"We can never survey our own sentiments and motives, we can never form any judgement concerning them, unless we remove ourselves, as it were, from our own natural station, and endeavor to view them as at a certain distance from us. But we can do this in no other way than by endeavoring to view them with the eyes of other people, or as other people are likely to view them." Part 3, Chapter 1.
I thought this passage was especially interesting because we really can't judge what is right or wrong with ourselves, unless comparing ourselves to others. This social convention can be related to everything in society; our actions, the way we dress, what we say, etc,. Incorporating Rousseau's idea of the social contract, and Hobbe's view of the state of nature, I feel like Smith introduces the idea of self-consciousness that people need to examine the conduct of themselves and others in society.
Great points and connections with the other theorists. Another quote from the same chapter that helps to extend your post is on page 135 when Smith states that “We can be more indifferent about the applause, and, in some measure, despise the censure of the world; secure that, however misunderstood or misrepresented, we are the natural and proper objects of approbation.” I love this point mostly because I dislike many societal norms and enjoy seeing individuals refuse to conform because they embrace their own views. If you feel strongly about something and have reason and emotions behind it then it seems better to dislike the way society is than to dislike and repress yourself.
ReplyDeleteSmith further goes on to say that “On the contrary, if we are doubtful about it, we are often, upon that vary account, more anxious to gain their approbation, and, provided we have not already, as they say, shaken hands with infamy, we are altogether distracted at the thoughts of their censure, which then strikes us with double severity” (135). Here is side of Smith’s point that is true but sad. I know so many people that care so much about what other people say that they never stop to think about if it is right or wrong in nature. In their preoccupation of worrying about what other people think about them they seem to forget about the qualities they once possessed of their own, and soon seem completely artificial.
I really like this idea of comparatively evaluating oneself against others in society, and I feel that in some contexts, it could beg the question of if that's truly necessary or not.
ReplyDeleteIn a similar class that I had taken in the past, this very discussion came up via the ideas of another author - whether one should judge themselves independently and come to their own conclusions, or use the evidence and actions of others as "benchmarkers" to help gauge their own behavior.
In the ideas of politics and political theory, I think this is an idea that can be applied to a plethora of situations: individual interactions, international relations, political practices, etc.
In my mind, this is an extremely intriguing idea - what would happen, or what could happen, if one decided to use only oneself as a tracker for anecdotal evidence in one's self-interest? Would this follow a truly "economic model," in which there is a minimal application of what we might consider humanitarian motions, or would it result in another end, such as higher efficiency, or enlightened activity?
Very interesting, loved this point!