Hunter, James Davison 151medium of language, the study of language must also
incorporate the study of history and anthropology if an
individual’s and a nation’s worldview is to be fully
understood.
Further Reading
Sweet, P. R. Wilhelm von Humboldt: A Biography.Columbus:
Ohio State University Press, 1978.
Hume, David (1711–1776) Scottish philoso-
pher and political historian
This MODERNthinker developed important theories of
skepticism, relativism, and UTILITARIANISMthat affected
later ethical, religious, and political ideas in the West.
In his famous Treatise of Human Nature(1739), Hume
challenges the rationalism of LIBERAL SOCIAL-CONTRACT
views (such as John LOCKE’s, that there are constant,
reasonable, universal standards of RIGHTand JUSTICE).
Although relying on sensory EMPIRICISM, Hume sees the
knowledge derived from experience as historically
variable and culturally relative, so, for example, he
does not judge one form of government as better or
more rational or just than any other; his standard of
good politics is efficiency and custom. Convention
rather than abstract principles establish “justice.” Like
CONSERVATIVEEdmund BURKE, Hume regards the work-
able, practical past as valuable. MONARCHYmay be best
in France, parliamentary DEMOCRACY in Britain; no
facts can determine which is “morally” superior. Such
utilitarian ideas made Hume appealing to Jeremy BEN-
THAM.
Prudence, pragmatism, and practicality were
Hume’s values. He saw advantages and disadvantages
to all systems: free, democratic governments encour-
aged commerce but were in danger of contracting high
public debts; monarchy is more dignified and orderly
but threatens individual LIBERTYand PROGRESS. In gen-
eral, as long as the regime was functioning fairly well,
Hume supported it. He avoided party identification
and conflict, preferring to remain above policy
debates. He was basically CONSERVATIVE, not from
philosophical principle but from skeptical relativism.
He rejected both Whig reason and DIVINE RIGHT OF
KINGS. His skepticism spread to religion, preventing
Hume from being an orthodox CHRISTIAN. He found the
ethical values of HUMANISM(dignity, intelligence, wit,
eloquence, sophistication) preferable to his native
Scots Protestant values of piety, hard work, abstinence,
self-discipline, and reverence for Christ. This Humean
liberal skepticism and attraction to worldly culture
and aesthetics made him appealing to the French
philosophers, such as Jean-Jacques ROUSSEAU.
Educated at the University of Edinburgh, Hume
failed as a lawyer and was prevented by the church
from becoming an academic in Scotland. He worked as
a law librarian and wrote an extensive History of Eng-
land(eight volumes, 1754–61).Further Readings
Forbes, D. Hume’s Philosophical Politics.Cambridge, Eng.: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1975.
Mackie, J. L. Hume’s Moral Theory.London: Routledge & K.
Paul, 1980.
Miller, D. Philosophy and Ideology in Hume’s Political Thought.
Oxford, Eng.: Clarendon Press, 1981.Hunter, James Davison (1955– ) U.S. soci-
ologist, political and religious theorist
Best known for his analysis of U.S. society in terms of
CULTURE WARS(in the book Culture Wars: The Struggle to
Define America[1991]), Hunter has written extensively
on religion and politics in the United States. An expert
on Protestant EVANGELICALS, he has advised numerous
foundations, churches, political parties, and organiza-
tions (including the White House). Author and editor
of numerous scholarly books and articles, Hunter cur-
rently chairs the Department of Sociology at the Uni-
versity of Virginia and serves as executive director of
the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture.
Hunter’s analysis of U.S. culture in his book Culture
Warsis possibly the most brilliant description of soci-
ety in the United States since Alexis de TOCQUEVILLE’s
Democracy in America.Rather than relying on dated
MARXian notions of class, race, and gender, Hunter
develops categories of attitudes (progressive and
orthodox) that inform U.S. people’s political stances
on numerous fronts. Based in philosophical and moral
worldviews, these attitudes transcend race, sex, class,
and political party. The orthodox (CONSERVATIVE
CATHOLICS, Jews, and Muslims, and Evangelical Protes-
tants) hold some transcendent authority as a guide to
positions on social issues (welfare, education, ABOR-
TION, etc.), while progressives (LIBERAL Protestants,
Reformed Jews, secularists) base their social attitudes
on personal preference. Hunter shows how these alter-
native perspectives affect the U.S. media, education,
art, medicine, and politics. An insightful and influen-