Civilization and Corruption: Europe in the Philosophical History of the French Enlightenment Céline Spector Abstract Over some thirty years, much research in the field of postcolonial studies has de- bunked the very idea of a history of Europe as a civilization. With civilization and colonization as two sides of the same coin, it has seemed only right and proper to demystify the concept of which the West claimed paternity. Europe has been called upon to “provincialize” itself, in Dipesh Chakrabarty’s provocative formulation. In tune with a more general critique of the Enlightenment, in which the advance of Reason always threatens to become the reign of domination, this postcolonial critique has had a certain raison d’être, insofar as it was necessary to flatten the shaky edifice of a universalism that was nothing other than Eurocentric. But the assaults of “subaltern studies” have also had the effect of denying the reality that Europe was conceived as a civilization at the very time when the critique of its colonization process was beginning to take shape. In this paper, I will offer a defence of the Enlightenment’s anti-colonialism. Some will consider provocative the underlying thesis that eighteenth-century Europe century did not necessarily commit a “theft of history” by taking away the dignity of historical agents from colonized peoples or those left on the margins of ‘civilized’ spaces. But the truth is that several great philosophers of the French, Scot- tish, and Dutch Enlightenment paved the way for a new theory of world history Chicago_20000361.indd 1 01/10/14 10:25 PM 2 Author Name Goes Here capable of accommodating other civilizations as well as that of Europe. Although Europe was credited with a particular destiny, it was also thought of as the site of an ever threatening barbarism and the source of possible crimes against humanity (the first being those which followed the encounter with the Indians of the New World). To assay the “postcolonial studies critique” is not to throw out its contribution, but to mitigate what today appears to be its one-sided emphasis. After looking at a number of fashionable conceptions of Europe as a “civilization” (what J. G. A. Pocock calls the “Enlightened narrative”), I shall focus on an author of central importance for the further elaboration of the history of Europe (especially in the Scottish Enlightenment); namely, Montesquieu. On questions such as the “Chi- nese model,” the civilization of Russia, or the genocide of New World “savages,” Montesquieu was more often than not the springboard for an analysis centered on Europe, whether as model or anti-model. Montesquieu offered the very first reflections on modern Europe as a “civilization,” or rather a differentiated civil society, marked by political and religious pluralism (monarchies and republics, Catholic and Protestant nations). Tis Europe was an economic entity based on the “spirit of commerce,” but also a civil society united by its customs and operating as a veritable engine of history in the modern age; a society that, since the discovery of America, had defined itself as different from its others, the continents that it colonized or subjugated. “ nd of a myth?”1 In 1975 Raymond Aron’s disillusion with the Eprocess of European construction was already a sign. Today the hope of a federal Europe seems well and truly dead. Te post-war golden age that pre- sided over the rebirth of the European project—between the Soviet empire and the American imperial republic—was short-lived. So here we are now, nearly forty years later, at a point where the disenchantment is growing ever deeper. Yet Europe does not have to be viewed with such forlorn eyes. A single market, more or less regulated, is not necessarily all that remains if the goal of a federation falls by the wayside. We can return to a diferent history that is also ours, to the idea of Europe as it existed before the simplistic opposition of federation and market took hold. After the moment of birth (the Renais- sance2) and the moment of hiatus (the Reformation), the eighteenth century, and particularly its second half, forged rich and promising theories of Europe. During the Enlightenment, Europe was frst conceived as a federation in a line 1 R. Aron, “Fin d’un mythe?” in L’Europe des crises (Brussels: Bruylant, 1976), 123. 2 J. Hale, Te Civilization of Europe in the Renaissance (London: Harper Collins, 1993). Chicago_20000361.indd 2 01/10/14 10:25 PM Book Title Goes Here 3 of descent from projects for perpetual peace. It was also envisaged as a kind of civil society, uniting peoples or societies beyond the divisions created by the rise of rival nation-states. Europe embodied both the reality of the world market (associated with colonial expansion and imperial rivalries) and the uto- pia of an association of states delegating part of their sovereignty to guarantee peaceful coexistence. At a deeper level, however, Europe was theorized for the frst time as a “civilization.”3 Over some thirty years, much research in the feld of postcolonial stud- ies has debunked the very idea of Europe as a civilization. With civilization and colonization as two sides of the same coin, it has seemed only right and proper to demystify the concept of which the West claimed paternity. Europe has been called upon to “provincialize” itself, in Dipesh Chakrabarty’s pro- vocative formulation.4 Even Braudel’s project of a “grammar” of civilizations suddenly appeared scandalous, since it seemed to freeze moving entities and to open the door to the peddlers of a “clash of civilizations.”5 In tune with a more general critique of the Enlightenment, in which the advance of Reason always threatens to become the reign of domination, this postcolonial critique had a certain raison d’être, insofar as it was necessary to fatten the shaky edifce of a universalism understood as Eurocentrism. But the assaults of “subaltern studies” also had the efect of denying the reality that Europe was conceived as a civilization at the very time when the critique of its colonization process was beginning to take shape. In this paper, I will ofer a defense of the Enlightenment’s anti- colonialism. Some will consider provocative the underlying thesis that Europe did not nec- essarily commit a “theft of history”6 in the eighteenth century by taking away the dignity of historical agents from colonized peoples or those left on the margins of “civilized” spaces. But the truth is that several great philosophers of the French, Scottish, and Dutch Enlightenment paved the way for a new theory of world history capable of accommodating other civilizations as well as that of Europe. Although Europe was credited with a particular destiny, it was also thought of as the site of an ever-threatening barbarism and the source 3 Te frst use of this term in the modern sense dates from 1756, but for the sake of convenience we shall employ it here for a slightly earlier period (the frst half of the century). 4 D. Chakrabarty, Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Tought and Historical Difference (Prince- ton: Princeton University Press, 2000). See also Edward Said’s pioneering Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978). 5 Originally a manual for fnal year school students, this was frst published in 1963. For an English translation, see F. Braudel, Te History of Civilizations (London: Penguin, 1995). 6 J. Goody, Te Teft of History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). Chicago_20000361.indd 3 01/10/14 10:25 PM 4 Author Name Goes Here of possible crimes against humanity (the frst being those which followed the encounter with the Indians of the New World). To assay the “postcolonial studies critique” is not to throw out its con- tribution, but to mitigate what today appears to be its one-sided emphasis. After looking at a number of fashionable conceptions of Europe as a “civiliza- tion” (what J. G. A. Pocock calls the “Enlightened narrative”),7 I shall focus on an author of central importance for the further elaboration of the history of Europe (especially in the Scottish Enlightenment); namely, Montesquieu.8 Te starting point here will be Te Spirit of the Laws (1748)—a work that served as a matrix for refections on Europe (whether to eulogize or criticize it) by eighteenth- century philosophers. From Voltaire to Herder, taking in Diderot, Raynal, and Robertson, the major contributors to the philosophical history of Europe before the French Revolution were all readers of Te Spirit of the Laws: they attempted either to build upon it or to fnd an answer to it. On questions such as the “Chinese model,” the civilization of Russia, or the genocide of New World “savages,” Montesquieu was more often than not the springboard for an analysis centered on Europe, whether as model or anti- model. Montesquieu ofered the very frst refections on modern Europe as a “civilization,” or rather, a diferentiated civil society marked by political and religious pluralism (monarchies and republics, Catholic and Protestant na- tions). Tis Europe was an economic entity based on the “spirit of commerce,” but also a civil society which, since the discovery of America, had defned itself as diferent from its others, the continents that it colonized or subjugated. 7 See J. G. A. Pocock, “Some Europes in Teir History,” in Te Idea of Europe: From Antiq- uity to the European Union, ed. A. Pagden (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 55–71; Barbarism and Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 2:278–88); K. O’Brien, Narratives of Enlightenment: Cosmopolitan History from Voltaire to Gibbon (Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997); S.