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.

Isänmaa ja Ranska : Suomalainen frankofilia 1880-1914

In Finland the period 1880 -1914 constituted an essential phase in the creation of the great national project as well as it was a golden time of Francophilia. With Francophilia, i.e. French-mindedness, is here understood a collectively upheld strong sympathy towards France and French culture. However, the Francophilia of late nineteenth century Finland was free from apparent political intentions and remained a chosen disposition. The strength of its drive was not only based on the older European admiration of everything French, but also on the growing fascination for a novelty emerging besides the traditional influences of the Germanic culture. In Finnish society Francophilia mostly worked as an opposite force to the most confined conceptions of what was considered national ; as a consequence France came to denote more than a country and Francophilia contained an important symbolical meaning in the construction of the Finnish nation. The main tasks of the study are to introduce as the first large historical presentation of the subject a covering examination of the many descriptions of Paris-phases of assorted artists, authors, and intellectuals, to clarify the mental relationship of the Finnish intelligentsia to France prior to national independence, and finally to provide these developments with case studies of certain life paths. However, the examination is not biographical, because the starting point remains within the rhetoric arguments of Francophilia and patriotism as these appeared within the public sphere. Historical persons have thus been dealt with primarily as reflectors of the then-current French-minded mentality. Such Francophiles in Finland were first and foremost Werner Söderhjelm, Juhani Aho, L. Onerva and V. A. Koskenniemi. The networks of the Finnish cultural field are mostly displayed through these examples. In previous research the intensive relationship of Finnish artists and authors with France has not been connected with actual concepts of nationalism. The respective periods of the intellectuals in Paris have simply been viewed as devoid of ideological links with the contemporary advancement of the fatherland, or even as opposites to the patriotic pursuits in Finland. From the viewpoint of this study these now canonized creators of a Finnish culture are primarily seen as patriots and fellow countrymen, and only secondly as artists and artist s colleagues. The dissertation is constructed as both a regional survey of the idealization of France and a study of Finnish history through the mirror of Francophilia. As such France only held an instrumental role for the receiving culture, i.e. for the construction of Finland, as no "objective truths" were sought for in France. Keywords: France, francophilia, Finnishness, national project, Paris

Community, Power, and Colonialism: The U.S. Army in Southern Arizona and New Mexico, 1866-1886

Empire is central to U.S. history. When we see the U.S. projecting its influence on a global scale in today s world it is important to understand that U.S. empire has a long history. This dissertation offers a case study of colonialism and U.S. empire by discussing the social worlds, labor regimes, and culture of the U.S. Army during the conquest of southern Arizona and New Mexico (1866-1886). It highlights some of the defining principles, mentalities, and characteristics of U.S. imperialism and shows how U.S. forces have in years past constructed their power and represented themselves, their missions, and the places and peoples that faced U.S. imperialism/colonialism. Using insights from postcolonial studies and whiteness studies, this work balances its attention between discursive representations (army stories) and social experience (army actions), pays attention to silences in the process of historical production, and focuses on collective group mentalities and identities. In the end the army experience reveals an empire in denial constructed on the rule of difference and marked by frustration. White officers, their wives, and the white enlisted men not only wanted the monopoly of violence for the U.S. regime but also colonial (mental/cultural) authority and power, and constructed their identity, authority, and power in discourse and in the social contexts of the everyday through difference. Engaged in warfare against the Apaches, they did not recognize their actions as harmful or acknowledge the U.S. invasion as the bloody colonial conquest it was. White army personnel painted themselves and the army as liberators, represented colonial peoples as racial inferiors, approached colonial terrain in terms of struggle, and claimed that the region was a terrible periphery with little value before the arrival of white civilization. Officers and wives also wanted to place themselves at the top of colonial hierarchies as the refined and respectable class who led the regeneration of the colony by example: they tried to turn army villages into islands of civilization and made journeys, leisure, and domestic life to showcase their class sensibilities and level of sophistication. Often, however, their efforts failed, resulting in frustration and bitterness. Many blamed the colony and its peoples for their failures. The army itself was divided by race and class. All soldiers were treated as laborers unfit for self-government. White enlisted men, frustrated by their failures in colonial warfare and by constant manual labor, constructed worlds of resistance, whereas indigenous soldiers sought to negotiate the effects of colonialism by working in the army. As colonized labor their position was defined by tension between integration and exclusion and between freedom and colonial control.

Mothers, your's is a sacred work! Naiskysymys adventistijulistaja Ellen Whiten profeetallisessa terveysopetuksessa vuosina 1866 1878

Tarkastelen pro gradu -tutkielmassani naiskysymystä Seitsemännen päivän adventtikirkon oppiäiti Ellen Whiten (1827 1915) terveysopetuksessa. White tunnetaan ennen kaikkea näyistään, joiden välityksellä hän koki saavansa Jumalalta hyvinvointiin liittyviä ohjeita. White kirjoitti näkyjensä innoittama terveysoppaita ja julisti pääasiassa Yhdysvalloissa yli 70 vuotta. Päälähteenäni ovat kaksi Whiten omaelämäkertaa vuosilta 1880 ja 1915 sekä 83 artikkelia, jotka hän julkaisi adventistien johtavassa terveyslehdessä, Health Reformerissa, vuosina 1866 1878. Tutkimuskysymykseni ovat, miksi White osoitti lähes kaiken terveyteen liittyvän opetuksensa naisille ja miten hän ymmärsi terveyden osana naisen roolia ja tehtäviä. Tulkintani mukaan White julisti naisille, sillä hän uskoi, että naisen asema oli selkeytettävä. Yhdysvallat teollistui ja kaupungistui nopeasti 1800-luvulla, mikä aiheutti naisille taloudellisia, sosiaalisia ja terveyteen liittyviä ongelmia. Lisäksi toinen suuri herätys (1800 1830) synnytti keskustelua naisen roolista. Monet kirkot antoivat naisille luvan esimerkiksi saarnaamiseen, mutta Yhdysvalloissa vahvistui samaan aikaan myös käsitys naisesta kodin uskonnollisena johtajana. Ymmärrän, että Whiten mukaan ratkaisu naisen sekavaan asemaan oli terveys. Uskon, että Whiten mukaan nainen pystyi ottamaan oman paikkansa yhteiskunnassa, mikäli hän pysyi terveenä ja oppi tuntemaan terveyden periaatteet. Toisaalta White sai vaikutteita naisten yhteiskunnallisten oikeuksien puolustajilta. He ajattelivat, että vain koulutettu ja terve nainen kykeni vapautumaan avioliitosta. Toisaalta White oli naisasianaisia maltillisempi. Hän ymmärsi, että vain terve ja terveyskoulutuksen saanut nainen saattoi olla hyvä äiti. Ellen White osallistui terveysopetuksellaan keskusteluun myös naisen uskonnollisesta roolista. White oli itse kiertelevä terveyssaarnaaja. Silti hän ymmärsi, että muiden naisten kutsumus oli olla terve ja koulutettu äiti. White korosti äitien pyhyyttä luultavasti siksi, että hän pyrki turvaamaan oman auktoriteettiasemansa Adventtikirkossa. White myös luultavasti ymmärsi roolinsa ja tehtävänsä poikkeuksellisiksi ja arvosti vilpittömästi äitiyttä. Whiten mukaan äidin tehtävä oli kasvattaa terveitä ja moraalisia kansalaisia. Tehtävän arvon hän perusteli aikansa tieteellisillä teorioilla. White korosti luonnontieteilijä Charles Darwinin (1809 1882) evoluutioteorian mukaisesti, että äidin velvollisuus oli siirtää lapsilleen hyvä terveys. Käsityksensä terveyden ja moraalin suhteesta hän selitti frenologialla, jonka mukaan ihmisen elämäntavat vaikuttivat hänen luonteenpiirteisiinsä. White oli myös todennäköisesti kiinnostunut sosiaalitieteilijä Herbert Spencerin (1820 1903) ajatuksista, joiden mukaan kansalaisten kehittyessä myös yhteiskunta jalostui yhä paremmaksi. Vaikka White perusteli opetustaan modernilla tieteellä, hän oli ennen kaikkea uskonnollinen julistaja. Hän kuului 1840-luvulla herätyssaarnaaja William Millerin (1782 1849) liikkeeseen, jonka jäsenet uskoivat, että Jumala tuhoaa Yhdysvallat viimeisellä tuomiolla, mikäli kansan moraalin tila ei nopeasti kohene. Millerin liikkeen painotukset säilyivät Adventtikirkossa, joka perustettiin vuonna 1863. Siten White ymmärsi, ettei äiti ollut vastuussa vain perheensä ja kansansa maallisesta hyvinvoinnista vaan myös heidän pelastuksestaan. Whiten käsitys äidistä on mielestäni ristiriitainen. White antoi äideille paljon valtaa, mutta myös suuren vastuun. Hän korosti äitien arvokkuutta, mutta toisaalta he eivät olleet hänen mukaansa korvaamattomia. White ei myöskään huomioinut naisia, jotka eivät olleet äitejä.