17
3:254).
25
Rousseau seeks to use amour propre to build the psychological disposition he
thinks is needed by a sovereign people capable of democratic self-rule.
In conclusion, although Hobbes and Rousseau agree broadly on the importance of
pride in politics, they disagree about its naturalness. And while both stress its destructive
aspects, they have different opinions about which are the most problematic. They also
have very different solutions or responses to the problems of pride in politics.
Perhaps a final reflection on terminology is in order. After all, the fact that the
thinkers use different terms to describe pride is an important clue to character of their
divergent views about it. One thing strikes me in particular: Rousseau’s amour propre is
not simply a form of glorying, not simply a form of passion, but a form of love.
Rousseau inherited the term amour propre from earlier French writers but it is worth
reflecting on the consequences of referring to pride as a type of love. As a form of love,
perhaps amour propre offers a different set of possibilities than the passion of pride.
Rousseau tells us the lover can be both sublime and odious; he stresses that the lover
often strays very far from the path of nature. Whereas Hobbes sometimes treats vain-
glory as a kind of masturbation, Rousseau’s term amour propre invites reflection about
the plasticity of political pride, and about its beauty. But Hobbes seems to know more
about the terrible pain it can cause.
25
The French is revealing: “nous voulons volontiers ce que veulent les gens que nous
aimons.”
Convention