Alasdair MacIntyre: An Intellectual Autobiography by Émile Perreau-Saussine and translated by Nathan J. Pinkoski

Abstract

French author and former lecturer in the Department of Politics and International Studies at the University of Cambridge, Émile Perreau-Saussine (1972-2010), has produced an intellectual autobiography of famed philosopher, Alasdair MacIntyre (born in 1929). Nathan J. Pinkoski, Research Fellow and Director of Academic Programs at the Zephyr Institute, has rendered the original French edition into English translation. Released by the University of Notre Dame Press in 2022, the volume constitutes a concise yet thoughtful interpretation of the whole of MacIntyre’s corpus. The text analyzes MacIntyre’s contributions to politics, philosophy, and theology, explaining both MacIntyre’s intellectual and historical influences and his continued relevance for the contemporary problems facing the modern world. The volume begins with a Foreword by Pierre Manent, Professor Emeritus of Political Philosophy at the École des Haute Études en Sciences Sociales, the same that appears in the original French edition. Manent praises what he finds to be a balanced evaluation of MacIntyre, one that possesses the “necessary sympathy” while simultaneously maintaining an objective eye. But beyond praising Perreau-Saussine’s account, Manent raises concerns of his own that are worth mentioning as they anticipate many of the issues that Manent raises in his own recent work, Natural Law and Human Rights: Toward a Recovery of Practical Reason. While Manent praises MacIntyre for “identifying the central lacuna in our approach to the modern world”—the loss of real consideration of human action and practical reason, Manent is also critical of how MacIntyre departs from a more faithful understanding of Aristotle. Specifically, Manent is concerned with MacIntyre’s predilection for treating human persons as “social animals” rather than “political animals” and the implications of this approach. One manifestation of this approach, according to Manent, is that MacIntyre’s technical models of practical action place MacIntyre closer to Oakeshott than Aristotle in his understanding of tradition. The upshot of this criticism is that it raises the question of what place MacIntyre really affords human reason—whether it falls to tradition alone to raise us out of the morass of modern society or whether one can appeal to reason to settle questions of common concern or even to scrutinize and critically approbate traditions so as to keep them vibrant and alive. All in all, Manent’s appreciative, but rather critical treatment of MacIntyre is worth reading and serves as a useful contextualization for Manent’s recent work.