Frame, Donald (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1958), 166CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1155a10.

15 Cicero, De amicitia §5.

16 Montaigne, Essays, 164–65.

17 Cicero, De amicitia §7.

18 Rousseau, Second Discourse, 95. How critical Rousseau's engagement is, is a matter of some debate. Sorenson occupies a middle ground between Plattner, who views Rousseau as breaking radically with traditional teleology, and Lemos, who believes Rousseau's providentialist language moors him to a broadly teleological view of the world. See Sorenson, Leonard, “Natural Inequality and Rousseau's Political Philosophy in His Discourse on Inequality,” Western Political Quarterly 43 (1990): 763–88Google Scholar; Plattner, Marc F., Rousseau's State of Nature (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1979)Google Scholar; Lemos, Ramon M., Rousseau's Political Philosophy: An Exposition and Interpretation (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1977)Google Scholar.

19 Rousseau, Second Discourse, 131–32.

20 Rousseau, Emile, 220–22.

21 Rousseau, Second Discourse, 131–32; cf. Rousseau, Confessions, 361–62.

22 Rousseau, Second Discourse, 95.

23 Rousseau, Emile, 221, italics original.

24 Ibid.

25 Ibid., 223.

26 Reisert, Friend of Virtue, 90.

27 Ibid., 88. Marks endorses this view: see Marks, “Rousseau's Discriminating Defense,” 732n24.

28 Marks, “Rousseau's Discriminating Defense,” 732.

29 Reisert, Friend of Virtue, 80, 90, 84.

30 Rousseau, Emile, 222.

31 Rousseau himself emphasizes the importance of “first encounters” in Emile (414–15), where the conditions under which Emile and Sophie meet are carefully manipulated in order to get the couple off on the right foot. See also Julie, 556, where St. Preux balks at the prospect of marrying his friend Claire. Despite being attracted to Claire, he claims he has simply been friends with her for too long to view her as a lover. In both cases, the way in which relationships develop has much to do with the conditions out of which they emerge.

32 Rousseau, Julie, 332, emphasis added.

33 Ibid., 157.

34 Rousseau, Confessions, 361, 365–67. On Julie's sales, see Darnton, Robert, The Great Cat Massacre and Other Episodes in French Cultural History (New York: Viking, 1984), 42Google Scholar.

35 For all the faults of the characters, Rousseau nonetheless believes that “one learns to love mankind” through Julie's portraits of love and friendship. See Rousseau, Julie, 9.

36 Rousseau, Julie, 456.

37 Cf. Reisert, Friend of Virtue, 94–95.

38 Rousseau, Julie, 456. Cf. Reisert, Friend of Virtue, 94–95.

39 Montaigne, Essays, 170; Cicero, De amicitia §8.

40 Cf. Rousseau, Second Discourse, 122–23.

41 Rousseau, Julie, 457.

42 Ibid., 460.

43 Ibid., 275.

44 Ibid., 277.

45 E.g., at ibid., 103, 135, 167.

46 Disch, Lisa, “Claire Loves Julie: Reading the Story of Women's Friendship in La Nouvelle Héloïse,” Hypatia 9, no. 3 (1994): 19–45Google Scholar. See esp. 25–28.

47 Rousseau, Julie, 253–54.

48 Ibid., 257.

49 Ibid., 257n.

50 Ibid., 291.

51 Ibid., 342.

52 Cf. Disch, “Claire Loves Julie,” 37–41.

53 Rousseau, Julie, 432.

54 Shklar, Judith, Men and Citizens (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), chap. 4Google Scholar.

55 Cf. Reisert, Friend of Virtue, 104–5.

56 Rousseau, Emile, 233n.

57 Although see Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1162a5.

58 Rousseau, Emile, 316.

59 Ibid., 323.

60 Charvet, John, The Social Problem in the Philosophy of Rousseau (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974)Google Scholar, 19; Allan Bloom, introduction to Emile, 19; Nussbaum, Martha, Upheavals of Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 385CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

61 Marks, “Rousseau's Discriminating Defense,” 732.

62 See, respectively, Orwin, Clifford, “Moist Eyes—From Rousseau to Clinton,” The Public Interest, Summer 1997Google Scholar, 7; Boyd, “Pity's Pathologies Portrayed”; Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, Preface to Narcisse, in Rousseau on Philosophy, Morality, and Religion, ed. Kelly, Christopher (Hanover: University Press of New England, 2007), 25Google Scholar.

63 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, Politics and the Arts, trans. and ed. Bloom, Allan (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1960), 124–25Google Scholar. See also 24–26.

64 Rousseau, Emile, 312n.

65 E.g., ibid., 445.