Judith Shklar - Let Us Not Be Hypocritical

Let Us Not Be Hypocritical Author(s): Judith Shklar Source: Daedalus, Vol. 108, No.
3, Hypocrisy, Illusion, and Evasion (Summer, 1979), pp. 1-25 Published by: The MIT Press on behalf of American Academy of Arts & Sciences Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20024618 . Accessed: 08/04/2013 00:05
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The MIT Press and American Academy of Arts & Sciences are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Daedalus.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 200.14.85.85 on Mon, 8 Apr 2013 00:05:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JUDITH SHKLAR
Let Us Not Be Hypocritical
toward butchery, is certainly Becket. The world tending cost us far too Baron. The lesson of this battle, which we to form will have is that much, platoons of cutthroats, that is all. what Baron. And a soldier's honor, my Lord Chancellor, of that? Becket. A soldier's honor, Baron, . . . not be hypocritical a Baron. What mentality! is to win victories. Let us
Jean Anouilh,
Becket
What
is the mentality
those who
of those who remains

can overlook and
cannot
is not trivial. Hypocrisy

cially, among
the only unforgivable

explain away
bear hypocrisy? The question sin even, perhaps espe

almost every other vice.
cause, and however many social and religious suffering rules itmay violate, evil is to be understood after due analysis. But not hypocri sy, which alone is now inexcusable. Not that the hypocrite was ever popular. Every age, every form of literature, and every public stage has held him up for contempt and ridicule. Even if in the past the hypocrite was joined by a far greater number of other kinds of wicked people in the rogues' gallery, he was never a great deal about anything less than utterly despised. We therefore know various types of hypocrites. Our literature is infinitely rich in portraits of them. have always found them irresistible. The double pretense of the Playwrights a man who is actor a part allows for all kinds of sly playing the part of playing on the stage and in the audience. There of is all the ambi mockery everything more a of the within with for invention. but guity play play here, possibilities and who see it everywhere? But what of those who cannot abide hypocrisy, like? Can he escape the web of pretense What is the professional antihypocrite locked into a mutually he sees all around him? Or are he and his adversaries However much conflict? In short, what sort of figure is he? rather than destructive, enhancing, roles to entertain us. Becket is certainly a fine We have fewer antihypocritical an intellectual unable to endure the charades example of the species, played by
more conventional people. He is, however, not a pure specimen. For that we
itmay
must
look toMoli?re's Misanthrope. Alceste that particular manifestation of it. 1
hates
the thing itself, not just this or
2
By God, To falsify
JUDITH
SHKLAR
I say it's base and scandalous, the heart's affections thus.*
Not
for him
"those
soft speeches
and that sugary
grin,"
and no decorum
or
politeness
either:
We Such should false condemn and with all our intercourse. force
artificial
called is why Moli?re in Alceste, which is also no tolerance or kindness him a hater of mankind. so in his contempt? He not only hurts the is Alceste single-minded Why an untalented poet, but also quarrels with his friend, and finally loses feelings of stance. Alceste is afraid the woman he loves, all because of his antihypocritical is such that it makes him a bully of being fooled. His terror of being deceived and, in the end, the dupe of his own suspicions. The reason for his mortal fear of being taken in by pretense is that itmight threaten his domination over those to the schemes of the is why he is so susceptible around him. That spiteful an of version who himself. She uses the cant of is Arsino?, exaggerated spinster, to make innocent behavior seem guilty. She brings out the perfect frankness harsh candor, which we merely suspect in him, implicit in Alceste's hypocrisy on all occasions. That is his to be "himself" in but his refusal anything especially does not agree: she can see quite clearly that mark of honesty. But C?lim?ne and she mocks his love, which such conduct is merely domineering, There Would find its perfect consummation
of rage and reprobation.
In ecstacies
Since he cannot force her to renounce the company of all other people for his sake, he gives her up and decides upon a solitary existence in which he will not is not inclined to find any obstacles to his self-righteous anger. The audience to us he is the archetype of the moral as him friends because his do, pity
oppressor.
In this respect Becket resembles him, for he also means to govern the bar ons. He despises not only their military in rhetoric, but their boorish stupidity are the very models of in his His eyes. incompetence ruling-class general. They Becket sardonic frankness is both contemptuous and assertive. Like Alceste, a at of sees the those work in there is that power play hypocrisy quite rightly soldiers and rulers. In around him, but he can recognize it only in conventional as well, for he uses the honor of II can accuse him of hypocrisy the end, Henry the Church merely as an excuse for avenging his own. That happens only after but it was always latent in his into an archbishop, Becket is transformed
character.
is a pure, undifferentiating, the misanthrope, unqualified hat Only Alceste, can barely hide the aggression er of and self he who And it is hypocrisy. infatuation that bulge under his cloak of candor. Perhaps we never meet types as com in actuality. But without pure as Alceste seeing them in such perfect and we to on not of obscure be able bundles would the stage identify plete characters we recognize our social world. How as could in coherent characters qualities
LET US NOT BE HYPOCRITICAL
and represent the hypocrite and his relentless pursuer without Tartuffe, Uriah and Alceste? Moral and political arguments need not rely on Becket, Heep, we ar? but experience abstractions, only hints at and worries us about what at. for a and character looking Only literature and history sketch the picture of or a group for us. Then we can return to consider the present social scene and make itmore orderly, distinct, and intelligible with the aid of these images. To one may move back and forth and antihypocrites, recognize hypocrites simply from the world of art to that of public experience and political theory. That is why we continue to argue about "imaginary" people like Alceste and his behav view of his hero's un uncharitable ior, for not everyone accepts Moli?re's too endeavors. Rousseau compromising thought him a much maligned man, sincere to endure the corruptions of an artificial not a matter is of It just society. Alceste's particular reactions to hypocrisy that concerns us, but of the character and value of the accusations made against behavior in general. hypocritical so is does odious? Why everyone carry on just like Alceste, hypocrisy Why at least occasionally? Indeed, just what is hypocrisy? The Oxford English Diction a part on the stage. For ary is always helpful. Originally hypocrisy meant acting a false the counts definition that is: practical purposes appearance of "assuming virtue or goodness, with dissimulation of real character or inclination, especially in respect of religious life or belief." in respect of religion! The art of Especially one's has been in religious the favorite weapon opponents unmasking always warfare. All sects accuse each other of hypocrisy, the anticlerical can never and see a but see not in hypocrisy preacher. They anything merely a personal weak ness or an inclination to one does not hold, but an entire charac beliefs profess book of characters put it, he is "the ter, a whole personality. As an Elizabethan worst kind of player, so much as he acts the better by part, which hath also two faces, ofttimes two hearts .... [He] is the stranger's saint, the neighbor's dis ease, the blot of goodness, a rotten stick in a dark night, a poppy in a corn field, an ill-tempered candle with a great snuff that in going out smells ill, an angel abroad, a devil at home, and worse when an angel than a devil." The writer of a devout Christian this unmincing the most passage was evidently expressing traditional sentiments. The O.E.D., in fact, refers us to two very revealing pas which show how troubling hypocrisy was even in sages in the New Testament the earliest days of Christianity. Sham faith is a haunting shadow for the genu is interminable, and inely religious mind. The striving for religious perfection the demand for greater fidelity is ever more exigent. The stricter these require ments of faith are, however, the more likely real or imputable pretense be comes. But the only weapon against it is to insist on even greater efforts, which in turn encourages the very vice that is to be extirpated. creates hy Exigency is invariably ac and puritanism pocrisy as one of its inevitable side products, and duly ridiculed for it. Here also there is a great companied by hypocrisy, deal of mutual are self-critical, spiritual aggression. The devout, on principle not to errant the is in 6 That and Matthew, spare likely neighbor. why chapters alms 7, we read of Jesus excoriating not only the hypocrisy of the ostentatious on who but those dwell minor the while of faults others giver, people remaining oblivious to their own enormities. It is almost as if he recognized the tension in his own message. A secret, genuine charity and a constant and severe self are unthinkable without the moral pride that is all but scrutiny psychologically
JUDITH
SHKLAR
inseparable from spiritual energy. That iswhat was to anger Paul so intensely, because he also perceived the will to lord it over others in every show of exces to "command" to sive zeal (I Timothy, chapters 4-6). It is hypocritical people one abstain from meat, because food is of God's many natural gifts to mankind. to a piety that is greater than God requires, The hypocrisy here is in pretending in fact, a covert form of pride, of which fake humility and therefore, is indeed the most common expression. The difficulty for Paul is that in calling for even the pretense. There he is probably stimulating greater, more genuine humility, is here a very clear recognition of just what is wrong with hypocrisy per se: it is a form of coercion. As Pascal was to say, it is the sheer unfairness of being that is so infuriating. forced to esteem someone more highly than he deserves nor others who have for all their insight, neither the Apostles Nevertheless, to raise the standards of moral can escape the purity, spiraling sought seriously set in motion That is escalation of hypocrisy, by antihypocrisy. unwittingly so when are matters of motive of and which and charity humility, especially are at stake. That is how puritanism came to acquire its awful inner disposition, reputation. As an old English couplet puts it,
Pure an in show, upright within?and holy called man a Puritan.
Corruption
are Puritans and to antihypocrisy because inherently prone to hypocrisy are an war as as of and fearful. suffer from inner intense tug they They exigent are at the perpetual accusations thrust of because terrified others, they they their own weaknesses and suspicious of their neighbors' lapses. Fear of the real self is added to fear of God. This is the kind of religiosity Hazlitt had in mind when he spoke of a "man afraid of looking into the state of his soul, lest at the same time he should reveal it to Heaven; and [who] tries to persuade himself that by shutting his eyes to his true character and feelings, they will remain a profound secret, both here and hereafter. This is a strong engine and irresistible to self-deception." inducement Such a man is not merely suspected of hypocri sy, he suspects himself and especially others of fraudulent piety. Fear of failure, of being crushed by an overpowering induces anxiety about one's own God, faith and doubts about that of others. An inability to face himself only encour
ages censoriousness, as a form of self-protection and self-reassurance. If, by
own soul, he also finds raising the standards of piety, he adds to his fears for his comfort in the righteousness of his public zeal. The upshot is a whole culture as does of fear in which in all its manifestations flourishes, hypocrisy antihypocrisy. Tartuffe is the unmatched black comedy of the puritan culture of fear and of the opportunities it offers hypocrisy. Tartuffe could never have succeeded with out Oronte. The latter is predisposed to the inquisitorial and tyrannical behav ior that Tartuffe urges on him. The puritanical hyper-moralism of the d?vots and of had the and aroused this Jansenists irritability already credulity aging enthu siast. Tartuffe is able to part him from his family and his property because he is is, unlike his victim, not undone by self ripe for it. This virtuoso of hypocrisy delusion. He is in it strictly for profit, and we learn at the end that he is an crook with a long criminal record. Oronte was not the first to be experienced
LET
US
NOT
BE
HYPOCRITICAL
by this versatile con man, but he provided Tartuffe with splendid op He offered an ideal environment for fraud. Moli?re, moreover, portunities. knew perfectly well that there is a political aspect to this moral climate. An oppressive regime is very likely to have many uses for a man like Tartuffe, who In fact, he thinks that he is professes as deep a devotion to his king as to God. as an well informer. So does the audience until the last moment, doing quite when Tartuffe is confronted by a wise and just monarch (Moli?re's patron) who sends him back to jail and returns Oronte's property. We are, however, given an fingered
anxious moment to remember that Tartuffe's scheme to entrap Oronte might
well have succeeded under a more persecutive or less intelligent government. And we are made to remember that the moral atmosphere and the character of than all the government may have more to do with the incidence of hypocrisy of this world. aggressive outrage of the Alcestes is political in an even more profound way. Oronte's Tartuffe family lives in the kind of fear that tyranny always servants His children and suffer, spreads. and so does the insecure tyrant. His fear is more than theirs is, consuming because it has no focus. Above all else, Oronte fears reality. He cannot bear evidence that would shake his trust in the con man or in his own righteous fury. are the of all the illusions that accompany domination.2 Tyrants personification Even less cruel and oppressive people are like that. All of us wrap ourselves in
unreality to protect ourselves against people whom we are certainly not crush
ing, but whom we do not choose to see or to help. No one, in fact, can bear all the facts all the time. Nevertheless, there are cultures that seem particularly to saw everywhere the that in Victorian Dickens prone "Podsnappery" Eng land. Theirs "was not a very large world, morally," and when they were faced with "disagreeables," they said, "I don't want to know about it; I don't choose to discuss it, I don't admit it!" turned his eyes away from destitution, Podsnap from social cruelty, and above all, from sex. "The question about everything it bring a blush to the cheek of [a] young was, would por person." Dickens's traits of all these hypocrisies do not, however, neglect the obvious. Repression
was not so great that criticism, laughter, and wit were impossible. He had far
less to fear than Moli?re. Dickens was not alone. He was joined by Carlyle, Mill, Huxley, Clough, and many others, in a chorus of biblical thunder Some feared against hypocrisy. that science would be stifled by the conventions of an ostentatious religiosity. saw the death of Others an in individuality enervating timidity that seemed incapable of sustaining any sort of positive character. And not a few simply felt
an enormous nausea at such a mass of insincerity, dishonesty, sentimentality,
and willful self-deception. won the Since these challengers day, one now asks what the fuss was all about. Certainly the Victorian middle classes were self-protective, and their critics frightened them into an even in defensiveness. Insecure their late deeper ly acquired position, and in the midst of a religious revival, they were not ex Did they not wish to be pansive morally. Were they, however, hypocritical? what they proclaimed everyone ought to be? To fail in one's own aspirations is not In fact, they really believed in thrift, and hypocrisy. chastity, monogamy, work. If many did not achieve these, many others did, at a considerable psychic cost. is not hypocrisy. their refusal to admit that May hew's Repression Only
JUDITH
SHKLAR
was hypocritical. The hypocrite London even existed, that is, their complacency, is hiding something evil because it is in his interest to do so. Sexual repression not social crimes. They were and emotional silence are self-inflicted wounds, a of of the part newly arrived, massively self-imposed discipline self-distrusting, from above unsettled middle class, which could feel the contempt religiously it had to endure the torments of ideological, and the rage from below, while scientific, and literary upheavals. Theirs was the self-hatred that marks all puri also essential parts of the tanism. Self-scrutiny and fear of illusion are, however, or cultural, is brittle. whether system, personal puritan mind, and its defensive was a bias against hypocrisy there also. Podsnap read Dickens week after There chatter of week and, in time, it wore him down.3 The shrill antihypocritical a a in any case, only belated revolt against was, quasi-Spartan Bloomsbury silence that had lost its socially unifying purpose for many people. The real but against the misery and transformation was not a revolt against hypocrisy, to it veil. had ceased injustice the dif the culture of hypocrisy for one, could see even within Dickens, ismade very ference between extortion or theft and mere hypocrisy. Hypocrisy in such a society, but it did not blind him to the moral distance be profitable tween crime and pretense. There is a stunning scene in David Copperfield in Uriah Heep, immortal hypocrite, which Dickens's explains why his always not care of humility or for is David "umble" may professions profitable. being in of his he but exhibitions ofthat other sort, does, any spite general obtuseness, to see that Uriah was brought up to be a hypocrite. Uriah was, as his hegin one of the deserving poor. parents before him had been,
"There now," said Uriah, looking flabby and lead-coloured in the moonlight.
station, my tion school
and me was both brought Father up at a founda Copperfield! sort of she was likewise for boys, and Mother, up at a public, brought us all a deal of umbleness?not much else establishment. charitable, They taught to this person, to to be umble and We was that I know of, from morning night. to to that, and to bows and always off our caps here, and to make umble there, pull our betters. our before And we had such a lot of know abase ourselves and place, a So did I. Father betters! Father got made got the monitor-medal by being umble. Master sexton by being a well-behaved umble. man, He had that
"Didn't I know it! But how little you think of the rightful umbleness of a person in
the of being such the character, among gentlefolks, were to in. 'Be umble, him determined bring they was on. It was what to me, dinned and you'll Uriah,' says Father get always being and at school: best. Be umble, it's what into you and me says Father goes down . . When . a said I was it ain't done bad! do! And young quite boy," really you'll
Uriah,
When
appetite.
"I got to know what umbleness did, and I took to it. I ate umble pie with an I stopped at the umble point of my learning, and says I, 'Hold hard!'
offered to teach me 'keep yourself I knew better. Latin, I am very umble down.' like to be above you,' 'People to the Master moment, present
you
says Father,
Copperfield, Dickens
but I've got a little power!"
did not excuse Uriah's numerous villainies. Indeed, he made him as is also a con man, and sexually as unattractive both morally possible. Uriah not as his It is does. he eventually and deserves to land in jail, crimes, but only Dickens wants that one of his serviceable humility, his all-purpose, hypocrisies, is socially its specific function, whatever us to understand. For hypocrisy, us of of it. In the absence reminds learned behavior, and Dickens friendship and
LET
US
NOT
BE HYPOCRITICAL
as a public obliga spontaneous generosity, we must have charity as an office and or case the poor, must state. In either its beneficiaries, tion organized by church a psy means prove themselves worthy. That showing that they have reached utter humility that will also guarantee gratitude for what chological bottom of ever for the there would be no rewards receive. Otherwise, they may no sense of their own worth. of alms, and they would have distributors to speak In spite of all that is said inMatthew, politicians tend philanthropic In return, one may expect a sullen abjectness among loudly of their compassion.
its recipients. Few have the resources to become self-aware, scheming, accom
like Uriah Heep. Perhaps this is the best we can do, and one plished hypocrites not to scoff at an inadequate charity that cannot accomplish what neither ought a can achieve. Dickens merely noticed its costs. Without justice nor expediency us see of for the and his Dickens makes Uriah crimes, pity clammy-handed drop at least that an early exposure to public benevolence had helped him to become we do are not to be so ostentatiously "umble." His misdeeds pitied away, but we was not see Uriah in his social and that hypocrisy Heep setting, recognize the worst of his faults. was a great connoisseur of hypocrisy, Dickens yet he was not obsessive of all his characters, even the most agree about it. He could see the playacting able ones, who are as outspoken as David's wonderful Aunt Betsey. He hated the humbug that sugarcoats meanness just as he loved the eccentric gruffness of real generosity, and mere but he never forgot the difference between wickedness are pretension. Why has his sense of humanity been so rare? Why people so overwhelmed for that there been a had by loathing hypocrisy? Hegel thought in the of it In that made this he quality change hypocrisy peculiarly repulsive. uncover con have been he did of of the but mistaken, may aspects psychology science that render the perpetual wrangling between all kinds of hypocrites and own. as our as in well in his age antihypocrites comprehensible The new conscience Hegel with a baleful eye was, in his contemplated . . . content in but of infinite the itself." words, objective certainty "lacking to a conscience What happens that is uninformed by God and social mores? it is left unwatched What does the inner self do when and bereft of those com monsense rules of natural and divinely sanctioned conduct? Paul relied on tutored in public and revealed knowledge was for a long them, and a conscience time after considered the best protection against all temptations, including hy the has always been treacherous. conscience pocrisy. Nevertheless, hyperactive If even the trained conscience can be a false guide, what of one abandoned to its own devices? Can such a conscience and reactive anti cope with the hypocrisy to which it To is liable? it seemed clear that it could hypocrisy always Hegel new to a and the that had rise hideous of not, subjectivity given reign hypocrisy of a peculiarly assertive kind, quite unlike the old "na?ve" sort. The "na?ve" hypocrite hides acts and beliefs that he knows to be wrong. His conscience may even trouble him. That is why he resorts to subterfuge. The new hypocrite and altruistic by ascribing noble, disinterested, simply adjusts his conscience intentions to all his behavior. He is the sole instructor of his own conscience. If there would be moral anarchy, everyone were to accept these self-evaluations and accusations of hypocrisy would lose all their force. Those who expect to be accepted at their self-declared worth by others of like mind might at most, from
8
time to time, confess to moral
JUDITH failure
SHKLAR seen as a of their real
betrayal
self.
Rousseau's
of this technique. Confessions is the acknowledged masterpiece Hegel to these habits become he saw before him an universal and apparently expected unchecked anarchy of puffed-up hypocrites. He really believed that he was the In this he was utterly mistaken. last man to hate hypocrisy. saw all around him was The assertive hypocrisy Hegel certainly spreading, saw its but it was not novel. Hegel in Jesuit casuistry. This he re beginnings
as an authoritarian adjustment of conscience to circumstances, which
garded
simply left to the free discretion of the individual. That seems quite for while good intentions were the excuse in both cases, the Jesuits also, wrong did not exactly make a fetish of sincerity. The new hypocrisy makes sincerity its central virtue. In this it only exaggerates a part of conscience which was always to its rules and sincerity. demands both obedience It was present. Conscience never to do the right as One it the in do in must, enough thing. right almsgiving, conscience lost its "objective content," as Hegel put it, sincerity spirit. When
came to rule alone.
was
now
was already in the moral state the self-centered misanthrope, Alceste, Hegel as was Tartuffe the of the na?ve form; and described, just perfect representative even he own already knew how to manipulate sincerity to his advantage. He went in for self-abasement and verbal self-flagellation when he was caught se ducing his patron's wife. As usual, this ploy proved successful, and Oronte was deeply impressed by this exposure of the inmost self. The difference between
na?ve and assertive hypocrisy, however, was not as clear and real at the time
when
to the hypocrites they faced. According to can if that be cited Pascal, Jesuit "probabilism" any authority taught justify an action, then it is to could be used to clear permissible perform it. Authority Pascal and Moli?re dealt with the conscience of the actor and free him from the fear of sin, whatever
had new the masters, prince of and anything they considered used hypocrites, immediately
he did.
Conscience good, was
now
so. Tartuffe,
"probably" conve these
nient doctrines
in his armory
Heaven There
of pious
averse
deceits:
to compromise. formulated, be may care of
is not
Whereby And any May be
is a science, lately one's conscience wrongful redeemed
liberated
act you by purity
to mention intention.
Tartuffe
is relying on Jesuit science to help him in a seduction. Pascal and Moli?re were convinced that conscience had reserves of it could defend fortitude with which itself against the appeal of these decep tions. Thus one of Moli?re's characters says with quiet confidence, Both
Let's And strive to live by conscience's as they clear please. decrees,
let the gossips
gossip
Pascal's
solution
was
the
same:
an
appeal
to conscience
to remember
the
path
of
to accept Jesuit excuses and true morality and to reject the temptation laxity. Conscience was perceived as quite capable of dealing with hypocrisy. Hypocri sy was obviously no joke, but it was not taken as the primary evil, and indeed na?ve hypocrisy is an attempt to hide a truly serious crime against God or man.
LET
US
NOT
BE
HYPOCRITICAL
of the consciences Pascal was quite clear that when the Jesuits manipulated their pliant clients this hypocrisy was designed to give the former the greatest was not, however, the hypoc empire of all: over the human mind. The real evil of the The doctrine the of but abuse power by Jesuits. risy, "probabilism," with on intentions and its easy of its concentration supply "good" ones, had terrible so were to to sin Men led their induced and consequences. perdition. The crime itself, not the hypocrisy, was for Pascal the real horror. Conscience could, how cure for its was It the best this ever, defend itself effectively against danger.
diseases.
When conscience is reduced to sincerity it is futile to appeal to it against its own more Alceste The the more insists on being true to himself, deceptions. to and To he becomes. call the sincere become upon egotistical misanthropic even more so, only can their difficulties. What sincerity do for compounds the he when Alceste, rails, professional antihypocrite,
Let Their Let Not men behave inmost the heart mask like men, hearts in let them display
speak, themselves
everything and let our in silly
say. they sentiments
compliments.
It is the passion for demand for perfect sincerity hides nothing. Alceste's cure not moral domination. this libido dominandi; it Sincerity would possibly would only aggravate it. His real self would merely assert itself more insistent vein. That iswhy we are not sorry when he ly, but in the same antihypocritical he has woven. His friends did pity him, gets caught in the web of unhappiness at least still believed and appealed to his common sense. They in their own
consciences. Hegel saw a world where conscience was no longer supported by
others of its own kind, identical or at least similar in content and structure. The sincere have no moral rules to share with each other, and would therefore only on in his urge Alceste solitary vices instead of rescuing him from them. Although Hegel expected the anarchy of the sincere to bring about a general
indifference to hypocrisy, he was, in fact, the herald of a veritable army of
ferocious
confronted,
antihypocrites.
not merely
The
by the
uncertainty
affectations
and suspicion
of the sincere,
felt by those who

but also by the
are
un
diminished
early world heart case. of or
vigor of na?ve hypocrisy,

He sincere, described authentic conviction his and our anarchists, is,
are
overwhelming.
only solely "the too on sole
Hegel
accurately. expressing measuring
was merely
It their rod of is not given duty"
an
a
situation bent to be sure,
ego.
Personal
are many other moral types around. An people, but there anarchy of the self-expressive does not prevail, although there are people who entertain one of with longing this psychological fantasy. The actual state of affairs is for many
conflicting moral attitudes, among which rule-bound, conventional, and tradi
tional ethics tion makes

intense. For
continue the
each one,
to hold
to some
their own. This hypocrisy

shares extent,
mixture and
as much
of anarchy antihypocrisy
as he detests
and conven extremely

the inclina
interplay
between
tions of the other. They live together, affect each other, and must repeatedly accuse and to each other. As themselves justify Hegel noted, the pure in heart do not keep quiet, or just insist on their sincerity, but proclaim that whatever do most cre as from the noble such motives, they springs patriotism, pity, or ative genius. Others may see no trace of these traditional virtues in conduct
10 which
JUDITH
SHKLAR
looks rebellious, boorish, and egotistical. They will say, as Hegel did, to which the sincere will that this is just assertive hypocrisy; reply that nothing we ismore so than the "sugary grin" of the conventionally polite and just. What have to live with is a morally pluralistic world in which hypocrisy and counter are joined to form a discrete system. hypocrisy in fact, confronted Hegel was, by several moral phenomena which he did not quite sort out. First of all there was the new primacy of sincerity and the as a source of silence of conscience These public moral knowledge. changes were too to was clear inherent of So the only Hegel. hostility sincerity to all conventional rules, because these are the most powerful of all external threats to the unalloyed inner self. To respond to any appeal other than personal con as a betrayal. to viction is perceived It is false, inauthentic, and hypocritical or to abide by set rules, to seek public approval, to meet expectations, simply a to in The others. voice world of first is that cry "hypocrite" please pluralistic
the sincere. The has second always voice been, is the also response of to the conventional, but not who to are, the as ex conscience committed sincerity,
clusion of other considerations. They do know enough about intentions to dis trust the professions of the sincere, and they accuse them not merely of simple the distance between but also of hypocrisy. Both sides measure wrongdoing, to and both say, "Hypocrisy." assertion and performance They are determined undermine the confidence of those whose moral style offends them, because nor reject each other. The is they can neither wholly accept charge of hypocrisy the weapon of choice in a war between those who cannot do without public on convention, but also values which they must distrust, and those who rely to these opponents must be added those who, insist on sincerity. Finally, as amatter of taste. They see dogma treat morality wearied by these wrangles, and tism, imposition, everywhere. These perpetual fulmi aggressive hypocrisy
nations against hypocrisy are, in short, an expression of massive moral
dealers in moral the fault of any one of the participating confusion, a hated character as not It And the is occasional. hypocrite systematic, goods. as a universally hated insult. It is part of the has been replaced by hypocrisy and not
of language Accusations distrust of that hypocrisy uses threats under rather these than arguments. are not expressions of circumstances
a real moral insecurity, which can be self-confidence. They are signs, rather, of seen at of our sexual mores. Many who the looks kaleidoscope readily by anyone are not as the that did still Victorians, believe, chastity and monogamy people essence end of the At the other of but the all very just morally morality. right, no to are is who think behavior those that sexual spectrum subject special rules. are only in the The liberated see nothing but hypocrisy preferences. it which is said words of the staid. Even if the latter practiced what they preach, not is sin because monogamy they rarely do, they would still be hypocritical, mar cere. It does not must constant mark the that love and the yield pleasure to these charges vulnerable is peculiarly riage of true minds. The Victorian to because he also believes in sincerity, but may well pretend feelings he cannot There summon up, and he may, in addition, be repressed and complacent. He there to undermine fore half agrees with his tormentors, who have done everything and nothing to show that he has injured or wronged his self-confidence anyone. and joyless promiscuity In response, he will accuse the liberated of unfeeling
LET
US
NOT
BE HYPOCRITICAL
11
and of threatening the familial order. The liberated do not care about the latter so they are not disturbed, and may not even answer it. The indirect complaint, one that can touch them, for they do insist on the of is the only charge hypocrisy or at the very least claim to sincerity of their affections, even if they be fleeting, a funless hedonist and an unfeeling be having a very good time. In principle, are hypocritical, at least if they advertise the emotional openness experimenter of their style of life. Such extremes of sexual attitude are too remote from each other to be touched by direct moral attack, but to insinuate that someone is to an the is his and that effect. That is has why hypocritical collapse self-image, so one another. Each rigid and the liberated can easily wound without altering one feels threatened by sexual opinions that he can neither share nor completely not The do view Victorian liberated sexual mores with the detached reject. tolerance which they would bring to the habits of a distant primitive tribe. The not only because he Victorian shudders in undisguised disgust at the liberated, not to of but he is the primacy of the because indifferent them, disapproves sexual honesty they so loudly proclaim. If he cannot satisfy this demand within his code, he is exposed to self-doubt as much as to ridicule. The liberated are in the same boat, for they are still haunted by the possibility of enduring love. The conflict within stimulates a moral dispute in which the urge to exercise psychic is undisguised. That accusations of hypocrisy might be part of a contest for moral suprem acy was clear from the first. It is characteristic of conscience and of sincerity, as to be to be well, expansive. Both tend private in origin, but public in their so The reviled for his hypocrisy ostentatious in the New expression. almsgiver, an con well have been the of victim Testament, may unknowing imperial science. He was, after all, not doing anything wrong. On the contrary, he was so in order to earn the helping the poor. If he did approval of his fellow citizens, he may simply have been living up to the highest values of the pagan world. He not a Christian, and his generosity may have been may have been a Greek, meet did It ethical. the standards of Christian not, however, deeply charity. The established practices of his society were being challenged by conscience in revolt. The demand for secret charity might not have made any sense to this is something of a citizen, at home in his public culture. To call him hypocritical not It does indict is what he but the spurns dodge. doing, spirit in which he is his He is about than rather condemned for undercut, going almsgiving. being to assert Conscience in revolt is doing something reprehensible. always likely itself in this way against the defenders of any established order, and against the habitual acceptance of a given social environment. unreflective, Every evil ig an is evil which is all is nored, conscience endorsed, says, why conventionality so is it often That is of the function and of conscience, why hypocritical. always to be on poor terms with the laws and manners of actual societies. sincerity, The plurality of moral accusers has only proliferated the verbal arms which conscience has always been ready to use mores that failed to meet against public its demands. are These tendencies of conscience in effect. It political, not just personal, was inevitable that those whom conscience accosted should see aggression in to to attribute and its claims The is best defense sincerity hypocrisy perfection. a counterattack, but it is not enough. There is an element of political Podsnap dominion
12
JUDITH
SHKLAR
that refuses to face the distance between pery in all conventional hypocrisy established moral profession and practice. It is the hypocrisy that sustains estab lished institutions and the self-satisfied people who run them and live for and off them. Such are the barons, with their talk about their honor. Such are all ruling a classes. They must studiously ignore actuality, employing self-protective rhetoric that supports their world. It is precisely like Becket?out people are most likely to expose conventional siders?who such as this to hypocrisy
contempt. In turn, these scourges of the insiders are very apt to resort to ideo
and perform highly in logical causes, which may serve as counter-hypocrisies an for functions them. When this becomes tegrative cycle accepted form of seesaw the between habitual and remaskings politics, competitive unmaskings has set in. This is the pattern of ideological politics in liberal polities in which are charges of hypocrisy exchanged with unbroken regularity. even before it was realized. To The shape of these politics was sensed it seemed evident that ideological exchanges, Hegel, with his usual prescience, inwhich each protagonist stands for a "cause," were the public equivalent of the new assertive hypocrisy. "Causes" act exactly like "good intentions." morally That is why the phrase "the end justifies the means" is not a mere tautology. "Causes" are the untestable promises of a good future that will liberate adher ents from the responsibilities of the present ethical and legal and constraints order. This in which political con men is often a very na?ve sort of hypocrisy clothe their crimes. On a large scale, it is how terrorist regimes and ideologists over Oronte's behave, and it is also how Tartuffe reigned distraught family. All
opponents are traitors, the agents of dangerous racial, class, and national ene
mies against whom virtuous rulers are protecting a happy people. Even the most ardent antihypocrite may be more impressed by the crimes than by the hypocri here is as na?ve as it is secondary. On a sy of these regimes. The hypocrisy
lesser scale, that is also true of those noble causes that pursue improbable and
com of actuality, distant goals. The purity of their aims, and the wickedness bine to absolve their followers not only from their normal duties, but from accepting most facts. One might suppose that once this game of giving mischief fine names had been understood, its opponents would concentrate on the actual once a system of hypocrisy misdeeds. and counter That is not likely, however, has become established. The glamor of good hypocrisy are to contestants and reduced that, seeking the "psychic their opponents by exposing hypocrisy. ends annihilation" is too great for of their
For the observer of the play of ideologies it is clear that the basic hypocrisy that the ideological needs of the few corre affecting all of them is the pretense to which to the of the many. It is a hypocrisy moral and material interests spond all politically active intellectuals, who generally are also extreme antihypocrites, are is the endem especially given.4 More impressive than these antics, however, ic and systematic character of public hypocrisy and its mazelike inescapability. of For the defenders of convention, who attack the self-righteous fraudulence the political parties of new "causes," only sink into the swamp of their own in disguising the enormous gap between and behavior. hypocrisy profession of the rebel That gap marks all established orders, and the counter-hypocrisy on it. The public stage, in short, collectively lious invariably feeds replays the versa. In the unending game of struggles of the politics of daily life and vice
LET
US
NOT
BE
HYPOCRITICAL
13
the general level of sham rises. As each side tries to destroy mutual unmasking, and the credibility of its rivals, politics becomes a treadmill of dissimulation an opponent To evil he need but call only be might boomerang, unmasking. unarmed by charges of hypocrisy. of personal conscience, when it expresses itself on the pub The contribution to mitigate lic stage, does nothing It sees hypocrisy systematic hypocrisy. among politicians who habitually promise more than they can de everywhere, are liver, who profess beliefs they do not hold, and whose moral pretensions so in liberal states, which are, in any case, the intolerable. That is particularly and all the possible only open testing ground for conscience ideologies. The revolt of private conscience against liberal governments is not in fact due to their once in but to the extraordinary exceptional depravity, hopes that liberalism its moral achievements have fallen short of spired and still sustains. Because these expectations, liberalism is accused of hypocrisy more frequently by its adherents than by its enemies. The latter in fact are often disappointed liberals. To recapture some of the intensity of the moral aspiration of liberalism in the years before the First World War one need only read John Morley's cele The author was a learned, influential, experi brated essay "On Compromise." Victorian. His earnest expectation was enced, and excruciatingly high-minded that freedom would shrink the purely political realm of compromise, caution, con and calculation to minimal proportions. Free to ignore oppression, Morley centrated on the deviousness of politicians, in and out of office. They were a real upon danger to the dauntless pursuit of truth, the highest of human obligations, which all human improvement depended. The end of striving was progress, and it was the nonpolitical intellect that would achieve it, if it was not fettered by was the very greatest of not the temptations of politics. Hypocrisy dangers, to truth, but even to could endure the compromises that only politics. Morley on who could not force improvements liberty itself imposed on politicians, were or not those who who could accept them. But the art of unready for them the possible must not be artful. It must not be hypocritical, as the political is feasible," was apt to be. That spirit, with its eye ever on "the immediately why liberalism, the faith in progress through freedom, must reduce the scope of to freedom. A the political until it is replaced by something less dangerous dramatic decline in hypocrisy was bound to come when people engaged in vig orous and free discussion. There would be less irresponsible "pharisaical censo
riousness" when everyone came to recognize the difference between
and punishment. intellectual puritanism disagreement, disapproval, Morley's was as as the sexual obsessions of his fellow Victorians. In clearly singleminded of moral ideas did not reduce either censorious any event, the free competition it enhanced them, because free ness, politics, or hypocrisy. On the contrary, dom does not screen off, but liberates the to grow unchecked. political spirit The hopes that liberalism aroused have not been realized and its adherents feel defrauded because they can no longer be as confident asMorley was so long ago. as a working political system was The reaction to representative democracy even more intense than the erosion of liberal hope. American represen gradual to be unlike other governments tative democracy was meant not in all ways, some. to in The difference be and the only proved insufficiently great actuality was as fraudulent. In fact, representative like any perceived democracy must,
14
JUDITH
SHKLAR
form of government, maintain its legitimacy by reinforcing the ideological val ues upon which it is based. Not only must these be invoked on all possible but they must serve as the justification for specific policies. These occasions, norms go well beyond the sources of legal authority, especially when derived from a document, however revered, like the U.S. Constitution. The Constitu tion itself is imbedded in less explicit, but no less binding, principles and senti
ments. No one can hope to to govern without reference to these values. It is
neither
every
psychologically
utterance is sure
feasible
receive
nor
close
politically
public
possible
scrutiny.
to evade
That means
them when
that those
one of engaged in governing must assume at the very least two roles, pursuing to of and another the in order policies edifying governed legitimize these plans. The more widely shared a political language and other traditions are, the easier a built-in tension; for the this is. There is nevertheless disparity between what is said and what is done remains great, and the better the speaker the larger that not only in distance is likely to be. The gap exists in every association, political one to a units. No collective ideal. This is the fatality on which Machia lives up velli capitalized, and on which thrived. And his political honesty those, of whom there are many, who do not accept the legitimizing norms at all, will use as their most hypocrisy telling accusation.
One cannot, however, govern with overt antihypocrisy as one's only rule of
of psychic warfare, is a splendid weapon but not of Antihypocrisy at a it does its Nevertheless, government. point perpetual difficulty. The finger are those who can both reinforce the ideology upon which their best politicians are few But is devise and based, very authority adequate policies. equally adept at both. Even those who are, are peculiarly and subject to charges of hypocrisy to was the fate of both Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. Each Such debunking. one was able to use rhetoric and showmanship to give a new vigor to flagging conduct. that, they political principles and loyalties. With to fulfill and political expectations. failed They selves revived. Other presidents were not expected had also made fewer claims for the political order of hypocrisy fied. Hence the endless accusations
statesmen.
also raised the level of moral the standards they had them to achieve so much, but they with which they were identi that pursue the most capable
to or divine ancestor worship liberal rely on, modern providence to it. sustain it has little but its moral That is generates why democracy promise both political exigency and the interplay of hypocrisy and vocal antihypocrisy. In international relations this is perhaps less of an issue than has been claimed. the rules, if any, that apply among states, All governments know that whatever are not est lex is as democrat of those they personal morality. Saluspopuli suprema ic a slogan as any, and with varying degrees of success it has always been recog nized. It is in the relationship between government and citizens that hypocrisy is said to flourish to an abnormal degree in liberal democracy. That is because its basic norm is the consent of the governed, and consent is not easily won or Without
preserved.
just a pure political entity, as was once hoped. Parties, of and leaders make up the reality, if not the promise, organized campaigns, counter In the back-and-forth of competing and electoral regimes. charges is both the action as well as the specific end of any election, there charges which A people is not
LET
US
NOT
BE
HYPOCRITICAL
15
certainly is a fund of hypocrisy. and the choice of parts is fairly ized, and the conventions
expectations are not, as a rule,
are rituals in function and in form, Elections limited. The pretenses therefore are standard are of exposing them equally predictable. The voters'
particularly great, and their tolerance for eccen
as tricities and departures from the script is low. That is why some Americans, soon as was not as as that their discovered had government they unique they was not the first tended to see hypocrisy expected, everywhere. Hawthorne Jacksonian to see that America was not as different as had been expected, but he was the most literate. He was also more by a sense of intensely preoccupied no nor not nor those He his one, friends, himself, ubiquitous hypocrisy. spared whom he disliked. He was the greatest artist since Moli?re to make hypocrisy his main theme. The pretension was simple: the people ruled. In fact, they did not, they only played a role in elections, and the claims for post-Revolutionary It was in some ways superior, and in republican government were exaggerated. others inferior, to the Puritan authoritarianism of an earlier age. No regrets and no enthusiasms; not to mention for in both hypocrisy the vices to flourished, which all men are prone, cannot be and much That especially greed cruelty. in helped, only recognized. However, styles guile change, and electioneering has its own kind. Consider Hawthorne's Judge Pyncheon, privately as wicked as can be, in a to of the He be elected governor public expects pillar community.
of the state.
more of his dignity

saluted, and
is customary As with the rich, when at the honors of a he they aim republic, as it were, to the for his wealth, sta and elevated apologized, people, prosperity, manner towards those who knew off the tion, by a free and hearty him; putting
in due proportion with the humbleness

proving a haughty consciousness
of the man whom he

advantages as in
frangibly as if he had marched

way.
thereby
of
his
forth preceded by a troup of lackeys to clear the
"Proving"
it,
in any
case,
to a man
as
sensitive
to
sham
as Hawthorne.
Pyn
is utterly wicked, and his private and primary cheon, like Tartuffe, hypocrisy hides the immense wrong he did in sending his innocent cousin to jail. Haw thorne, however, hints that the qualities acquired in lifelong domestic and fam are just those most and meanness ily brutality likely to make a successful for neither the voters nor those who know the candidate republican politician, for what he really is can act "A little knot of subtle schemers will effectively. control the convention and, through it, dictate to the parties." In fact, their measures will "steal from the its knowledge, the power of choos people without own rulers." What a man like is of visible safe ing its they public irreproach ability and "spotless private character." To suit them one would have to be a is in a class by himself. Haw hypocrite; though, to be sure, Judge Pyncheon thorne's Jacksonian friends were not without their own hypocrisies. They also to rule. The current wanted see between as a those who quarrel democracy of citizen are content and as a those who it with system participation system of rerun is the latest of that earlier And it is as selection, leadership just script. evident now as then, that "the people" so not an is actual, ardently championed
but an invented, entity. Hawthorne, as an artist, however, was able to express
the immense
disappointments
that representative
democracy
must
inspire when
16 it becomes
JUDITH
SHKLAR
an to Its workings force participants ongoing system of government. a moral order that nobody can create. Elections must be prepared, and promise candidates, especially rich and clever ones, are bound to pretend to a common and inordinate virtue. That is the bleak side of the touch, youthful poverty, and like all the American had an eye for Hawthorne, novelists, great picture, It was only to be expected soon see it among the re darkness. that he would
formers of his age as well.
a system that seems to like a kettle advantages of produce hypocrisy were steam on off also Hawthorne concentrated very early. giving recognized it because had the how democratic But hypocrisy destroyed specifically hope. The
much frankness does democracy actually require? No one can accuse even the
of the founders of the republic, Benjamin Franklin, of political enthusiasm. He was a shrewd calculator who took it for granted that the politics of persuasion as he well knew, was The only alternative, required hypocrisy. force. Yet Franklin did not for a moment underrate the political changes he had worked for in Pennsylvania. He had done much to create a wholly new political in which self-improvement and practical society based on a civic consciousness were not This did transformation joined. philanthropy require zeal, only guile and persistence. And Franklin was capable of both. He was also tolerant and as a matter of and in this he very much resembled David easygoing, principle, who could that "the common duties of Hume, say quite simply of hypocrisy was to pass society usually require it" and that it through the world "impossible con were to it." Both without have from the escaped rigors of the glad enough gregation and of the kirk, and not inclined to torment themselves or others with the fears they had so recently left behind them. That a man should try to public make himself acceptable to his fellow-citizens did not strike Franklin as despic to hide much of his native able; on the contrary, he carefully taught himself democratic
character. Franklin was, by any standards, a great man. He always knew that about
most
In his Autobiography, which himself. is itself a very artful work, he tells us that he realized that he would have to play a very difficult part if he was to succeed in Pennsylvania politics. To get his many projects through he had to acquire a new
vocabulary I even and forbid a new personality. . . . the Use or of every Word in the Expression Language as etc. and I such imported certainly, Opinion; undoubtedly, adopted a to be so or so. . . .The of them, / conceive, I or/ instead apprehend, imagine thing in which I modest them a readier way my Opinions, propos'd procur'd Reception . . . some and less Contradiction. I at first put on, with vio which [This] Mode, . . . ... . . . And to natural at to me. to lence became Inclination, easy length ... so much I think it that I had this Habit in Influence owing, principally public Councils. that myself a fix'd
This was Franklin he were
done in a spirit of cool calculation without any claim to humility. As noted, humility was quite beyond him; he would only be proud of it if to try it. Here is hypocrisy as a conscious act in response to a situation it. Persuasion is not natural; it requires a great deal of effort, and that demands in a man as superior to his fellows as Franklin was, it takes exactly what he It was a mark of Franklin's greatness that he always knew what was
described.
LET
US
NOT
BE
HYPOCRITICAL
17
called for and could do what he thought right. He was at all times, Jefferson wrote to his grandson, "the most amiable of men," because his rule was "never to contradict anybody." What strikes one about the Autobiography is its complete lack of sentimentality. Franklin had a pronounced character which he presented very acutely, but he did not think of himself as primarily a unique inner self. He was all his many roles, one above all others, as he wrote although he put the first in his testament: "I, Benjamin Franklin, of Philadelphia, printer, late Minister to court of France, now the of of America the United States Plenipotentiary in this, but no President of Pennsylvania." is much pride of achievment There a was at It is all. also social Franklin of mind. still Moli?re's ego. vanity wholly A democratic "social fabrit" would "come undone" just as quickly as other if everyone were always "wholly frank with everyone." The distance tween Franklin and Hawthorne is immense. Franklin was the sum of his cannot bear and we have romantic egos which tions, while Hawthorne
notion that one's manner of acting one's roles measures true character.
any be ac the
For
private self that was one's true, supreme, and only honest part. That is why he thought it important to take "the private and do mestic view of public men," and why the discrepancy between the two made him so bitter. For Franklin the domestic self was one among several. No rem nants of an immortal soul bothered him, and he needed no for it. replacement His private affections were not politically relevant. Perhaps Pascal's Jesuit ad versaries had a point when they argued that they simply did not want to make men that each condition had its peculiar vices, and that life, and desperate, com religion as well, could be made more tolerable for priests, gentlemen, Hawthorne mercial as people, and the poor by easing their consciences they went about their appointed tasks. The necessity of assuming social roles is not only inevi table; it does not merit, apart from the notion of a supreme ego, the charge of for it does not hide a public crime. Franklin was not a con man; he hypocrisy,
there was
not some secret vice. To be disguised his enormously superior intelligence, but it was within the confines of the political sure, he did mean to dominate, stage where the question isn't to rule or not to rule, but how shall one rule? If it is to be by persuasion, then Franklin had to find the right tone, which was a man so so hard for better informed much and much more intelligent extremely than his colleagues. His example is so important because it has both political and psychological meaning. He saw with perfect clarity what the demands of even in their infancy. He also democratic assemblies were, recognized what personal behavior it imposed upon him before the new morality of the supreme inner self had insinuated itself into every mind. He could therefore describe his and good humor, knowing that he was pretenses with perfect self-confidence to a new and better contributing political order. That also accounts for the of and that Melville, calculation D. H. Lawrence, and lesser hypocrisy charges romantics were to hurl at him in a later age. Did they, then, possess moral and political knowledge he lacked? In one respect, Franklin's example is because he was a highly misleading, man of as as of character well of immense It extraordinary strength intelligence. was easy for him to be one man among his peers in the in another Royal Society, the small, provincial world of and a third at Versailles. Philadelphia politics, aware of the social distance he covered had since his impoverished Always huge
18
JUDITH
SHKLAR
in Boston, he was simply pleased, and not at all upset, by the changes childhood he had experienced or, to be exact, created for himself. Others have found social more difficult to absorb. The result is that democratic are mobility regimes One beset by two forms of the antihypocritical is endemic in any mentality. so. The other may arise openly competitive political system, and necessarily from the psychological difficulties of social mobility, up, down, or lateral. The first kind of hypocrisy is part of the rhetoric of legitimization and of the politics of persuasion. They not only demand dissimulation, but generate disappoint to ment, and a sense of being put upon. Given that democratic freedom means, use Madison's of the of "the these animadversion," ap exposure right phrase, inevitable. Liberal democracy is a process that re becomes parent hypocrisies and vulnerable obvious and that invariably quires particularly hypocrisies, Franklin was a invites a perpetual anxious suspicion of fraud and hypocrisy. was not the mentality of in his the later consumers this but system, participant still share of this extremely and beneficiaries however, We, complex polity. remote from us. while Franklin's is Hawthorne's utterly political sensibility, more of liberalism?social One of the necessary by-products mobility?had, in Franklin's age. It brought with it a over, not yet revealed all its possibilities rise was as unique second sense of universal hypocrisy. Franklin's astronomical was as it. of It his is, however, likely that the ro socially personal acceptance of playing mantic obsession with the true inner self and with the hypocrisy which be social roles is related to the personal experience of social movement century, among the intellectually especially of the much Romantic reflect morality may anguish of people who leave gifted. and behind them and adopt new manners the social world of their childhood true inner self is identified with one's childhood and family, and roles. The regret as well as guilt for having left them behind may render new ways arti ficial, false, and in some way a betrayal ofthat original self. This personal self is seen as having a primacy that no later social role can claim, and indeed the latter or case may be despised as demeaning, simply "fake," but in any "stereotyped," self. less genuine than the primordial The malaise of the socially mobile may be more severe inmore rigidly caste but it like societies than among the sons of newly enriched fathers in America, was not unknown here. The pain may have been less acute, but it has been more common. There another source of antihypocritical is, consequently, feeling a of those who regard the the morality environment: social liberal generated by roles?the of diverse and contradictory necessity of playing many assumption a dis circles?as of from social parts and taking directions variety hypocritical even no would be evil is done. It simulation, entirely er particular though as roneous to see the the uneasiness of the mobile sole, or even the psychological far earlier The pure inner self has many, chief, source of romantic morality. and its display by antecedents. We need only recall its source in conscience as it does from the of romanticism, The Alceste. however, occurring spread to it and to the anger against all is not unrelated nineteenth century onward, of this kind of antihypocrite sham and social show. The mentality surely has some relation to the plurality of groups that individuals move into and out of in liberal societies. there is the egalitarian component of liberalism, In addition to romanticism, social which harbors a strong aversion to the hypocrisy implicit in established came less rare in the nineteenth
LET
US
NOT
BE HYPOCRITICAL
19
roles. If men accept themselves as the sum of their roles, it is said, then they are doomed to inequality. Even equality before the law, so central to liberalism, must give way to status. Only if we assume that there is a self, apart from all is capable of morality social definition, which and therefore deserves respect, on which not can we the of claims justify equality only social justice, but liberty seen is in the denial of that inner self, of the also itself, depend. Hypocrisy source of sincerity and common humanity, and therefore it appears to be the a of the of beneficiaries hierarchical class- and role-obsessed weapon society. of an unjust These feelings of revulsion against artificiality as the handmaiden are Is this sort of anti intense, but are they reasonable? inequality certainly even from an of view? Does equal hypocrisy well considered, egalitarian point ity not have more to gain from a flexible attitude to all roles, to easy transitions from role to role, and to amultiplicity of roles for each citizen? Why not consid er a of all legitimate roles and conditions? possibly hypocritical appreciation can do as much for as it does for inequality. If we had some Hypocrisy equality notions of a public good, if we had a shared body of common political knowl we would not dwell on as an issue of any edge, hypocrisy importance. We in terms of our collective life and its pros would defend and attack inequality pects. But even the most ardent egalitarian is by now baffled by what the re spective scope of public and private roles or spheres should be. That is why he
prefers to rest his case for equality on common humanity, on "a man's a man for
a' that," rather than on the possible advantages of an egalitarian social order for most citizens. and sinister designs in Instead, he sees aristocratic artificialities the very idea of men as role players. Would as conceived the frankness, display of a primary inner self, really do anything for equality? Only if one assumes that each individual does and must invariably play only one role and that roles must be ordered in rigid hierarchies. That is by no means the case, and if we had a greater parity among roles, the extrasocial self as the primary moral agent would lose all egalitarian ideological force. It makes it all the more worth asking whether public and private roles call for identical conduct. In fact, we assume that our public roles carry greater moral responsibilities than our private ones. We expect to behave better as citizens and public officials than as actors in the private sphere. The whole concern about corruption in on turns it and does immense but that, government yield hypocrisy, pretended virtue may curtail graft and other vices as well. It is, for example, no longer to make racist and anti-Semitic remarks in public in America; yet in acceptable
private conversation, racism and anti-Semitism are expressed as freely and as
frequently Many a Southerner used to sneer at this display of hypocri even Now is down to a few code words at he, like many a Northerner, sy. more election time. Would any egalitarian prefer public frankness? Should our public conduct really mirror our private, inner selves? Often our public man ners are better than our personal laxities. That "sugary grin" is, in any case, not a serious issue. It becomes so only because our sense of public ends is so waver and elusive. ing
No occasion reveals our incoherence more than war. War is of course a very
as ever.
situation, but it is an extreme one. It disrupts commonplace of pluralistic societies and radicalizes everyone, as hard-won bitions give way under unendurable pressures. That is why so as and all of Thucydides readers cally morally revealing,
the delicate
restraints war is psychologi know. In our age it
balance and inhi
20 is also the occasion on which
JUDITH
SHKLAR
charges of hypocrisy may be exchanged with unmatched virulence. The morally smug begin to rant, the assertive to rail. reassure anyone is surely That this spectacle should morally yet astonishing, in his remarkable book Just and Unjust Wars finds comfort both Michael Walzer to conceal their misdeeds in the efforts of soldiers and politicians and in their relentless unmaskers. Indeed the whole interplay between the hypocrite and his "The exposure of hypocri pursuers is seen as a sign of shared moral knowledge. most itmay also be the most "is the Walzer and writes, sy," certainly ordinary form moral for it of shows both the critic and his that criticism," important at some share "commitment that least than target goes deeper partisan allegiance are bro and the emergencies of the battle." When these "deeper" engagements ken, moral indignation should be expressed, and when lame excuses are offered, the cry of "hypocrite" should be heard loud and clear. It should, inWalzer's in the course of wars view, be heard when war is declared unjustly and when the rules of warfare are disregarded by soldiers and statesmen, who then offer false justifications for their actions. This is surely an odd view, for while charges of hypocrisy may occur in a context of such moral consensus, there is no reason to suppose that wartime in whatsoever and postwartime differ from peacetime this respect. The conditions of moral confusion and ideological conflict are the same. Those who must unmask their opponents are reduced to undermining their moral and political prestige because, having no shared commitments, they cannot reach them directly. That is clear enough in the course of unpopular wars and even after those wars that were there generally accepted. For wherever is political freedom there are recriminations. The very notion of wars as either just or unjust is by no means universally accepted.
harmonious
Just-war
consensual
theory
places but
war
at
at the end of a continuum

its other extreme. War is not
that has
outside
the
the
community
rules of law and morality,

such it remains a normal,
is their extension
collective
into a disastrous
activity. For
extremity.
those who
As
fol
rule-governed
doctrine, however, war is beyond the rules of good where the It falls in the realm of pure necessity, and evil, just and unjust. to the of It the is very justice. possibility impulse self-preservation extinguishes world of kill or be killed and of the perpetual "fear of violent death." In war, the moral law as a set of binding rules is as silent as are all other laws. The only to end it as soon as and in such a way as to possible, imperative is remaining in this view, is not an extreme moral situation; it is avoid its recurrence. War, of moral Even wars of survival are not just? devoid any wholly compensations. The is inevitable. Kantian very likely to accuse the just-war theorist of merely an encouragement to enter upon wars recklessly and Machiavellian hypocrisy, then to baptize one's own side with the holy water of justice. Every enemy can to look the aggressor. The just-war theorist will not hesitate long easily be made because those before he in turn accuses the Kantian of Machiavellian hypocrisy, who declare wars to be hell fight them with unrestrained savagery. Both charges most are quite justified in that they point to the characteristic temptation that is one. In neither case is the theory of the other shown to be to each undo likely erroneous. These charges of hypocrisy about war become systematic precisely since because each side must justify itself to the other in terms of its sincerity, of Kant's
low some version
LET
US
NOT
BE
HYPOCRITICAL
21
about the substance of their dis shake the other's convictions war as status such. of the Indeed, there is nothing new about such agreement: were the barons already engaged in that sort of conflict. quarrels. Becket and no use the notion of war as the noblest sport of for Becket longer had any were war as the pursuit of repelled by the idea of gentlemen, while the barons moment in of confrontation was that they lacked royal profit and power. What neither can shared moral Each side looks for the psycho knowledge of any kind whatever. at each is accused of hypocri of and aims that. Then the other soft spot logical sy, which ismerely a failure to live up to its own standards, not a failure to meet
obligations.
common
Since they do not see the same moral scene, they can at most blame each seems hardly adequate in times of extraordinary other for blindness, which stress. Instead, each one tries to dismiss and devalue the other by calling him a but this imputation does not imply shared knowledge, hypocrite. Obviously common the the for is In mutual fact, contempt only inaccessibility. hypocrisy so effective. ground that remains, and that is what renders these accusations even cannot the of who bear for those Indeed, appearing hypocritical, thought in revolt against its pure realism offers the most inviting resort. A conscience an overt own feebleness and self-deceptions may prefer pose of amoralism. War to in and is be pursued whenever for this inherent is, pure realist, political life, it seems advantageous. Excuses and justifications have no place in his vocabu takes its revenge on every other claim conscience might lary. Here honesty a For all its seeming lack of scruple, this is, however, bring up. highly moral awareness like Hegel that forces itself on those who, and others, have been a sense of universal, It is driven to distraction hypocrisy. by overwhelming within the systematic hypocrisy of ideological politics that this pure realism It smells opinion parading as knowledge, invariably flourishes. prejudice de now command, assent of the that the the natural sciences only manding findings not had and self-advertisement calling itself truth. Few thoughtful people have
these reactions forms at one time or another. about the moral character of war also arise in argu These of discourse
ments
about the conduct of actual wars. Walzer is particularly concerned with the rules that might apply within wars, and it is here that the charge of hypocri sy seems most significant to him as a proof of moral knowledge. Who can escape the charge of hypocrisy under these conditions? One might think that a suicidal and who refuses to enter the gate to hell pacifist who endures death passively war crimes. He does not, however, escape the might be spared accusations of of His motives will be his worked over, scrutinized, hypocrisy. charge psyche and he will be found to be a moral show-off trying to cover up some private weakness with a fanatic public display that hinders the war effort, prolongs the if not a crime, certainly a fault. The honest Machiavellian, war, and constitutes, who rejects the very idea of rules within wars, is far more likely to evade as a censure; though, as we shall see, Walzer antihypocritical singles him out a rare The Machiavellian of honest bird. course, is, very likely hypocrite. very one who would As an honest man he is not a genuine Machiavellian, lie, cheat, and pretend to every degree of piety. Most practicing Machiavellians fall prey to and self-excuse. A completely self-aware and open amoralist is self-deceptions openly
22
JUDITH
SHKLAR
very hard to imagine. Such a prodigy ismore likely to appear on the stage than in history. Becket, when we first meet him, adopts that stance, but he cannot as a saint of sorts. If the pure Machiavellian keep it up, and ends strategist is it is because he never made a moral com immune to the charge of hypocrisy, at all. As Becket has it, a soldier means to win. He may as mitment frequently, Walzer reminds us, propose strategic military necessity when he is, in actuality, own career. To Walzer this is the very essence of hypocri merely promoting his war. a not in time From of sy purely strategic point of view it simply does are for if the conduct his is motives busi matter, effective, nobody's strategist's ness but his own. is not an issue at all, and neither is sincerity. If the Hypocrisy but not Machiavellian soldier loses his battle, he may be tried for incompetence, matter for hypocrisy. Only consequences here, and in principle he should have In practice it is, of course, no easier to been able to calculate these correctly. of the make exact calculations about matters of fact than to attain a knowledge not to fail, however: It is and beautiful. which, hypocritical merely good inept, to the Machiavellian, is the supreme evil. Becket is telling those barons to go out in a gentlemanly and win intelligently and cruelly, and not to lose expensively sort of way. In Becket's kind of war, personal motives mean nothing and per formance is everything. Failure carries its own rewards. As long as he was an was to he recognized that the way to avoid hypocrisy honest Machiavellian eschew moral pretensions altogether and to get the business over with as quickly as possible. The reason Walzer is so anxious to see hypocrisy and effectively not is because he these finds them deeply committed hard-boiled among types to his values, but because they so reject them. chillingly can make a plausible case of hypocrisy In fact, Walzer against the strategist only because
do not share
of the conditions
his approach to war
and effects of pluralism.

or political combat, the
Faced with
strategist
publics
pleads
that
neces
to evade criticisms. That hardly implies that he sity and takes other measures come after the the of these accepts validity reproofs, especially as they usually event. The fact that the sense of military necessity is more urgent during war than when it is all over renders these exchanges peculiarly artificial. The strate in the retrospective moralist who never had to bear the bur gist sees hypocrisy dens of instant choice, and who now feels safe to charge him with gross an arguments, however, easily become integral brutality and hypocrisy. These was was not a of in free societies. What and normal discourse part ideological is as much subject to differences of interpretation as any other military necessity in it is readily absorbed by the system until it is replaced by and policy dispute, some more and new charges of immediately striking subject of controversy hypocrisy. The world of ideological conflict and moral confusion does make hypocrisy but it is simply not for the reasons that Walzer itsmost effective verbal weapon, is not, to be sure, a personal fantasy. In suggests. The situation he contemplates were matters the classical age o? raison d'?tat, exactly as he describes them. Jan a senists and d?vots might well have called Cardinal Richelieu hypocrite when he defended his alliance with Protestant powers on religious and moral grounds. and after all, can anyone claim to defend the true faith by encouraging How, were political con men and of the cardinal heretics? The arming paid apologists
LET
US
NOT
BE
HYPOCRITICAL
23
not their master was a very wicked man. They were condemned only by the views of zealots, but by their own; for they were all religious men holding the same beliefs. Here the traditional sanction of moral outrage is indeed a proof of moral knowledge. As we saw, the d?vots, like all puritans, suffered from hypoc risies of their own, but that is not the point here. When they accused Richelieu of hypocrisy, both knew exactly what was at stake: a betrayal of the faith for merely political ends, thinly veiled by the excuses churned out by paid scrib blers. When everyone really knows a policy to be absolutely wrong, disguises can be to reveal the intolerable, and so may ripped off bring the errant soldier a to not at state of rectitude. It is all surprising that "naive" and politician back a hypocrisy became such great issue in the age of the nascent modern state. This is the world of Pascal and Moli?re and events do much to explain the intensity of their interest reason to rejoice ated can One into is there any in hypocrisy. then nor now, however, Neither in these acrimonious outbursts. That is what Moli?re appreci so not mellow his contempt for Alceste. One fully. His fear of Tartuffe did condemn the ruthless strategist without the righteous warrior. embracing common sense, if not to conscience, to to put the con men might appeal and still with Alceste's and friend, say jail, intelligent good-natured
In certain And With most cases absurd it would to be uncouth
all respect It is often best the were If we
the naked truth speak for your exalted notions to veil ones true emotions. fabric frank come with undone everyone?
Wouldn't
social
wholly
In the world of systematic and counter-hypocrisy such resources hypocrisy no as of personal his Those who make of accusations sanity longer prevail. no at aim the nor of are dissolution all artificial social bonds, hypocrisy longer their targets as sensible as Alceste's friends. Both sides are alike?engaged in an interminable struggle in which neither possesses anything that can pass for mor al knowledge. the normal situation of pluralism is upset, and Indeed, when some of moral the cry of hypocrisy is no longer heard, degree unity prevails, because no one is out to "psychically annihilate" or to unmask the opposition. One need only remember the Second World War to understand that. The Second World War was not the War Years which Richelieu Thirty came to orchestrate, and so it yields different memories. There were no cries of on the side during the years of struggle. It was a hypocrisy English-speaking assurance. Hitler was so awful, so obvi of moral and unique period certainty a summum was that effect his that of a temporarily unifying, shared malum, ously summum bonum. The brief moral shared was that Hitler had to be knowledge defeated. Within the circumference of this ideological unity the talk was entire to how win. As for Hitler, his sincerity was hardly an issue, al ly strategic: some Americans one in the thirties. When though it seems to have concerned really knows that someone is evil one has no time for his possible hypocrisy. One also does not accuse people with whom one shares an overriding aim. Lord Cherwell's critics challenged only his estimates, not his motives, when, during the war, they objected to the massive bombing of working-class neighborhoods
24
JUDITH
SHKLAR
were also couched in German in similarly neutral cities. Other disagreements terms. The memory of those five years has had its effect on hypocrisy and too to a to those recall there is them, young Among counter-hypocrisy. longing relive what seems like a heroic moral condition. The young see a complacent in that older generation that cannot or will not recognize anything hypocrisy it. The that battle in all the many conflicts that have followed quite resembling old see only a callow hypocrisy the who their adherence demand among young
to causes that do not even reawaken the memory of that earlier war.
the Second World War was over, the normal process of recrimina tions naturally resumed its course. It had always been more than one war. In Britain it had been a war of imperial survival and a war against fascism. The of the traditional ruling class assumed the intelligent and enlightened members at intellectuals war, and the antifascists, overwhelmingly leadership of Britain of the Left, fell into line. Even during the war there were strains, over an early it was only after the war that Lord Snow second front, for instance. However, Lord character and that Evelyn Waugh wrote The End of Cherwell's questioned were the theBattle?which feelings of those who appalled by the adu expressed lation of Stalin. In retrospect it seemed to the most ardent of antifascist warriors that they had lost their moral purity, while those who had fought to save their country felt that they had lost their honor to their allies. What had and had not been necessary became the subject of dispute, and each side accused the other of bad faith and a revolting hypocrisy. our situation of systematic hypocrisy and the older na?ve hypocrite Within men still to not disappeared. continue Con flourish. have They antihypocrite meet their match. Alceste is also with us, and his followers, all devoted to per in feel fect candor, are indeed unhappy with every "social fabric." Anarchists no to not are in threat because if historical fact, they any they must society, ing or join in the like Alceste, either try solitude, accepted pattern of anti a liberal order. In other societies that sustains behavior political hypocritical their prospects are too poor to bear description. The cynics, driven by ideologi When
cal politics to reject all public standards as mere sham, are in the same position.
idealists, they are a small, cerebral group as a rule, and honesty Disappointed driven to its limits has taken them out of politics and even out of current moral to some purpose is one that laments life. The only voice that damns hypocrisy and that the society in which we live does not live up to its principles, promises, a a moralistic of rather than the mark is This jeremiad outraged possibilities. of anti this because moral society perhaps, but it is not without effect, type at least have a sense of what iswrong, rather than only an urge to hypocrite does to a enough to inhibit them spread the blame. He may well frighten politicians and in of the Even the system hypocrisy participants significant degree. services to liberal societies. Each fears perform unintended counter-hypocrisy the other enough to restrain himself. Their discourse conveys little moral urgen fanaticism. The politics of unreconciled cy, but it does discourage political are not as liberating as earlier liberals had hoped, not as edifying as neighbors had been expected, and certainly far less democratic, but they make for a society It could hardly survive without hypocrisy. superior to its known alternatives.
LET References
US
NOT
BE
HYPOCRITICAL
25
are taken from Richard Wilbur's translation. from Moli?re admirable owes much to Erich Auerbach's Trask of translated Mimesis, by Willard 2My reading Tartuffe is a "purer" notes, La Bruy?re's Onuphre 1957), pp. 316-347. As Auerbach (New York: Doubleday, no other or passions, in legacies. but he also is a con man specializing hypocrite, having designs to Walter 3I am much E. Houghton, Yale The Victorian Frame ofMine indebted (New Haven: *A11 quotations Press, 1957). University see the in Theo 4For an adroit and wry review of all these pretensions, chapter "Hypocrisy" dore Zeldin, France 1848-1917, vol. 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), pp. 1121-1153.

Judith Shklar - Let Us Not Be Hypocritical

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Judith Shklar - Let Us Not Be Hypocritical

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Let Us Not Be Hypocritical Author(s): Judith Shklar Source: Daedalus, Vol. 108, No.

Let Us Not Be Hypocritical

of those who remains

is not trivial. Hypocrisy

the only unforgivable

bear hypocrisy? The question sin even, perhaps espe

look toMoli?re's Misanthrope. Alceste that particular manifestation of it. 1

the thing itself, not just this or

I say it's base and scandalous, the heart's affections thus.*

and that sugary

LET US NOT BE HYPOCRITICAL

station, my tion school

but I've got a little power!"

SHKLAR seen as a of their real

Conscience good, was

"probably" conve these

Whereby And any May be

is a science, lately one's conscience wrongful redeemed

act you by purity

let the gossips

everything and let our in silly

say. they sentiments

felt by those who

vigor of na?ve hypocrisy,

situation bent to be sure,

tional ethics tion makes

their own. This hypocrisy

and conven extremely

more of his dignity

in due proportion with the humbleness

of the man whom he

frangibly as if he had marched

forth preceded by a troup of lackeys to clear the

This was Franklin he were

restraints war is psychologi know. In our age it

balance and inhi

20 is also the occasion on which

at the end of a continuum

rules of law and morality,

low some version

and effects of pluralism.

all respect It is often best the were If we

Вам также может понравиться