Self-love and self-liking in the moral and political philosophy of Bernard Mandeville and David Hume

This work offers a novel interpretation of David Hume’s (1711–1776) conception of the conjectural development of civil society and artificial moral institutions. It focuses on the social elements of Hume’s Treatise of human nature (1739–40) and the necessary connection between science of man and politeness, civilised monarchies, social distance and hierarchical structure of civil society. The study incorporates aspects of intellectual history, history of philosophy and book history. In order to understand David Hume’s thinking, the intellectual development of Bernard Mandeville (1670–1733) needs to be accounted for. When put into a historical perspective, the moral, political and social components of Treatise of human nature can be read in the context of a philosophical tradition, in which Mandeville plays a pivotal role. A distinctive character of Mandeville and Hume’s account of human nature and moral institutions was the introduction of a simple distinction between self-love and self-liking. The symmetric passions of self-interest and pride can only be controlled by the corresponding moral institutions. This is also the way in which we can say that moral institutions are drawn from human nature. In the case of self-love or self-interest, the corresponding moral institution is justice. Respectively, concerning self-liking or pride the moral institution is politeness. There is an explicit analogy between these moral institutions. If we do not understand this analogy, we do not understand the nature of either justice or politeness. The present work is divided into two parts. In the first part, ‘Intellectual development of Bernard Mandeville’, it is argued that the relevance of the paradigmatic change in Mandeville’s thinking has been missed. It draws a picture of Mandeville turning from the Hobbism of The Fable of the Bees to an original theory of civil society put forward in his later works. In order to make this change more apparent, Mandeville’s career and the publishing history of The Fable of the Bees are examined comprehensively. This interpretation, based partly on previously unknown sources, challenges F. B. Kaye’s influential decision to publish the two parts of The Fable of the Bees as a uniform work of two volumes. The main relevance, however, of the ‘Intellectual development of Mandeville’ is to function as the context for the young Hume. The second part of the work, ‘David Hume and Greatness of mind’, explores in philosophical detail the social theory of the Treatise and politics and the science of man in his Essays. This part will also reveal the relevance of Greatness of mind as a general concept for David Hume’s moral and political philosophy.

Sociolinguistic Implications of Narratology: Focalization and ‘Double Deixis’ in Conversational Storytelling

Over the last few decades, literary narratology has branched out into a wide array of ‘post-classical’ narratologies that have borrowed concepts from cognitive psychology, sociology, anthropology, history, linguistics, and other disciplines. The question arises to what extent ‘classical’ narratological concepts can also be successfully exported to other disciplines which have an interest in narrative. In this article, I apply the concept of ‘focalization’ as well as David Herman’s insights into doubly-deictic ‘you’ in second-person narratives to an interview narrative and further materials from my empirical sociolinguistic study on general practitioners’ narrative discourse on intimate partner abuse. I consider how the narrative positioning of the GP as storyteller and ‘protagonist’ of his story corresponds with his social and professional positioning with regard to his patients in the context of intimate partner violence cases and vis-à-vis the interviewer during the research interview. Focalization and double deixis are shown to become part of a narrative strategy whereby the narrator distances himself from his own personal self in the narrative and at the same time tries to align the interviewer with his viewpoint.