A Reconsideration of Montesquieu's Liberal
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ABSTRACT A RECONSIDERATION OF MONTESQUIEU’S LIBERAL PACIFISM James Boesen, PhD Department of Political Science Northern Illinois University, 2017 Andrea Radasanu, Director Liberal international relations scholars have posited that liberalism promotes peaceful relations amongst states. These scholars utilize the writings of Montesquieu, most notably Spirit of the Laws, as the philosophic foundation for their liberal peace theory. My dissertation challenges this conventional understanding of Montesquieu. I contend that Montesquieu’s liberalism does not bind nations together in peace but instead pushes liberal states to engage in expansionary and imperial behavior. Mores rooted in commerce and liberty inclines liberal state to be in contention with other states and push its interests across the globe. This will lead the liberal states to push their liberalism into countries which opposes these liberal mores, leading to the forced imposition of the liberal order on previous illiberal people. Furthermore, I challenge the notion that the liberal peace theory is even a theory of peace. It suffers from the same expansionary behavior and insensitivity to local contexts that we find in Montesquieu’s liberalism. Although Montesquieu and liberal peace scholars have strong oppositions to the project of empire they still advocate for a liberal ideology that inevitably leads to said empire. NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY DE KALB, ILLINOIS DECEMBER 2017 A RECONSIDERATION OF MONTESQUIEU’S LIBERAL PACIFISM BY JAMES BOESEN ©2017 James Boesen A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT OF POLITITCAL SCIENCE Doctoral Director: Andrea Radasanu DEDICATION To my brother Brad Boesen for inspiring in me a love of politics and my mentor Dr. John Rapp for inspiring me to make studying and teaching political science a life-long pursuit. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page ONE: RECONSIDERING THE COMMERCIAL PEACE................................................1 TWO: REPUBLICANISM, MONARCHY, ENGLAND, AND THE EMERGENCE OF MODERNITY........................................................................................................23 THREE: EXPANSIONARY COMMERCE AND LIBERTY..........................................50 FOUR: THE DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL ANIMOSITY OF LIBERALISM........................................................................................................82 FIVE: A CRITIQUE OF LIBERALISM IN THE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS LITERATURE.....................................................................................................115 SIX: REPRISING MONTESQUIEUIAN LIBERALISM..............................................144 WORKS CITED..............................................................................................................166 CHAPTER ONE: RECONSIDERING THE COMMERCIAL PEACE Contemporary interpretations of Montesquieu’s thoughts on commerce in Spirit of the Laws present him as positing a commercial peace theory (Fort, 2009; Hirschman. 1977; Rosow, 1984). Commercial states are supposedly more peaceful through a binding of material interests and a softening of mores (SL XX.1-2). Commerce is, in this line of interpretation, considered a panacea to the historical tradition of conflict and violence between states. I reject this interpretation of Montesquieu and contend that he presents an account of liberalism in which liberal or commercial ideology is inherently expansionary (SL XXI.5, XXI.21; Wallerstein 1992). I suggest that the privileged position of commerce and liberty in England lead the English to pursue a commercial empire. Instead of commerce leading to peace between nations, it leads to belligerence, conflict, and conquest. Despite Montesquieu’s presentation of liberal expansion as gentler than traditional forms of territorial expansion, this new empire of commerce, emblematic of England, stands in contrast to the interstate cooperation resultant of liberal values and institutions that liberal international relations scholars (Doyle, 2005; Gartzke, 2007; McDonald, 2007) present in their account of the relationship between liberalism and international relations. This more peaceful iteration of international relations also seems to stand in contrast to policy proposals (derived from the liberal literature) that call for the imposition of liberal government, commerce, and mores (Doyle, 1997, 2005; Gartzke, 2007; Oneal & Russett, 1997 just to list a few; Buzan, 1984 helps critique the notion of a completely benign commercial peace). Some have suggested that 2 commerce provides new arenas for interstate competition and potential belligerence (Hont, 2005; Lu & Theis, 2010). Although Montesquieu might not provide a remedy to the shortcomings of liberalism, a reconsideration of his work would suggest that these issues are rooted in liberalism itself and not just contemporary interpretations of it. I contend that contemporary liberal literature would benefit from recognizing its less utopian, Montesquieuian, roots. At the very least it would be more honest with itself, thus mitigating potential disconnect between literature and policy, and, at best, it might be able to remedy its more aggressive nature. Saliency Why does this reinterpretation of Montesquieu’s account of commercial peace matter? I contend that this reassessment has ramifications in our understanding of international relations liberalism and for liberalism as a dominant political ideology. Contemporary liberal international relations theory, viewing itself as derived from Kant and Montesquieu, presents itself as a gentler alternative to the realist literature, with emphasis placed on the means to achieve peaceful interstate outcomes through cooperation (Doyle, 2005, 1997; Gartzke, 2007; Oneal & Russett 1997; Press-Barnathan, 2006). Although these liberal mechanisms might be characterized as wholly peaceful in Kant’s account in Perpetual Peace and the international relations literature derived from his work (Russett, Oneal, & Davis, 1998; Buchan, 2002),1 commerce takes on a less peaceful tone in Montesquieu’s work Spirit of the Laws (Howse, 2006; Radasanu, 2013; SL 21.11, 21.15). A critical analysis of the scholarship leads me to suggest that the liberal literature has the same issues as Montesquieu’s account of commerce and liberty, both presenting 1 I recognize that Kant’s account of the transition to peaceful relations can be interpreted as violent, however, I refer to how liberal International Relations literature understands Kant’s works. 3 liberalism in a manner that ultimately suggests belligerence. When we consider that the endgame of liberal international relations scholarship is to help promote liberalism (which they claim leads to peaceful interstate behavior), I contend that the preference for these liberal constructs necessitates a lack of consideration for local contexts (Buchan, 2002; Doyle, 1997, 2005; Gartzke, 2007; Maoz & Russet, 1993; McDonald, 2007; SL XIX.2-7). There is a lack of consideration for whether a state has the appropriate political culture for democracy or if its economy would benefit or be hurt by engagement with the global economy (Mansfield & Snyder, 1995 help illustrate this threat whereas works such as Gartzke, 2007 and McDonald, 2007 demonstrate a consistent lack of concern). The liberal literature is also relatively silent with regards to whether this liberalization would make states more violent with the little research done in this area suggesting that it does lead to increased belligerence (Mansfield & Snyder, 1995). Furthermore, a reconsideration of the pacifying nature of commerce will help political theorists better assess and understand the project of liberalism broadly (the notions of commerce and liberty/liberalism are intimately intertwined throughout this work). We should analyze whether the project of liberalism has tensions within itself or between itself and the illiberal community. If there is such tensions present, we should consider if such tensions indicate a critical flaw, thus rendering liberalism untenable, or if this tension instead perpetuates liberalism. Although a daunting question outside the scope of this dissertation, I invite the reader to consider whether, if liberalism is untenable, it is salvageable and what lessons might we learn (regardless of tenability). Liberalism has been an ongoing political and intellectual project for the past few hundred years but towards what end is it leading us? I believe that we can better understand the present and future of liberalism by returning to and reassessing one of its foundational thinkers. Montesquieu, in particular, warrants consideration because of his understanding of the necessary 4 connection between commerce and liberty, the two of them being exceedingly difficult to separate once bound together (SL XIX.27 p.328, XX.10-12). If we can better understand the complexities of that strand of thought which has dominated Western civilization, then we can better grasp and navigate our current political climate and whatever problems emerge going forward. A Survey of Liberty, Mores, and Empire in Montesquieu’s Work I want to establish a baseline understanding of Montesquieu’s works, especially Spirit of the Laws, utilizing both the primary text and contemporary interpretations of Montesquieu’s writing. Although I will expand on these notions in the following chapters of this work, I want to provide an analysis of Montesquieu’s writings that serves as the foundation