received his doctorate in 1921. From 1925 to 1932,
Strauss served as a research assistant at the Academy
for Jewish Research in Berlin. As a student and
researcher, he was attracted to the works of Friedrich
NIETZSCHEand attended lectures by the phenomenolo-
gists Edmund Husserl and Martin HEIDEGGER. Strauss
left Germany following the NAZIrise to power, spend-
ing two years in France and four years in England on a
Rockefeller Foundation fellowship. In 1938, he immi-
grated to the United States and became a naturalized
U.S. citizen in 1944. Between 1938 and 1973, Strauss
taught political philosophy at several universities,
although he spent most of his career at the University
of Chicago (1949–68).
Strauss published a large number of scholarly books
and articles. Most of his writings examined classical
political philosophers and the issues raised by compar-
isons between the ancients and the moderns on topics
such as DEMOCRACY, INDIVIDUALISM, religion, and JUSTICE.
Strauss’s work was motivated by what he considered to
be the spiritual crisis of the modern age. For Strauss,
MODERNITYis characterized by a conflict between the
claims of reason and of revelation, a struggle between
rationalistic science and religious wisdom. The result,
he argued, was the prevalence of cultural nihilism in
modern Western civilization, seen politically in the
appearance of such oppressive systems as FASCISMand
COMMUNISM. Strauss believed that modern thinkers and
politicians had sought to break with the ideals and
virtues of excellence espoused by the premoderns,
especially the ancient Greeks. In place of the premod-
ern virtues, modernity has substituted a notion of EGAL-
ITARIANaffluence that is to be fulfilled for everyone by
means of the tools of science. Yet, even as the moderns
have sought to liberate themselves from the orthodox-
ies of the past, they have enslaved themselves to the
power of a science that seeks to dominate nature.
As Strauss portrayed it, there were several stages to
this process of domination. First, modern political phi-
losophy began to view society as a construct to be dif-
ferentiated from the natural world, as Thomas HOBBES
and John LOCKEargued in their SOCIAL-CONTRACTtheo-
ries. Second, philosophers such as Jean-Jacques
ROUSSEAU initiated the argument that human nature
itself was malleable rather than fixed; this argument
was taken further by Karl MARX, who emphasized the
historical quality of human existence and, conse-
quently, the potential that exists to transform both
individuals and society. In the third stage, identified
with the philosophy of Nietzsche, this HISTORICISMcul-
minated in a radical relativism of beliefs and values.
Because what can be defined as the good, it was
believed, was historically determined rather than eter-
nal, those who can control social history can control
knowledge and the path of civilization. The contempo-
rary period, then, has become a power struggle
between forces that seek to define reality,with technol-
ogy and its consumption becoming ever more impor-
tant than the demands of morality. Strauss’s primary
concern was that this situation would undermine
modernity’s greatest success, its commitment to
democracy. For Strauss, this commitment must be sup-
plemented by the virtues recognized by the premod-
erns as necessary for civic life.Further Reading
Deutsch, K. L., and Nicgorski, W., eds. Leo Strauss: Political
Philosopher and Jewish Thinker.Lanham, Md.: Rowman &
Littlefield Publishing, 1994.Suárez, Francisco (1548–1617) Spanish Catho-
lic theologian and political philosopher
A leading thinker of the CATHOLICcounterreformation
against Protestant Christianity, Suárez addressed ques-
tions of NATURAL LAW, HUMAN RIGHTS, SOVEREIGNTY,
MONARCHY, and INTERNATIONAL LAW. Drawing heavily
from the political thought of St. Thomas AQUINAS,he
developed an original political theory in the book A
Treatise on the Laws and God the Lawgiver (1612),
which still influences Catholic political thought in
Europe and Latin America.
Suárez integrated MODERNindividual-rights philoso-
phy into the traditional Catholic natural-law world-
view by subordinating private material rights to higher
divine law and CHRISTIAN JUSTICE. Natural law is
rational because it reflects God’s reason, but its pri-
mary authority flows not from our human (rational)
appreciation but from its origin in God’s will, as law-
giver. Thus, natural rights (to FREEDOM, PROPERTY, etc.)
must still be subordinated to God’s natural and divine
law, as explicated by the church.
Living during the expansion of the Spanish state
and EMPIRE, Suárez applied this theory to international
law and economic development, so although he saw
war and SLAVERYas not part of God’s will, they exist in
the custom of countries and must be dealt with by
Christian states.286 Suárez, Francisco