Montesquieu, Liberalism and the Critique of Political Universalism by Keegan Callanan Department of Political Science Duke University Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ Ruth W. Grant, Supervisor ___________________________ J. Peter Euben ___________________________ Michael Allen Gillespie ___________________________ Jack Knight ____________________ Thomas A. Spragens Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Political Science in the Graduate School of Duke University 2011 ABSTRACT Montesquieu, Liberalism and the Critique of Political Universalism by Keegan Callanan Department of Political Science Duke University Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ Ruth W. Grant, Supervisor ___________________________ J. Peter Euben ___________________________ Michael Allen Gillespie ___________________________ Jack Knight ____________________ Thomas A. Spragens An abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Political Science in the Graduate School of Duke University 2011 Copyright by Keegan Callanan 2011 Abstract In this dissertation, I advance a new interpretation of Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws . I argue that his liberal constitutionalism and his political anti-universalism are theoretically harmonious and mutually reinforcing elements of his political philosophy. But because Montesquieu’s thought is a species of the genus known as liberal theory, this interpretation of his thought also advances a theoretical and normative thesis: Liberal theory is not inherently or necessarily allied with projects of political universalism but rather possesses in-built resources for critiquing, educating and even resisting such projects. The dissertation makes this case through a critical analysis of Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws , its sources and its legacy. The unity of Montesquieu’s political philosophy becomes evident as we consider the ancient and modern intellectual influences and rhetorical purposes of his political particularism; his regime-pluralist understanding of political freedom and moderation; his account of liberal political culture; his treatment of political and social change; and the legacy of his liberal particularism in the work of Rousseau, Burke, Constant and Mill. As I suggest, this study represents a contribution to contemporary debates concerning liberal democracy’s global career and a challenge to common understandings of the essential character of modern liberalism. iv Dedication For Rachel v Contents Abstract …………...……..…………………..…………………………………….…... iv Acknowledgments ………..……………………………..………...……………..……. ix Abbreviations……………………………………………………………………………x 1. Introduction………………………..………………………..……………………….. 1 1.1 Montesquieu’s Political Particularism……………………………………... 8 1.2 Sources of Liberal Universalism…………………………………………… 19 1.3. Montesquieu’s Liberal Political Particularism and Its Implications………. 25 1.4 Outline of the Dissertation…………………………………………………. 30 1.5 A Note on Method…………………………………………………………. 36 2. The Sources of Montesquieu’s Political Particularism…………..………………….. 39 2.1 Political Particularism and Early French Constitutionalist Thought………..45 2.2 Classical Political Particularism and the Critique of Classical Republicanism…………………………………………………………………..60 2.3 Conclusion……………………………………………………………….….90 3. The Liberal Regime……………………………………………..…………………... 93 3.1 Mode of Normative Political Theory………………………………………. 99 3.2 Liberty and Moderation in the Constitution………………………………...106 3.3 Liberty and Moderation in the Laws……………………………………….. 131 3.4 Foundations………………………………………………………………… 139 3.5 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………. 154 vi 4. The Elements of Liberal Culture……...……………………………………………...157 4.1 Climate, Terrain and ‘the character of the spirit’…………………………...165 4.2 Hearth and Court, Household and City……………………………………..170 4.3 Judging Shadows and Abysses: Religion and Liberal Culture…………….. 178 4.4 Commercial Society and Political Liberty…………………………………. 211 4.5 Liberal Politics as a Source of Liberal Culture…………………………….. 235 4.6 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………. 246 5. Liberal Political Change……………..……………………..……………………….. 248 5.1 The Psychology of Liberal Constitutionalism……………………………... 254 5.2 Institutional Change and the ‘Tyranny of Opinion’……………………….. 261 5.3 The General Spirit and the Means of Political Change……………………..270 5.4 Stuck with Despotism? The Prospects of Political Reform………………...282 5.5 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………. 290 6. A Strained Marriage? Particularism, Liberalism & Montesquieu’s Legacy………… 294 6.1 Political Particularism against Universal Values?…………………………. 296 6.2 From Liberal Particularism to ‘Liberal Imperialism’?……………………...303 6.3 From Liberal Particularism to Traditionalist Conservatism?……………….322 6.4 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………. 333 7. Conclusion……………………………………….………………………………….. 335 Bibligraphy………………………………….…………………………………………. 350 Biography…………………………………..…….……………………………………..371 vii Acknowledgements I swear that this book nearly killed me; I am going to rest now; I shall work no more. Montesquieu I too am going to rest, at least for a couple of days, but not before thanking those who have helped to keep this study from taking as much out of me as Montesquieu’s big book seems to have taken out of him. I thank Jed Atkins, Brian Callanan, Nick Troester, Joel Schlosser, James Bourke, Ali Aslam, Ben Hertzberg, Jean Yarbrough, Jeremiah Russell, Owen Strachan, Asma Abbas, Bill Parsons, Paul Rahe, Hank Clark, Jim Ceaser, Céline Spector and David Schmitz for helpful comments and conversations that enhanced the quality and hastened the completion of this project. For the wisdom and energy she has invested into it, I am especially grateful to my attentive advisor, Ruth Grant. I am indebted as well to Michael Gillespie, Tom Spragens and Peter Euben for their good judgment and encouragement at early stages of the research, and to Jack Knight for his willingness to join the committee. Thanks are due to the Department of Political Science at Duke University and the H. B. Earhart Foundation for funding my graduate training. I am likewise grateful to the Program on Constitutionalism and Democracy at the University of Virginia for providing a final year of generous financial support—and good cheer. On the subject of good cheer, there has been no steadier source of laughter and lively diversion during these years of writing than my beloved daughter, Fiona. And of course I owe an immeasurable debt of long standing to my parents for their care and support. Finally, thanks are due to my wife, Rachel Callanan, whose loving encouragement has been the sine qua non of this effort. I have dedicated the dissertation to her. Oeuvres de Montesquieu , ed. Andre Masson, 3 vols (Paris: Nagel, 1950-1954), vol. 3, 1200. viii Abbreviations EL Montesquieu. [1748] 1989. The Spirit of the Laws , ed. Anne Cohler. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MP Montesquieu. [1899] Forthcoming 2012. My Thoughts , ed. Henry C. Clark. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund. LP Montesqueiu. [1721] 2008. Persian Letters , ed. Andrew Kahn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ix OE: Introduction …One likes to establish elsewhere what is established at home. - Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws , XIX.27 Few serious political observers would claim that the American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were motivated solely by an aspiration to export liberal democracy. But fewer still would suggest that this was not among the reasons wrapped into cumulative arguments for the campaigns, especially in the case of Iraq. The wars themselves and the monumental difficulties that have attended state-building efforts in these nations have triggered, in some circles, a reconsideration of global democracy promotion by force or indeed, by any means whatever. 1 These events have pressed upon us the question of liberal democracy’s limits and cultural preconditions. Is there a universal longing for western-style liberal democratic institutions? And if so, does a universal longing guarantee the existence of universal capacities to sustain these institutions? Does a commitment to liberal principles require a nation to seek the spread of liberal institutions to oppressed peoples? These are deeply controversial questions, particularly as they come on the heels of thirty years of liberal democratic expansion throughout the world. 1 See Zoltan Barany and Robert G. Moser, eds., Is Democracy Exportable? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009); Amichai Magen, Thomas Risse, Michael McFaul, eds., Promoting Democracy and the Rule of Law: American and European Strategies (Houndsmill, UK: Palgrave MacMillan, 2009); Robert Kagan, The Return of History and the End of Dreams (New York: Vintage, 2009); Tony Smith, A Pact with the Devil: Washington's Bid for World Supremacy and the Betrayal of the American Promise (New York: Routledge, 2007); Michael Cox, G. John Ikenberry and Takashi Inoguchi, eds., American Democracy Promotion: Impulses, Strategies, and Impacts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). 1 The final quarter of the twentieth century was a very good one for liberal democracy. Democratically elected regimes supplanted authoritarian governments on five continents as the third wave of democratization surged. In 1973, approximately 29 percent of all countries in the world were liberal democracies. By 2000, that number had jumped to 45 percent.