Glory, Fear and Vanity: The Multifaceted Face of Hobbesian Citizen

Citation

Korstanje, M.E. (2011), "Glory, Fear and Vanity: The Multifaceted Face of Hobbesian Citizen", International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 86-89. https://doi.org/10.1108/17595901111108399

“We are living timing times” a friend confessed me in an informal conversation a couple of months ago. The point seems to be that the shock that triggered the 9/11 the outbreaks of new unknown virus and others calamities as earthquakes, financial disruptions and ecological disasters have certainly placed the humankind to a difficult position. The role played by mass‐media in broadcasting an state of emergency 24 hours per day all time predispose modern viewers to a sentiment of ongoing anxiety and fear. Although the England where Hobbes produced his prolific bibliography had in some extent nothing to do with our modern times, in other point, Hobbesian legacy represents the more vivid portrayal of late modernity. The Hobbes's works have been unearthed as the most important contributions to expand the understanding of events in this ever‐changing world.

As the previous argument given, Glory, Fear and Vanity is a modest project authored by two Argentines sociologists, Claudia Hilb and Matias Sirczuk that materializes some years of research regarding the role played by fear and vainglory in describing our own modern style of life. Originally published in 2007 by Prometeo Libros, this book seems to be simply structured in three sections. An introduction wherein authors examine the current influence exerted by Hobbesian theory in late modernity is accompanied with an array of interpretations of theory of Leviathan and its applications in the line of time. Most certainly, the conclusion opens the door for the speculation of other multifaceted perspectives about the gaze of Hobbes. Basically, the main thesis of this insight work is that lay people are often constrained by a stronger fear of being expropriated but at the same time a sentiment of vainglory moulds their passion for quest and conquest. Underpinned in the proposition that there is an unresolved tension between the affirmation of glory which triggers the state war and the fear of death, one might speculate this work explores the different connections derived from the political readings of Hobbes. At the time, the former predisposes lay people to conflict, the latter ushers them into peace. Nowadays, Hobbes exhibits a fertile source in the investigation of crime, disaster environment reconstructions, terrorism, fear, and other politic issues. Hobbes not only obliges us to rethink the concept of citizenry but also explains that fear is the most important tenet of society.

Scholarship agreed that Hobbes has been an outstanding scholar whose theory endured the passing of years. Interested in unveiling the social behavior, Hobbes argued that two contrasting passions coexist in human minds. In the sate of nature, humans are more concerned in expropriating the property of others than weaving alliance cultivating the friendship, arts and civilization. This proneness to dispossess others is equaled to the fear of being assassinated. Therefore, in order to avoid what Hobbes called “The war of all against all”, people do not hesitate to recur to the protection of a third party (the state) which monopolizes the exercise of violence. As a result of this, humans renounce their own state of nature for gaining further protection. This undoubtedly paves the pathways for the advent of civility. From that day onwards, subjects becomes in citizens.

Under such a context, Hilb and Sirczuk delve into an all‐encompassed state of the art regarding the role of fear and vainglory in the archetype of modern citizenship. On introductory chapters, both argue that the vainglory reveals an idyllic nature along with the dangers a society is willing to face. Unlike the figure of glory which is often determined by a previous gratification that gives further power, vainglory leads people towards the darkest face of an ongoing fear. However, this sentiment not necessarily should be real. In Thomas Hobbes, the fear works as a mechanism of indoctrination blurring the boundaries between egoism and altruism but paradoxically is the precondition for other more valuable actions. By the way, our British philosopher recognizes that many persons trivialize the risks because the pride is stronger.

Starting from the premise that the law puts people in acceptance of Leviathan's authority, Hilb and Sirczuk contend that there are many causes because Hobbesian citizens might embrace the civility. To put this bluntly, citizenship is motivated by diversity of patterns:

1. 1.

   psychological fear corresponds with a sentiment of preservation that bestow to a stronger third party to monopoly of violence, giving as a result the creation of four subtypes of citizens:

   • •

     scary citizens who decide to preserve their life regardless the security of others;

   • •

     proud citizens who are aware about the potentialities of Leviathan and decide to live in peace;

   • •

     citizens who are moved the power‐will who defy the legitimacy of Leviathan assuming the costs; and

   • •

     citizens who seek the glory developing their own skills and expertise to understand the events of an ever‐changing world.

All these typologies are combined and materialized inside a society and explain in part the complex relationship between stakeholders, their hopes, interests and frustrations. We strongly believe that Hobbes convincingly outlined a psychological pattern to comprehend the modern citizen's behavior that transcended the boundaries of time. This typology can be applied in the research of how the communities face situations of disasters as well as how evolves the recovery process. The fear that corresponds with any situation of disasters is contrasted to the pride and vainglory to reconstruct the obliterated community. One might speculate that in a process of recovery these above mentioned subtypes of behavior are present in all spheres of society, in different times and contexts. On another hand, the convergence between conservatism and defiance of fate are two more than interesting conceptualizations that can be developed in disaster‐related research. This moot point has been underexplored by the sociology and anthropology of disasters.

The fear can, at a first glance, create pre‐conditions for the quest of peace jointly a desire of living a comfortable life. These terms and conditions oblige citizens to accept what the law and being beneath the sovereignty of Leviathan (nationhood). Second, the fear can activate a wider perception of hazard declining the trust in others. In order for the latter to take into appearance and diminishes the morality of individuals it is imperative to dissociate what means a reasonable than an unreasonable fear. In some cases, as Hilb and Sirczuk put it, the fear can be functional for the breach of some agreement. The humans substantially develop a natural appetite for the vainglory that contrasts to their tendency to preservation.

At the second section of this project, Hilb and Sirczuk cope with a much deeper state of the art of different scholars who had already focused in the contributions of Hobbes. Since the contradictions in Hobbes have been an unquestionable issue in all his works, even in his reviewers, these paramount efforts merit considerable credit. Ranging from the arguments of scholars of the caliber of Bobbio, Oakeshott, Strauss towards Watkins, Polin, Taylor, and Macpherson, the Argentines sociologists consider that one of the characteristics of Hobbesian citizens is the quest for power and supremacy to oblige to other to fulfill their own desires. This universal disposition reads as the essence of civil life. Although the humans look for the peace in all their actions, the fact is that they are symbolically conditioned by action of fear. The negative nature of humanity and the covenant for a peace time are paradoxically determined by the fear of being killed and not necessarily for love or respect to otherness. As earlier noted, the avoidance of death may be very well explained because involved person experiences fear. It is important to mention that the death symbolizes a serious barrier for gratifications of self while the vainglory that leads people to enhance the self‐image. Hilb and Sirczuk put the theory of Hobbes under the lens of scrutiny but their book does not say anything new along with others scholars have focused on; and of course, this is fine because their conceptual review were only aimed to describe the interpretation of other scholars about what Hobbes developed in life.

In foregoing, the pride is in Hobbes one of the prerequisite for the inception of citizenship but not the only one. In addition, it is important not to loose the sight the important role played by fear as a warranty of peace. In state of nature, human beings are scared and look for protection of their lives. They in this context sublimate their own interests for preservation issues. This fear of death seems to be one of the tenets of sociality of humans in a state of civility. To some extent, many interpretations have been expanded worldwide regarding to weight of fear, glory and pride as factor to explain current politic issues; above all the war on terror. It is clear that Hobbes has been a philosopher of early modernity whose contributions endured and illuminated the darkest ways of humankind in past and will be doing in future.

The text of Hilb and Sirczuk devotes considerable attention to three main works of Hobbes: Leviathan, De Cive and Elements of Law. The thesis here seems to be that passions that incline men to peace are three:

1. 1.

   the fear of suffering a violent death;

2. 2.

   the desire to improve their own environment and necessary things for a comfortable life; and

3. 3.

   hopes of obtaining such a conform by working and pacific means.

Combining the lecture of different detractors and supporters, this book structures a dispersed numbers of works into an all‐encompassed framework that provide readers by a viewpoint of the convergence of fear and glory. Of course, a vivid and more than important work for all who like us is captivated by the life and contributions of Thomas Hobbes. The question leads here to an interesting quandary – can Hobbes be applied on the study of disaster issues?

In addition, one might surmise the Hobbesian model of Hilb and Sirczuk should be applied to understand how evolves the process of recovery after disasters. In perspective, eight relevant indicators can be developed:

1. 1.

   The vainglory creates sentiment of omnipotence which does not permeate with the principle of reality.

2. 2.

   Trivialization of risks and dangers lead societies towards a real state of disaster.

3. 3.

   Once a disaster hits the society, survivors realize the community still is on feet after all. In some circumstances, the absence of state just after the disasters generate the necessary conditions for chaos pushing citizens to the war of all against all (riots). The (beast) fear constrained in the core of society escaped and is immediately disseminated paving the ways for the surfacing of panic.

4. 4.

   The process of reconstruction is often accompanied by the need of learning of these crippling events (resilience).

5. 5.

   The resilience is feasible by means of an orchestration of two contrasting feelings: the fear a situation of this caliber happens again, and the pride to overcome obstacles in contexts of adversities.

6. 6.

   The civility in Hobbesian terms not only are replicated in the process of recovery post‐disasters but also paved the way for the advent of the memorial of reconstruction.

7. 7.

   The memorial of reconstruction described in early point seems to be related to a much broader‐seated ethnocentrism. Throughout these kinds of rituals, the involving society highlights its own sentiment of superiority creating what specialists denominated “the archetype of disasters”. This facet is frequently characterized by a symbolical reconstruction of state and Leviathan.

8. 8.

   Archetype of disasters is mythical patterns which lay people often use to remind how they faced the disaster and of course, how their bravery contributed to rebuild the obliterated community. The more terrible the disaster, the stronger the sentiment of belonging.

These eight points helps us understanding how works resilience in contexts of natural and made‐man disasters to be developed in future layouts. The contributions of Thomas Hobbes to disaster‐related research still remain unexplored in specialized literature. In this conjuncture, the present book‐review endeavors to describe how fear and pride converge for making the recovery facet and resilience possible.