Hume on Crooked Politics
In a passage in his essay ‘Of National Character’, David Hume offers this defence of political treachery:
Treachery is the usual concomitant of ignorance and barbarism; and if civilized nations ever embrace subtle and crooked politics, it is from an excess of refinement, which makes them disdain the plain direct path to power and glory.1
A fairly straightforward case of double standards. Apparently, it’s an “excess of refinement” that leads to underhand politics, but only in civilized nations. If another, presumably ‘uncivilised’ nation commits the same acts, their actions are born of treachery. Claiming a special exemption from a general rule in this fashion is, as one would suspect, a fallacy. It’s known as special pleading.
[Note: Hume’s reference to barbarism does not refer to any particular nation(s); the entire passage is a general discussion of the different characteristics of northern and southern nations.]
CITATIONS:
1. David Hume, ‘Of National Character’ (1748), in The Philosophical Works of David Hume, Volume III. Bristol: Thoemmes Press, 1996, p.232.
Comments
7 Comments so far
Ummm…looks to me like he’s being sarcastic.
Well, you can read it in context here and there’s just nothing to suggest he’s not 100% serious.
I read the link you posted, and while I don’t think Hume offers a great deal of wisdom in this piece, I think you misunderstand his point in the sentence you quote. He is drawing a distinction between “treachery” and “subtle and crooked politics.” While “treachery” can mean different things, including something subtle and underhanded, Hume seems to be referring to a blatant and perhaps violent offense in this sentence.
I think he means something like Merriam-Webster’s second definition of treason:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treason
If I am right, then Hume is drawing a contrast between the very obvious, blatant acts committed by ignorant, barbaric peoples and the subtle acts committed beneath a veneer of piety and/or good will by civilized, refined peoples. The barbarian might say, “Me want throne!” and club the reigning leader over the head. The refined politician, in contrast, would quietly build a sense of mistrust among those surrounding the leader, perhaps frame him for a crime of which he is innocent, and eventually take power with feigned modesty and the support of those who now insist that the corrupt, incompetent leader must be replaced.
As to the question of whether Hume’s claim is valid, I think there may be some very limited truth in it, but at the same time, few to no societies are so “barbaric” that they are free of subtle, underhanded power plays. In most cases, at least some limited support of some significant portion of the population is needed, and this cannot be gained by threats or violence alone.
I think the irony is obvious. “excess of refinement” is meant ironically, it is a winking description. Treachery is “the plain direct path to power and glory”. The “civilized” people do the same thing, they just do it through “subtle and crooked politics”. They’re too polite to do it directly, but they still get the job done.
Yes, “excess of refinement” may be meant ironically, but it is also not necessarily a statement of praise even in its straightforward meaning. Treachery that has been refined is still treachery; it is is a more perfected, and therefore, in effect, worse, kind of treachery. I don’t think Hume is praising the “civilized” nations here.
I think what he’s saying is that all societies experience treachery, and it is the European way to not do it in a “barbaric” fashion. I.e., Those who want power and glory would rather do it in a more sophisticated and less “savage” way, but desire the power all the same.
Simply put: treachery is treachery, excessive refinement or not.