University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 1-1-1981 Montesquieu and early liberal thought : the dilemma of the citizen in the modern state. Stephen J. Rosow University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1 Recommended Citation Rosow, Stephen J., "Montesquieu and early liberal thought : the dilemma of the citizen in the modern state." (1981). Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014. 1832. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/1832 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BlEDbbDlSmSMflfi MONTESQUIEU AND EARLY LIBERAL THOUGHT: THE DILEMMA OF THE CITIZEN IN THE MODERN STATE A Dissertation Presented By STEPHEN J. ROSOW Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY September 1981 Political Science Stephen J. Rosow 1981 All Rights Reserved ii MONTESQUIEU AND EARLY LIBERAL THOUGHT The Dilemma of the Citizen in the Modern State A Dissertation Presented By Stephen J. Rosow Approved as to style and content by: Nelly Hoyt, Member -Glen Gordon, Department Head Political Science Department « ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Philosophy, of which political theory is an inte- gral part, is one of those activities which is both pub- lic and private. Scholars influence one another and sharpen each other's thinking, but in the end one's per- sonal judgment must prevail. My case has been no dif- ferent. I hope that the ideas developed in this disser- tation come across as if they could be no one else's but my own I want to thank all those people who have aided me either as colleagues, friends, or both. I thank my com- mittee for their time and good judgment and especially my director, Jerome King, for the faith he has shown in me and my work over the past six years. I owe a special debt to Bradley Klein whose concern, encouragement and, most of all, friendship made this a much easier disser- tation to write. But in the end, this dissertation was a very pri- vate affair and it is to my family and close friends ideas developed that I owe my deepest appreciation. The devel- here are of course my own but they could not have those oped without the faith and encouragement of someday friends who for years have been telling me that IV . I would finish. Most of all, this dissertation is for Ellen, who has given meaning to my work and to much more I I V ABSTRACT Montesquieu and Early Liberal Thought: The Dilemma of the Citizen in the Modern State September 1981 Stephen J. Rosow, B.A., Columbia University Ph.D., University of Massachusetts Directed by: Jerome King This study probes the origins of the modern theory of citizenship through a reint erpretat ion of the works of Montesquieu. I interpret Montesquieu as a 'conser- vative-liberal' who shares the fundamental assumptions of the liberal theory as it had developed in the late sixteenth through the early eighteenth centuries while distinguishing himself from the Lockean tradition. I examine Montesquieu's theory of citizenship in his two major works, The Persian Letters and The Spirit of the Laws through an analysis of Montesquieu's own view of the context of his thought. I develop his reading of the eighteenth century context through an analysis of Montesquieu's theory of human nature and his theory of history* as well as through an analysis of the way in which liberal theory prior to Montesquieu, formulated of the theory of citizenship. The fundamental concern vi Montesquieu's theory, I argue, is how can individuals, whose self-interested private action is considered the primary legitimate sphere of action, act to produce the public good. Montesquieu solves this dilemma by devel- oping the primacy of a public but non-political sphere of action, described by 'moeurs' and 'manieres, ' which is made consistent with the needs of the state through the conception of the "general spirit" which universal- izes the particular elements of the social life and tra- dition of a particular nation. The dissertation con- cludes by drawing out the implications of my interpre- tation of Montesquieu for a contemporary critical theory of citizenship. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ^ Chapter I. MAN AND HISTORY Introduction jLO I. Man as Moral Agent 12 1. Montesquieu's pessimism as a foundation of a theory of mind and history 12 2. Moderation: Montesquieu's reinterpretation of Aristotle's Ethics 17 3. Human nature and the origin of society 27 4. From the social to the political self 32 II. History: Particulars and Universals . 35 1. The nature of history and the historian 35 2. Developmental history 38 3. Scientific history — laws and causes 41 4. The success of the synthesis: the general and the particular 53 II. COMMERCE AND THE EUROPEAN STATE SYSTEM: THE CONTEXT OF CITIZENSHIP IN THE MODERN WORLD . 62 Introduction 62 I. Commerce: The International Marketplace 64 1. The historical development of European commerce 64 2. The economics of the European system 70 3. The universal benefits of commerce 74 II. International Justice and Law: The Politics of International Citizenship 84 viii 1. The critique of Universal Monarchy 85 2. Defensive force and international law 96 III. Conclusion 2^04 III. POLITICAL KNOWLEDGE AND CITIZENSHIP: THE ROOTS OF LIBERAL THEORY 114 Introduction 114 1. Political knowledge and citizenship 114 I. From Aristotle to Bodin: The Opposition of Public and Private . 120 1. Social differentiation and the functions of the citizen . 120 2. Bodin and the modern notion of the citizen 128 II. Montaigne: The Self and the Supremacy of Private Life 135 1. A grammar of practical action . 135 2. Introspection as the basis of knowledge 138 3. Private action and 'society' . 145 4. The isolation of politics: obedience as the proper action of citizens 150 III. Bacon and Hobbes: The Opposition Between the Knowledge of Citizens and Rulers 155 1. Bacon: practical knowledge and the control of nature . 156 2. The conjunction of knowledge and power: politics as public science 162 3. Hobbes: The knowledge of the citizen and the knowledge of the ruler 165 4. Conclusion: The dilemma of the absolutist theory of political knowledge 170 IV. THE POLITICAL EXPRESSION OF SELF: CITIZENSHIP IN THE LETTRES PERSANES 173 Introduction 173 ix I. Posing the Problem of Citizenship . 175 1. Vision 2. The myth of the Troglodytes ! ! 179 3. The idea of 'interest' 135 II. The Quest for Knowledge: Paris vs. Persia -^92 1. Rica and Usbek : the modern 'savant* ;L92 2. Usbek: The master in search of the world I94 3. Usbek: the bonds of despotism . 198 III. Citizenship Under Despotism: The Dialectic of Master and Slave . 201 1. The descent into the seraglio . 201 2. The eunuchs: slaves as masters 203 3. Masters and slaves: the reversal of roles 210 V. CITIZENSHIP IN MODERATE GOVERMENTS : THE UNIVERSAL POLITICS OF DE L' ESPRIT DES LOIS . 221 Introduction 221 I. L'Esprit as Political Action 223 1. The principle of a form of government 223 2. The role of political education 229 3. Liberty and Montesquieu's analysis of power 233 II. L'Esprit as Political Space 241 1. Liberty and the notion of 1 ' esprit general 241 2. The forms of government .... 243 3. Citizenship in moderate governments 251 III. Law: The Unity of Political Action and Political Space 261 1. The universality of law and 1' esprit general 261 2. The conjunction of politics and history 268 3. Law, tradition and ideology . 272 IV. Conclusion: The Modern Ideal of the Citizen 276 X VI. CONCLUSION: MONTESQUIEU AND THE LIBERAL THEORY OF CITIZENSHIP 283 I. Montesquieu and Liberal Theory .... 283 II. Toward a Critical Theory of Citizenship 294 FOOTNOTES ^06 . BIBLIOGRAPHY 332 INTRODUCTION The question I want to investigate in this disser- tation has both historical and contemporary relevance. I am interested in understanding the conception of cit- izenship, the relation between ruler and ruled, which governs the self -interpret at ion of citizens in the mod- ern state. The contemporary debate among social and political theorists about the nature of the contemporary state lacks an adequate understanding of the historical development of the liberal theory within which individ- uals define their public roles. By returning to the historical roots of that theory and probing its philo- sophical presuppositions I hope to begin to supply a historical dimension lacking in current theories. My choice of Montesquieu as a subject of inquiry is rooted in my understanding of 'liberalism'. I follow what I take to be two senses in which we currently use the term. In the larger sense we use it to describe the general or 'total'"*" theory which historically fed the bourgeoisie's rise to power during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and legitimated capitalist social relations.^ This theory involves crucial assumptions about the nature of man as an autonomous individual who 1 2 acts more out of self-interest and passion than out of reason and the public good. I will argue in Chapter Three that with regard to a theory of citizenship, lib- eral theory in this general sense rests upon a theory of political knowledge which polarizes the knowledge necessary to the citizen and that necessary to the ruler. Further, the general theory assumes that a stable political order can only result from the media- tion between private interests and the public interest by an autonomous 'civil society' which is public but not political.