Friendship and Love, Ethics and Politics: Studies in Mediaeval and Early Modern History

Chapter 3 - Me and My Friends: Individuality, friendship, and autobiography from Augustine to Rousseau

Me and My Friends Individuality, friendship, and autobiography from Augustine to Rousseau The hermeneutics of self My themes in this chapter are individuality, autobiography , and friendship. The combination of individuality and autobiography is hardly surprising. Autobiographies are usually regarded as the best place for authors to reflect upon themselves as unique persons and lay bare their individuality. Critical voices are heard accusing autobiographers of being egocentric, if not narcissistic and pompous, and dwelling far too long on their subject; less jaundiced observers note the naked self-criticism and humble attitude that some writers reveal in their autobiographies. In any case, with the recently renewed interest in subjectformation —the development of the individual over time—autobiographies have become important sources for historical analysis. On the other hand, the combination of individual91 Chapter 3 ity and autobiography with friendship seems more unexpected. Yet drawing inspiration from the classical philosophy of friendship, as developed by Aristotle and others, it is obvious to me that this particular combination is well worth serious consideration. In classical philosophy, the ideal friendship constituted a means, a method, for excellent men to achieve their true, wise, and noble character, in a manner that was also useful to the civil state. Thus, in a deep dialogue with a friend, each individual would learn to understand his own self. Together, each was involved in a cognitive as well as an ethical process. The friend was a potential other, but a close and trusting “other,” not the incongruous or hostile “other.” So in the ideal case, friends would express their individuality with each other, taking part in a kind of moral–political education, which at the same time could only make them useful in a wider social sphere. In mediaeval Christian thought, however, the discourse on friendship was more ambiguous, as I argued in the previous chapter. It was not a general assumption that the self-reflexive individual would develop to greater effect by conversing with a few close friends. Indeed, some Church authorities held that deeper self-reflection was only possible when the individual was in complete solitude, while others gave 92 priority to the collective life of a religious community . My task here, then, will be to discuss the following issues: To what extent can we identify a process of increased individuality, a potential rise of the individual , in a period spanning from the Middle Ages to modernity? Can we observe any such changes when we contrast a few famous autobiographies from European history, starting with Augustine in the Middle Ages, and taking Rousseau in the Enlightenment as the final example? What are the differences and the similarities between their level of self-examination and their expressions of individuality? To what extent do these autobiographies deal with friends and friendship as a part of the writer’s self-reflection? Is friendship included as a means or as a result of individual development? In what way do the writers focus on friends in their narratives? My contribution, then, is to ask whether profound reflections on the self have been matched by similar reflections on friendship. Has the “other,” in the sense of a friend, been considered important for the individual in his search for greater insight into his 93 own nature? Are self-examination and the autonomy of the subject furthered by a mutual exchange of confidences between close friends? The contrast between premodern and modern is integral to many generalized models in social and political science when it comes to societal development in Europe, as I have already discussed in chapter 1. Thus we find premodern man, who is supposedly characterized by both the idea and the social practice of collectivism, in which the individual had little freedom to choose, and lacked the gift of profound selfreflection . According to such models, premodern man looked to the past and was bound by tradition, including a religious and magic culture. In his social practices, he depended on his local community and his kin. Modern man, on the other hand, supposedly possesses reflexivity, autonomy, and a distinct identity as an individual. He looks to the future with his rational mind, liberated from magic and the fear of God. He relies less on his kin than on a range of abstract social systems, such as the State, and on intimate sexual relationships and a few chosen friends. This is the line pursued by Anthony Giddens in his important works on modernity...