An Intellectual Biography Émile Perreau-SauSSine translated by nathan J. Pinkoski Foreword by Pierre Manent University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana ALASDAIR M A C INTYRE
Contents A Note on the Translation ix Foreword, by Pierre Manent xi Introduction 1 ONE Politics: Impoverished Lives 15 I. The Disappointments of Socialism and Communism 15 II. From Marxism to Communitarianism? 30 III. A New Conservatism 44 TWO Philosophy: Collective Reasoning 57 I. The Moral Critique of Stalinism 57 II. Moral Life and Socially Established Practices 75 III. The philosophy of Tradition 91 THREE Theology: The Community of Believers 111 I. Are Wars of Religion as Dangerous as Secularization? 111 II. The Absence of Liberal Spirituality 126 III. The Theology of the Tradition 138 Epilogue 155 Notes 161 Index of Names 193
Foreword
Liberalism, that’s the enemy! Thus we could summarize the opinion that, in a diffuse and insistent way, inspires the works of those who offer their views on our political, social, and economic situation. At the same time, we agree to recognize that the alternatives to liberalism have lost all credi bility. Never has a principle organizing human association been more criticized while triumphant, or more triumphant while discredited. What should we make of this enigma? We need not look for the answer either in the particularity of circumstances or in the universal character of human dissatisfaction. Surely it is liberalism itself that supplies the best explanation of its strange situation in opinion. But how do we conduct this enquiry into liberalism? Must we reconstitute liberalism’s intellectual history? Or its political history? Or that of its social and moral effects, direct and indirect? All these approaches can be legitimate and fruitful. In the fine book that follows, Émile Perreau-Saussine has chosen another. It is, in short, an application of what Charles Péguy called “the method of eminent cases.” Alasdair MacIntyre offers us the eminent case, or culminating case, of a long and complex intellectual trajectory, rich in variations and even in conversions. However, for more than fifty years, his steady core of antiliberal anger has supplied the energy and radiance for his singular and singularly revealing work. MacIntyre’s intellectual biography, which Perreau-Saussine conducts with the necessary sympathy but also without letting himself be intimidated by the philosopher’s often boastful tone, is not only “the story of a soul” (however endearing that may be). It is also the instrument to xi
One of the first results of Perreau-Saussine’s enquiry is that it helps us order our past. At first glance, it seems that in the second half of the twentieth century, political and philosophical problems unceasingly re newed themselves for each generation. They differentiated according to the circumstances—in particular, the national circumstances. Who does not know that in philosophy and in politics, an abyss separates France and the United Kingdom, or the French and the “Anglo-Americans”? Well, they are not so different! Through the distinctions and connections that our young guide Perreau-Saussine draws, we are made to revisit our past. Both the polemic between Sartre and Camus and the critique of Stalinism on the one hand, and the debate between liberals and communitarians on the other, fall within one large but circumscribed argument. MacIntyre’s work, surely better than any other, enables us to discern this. The existen tial subject, whether ceding to the prestige of History or stoically refusing to let itself be carried away, exhibits the same fragility as the liberal subject, which is responsible for managing the portfolio of its identities. Yet more essential than good action is action itself. Before “taking a stand” in society and in history, and in order to do it wisely, we need in the first place to re cover the understanding of what it is to act. And good action will then ap pear in the first place as completed action, as that which best fulfills the nature of action. We should be grateful to MacIntyre for identifying the central lacuna in our approach to the human world—namely, our inadequate understanding of human action and our reason’s abandonment of its “practical” register. First, we must understand what acting means! With the question having been asked in these terms, the answer, at least in its outline, is self-evident. We need to look from Aristotle’s per spective, simply because he is the only author, ancient or modern, to have completely clarified the realm of action on its own terms, with the corre sponding notion of practical reason (what Kant calls by that name covers something else entirely). MacIntyre approaches Aristotle through the mediation of Elizabeth Anscombe in particular, who had herself rediscovered Aristotle through the mediation of Wittgenstein, and whose singular personality is well limned by Émile Perreau-Saussine. Here, however, the risk would be to allow oneself to be dazzled by such prestigious figures. On the xii Foreword
access a set of political, social, moral, and philosophical problems of pressing interest to us all.
contrary, Perreau-Saussine is very sensitive to the paradoxical particularity of the Aristotle who is here invoked: he is fundamentally apolitical! We find the strength and weakness of MacIntyre’s approach in his recourse to a philosophy of man as a “social animal,” disdaining real interest in man as a “political animal.” We understand how this mutilated Aristotle comes to serve the oppositional political posture from which MacIntyre has never departed. Mac Intyre is always “for” the subpolitical community threatened by the politi cal community that rises in power, and “against” the latter. Very subtly, Perreau-Saussine shows how Andrew Fletcher, the Scottish patriot and enemy of the Act of Union with England, is MacIntyre’s hero and, so to speak, his model. Caught between the sovereignty of the individual and that of the nation-state, the local community—fishermen’s village, crafts men’s guild, Benedictine monastery—always incorporates the sana pars of human practice, or is the place where this practice takes refuge. MacIn tyre’s contribution to the analysis of the life of practice and his phenome nology of the good as “internal” to a practice (therefore incommensurable with the criteria of “money” or “rights”) are often highly incisive. But what is the ultimate validity of a conception of the human world that, in the name of practice, evacuates the human world of its political part?
Perreau-Saussine emphasizes that MacIntyre, in this respect as unAristotelian as possible, is interested neither in political form nor in political regime. He roundly condemns the nation-state, even though the political framework in which European man organized his life for many centuries surely merits more than some brisk expressions of contempt. There is no trace in the philosopher’s work of the Aristotelian debate on political justice, holding in tension the demands of a small number and those of a great number. Incidentally, he feels only repugnance for the Aristotelian portrait of magnanimity. As Perreau-Saussine rightly says, MacIntyre broaches political questions guided by the Nicomachean Ethics alone and after having essentially rejected his Politics. He also keeps very little of the Ethics itself. As Perreau-Saussine indicates, this is because MacIntyre is in fact hardly interested in the particular virtues and distinctions of which Aristotle offers an unrivaled description. Rather, for MacIntyre the heart of practical life is the practice of craftsman or skilled worker, on the condition that this practice might be transformed into a habit or a Foreword xiii
Aurel Kolnai sees a sort of perverse affectation in the way Oakeshott, so to speak, immerses human life in “idioms of conduct,” above which it is impossible to raise one’s head to access something like common reason or rational debate.1 But Oakeshott does not purport to struggle against moral relativism, which constitutes one of MacIntyre’s principal intentions, per haps the principal intention. MacIntyre’s intention is undoubtedly ratio nalist, and his aversion to certain deep practical irrationalities of the liberal world is often expressed in a gripping and liberating way. But how does he intend to depart from relativism or heal us, as we, though sick, are happy? By recourse to traditions, or to some single tradition of moral enquiry?
tradition. Certainly, Aristotle makes a great use of “technical” comparisons in his analyses of practical life, but here, the comparison tends to obscure the matter in question. We are therefore very far from Aristotle, but very close to an author such as Michael Oakeshott. I believe Perreau-Saussine does not mention him. But while Oakeshott’s social sensibility is opposed to that of MacIntyre—Oakeshott is just as “refined,” even “genteel,” as MacIntyre claims to be “plain”—Oakeshott analyzes “human conduct” on the model, for example, of the transmission of culinary competences. And in these two cases, the stress placed on the spontaneous or natural transmission of practices endangers the integrity and the validity of reason.
MacIntyre is right to emphasize that the development of a refined practi cal rationality presupposes the continuity of a tradition. However, he risks mistaking the condition for practical rationality with the substance of prac tical rationality. MacIntyre does not ignore that it is, so to speak, a perennial experience that a tradition ossifies and loses itself. A tradition “forgets its origins” (as Edmund Husserl says) if it is not periodically shaken by ruptures with the tradition. Perhaps one such rupture, several generations later, will without scandal become part of the tradition that it had attacked. But in the end, at every moment in time, the question posed to us within each tradition is not only whether the tradition coheres but also whether it coheres with the truth of human phenomena. This is again a point where MacIntyre essentially distances himself from Aristotle. For Aristotle, the opinions of the city and the traditions of the city are only the point of departure for enquiry. This enquiry should lead us beyond the opinions and traditions of the city, which is to say out side of the city itself. It does not seem that MacIntyre feels the slightest xiv Foreword
need or desire to accomplish this movement of rupture. He does not dream of exiting the cave, as long as the cave is unpretentious and lit by candle light. If we have really lost all sense of practical rationality, if even the most venerable institutions—the universities and the churches—are but shadows of themselves (as MacIntyre himself readily recognizes), in which tra dition can we find ourselves again, since the traditions are precisely what is lost? Are we not, so to speak, condemned to search for the truth with ele ments detached from all traditions and accessible to the rational animal as such? Would these not be a matter of searching for truth in the human experience, approached either through a “phenomenology” or through the “great books” of the philosophical tradition, which are custodians for the tradition of rupture with the tradition? We understand that after many “variations,” MacIntyre finally con verted to Catholicism. The Catholic conception of “The Tradition” more or less combines with MacIntyre’s conception of the tradition, if at least we avoid emphasizing the rigorous Catholic distinction between supernat ural revelation and natural reason—natural reason being the enquiring faculty that is naturally accessible to every human being as such and that is capable of elaborating a “natural theology.” Perreau-Saussine’s development of the religion question makes up the book’s most original and rich sec tions. We can read in particular a luminous explanation of how the enemy of liberalism happily settled in the country that is the liberal country par excellence, the United States of America. And this explanation of an “emi nent case” clarifies this very complicated question of the religious and moral difference between the two sides of the Atlantic, which is very important for us politically today. Let me quote several lines from it: Why did MacIntyre leave Europe in 1969? Why did he need to immigrate into the United States, into the most liberal of the commercial republics? Beyond the Atlantic, MacIntyre discovered the possibility of not being of his time . European homogenization en tails an imperious demand for presentism. Yet, in its origins, America was intended precisely as a land where different tempo ralities could coexist without melting together. . . . His theory of the primacy of traditions presupposes liberalism’s success: it comes after liberalism. Foreword xv
. . . MacIntyre’s America is the same as that which gave asy lum to the Puritans of the seventeenth century: the territory not ruled by the treaty of Westphalia.2
Émile Perreau-Saussine’s book establishes with perfect clarity the merits and the limits of Alasdair MacIntyre’s return to Aristotle, and more generally perhaps of the Anglo-American Aristotelianism derived from Thomism and Wittgensteinianism. To this school, we owe penetrating analy ses of practical life. But these analyses remain condemned to a certain ab straction because they refuse to consider the real concretizations of action, which always have a political mark or coefficient. This school is, in short, an “Aristotelianism of the opposition.” It leaves the great city in the power of practical heresies, and to be happy, it takes refuge in the pores of liberal society—as, in the Middle Ages, according to Marx, commerce took refuge in the pores of feudal society. But this is to flee combat while claiming to still fight on. The critique of liberalism that would only define it by its errors lacks plausibility. We need to explain a bit why liberalism is still stronger than our good Aristotelian reasons. Or, Perreau-Saussine suggests, might this be because we confuse liberal politics with its most abstract philosophi cal formulations, or with its most ideological political formulations? Instead of lodging Aristotle in the quarter of the artisans, forbidding exit, why not remember that he is more interested in those who command than in those who obey, simply because only those who command can develop all the virtues, and in particular the supreme virtue of practical life that xvi Foreword
So MacIntyre escaped from the powerful by taking refuge in the world’s most powerful country, from money by taking refuge in the richest country, and from the nation-state by taking refuge in the last nation-state of the West. But this is because, like a Thomist of another school before him, Jacques Maritain, MacIntyre discovered in America all the possibilities and virtues of the social, active, working, and benevolent man, who is always conscious that he depends on his fellow citizens as his fellow citi zens depend on him. Living in one of the innumerable social segments into which American democracy is subdivided, we can forget that money, like rights, homogenizes incommensurable things. We can forget that the individual, like the state, claims a ruinous and otherwise unintelligible sover eignty. We can forget liberalism.
is prudence? The great liberal statesmen probably did not lack prudence. Today, furthermore, with the European nation-state weakening and per haps soon disappearing, we can better recognize how much it resembles the Greek city: in its dynamism, in some of its wellsprings, and in the modality of its decline! No tradition protects us against the death of politi cal forms and the disappearance of the practices they harbor. The only thing that does not die is the intellect’s comprehension of things. Such is the teaching of Aristotle that MacIntyre would call prideful. In any case, without any trace of pride, but with much impartiality and subtlety, Émile Perreau-Saussine’s contribution is to make more precise the terms of the debate between practical philosophy and liberal politics, and thereby to clarify the conditions of sensible action in the city of liberty and equality.
Foreword xvii
Introduction
The solution to the political problem pertains not so much to a dynamic of the good but to a balance of evils. It is achieved less by an improvement of human beings and more by a careful adjustment of powers. This is the thesis that presides over the working of liberal democracy. Contrary to what we too often suggest, the first movement of liberal democracy’s theorists is somber and without illusions. They emphasize that human beings work to become powerful rather than to become just, that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Neither moral edification nor laws are enough to render citizens good and virtuous. It is useless to look to trans form tyrants into generous kings, oligarchs into aristocrats, and corrupt men into wise men. It is more efficient for ambition to counteract ambition so that one cancels out the other. Liberal democracy uses egoism and am bition, which lean in principle toward tyranny, to avoid tyranny itself. Are human beings dominated by the passion to acquire more things and more power? Do they want to possess ever more, to accumulate without limits? We will not gain by groaning about the human condition, by grumbling about it indefinitely. It is better to prove our audacity, and mount the beast to train it. Vices have an advantage over virtues: they are, so to speak, regular, stable, and foreseeable. In relying on the vices, in transforming passions into interests, we can ensure that each one pursues his interest in a way that profits everyone. We ensure order by developing this regularity in dis order itself. A little unsettled by such dexterity, we should exclaim with 1
Antiliberals of the right upend this critique. For them, liberal democracy seems not insufficiently democratic, but rather too democratic. They compare the modern world to the ancient world and are first and foremost struck by the progress of equality. It seems to them superficial to contrast formal equality with real equality. They remark that aristocracies have dis appeared, that slavery no longer exists in law, that paternal authority has withered away, and that money everywhere exerts an equalizing power. They denounce the reign of this equality, this razing to the ground that puts everyone, including the greatness of some and the mediocrity of others, on the same level. In the name of excellence and of glory, they protest against the shrinking of the soul. They call for a new aristocracy. If human beings fight for this or that cause, then the liberal resolves— or, more precisely, defuses—the conflict by abandoning talk of it. Everyone 2 Introduction
Liberal democracy supposes that human beings are naturally unjust, and that if we allow them to, they will behave like tyrants. Socialists and communists combine this thesis with a simple sociological statement: liberal democracy comprises different social classes, bosses and employees, bourgeois and proletarians. Do we believe, socialists and communists argue, that the rich (who are powerful) love the poor (who are weak) with a pure and generous love? If every man is a potential tyrant, there is no reason for the industrialist to refrain from exploiting the workers. Why do liberals, who distrust human beings so much, not distrust the richest human beings? As human beings hardly want the good and as justice de pends on a balance of forces, we should concern ourselves with the little means available to the poor. Liberal democracy provides for a balance of power, but it hardly ensures a balance within businesses or industries. As it tends to sacralize private property, it sacrifices economic equality for legal equality. In so doing, it abandons the most destitute to their own fate and to the greed of the wealthy. Liberal democracy is supposed to ensure a cer tain equality, but the equality that it extols remains “formal,” and we need to contrast it to a “real” equality.
Pascal: “The greatness of man even in his concupiscence, to have known how to draw from it an admirable rule!”1
Liberalism’s adversaries have opposed this regime, sometimes in the name of nobility (the critique of the right), sometimes in the name of justice (the critique of the left).
should decide for himself. Why risk civil war by looking to decide on a common good, when pluralism, which facilitates everything, is possible? This strategy has the merit of simplicity: human beings readily agree on trivial things (a commercial contract, for example), not on important things (such as final ends). The more serious and essential a question is, the more it is liable to enrage. The liberal technique par excellence consists in “neutralizing” the public sphere, in “privatizing” its problems. For antiliberals of the right, this privatization raises two difficulties. On the one hand, it encourages mediocrity. An entirely peaceful universe, where all preciously keep their convictions to themselves, is not the paradise that liberalism promises. It is a flattened, dehumanized world, without the martyrs or the heroes who are the salt of the earth. It is a world where human beings, aban doning self-improvement, merely enrich themselves. On the other hand, for antiliberals of the right, the hypothesis of a tranquil and depoliticized world mistakenly presupposes that human beings are essentially good, that one can disregard the aggressive urges that incite conflicts and wars. In this sense, liberals do not take the reality of evil seriously. Therefore, one should turn what seems to be liberalism’s principle, the primacy of evil, against liberalism itself. Liberalism can be criticized in the name of justice or in the name of nobility. In the twentieth century, these two critiques culminate in totalitari anism. The struggle between communism and Nazism illustrates the deadly struggle between two crazed interpretations of justice and of nobility. The concern for social justice was brutally turned against justice itself: with the Soviet Union, the proletariat’s advocates morphed into champions of tyranny. As for the desire to reestablish a sense of heroism and of nobility, it was turned against nobility itself: far from embodying a new aristocracy, fascists and Nazis enjoyed their greatest successes among demoted citizens dominated by resentment. The two great adversaries of liberal democracy thus demonstrated their limits. Despite themselves, they established the necessity of the liberalism they abhorred. For liberals ensure the balance of powers. They separate church from state, state from civil society, man from citizen, and politics from economics, in order that the state may be as limited, restricted, and counterbalanced as possible. It is against the backdrop of the reciprocal failure of communism and Nazism that liberal ism imposes itself today, as a posttotalitarianism. Liberalism comes out of Introduction 3
Is this to say that liberal democracy has no more adversaries? That it imposes itself everywhere through consensus? Far from it. The same suc cess of liberalism brings to the fore a critique somewhat forgotten in the West today: a third critique that, without ignoring either justice or nobility, relates both to moral truth, to the objective reality of the good. Unlike the communist or Nazi challenges, this Aristotelian-inspired critique does not start from the primacy of evil to better turn it against the injustice of some and the vulgarity of others. It argues against the relativism or skepticism that theorists of liberal democracy share with their critics on the right and on theLiberalleft.
democracy’s founders emphasize, above all, the disorder of the world: human beings tend neither to truth nor to the good, but to the useful and to the pleasant. It is important to base the political order on this regular disorder. It is vain to look to teach character or to encourage the virtues. On the one hand, there is no natural tendency on which we could rely. These virtues are in fact against nature and do violence to human na ture. Man is by nature asocial and apolitical. On the other hand, there is no reason to think that the good of the individual coincides with the good of the city. There is not, properly speaking, a “common good”; at most there is a “general interest.” By overemphasizing the good, we come to quarrel about abstractions and incite civil wars and wars of religion. By overem phasizing the good, we are led to underestimate the perversity of which those who aspire to tyranny are capable and to forget that, in certain situ ations, it is perhaps necessary to violate the rules of morality to preserve political liberty. It is dangerous to rely on a natural order that does not exist. The state alone ensures the order that renders a certain peaceful co existence possible. Since the good is reducible to the useful and the pleasant, political life should therefore not strive for the good, but for the useful and the pleasant. By contrast, for the neo-Aristotelian critiques of liberalism, the good is not reducible to the useful or the pleasant. The city should teach the natural desire to live in society, the natural desire for the good 4 Introduction
its trial reinforced, since the political shape of evil was embodied with an atrocious brutality in the regimes of Hitler and Stalin. Liberalism therefore imposes itself: thanks to modern tyrannies, the political regime that starts from the affirmation of evil finds a new legitimacy. As a famous saying goes, liberal democracy “is the worst of all regimes, except for all the others.”
and the true. The city itself should also make good use of it. Justice and law are fully intelligible only by reference to this natural desire and the natural order that it presupposes. Man is a social and political animal; it is important to organize the city around this good nature, by ensuring the education of character and by encouraging the virtues. It is not enough to organize the state as for a nation of intelligent devils: we need to rely on the aspiration for the good.
For liberals, the state should be considered “neutral” about the idea of the good, and it is up to the individual to look for happiness and truth, for himself and through himself. It is in this sense that liberalism is a kind of individualism and positivism: morality is a private affair, and the just is separate from the good. Insofar as liberals are concerned about the good or about happiness, it is to make it an individualized question: it is up to the individual, and himself alone, to decide his morality and his religion. But can the individual discover the good and the true independent of authori tative social forms and traditions? In the eyes of neo-Aristotelians, liberal ism, which looks to avoid disagreements about the nature of the good and to circumvent them by privatizing or depoliticizing the question of the good, distorts the care of the virtues and the transmission of truth by making the essentials rest on the frail shoulders of the individual. A too-exclu sive concern with tyranny and anarchy impoverishes existence. The pri macy of security entails forgetting the good that nourishes interior life. The state and the law cannot and should not be perfectly “neutral” in morality. Justice is unthinkable if it is completely separated from morality. Positive law is only intelligible to the extent to which it refers to natural justice. Individualism that consists in choosing for the self a reputedly pri vate morality is an error or an illusion. This opposition crystallizes over the question of freedom. For liber alism’s founders, evil is constitutive of political life. Correlatively, freedom is in the last analysis the absence of evil; which is to say, on a political level, freedom is the absence of tyranny and the absence of coercion. It is a “nega tive” liberty. Freedom is understood by reference to a balance of powers and has no specific relation to either the good or the true. However, for the neo-Aristotelian school, freedom is subordinated to the good and the true. Freedom is not only a matter of security, the absence of physical or legal ob stacles, or autonomy. First and foremost, it involves grasping the good. Introduction 5
At “MacIntyre, Alasdair,” a dictionary might indicate “born 1929 in Glasgow” and should add “historian of moral philosophy.” The three prin cipal works of MacIntyre—A Short History of Ethics (1966), After Virtue (1981), and Whose Justice? Which Rationality? (1988)—each tell, in their own ways, the same history, which begins in Greece with Homer and comes to an end in the twentieth century with nihilism. These histories of ethics establish, on the one hand, the dependence of moral life on tradi tions of enquiry and, on the other hand, the progress of relativism and irrationalism under the corrupting influence of individualism. Perhaps it would be better to translate After Virtue as The Misfortunes of Virtue. If this analogy with the Marquis de Sade’s novel does not suggest that philosophi cal digressions and narrative character are inclusive of each other, at least it suggests that the liberal category of the private is not as morally indifferent as it is said to be. In his books, MacIntyre intends to establish that the unilateral progress of freedom disintegrates rationality, feeding the moral relativism that all his work denounces.
6 Introduction
Liberty includes a “positive” dimension. It is not enough to have freedom; we still need to become free. Subjective freedom should be related to the objective character of the good. We cannot give all of freedom’s meaning to the freedom of indifference without counterbalancing it by the concern for wisdom. It is not enough to be able to do what we want and to know what we do not want; we must still give ourselves the means to know what we want, what we would like, or what we should want. The refusal of all dependence renders moral life anemic. At the most fundamental level, freedom is achieved not so much by the absence of obstacles but by a truth that enables removing these obstacles. A certain “paternalism” is at once inevitable (every society, whether it wants to or not, transmits a certain idea of the good) and desirable. Against the philosophical skepticism that is the basis for the primacy of evil, numerous voices propose to straighten out our conceptions of justice and correct liberalism’s own crookedness. Have we not lost the differ ence between liberty and license? This is what the contemporary critics of liberalism insist, beginning with the most determined among them, Alas dair MacIntyre, who is inspired by the Aristotelian tradition to recover an idea of the good and of moral truth.
Introduction 7
In his eyes, the civil liberty that citizens of liberal democracy enjoy is too often exercised to the detriment of interior freedom. Individual au tonomy is not self-sufficient; it ends up exhausting traditions, which it re quires without being sufficiently aware of it. Autonomy, reduced to its own means, comes to undermine the foundations of the moral life and capsizes. The indefinite deepening of individualism has gradually corroded the meaning of truth that practical reasoning presupposes. The subjective char acter of freedom should be compensated with the objective dimension of a tradition: consent must be rebalanced with wisdom. If we grant liberalism the upper hand in all aspects of existence, human beings find themselves distraught, desolate, mutilated, and deprived of goals or ends. Against indi vidual rights, MacIntyre counters with a conception of justice that takes into account the importance of forms of life and of moral authority. It is not enough to flee evil; it is still necessary to look for the good. Negative liberty, conceived as the absence of coercion, is not enough: it is necessary to add a “positive” dimension. MacIntyre develops a theory of freedom as participation in something greater than oneself. He subordinates the ques tion of freedom to that of practical rationality, to demonstrate that, in the last analysis, the capacity to choose without coercion must be subordinated to the capacity to choose intelligibly or reasonably. He analyzes the limits of the absolutization of individual consent, which is to the detriment of au thority and moral excellence. He appeals to virtue and character formation, which liberalism tends to neglect for “efficiency.” True justice and true no bility, pursued with such relentlessness by liberalism’s adversaries on the right and left, depend precisely upon virtue and character formation. MacIntyre describes a world in which one no longer knows what one wants, a world which no longer knows toward what end it advances. He writes:What strikes me most basically and most finally about our society is its domination by the concept of “getting on.” One gets on from one stage to the next on an endless conveyor belt. One goes to a primary school in order to pass the eleven plus in order to go to a grammar school in order to go to a university in order to get a degree in order to get a job in order to rise in one’s profession in
order to get a pension. And those who have fallen out are not people who have found a true end; they are mostly people who have got off, or been pushed off, the conveyor belt. Last year a student whom I knew well had a break-down as a result of taking seriously the question, “What am I studying for?” The chain of reasons has no ending.2 MacIntyre describes the triumph of instrumental reasoning, a soci ety that has become expert in means. But it has lost the very meaning of truth, by reference to which a worthwhile education is understood. It is an efficient society, where utility is maximized, but for a goal that fades away as one approaches it. As a good Aristotelian, MacIntyre deplores the ab sence of ends and regrets that society does not make the goods that could nourish moral life accessible to its members. Hobbes, who is perhaps the most eloquent spokesman for the political tradition against which MacIn tyre writes, insists to the contrary that one analyzes life in terms of means and notTheends.Felicity of this life, consisteth not in the repose of a mind satisfied. For there is no such Finis Ultimus, (utmost ayme,) nor Summum Bonum, (greatest good,) as is spoken of in the Books of the old Morall Philosophers. Nor can a man any more live, whose Desires are at an end, than he, whose Senses and Imaginations are at a stand. Felicity is a continuall progresse of the desire, from one object to another; the attaining of the former, being still but the way to the later. The cause whereof is, That the object of mans desire, is not to enjoy once onely, and for one instant of time; but to assure for ever, the way of his future desire.3
Aristotle ranks among the “old Morall Philosophers,” from whom Hobbes looks to distinguish himself. Hobbes does not describe life as oriented to ward a determined truth or good, but as a forward march in which the only goal is in reality a means: the “assuredness” of the route—that is to say, the absence of danger and the absence of evils. Hobbes readily con 8 Introduction
In the absence of a summum bonum, happiness is about fleeing from evil or about the accumulation of means for the goal of self-preservation.
cedes that in thus considering practical life, we come to lose all moral objectivity and reduce the good to the pleasant. He writes, “Whatsoever is the object of any mans Appetite or Desire; that is it, which he for his part calleth Good: And the object of his Hate, and Aversion, evill.”4 Hobbes fears first and foremost the state of nature, a war of all against all, from which he looks to have us escape in an efficient and intelligent way, with moral subjectivism as the price to pay. MacIntyre does not believe that the good needs to be reduced to the pleasant, save to impoverish human exis tence to an unacceptable extent. The world that Hobbes describes really is the world as it has become. But this is to be deplored, not welcomed. Whose justice and which rationality should we make our own? Not the justice and rationality of utilitarian and positivist inspiration, but the jus tice and rationality of Aristotelian inspiration, which draws its substance from the implementation of the good and the contemplation of the true.
The present situation is paradoxical in that it seems that one should turn toward the traditional adversaries of liberalism to give substance to lib eralism itself. The critiques of liberalism studied here come after the fail ure of the great antiliberal waves: socialism, fascism, Nazism, and MarxistLeninism. They do not cast doubt on liberal democracy as a political form or political regime, even though they criticize the way in which most theorists give an account of liberal democracy, and they warn against the atomist, relativist, and finally nihilist dynamic of a certain liberalism.
If individualism is surely in many respects a political solution, it can also constitute a psychological and spiritual problem, to the point of casting doubt on the foundations of liberalism. The present political triumph of liberalism is also the triumph of autonomy over all socially embodied authority. But does liberalism not triumph even when the meaning of this autonomy has become uncertain?
To the extent that liberal democracy imposes itself and proves its worth, it becomes more artificial to insist on the primacy of evil and more tempting to offer an Aristotelian-inspired reinterpretation of the regime.5
We can thus show that liberalism cultivates certain veritable goods, start ing with concord and justice. We can describe liberalism as a mixed regime, Introduction 9
Today, at least in the West, liberalism imposes itself. But an anxiety tends to spread. The soul is troubled. One comes to ask whether individ ual autonomy has not carried the day so well that it is collapsing in on it self.
Why study this tormented thinker? I see three reasons. First, even though his intellectual journey provides a very clear understanding of the intellectual history of the second half of the twentieth century, it remains misunderstood. In France, it is not known that MacIntyre constitutes one of the great authorities for the debate in Anglo-American moral philoso phy and politics. In his home in the Anglo-American world, MacIntyre’s latest works are read without much concern for their genesis. Second, it is generally admitted that the range of his reflection remains difficult to grasp, 10 Introduction
which, by means of representation, reconciles democratic and aristocratic elements, harmonizing their respective parts to consent and wisdom.6 We can elaborate an analysis of liberal democracy in terms of the natural law and the common good. From this point of view, a durable and satisfying political regime is achieved less by a balance of evils than by a dynamic of the good. The liberalism that avoids evil does not forbid the liberalism that looks for the good.
A member of the Communist Party of Great Britain in the late 1940s, an activist of the first New Left ten years later, and a Trotskyist in the first half of the 1960s, MacIntyre immigrated in 1969 to the United States, where he renounced all political engagement. As an academic, he taught theology, sociology, and philosophy at Manchester, Leeds, Oxford, Prince ton, and then at the University of Essex. In Boston in the 1970s, he was suc cessively a professor at Brandeis University, Boston University, and Wellesley College. He finally taught at Vanderbilt University (1982–88), the Univer sity of Notre Dame (1988–94), and Duke in North Carolina (1994–2000), before coming back to Notre Dame until his retirement. First influenced by the young Marx and the late Wittgenstein, he turned toward Aristotle in the early 1970s, embarrassing his old allies and bewildering his new friends. He was first a Presbyterian, and even envisioned becoming a pas tor. In the mid-1950s, he embraced Anglicanism, before losing his faith several years later. He converted to Catholicism in 1983. First attracted by the theology of Karl Barth, he ended up a disciple of Thomas Aquinas. As a Marxist, Barthian, Wittgensteinian, Aristotelian, and Thomist, MacIntyre places at the heart of his reflection what liberalism keeps on the margins of politics: the soul, community, and truth. Thus from apparent chaos, something constant emerges. The critique of liberalism is at once the continuous base and the final cause of his work.
From the 1970s, even before MacIntyre turns toward Thomas Aquinas, he is the object of a petty but significant polemic: “In the past he has been a ‘Christian’ without God, a ‘Trotskyist’ without commitment to revolution, a ‘Marxist’ patronized by the Central Intelligence Agency, an ‘anti-elitist’ adornment of the world’s most mediocre and servile bourgeois intelligentsia, a ‘socialist’ avid for the approval of his social ‘superiors.’ Now he is a liberal . . . a libertarian instrument of academic authoritarianism.”8
even though there is agreement to see him as a storyteller of lively charm, a brilliant historian, a daring polemicist, and the author of profound views on the twentieth century’s evil. Finally, if his intellectual journey is atypical to the point of being unsettling, and yet if the critique of liberalism constitutes the guiding principle of his works, then his apparent atypicalism is turned on its head. MacIntyre becomes a privileged figure in the antiliberal repertoire, one of its eminent cases. It is not so much MacIntyre that turned me toward the theme of “community.” Rather, I started from the critique of liberalism and turned toward MacIntyre. His trajectory enables us to take another look at a great part of the history of the intellectual op position to bourgeois individualism, and the internal tensions in his thought convey the tensions proper to this opposition. I did not choose his work because it offers a demarcated object of study according to the meth ods of the university’s disciplines, but because it enables us to explore the multifaceted legacy of Aristotle, Rousseau, and Marx.7 In reducing com mon life to the lowest common denominator, in reducing justice to indi vidual rights alone, and the good to the useful or the pleasant, we kindle the need for a reaction. As a former communist concerned with justice and an Aristotelian concerned with nobility and truth, MacIntyre marvelously illustrates this aspiration.
The text is ambiguous, for we do not know whether it suggests through its quotation marks that MacIntyre, in the last analysis, was never what he purported to be, invariably remaining a hypocritical “valet of capi talism,” or whether it points to changes so crazy that it discredits him. These flip-flops, it is true, are manifest. But perhaps MacIntyre is nevertheless sufficiently single-minded, so that we should concern ourselves with the meaning of these ruptures. I would like to establish that his intellectual journey clarifies the history and the nature of anti-individualism. More over, I would like to treat his successive turnarounds as historiographical Introduction 11
difficulties, while striving to show his unity of purpose. In the contem porary repertoire, MacIntyre is not a neutral figure. He is one of the rare thinkers today to have remained faithful to the antiliberalism of his youth, one of the rare critics of liberalism not to have stopped thinking after the fall of communism, and one of the rare thinkers to have been able to reorient his outlook in a new direction. Yet even though he is a complicated person, MacIntyre hardly discusses his past with us. “To write a worthwhile autobiography,” he remarks, “you need either the wisdom of an Augustine or the shamelessness of a Rousseau.”9 I however intend to reconstitute his intellectual journey, as a way to outline the biography of a problemUpstream. from MacIntyre’s diverse political engagements, I would like to show that a philosophy is at work, and, alongside his philosophy, a theology. Through him I shall study the contemporary critique of liberalism, as it has developed after the failure of communism (in politics), after Ludwig Wittgenstein (in philosophy), and after Karl Barth (in theology). In each instance, I shall try to show MacIntyre’s philosophy: that, limited to his own strength, the individual is not always able to find the good and the true to which he aspires. In each of the three chapters, I shall take a different starting point: for politics, the history of the New Left; for philosophy, the moral critique of Stalinism (or the articulation of politics and morals); and for theology, the question of secularization. In each instance, I shall attempt to show that the starting point leads to the rediscovery of the social nature of the human being and therefore of a certain conservatism: “a new conser vatism,” a “philosophy of tradition,” and a “theology of the tradition.”
The theorists of liberalism privilege the circumvention of evil over the search for the good. On the whole, they hold to a minimalist concep tion of the good. They tend to subordinate the question of the good life to that of life simply, to security. They delegate the quest for the good to the individual alone: it is for him to find wisdom and happiness, for himself and through himself. In the first chapter of the book, I shall show that in the eyes of the author of After Virtue, lives are impoverished to the extent that one adulterates or privatizes the concern for the good. In the second chapter, following MacIntyre, I shall explain that the quest for the good life necessarily takes a collective form, for all individual reasoning partici 12 Introduction
Tocqueville thus depicts the personality of Louis-Philippe, the most “liberal” of princes in France’s history: Enlightened, subtle, supple, and tenacious, fixed exclusively on the utilitarian and filled with such profound contempt for truth and such complete disbelief in virtue that his intelligence was consequently dimmed, he not only failed to see the beauty that truth and honesty always exhibit but also failed to understand that they can frequently be useful. He had a profound under standing of men, but only of their vices. In religion he had the in credulity of the eighteenth century and in politics the skepticism of the nineteenth. An unbeliever himself . . . his ambition, lim ited only by prudence, was never fully satisfied nor out of control and always remained close to the earth.10
A liberal himself, Tocqueville a priori had some sympathy for the July Monarchy. He preferred it to the regimes that came before it and the regime that followed it. At the same time, he could not prevent himself from disdaining it. By keeping only to the perspective of what is evil, we run the risk of dangerously narrowing our range of vision.
Introduction 13
pates in collective reasoning, and it is by reference to moral consensus and a tradition that the individual can judge, weigh the pros and cons, and prove his prudence and virtue. Finally, in the third chapter, I shall take up again the themes of the first two chapters from a theological angle, showing that for MacIntyre, secularization is one of the most important dimensions of the impoverishment of human existence, and that it is also by reference to “The Tradition,” in the theological sense of the term, that the individual can reason morally, become virtuous, and lead a worthwhile life.