Hubris

by Henry Oliner

While the mainstream media ignored Edwards’ cheating for several months I have thought about Edwards himself and how to describe his actions. He is certainly not the first to have had marital discord or infidelity. Roosevelt and Kennedy both had rumored affairs, but sexual infidelity of a high official was something the media just didn’t talk about back then. Sexual infidelity is certainly not something limited to one party or another.

But aside from not being able to control one’s sexual urges, such behavior while in such a high profile position, under constant scrutiny, indicates a much greater character flaw. In trying to find the word for this flaw, hubris comes close. At Dictionary.com hubris is defined as “excessive pride or self-confidence; arrogance.”

It would be hard to imagine anyone running for high office that did not have pride and self-confidence; if fact it is practically required. Arrogance is the opposite of humility and indicates an intolerant view towards other people and their opinion.

A better definition is available at Wikipedia:

Hubris, sometimes spelled hybris (ancient Greek ὕβρις), is a term used in modern English to indicate overweening pride, self-confidence, superciliousness, or arrogance, often resulting in fatal retribution. In ancient Greece, hubris referred to actions which, intentionally or not, shamed and humiliated the victim, and frequently the perpetrator as well. It was most evident in the public and private actions of the powerful and rich. The word was also used to describe actions of those who challenged the gods or their laws, especially in Greek tragedy, resulting in the protagonist‘s downfall.

Hubris, though not specifically defined, was a legal term and was considered a crime in classical Athens. It was also considered the greatest sin of the ancient Greek world. That was so because it was not only proof of excessive pride, but also resulted in violent acts by or to those involved. The category of acts constituting hubris for the ancient Greeks apparently broadened from the original specific reference to mutilation of a corpse, or a humiliation of a defeated foe, or irreverent “outrageous treatment” in general.

The meaning was eventually further generalized in its modern English usage to apply to any outrageous act or exhibition of pride or disregard for basic moral laws. Such an act may be referred to as an “act of hubris”, or the person committing the act may be said to be hubristic. Atē, ancient Greek for “ruin, folly, delusion,” is the action performed by the hero, usually because of his/her hubris, or great pride, that leads to his/her death or downfall.

Hubris then is indicative of someone who thinks the rules do not apply to them. This is the thinking of kings, not presidents. It is much easier to pass laws that disrespect our rights and our property when you do not expect these laws or rules to apply to you.

This is why character does matter in the high offices. In light of this definition of hubris it is interesting to note how abusive Eliot Spitzer was in his enforcement position when he was involved in his scandal. Bill Clinton took foreign campaign contributions which were clearly illegal and his wife did the same until caught.

Is this any of our business if a grown man can’t keep his zipper up? Maybe not, but when a president or district attorney presides in an atmosphere believing the rules and the law are for the little people and do not apply to themselves and their own behavior it is not a far stretch to expect further abuses of power.