Mensch tracht, un Gott lacht

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Whose Enlightenment was it, anyway?

Historian Thomas S. Kidd takes aim at the handy but ultimately unhelpful catchall for all human progress c. 1600-1800 CE, "The Enlightenment," as though John Locke dropped in from Mars one morning to save the Western World from sin and error [and Christianity] pining:
I am skeptical about “The Enlightenment.” It is an ideologically loaded term that implies that much of the western intellectual tradition before The Enlightenment was “dark.” Much of that tradition was, of course, Christian. “The Enlightenment” presupposes an arc of history toward secular democratic scientific liberalism.
I encourage students writing research papers to see if they can talk about intellectual trends in the eighteenth century without using the term “Enlightenment.” If your work is directly engaging the status of “The Enlightenment” as a historical category, fine. But if what you’re really talking about is the rise of humanism, egalitarianism, naturalism, or skepticism, then why not just employ those terms and avoid trotting out “The Enlightenment”?
“The Enlightenment” has taken a beating from many sources in recent decades. Some, like me, point to the term’s ideological and anti-religious baggage. Others, like the eminent historian J.G.A. Pocock, have criticized the term for its unwieldiness and suggested that while there may have been many national “enlightenments” (French, Scottish, etc.) there was not a unitary “Enlightenment.”
I’m not sold on the utility of the term. Here’s how I handled the issue in one passage of my Whitefield biography:
Because of his familiarity with polemics for and against Calvinism, Whitefield knew that it was under assault in the eighteenth century as part of intellectual changes historians often call the “Enlightenment.” (I prefer terms like “liberal” or “humanitarian” thought to describe these new developments, rather than the catch-all term “Enlightenment.” The concept of the Enlightenment, as many have noted, over-simplifies Europe’s intellectual trends of the time. Some Enlightenment figures were friendly toward traditional faith, some not.)
Henry May’s classic book The Enlightenment in America remains the best place to start on the movement’s influence among the Founders. May notes that the pragmatic, common-sense Scottish Enlightenment, with its relative friendliness to Christianity, was the most influential strand of Enlightenment thinking in American history.
For better or worse, the term “The Enlightenment” will likely remain a staple of the history of western civilization for the time being. I imagine that most professors who teach western civ or world history will keep including a day or week to discussing it. But hopefully the criticisms of the term and of its adherents have brought much-needed clarity and circumspection to its use.


Tim Kowal said...

PragerU has a nice session on "How 'Dark' Were the 'Dark Ages'?"

It's said a good slogan can stop analysis for fifty years. Fifty decades, in this case.

Scott McDermott said...

Bravo Thomas Kidd. There is nothing I hate worse than reading a student paper draft on how the Enlightenment dispelled monkish superstition, etc. It's remarkable that despite their lack of historical literacy, somehow this narrative still filters through. Following up on his comment about the Scottish Enlightenment, I think it is quite true that the Anglo-American Enlightenment remained truer to its medieval roots by retaining a divine personal Lawgiver, while the French Enlightenment disposed of this concept with predictable results.