Customer Reviews

A Revolution of the Mind: Radical Enlightenment and the Intellectual Origins of Modern Democracy

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

It is commonly known that Jonathan Israel, professor of Modern History at Princeton, is a man with a mission. In Radical Enlightenment (2002) and Enlightenment Contested (2006) he presented his remarkable views on the history of the Enlightenment. His foremost motivation to do this lay in the ill-informedharsh judgment bestowed on the Enlightenment at the end of the twentieth century by anti-enlightenment thinkers and, closely connected to this, the highly unsatifactorial state historical research about this crucial epoch had fallen.
Israels central thesis in both the first two parts of his Enlightenment-project as well as in A Revolution of the Mind stresses that a fundamental distinction has to be made between Radical Enlightenment on the one hand, and Moderate Enlightenment on the other. Radical Enlightenment embodied the, if necessary through revolutionary means, pursuit of freedom of opinion, equal rights for all and the principal separation of church and state; each of which are core democratic values. Moderate Enlightenment, on the other hand, kept adhering to the idea of Providence, either Deïstic or religious and a strictly hierarchically structured society based on monarchal or aristocratic principles to which colonialism, economic exploitation and political suppression were inextricably linked. The changes these Moderates propagated would have to come about through gradual reform, leaving traditional structures as much untouched as possible; an approach with consequences not nearly as far reaching as that of their radical counterparts.
Jonathan Israel points out that there really was a revolution of the mind in the second half of the 18th century in Europe and Northern America. Numerous people became increasingly disenchanted with the Ancien Régime and the long term, reformist solutions the moderates offered. Not just in France the cry for a general revolution along radical lines was heeded. The American revolution of 1776 and the Dutch democratic Patriotten-movement (1779-1795) provide ample evidence that a new radical mentality was on the rise. The transition to this political active radical frame of mind is convincingly illustrated through a number of public controversies. Israel succeeds in showing the unbridgable gap between the Radical and Moderate Enlightenment using public debates between members of both sides. An interesting and important by-product of this methodology, is that in this way the overwhelming similarities between the radical agenda and 21st century democratic values are made clear for all to see.
Post-modern and other anti-Enlightenment theorists, that say rationality is just one among many discourses without special claims to validity or that denounce Enlightenment ideas based either on some Revealed Providence or some non-explicated feeling or emotion are unrelentlessly confronted by Israel, who politely points out the logical inconsistencies of their opinions based on their downright untenable pseudo-historical analyses.
The legitimate criticisms that are made against a number of supposedly basic Enlightenment principles, rangeing from Robespierres Terror to the technocratic rationality of the Holocaust, are ably warded off by Israel. In so far as these excesses are traceable to the Enlightenment at all, they are rooted in the heritage of the Moderate, not the Radical Enlightenment. After all, it was the Moderate Enlightenment that couldn't or wouldn't rid itself of its persistent ideas about hierarchical man and society, which cherished irrationalia such as Divine Providence or Invisible Hands in its core beliefs and which stubbornly clung to the political and social inequality of men.
The reputations of both Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Voltaire, those archetypal representatives of Enlightenment thinking, suffer heavily at the hands of Israel. Both are firmly linked to the Moderate Enlightenment (Voltaire) or identified as a philosophical loose cannon (Rousseau). Voltaire is shown to be an elitist, would-be aristocrat whose democratic opinions are questionably to say the least. Rousseau comes out even worse. After distancing himself from his one-time radical kindred spirits Diderot, d'Holbach and Helvetius, he develops his theory of the General Will and People's sovereignty, both of which could only thrive when dissenting opinions were systematically suppressed. This, of course, was totally at odds with the emancipatorian outlook of the Radical Enlightenment. To make matters worse, Israel points out that the ideological justification of the Jacobins Terror (1793-1794) can for a large part be attributed to Rousseau's (who died some fifteen years earlier) legacy. It is no coincidence that Rousseau was practically deified by Robespierre c.s. and that many Radical enlighteners had their lives drastically shortened by means of the guillotine.
In A Revolution of the Mind Jonathan Israel anticipates the final part of his pioneering study in search of the roots of the Enlightenment and through that our 21st century democratic values. His fundamental distinction between the Radical and Moderate Enlightenment functions as Ockhams razor. This enables him to link political, economic and social disasters that have plagued humanity since the late 18th century to the Moderate Enlightenment or to anti-Enlightenment forces he succeeds in rescueing those values which are now - nominally if not always practically - considered to be the very foundation of democracy; equal rights for all men, without regard to race, creed, nationality, gender or sexual preference; toleration for dissenting opinion and the principal separation between church and state.
Where Enlightenment historians had lost themselves in a comminution of the universal appeal of its original radical ideas in favor of petty nationalistic interpretations, Israels controversionalistic approach shows which public 17th and 18th century debates contributed to the formation of a universally appealing, new and revolutionary mentality, which remarkably enough forms the foundation of our current democratic values. It's impossible to overstate the importance of this stupendous enterprise.

The publication of A Revolution of the Mind is most welcome, if only because it should make Jonathan Israel's ideas about Enlightenment thought more accessible to a broad reading public. His previous two volumes (Radical Enlightenment and Enlightenment Contested) total over 1700 pages of dense scholarship, more than enough to intimidate even stalwart generalist readers. Now in only about 250 pages he reviews his principal themes and gives us a précis of what apparently will be the substance of his planned longer third volume, focusing on the latter half of the eighteenth century.

This new work is based on lectures the author delivered at Oxford in 2008 commemorating Isaiah Berlin. Possibly aided by the fact that it was originally prepared to be spoken, it is clear, concise, and digestible.

For those not already familiar with one or both of the previous volumes, Israel has proposed that there was an opposition between "Radical" and "Moderate" Enlightenments. The foundation for the radicals was laid by Spinoza. Numerous others, perhaps most notably Bayle, carried the radical tradition forward, in large part through a clandestine literature, emerging later in the thought of men such as Diderot, d'Holbach, Helvétius, Condorcet, Paine, Priestly, Lessing, and Herder. The moderates in this later period included Voltaire, Montesquieu, Turgot, several Scots (such as Ferguson, Hume, Smith, Kames, and Reid), and Kant, to name just some of those more prominent. The radicals' conception of progress was democratic and materialist-determinist (or, alternatively, Christian-Unitarian), Israel holds, versus the moderates' providential religious or Deist views (Hume excepted) and preferences for monarchical-aristocratic order.

The current book distills the relevant ideas of the key figures and illuminates the nature of the opposition between the two camps. Israel insightfully describes how radicals and moderates thought differently about the essence of tyranny, militarism, equality, and morality, for example. He boldly asserts that there was a "revolution of the mind" in the 1760s and 1770s based on the ideas of the radicals, and that "it was plainly one of the greatest and most decisive shifts in the entire history of humanity."

The Radical Enlightenment is the most important factor in properly understanding why the French Revolution developed as it did, Israel contends. He credits the more positive phases to ideas of the radicals, but the darker Terror in large measure to the views of Rousseau, whom he treats primarily as an anti-philosophe. His analysis here is relatively brief and sure to be controversial with many readers.

So too, he presents several other intriguing observations that he leaves dangling without a great deal of support or elaboration. I will mention just a few. He stresses the international character of the radical ideas -- notably encompassing not only France, but Britain, Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, and North America -- but he acknowledges that Scottish Common Sense philosophy (in opposition to the radical ideas) continued to reign well into the nineteenth century in Britain and North America. Doesn't this dampen his assertion of the triumph of the Radical Enlightenment, at least in these nations?

He points out that the radicals were skeptical of direct democracy and tended to favor representative systems. Diderot and d'Holbach, for example, thought there were certain citizens best prepared to rule, persons of superior education and wisdom. Israel calls this the "Achilles heel of the radical program," but he stops there without saying much more about it.

Israel offers many other challenges to certain popular interpretations of the Enlightenment and to the historiography of the French Revolution. It would be unreasonable to expect full development of all his views to be encapsulated in the few lectures reflected here. Readers with further interest in such matters can look forward to his forthcoming longer volume, which undoubtedly will fill in many supporting details and, one hopes, tie up many of the loose ends.

This is a short hand introduction to the state of mind of the European radical reformers of the late 18th century. Besides well known authors, ignored writings such as those of the Dutch politician Pieter Paulus are presented here. In this problem oriented form, in search of the essence of the radical mind, this type of introduction to 18th century radical political thinking was not available up to now. Ealier research reflects too often the general cultural mistrust surrounding thinkers who in their mind dared too turn their factual, hierachical structured 18th century world upside down. This in contrast to the thinkers of the so called Moderate Enlighenment, who while reformers, remained obliged to King, Gentry and the existing religious establishment. This book displays a fresh appreciation of the revolutionary mentality, with due respect to more conservative strands of thinking.

This collection of essays is lively written and accessible not just to experts, but to any intellectual interested in the roots of our modernity. I can advise it to students and to a more general public. There are also some surprises in these texts, that should appeal to the specialists in the field.


L.M. Plas.

This is the first of Israel's books I've read, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It's a good overview of the subject, presenting the two warring camps of the Enlightenment at their best (and worst). I understand this is basically a summary of his earlier books, and my next step is to move on to them.
I absolutely do NOT recommend the Kindle edition. Not only is it full of weird formatting errors (hyphenated words in the middle of a line, extraneous spaces mid-word, missing spaces between words, missing hyphens in date ranges, etc.), but the footnote numbers are not clickable: they don't take you to the footnote. That is really, really annoying, to say the least. Considering how easy it is to turn a Word file into a Kindle book that suffers from none of these faults (I know because I have done it, using free software), I am amazed that the publisher (Princeton) managed to do such an awful job.
Another complaint about the Kindle version: there is no hyphenation, so line spacing is sometimes truly ugly. A little Quality Assurance would have uncovered all these faults. The publisher would never have published a such an awful print version but apparently thinks that if they charge a few dollars less for the Kindle version, they are absolved of having to do a quality job. You're wrong, guys.
In the end, I ended up buying the print edition. I just couldn't struggle through the Kindle edition. very clever marketing, Princeton. I paid twice for the same book.

I picked this book up out of curiosity regarding Israel's thesis, which in essence states that there were two separate and incompatible enlightenments during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries: Moderate and Radical. Having learned the basics of the Enlightenment in college, I was eager to learn about this schism and how it related to the ensuing French and American revolutions.

Israel's book is very engaging, with flowing and voiceful prose that makes it easy to read. In fact, I really only have to criticisms of the writing. One is that Israel occasionally forgets that we don't all speak French, and so some direct quotations are left hanging without translation. While usually simple to decipher, it creates a break in concentration that I found frustrating. Also (and perhaps this is because the book is based on spoken word lectures) Israel has a few passages that are awfully confusing in syntax. For example on page 69:

"Admittedly, in Germany the network of princely courts, imperial and ecclesiastical tribunals, and ecclesiastical authorities--along with a thick overlay of overlapping jurisdictions, legal mechanisms, and customary law--staffed by jurists and officials turned out in awesome quantity by an academic machine of over thirty universities prioritizing theology, law, and scholastic versions of Wolffian philosophy looked denser and more intractable than anywhere else."

I'm pretty sure my old English professor would have had my head for writing a sentence as disjointed as that one. Style qualms aside, the content of Israel's argument is both controversial and intriguing. He is fairly dismissive of Rousseau and Voltaire, categorizing them as moderates who are generally supportive of the monarchical status quo. I learned quite a bit about lesser known figures like d'Holbach, Price, Priestly, and Weishaupt--in fact, d'Holbach's "System of Nature" will be my next read, as Israel cites that work extensively and seems to portray it in an excellent light.

Given the short nature of the book, there are a few arguments that Israel briefly mentions before moving on, which I think deserved more investigation (e.g. Bayle and Spinoza's contributions to Radical thought, which are mentioned briefly in the Conclusion and left me wanting more).

Finally, the book is beautifully bound in black fabric and is printed in Minion Pro, which I find to be a really pleasing and readable typeface. The craft of printing isn't much appreciated these days, but I find it important nonetheless.

All in all, I enjoyed this book immensely and highly recommend it.

"They were against: intolerance, racism, nationalism, war, imperialism, inequality, hierarchy, rank, aristocracy, monarchy, slavery, ignorance, superstition. They were for: democracy, equality, freedom of speech, brotherhood, peace. They were against: intolerance, racism, nationalism, war, imperialism, inequality, hierarchy, rank, aristocracy, monarchy, slavery, ignorance, superstition. They were for: democracy, equality, freedom of speech, brotherhood, peace." Etc.

This is the whole book in a nutshell. Whatever the purpose of this kind of writing, it is certainly not to inform.

This book contains practically nothing about the ideas of the Enlightenment "philosophes", nor about how or why they developed their ideological constructs, especially within the larger context of unfolding modernity. Instead of presenting the relevant ideas in a coherent manner, Israel spends 240 pages repeating the same comical formula: "they opposed racism, intolerance, inequality, ignorance, and superstition; they were for democracy, freedom of the press, world peace." It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the entire book consists of nothing more than the mantra-like repetition of these catch-words, with slight permutation here and there. Moreover, Israel attempts to create the impression that his heroes' ideological opponents had no good arguments at all, that they were motivated by "superstition" or even greed, slyly insinuated by such risible linguistic constructs as "the court-sponsored moderate Enlightenment." Incidentally, by "superstition" Israel seems to mean all organized religion, which gives a clue as to where Israel is coming from and whom he is addressing. As a history of ideas, this book is worthless.

The book does have a use which I suspect reflects Israel's real purpose in writing it. As I said, there are two curious features about the content. First, Israel's repetition of certain words on every page. Second, the tone of the book is moralistic, even dogmatic throughout, never rising to the level of what could be called intellectual. The world is divided into the forces of light and darkness. It is meant to be obvious who the good guys are; rather than getting ourselves involved in the niceties of the philosophical debates, we are meant to identify completely with the "radical" team and cheer their triumphs. The words Israel is fond of invoking repeatedly (tolerance, equality, ignorance, superstition, etc.), are never defined precisely or adequately put into any context: they are used as symbols whose purpose it is to activate certain emotional experiences in readers so disposed. This shows that the book is nothing but a religious sermon, written to rejuvenate the convictions of the faithful. The upshot is that anyone who doesn't already see the world in much the same way as the author will be bewildered.

There is one benefit in this book unrelated to the author's intent. We are provided with an unusually transparent example of politics taken over by a deracinated religious impulse. We must ask whether this tendency is healthy for our society.

This is the author's third volume on the Enlightenment,but it is more of an overview of the two earlier massive volumes;a third such volume is to follow.

My concern is mainly with the,as yet,failure to see one of the most,if not the most,major rivers of thought which,with Darwin,flow into the Enlightenment,like the longer,much muddier,Missouri River into the Mississippi River.

There is a Adam Smithian "hidden hand" in Darwin's work,which,as Darwin mainly used it,bolstered human iniquity,something Darwin himself deeply regretted,but knew not how to avoid. Darwin,in a well known letter to the botanist Asa Gray,noted that natural selection worked hand-in-glove with Darwin's other major theory of evolution:Divergence,which,if Darwin had been better prepared,would have led him to see how,in healthy nature,uncontaminated by human misdeeds, competition/shortages and even predation,as compared with scavenging,do not,cannot,exist.

A truly major reassessment of the Enlightenment for we the living,cannot be achieved without looking at how Darwin,largely unknowingly,used--rather misused--the "hidden hand" in a major gumming up the potentially profoundly healing tradition of the Radical Enlightenment. Equivalency,the equal value or worth of all phenomena in the universe,is an attainable healing attitude,but not without consideration of how Darwin could have been so half right,half wrong. It is not,I believe,so difficult to grasp how the principles of 1776/1789 might be truly revolutionary,as expressed by Eleanor Roosevelt's UN committee which gave us the 1948 declaration of rights,though only if the right of all beings/phenomena in the Creatas[the universe and the universal parent]are respected.

If you want to follow the footnotes in this book, you will have to use the "GO TO" function and click, click, click until you get to the appropriate page in the Notes at the "end" of the book.

It will be nice when Kindle editions are actually made to read on a Kindle. SUBOPTIMAL! Roll with the scroll but overcome the problems Amazon!

(The review refers to the poor format, not to Israel's work.)

On p. x of the Preface to "A Revolution of the Mind," Professor Israel writes: "Not only scholars but also the general reading, debating, and voting public need some awareness of the tremendous difficulty, struggle, and cost involved in propagating OUR (emphasis mine)core ideas in the face of the long-dominant monarchial, aristocratic and religious idelogies ...Counter-Enlightenment popular movements... down to the crushing of Nazism, the supreme Counter-Enlightenment, in 1945."

My first question is, who is "our?" It must be the esoteric elite. My second question is, did Israel have to play the Hitler card?

There is no doubt that Jonathan Israel, qua scholar, is the Peter Gay of his generation, at least as far as the Radical Enlightenment goes. However, it was the import of Gay that, despite the fact that he too was pro-enlightenment, he was able to hide that behind his scholarship. Israel makes no bones, especially in this book, that he is an ideological apologist for the enlightenment, which renders his scholarship suspect.

As with all books which support the soi-disant enlightenment, they limit their view to western europe and the big bi-coastal cities of the USA. On p. 100, Israel admits that "it was a dogma of the radical thinkers that reason, and only reason, can raise man's dignity from the depths of degradation, error and ignorance." I thank Professor Israel for his candor in using the word "dogma," which is what leftists usually accuse those on the right of having exclusively. I wonder if Israel has read Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" [not in Israel's index], which shows that most of the world is religious, and therefore scoffs at the enlightenment, radical or otherwise.

On p. 99, Israel shows how Thomas Paine wanted to overthrow "aristocracy and inequality" by ridicule, which is what the post-modernists are doing to the enlightenment now. On p. 121, Israel refers to "the shackles of theologically-motivated prohibitions..." regarding sexual mores. That may be his opinion, but it hardly qualifies as scholarship.

From my remarks, the reader will certainly identify me correctly as part of the current counter-[so called] enlightenment. But at least i admit my bias, and i am not a supposedly objective scholar at an ivy league college. I think it fair to denominate Jonathan Israel as an enlightenment fundamentalist.