In an elegant, eminently readable work, one of our most distinguished intellectual historians gives us a brilliant revisionist history. The Roads to Modernity reclaims the Enlightenment–an extraordinary time bursting with new ideas about human nature, politics, society, and religion--from historians who have downgraded its importance and from scholars who have given preeminence to the Enlightenment in France over concurrent movements in England and America.Contrasting the Enlightenments in the three nations, Himmelfarb demonstrates the primacy and wisdom of the British, exemplified in such thinkers as Adam Smith, David Hume, and Edmund Burke, as well as the unique and enduring contributions of the American Founders. It is their Enlightenments, she argues, that created a social ethic–humane, compassionate, and realistic–that still resonates strongly today, in America perhaps even more than in Europe.The Roads to Modernity is a remarkable and illuminating contribution to the history of ideas.
The Roads to Modernity
und über 1,5 Millionen weitere Bücher verfügbar für Amazon Kindle. Erfahren Sie mehr
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kurzbeschreibung
Produktinformation
Möchten Sie die Produktinformationen aktualisieren oder Feedback zu den Produktabbildungen geben?
Ist der Verkauf dieses Produkts für Sie nicht akzeptabel? |
Mehr über den Autor
Entdecken Sie Bücher, lesen Sie über Autoren und mehr
Produktbeschreibungen
Pressestimmen
“Support[ed] with great passion and wide-ranging scholarship. . . . Himmelfarb has written a keenly argued and thought-provoking intellectual history of the 18th century.” –San Francisco Chronicle
“Exciting intellectual pugilism É Himmelfarb mounts a vigorous argument that the British [Enlightenment] was reformist rather than subversive, respectful of the past and present even while looking forward to a more egalitarian future.” –The New York Times Book Review
“[Himmelfarb’s] writing . . . has a verve and sharpness. . . . It is a pleasure to read.” –The New York Review of Books
“Exceptionally well written and clever.”–The Washington Post Book World
“Himmelfarb has one of the keenest intellects of our time.” –The Houston Chronicle
“Exciting intellectual pugilism É Himmelfarb mounts a vigorous argument that the British [Enlightenment] was reformist rather than subversive, respectful of the past and present even while looking forward to a more egalitarian future.” –The New York Times Book Review
“[Himmelfarb’s] writing . . . has a verve and sharpness. . . . It is a pleasure to read.” –The New York Review of Books
“Exceptionally well written and clever.”–The Washington Post Book World
“Himmelfarb has one of the keenest intellects of our time.” –The Houston Chronicle
Werbetext
A keenly argued and thought-provoking history of the British, French and American Enlightenments with an introduction by Gordon Brown.
-- Dieser Text bezieht sich auf eine andere Ausgabe:
Taschenbuch
.
In diesem Buch
(Mehr dazu)
Ausgewählte Seiten ansehen
Buchdeckel | Copyright | Inhaltsverzeichnis | Auszug | Stichwortverzeichnis
Buchdeckel | Copyright | Inhaltsverzeichnis | Auszug | Stichwortverzeichnis
Kundenrezensionen
Die hilfreichsten Kundenrezensionen
1 von 1 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
Von Pieter Uys
Format:Taschenbuch
In this well-argued work Himmelfarb compares the nature and fruits of the British (Scottish-English), French and American Enlightenments. The bulk of the book deals with the British Enlightenment with reference to Adam Smith, Godwin, Hume, Hobbes, Locke, Newton, Wollcraftstone and Lord Shaftesbury plus, unusually, John Wesley and Edmund Burke. She assigns prominent roles to the social movement & philanthropy of Methodism and Evangelical Christianity. Thomas Paine and the Founding Fathers represent the American, whilst Diderot and Voltaire are covered as the main characters in the French Enlightenment. In every case there were exceptions, e.g. Locke and Newton had more in common with the revolutionary French whilst Montesquieu was closer to the evolutionary British.
The British "moral philosophers" differed from the French "philosophes'. What made them moral philosophers was their belief in a moral sense thought to be so deeply entrenched in the human soul as empathy/compassion as to have the same compelling power as innate ideas.The author views Lord Shaftesbury's Inquiry Concerning Virtue or Merit as the start of the British Enlightenment. Shaftesbury credited humanity with this innate moral sense. Adam Smith's laissez-faire economics and belief in natural equality expressed in On the Wealth of Nations mirrors Shaftesbury's concept of social affection. Smith believed that sympathy and benevolence were moral virtues inherent to the human condition.
Although formidable figures, Locke and Hobbes had little lasting influence on the issues that defined the British Enlightenment. According to Locke things could be judged good or evil only by reference to pleasure or pain, which themselves resulted from sensation. Shaftesbury disagreed - virtue did not derive from reason, religion, sensation or self-interest.These were instrumental in promoting or suppressing it but he saw the moral sense as the real source of virtue. This moral sense is the guide to distinguishing right from wrong. Shaftesbury did not shy away from discussing the baleful passions like envy, malice, cruelty and lust that torment mankind. He even warned of excessive virtue, since an immoderate degree of e.g. altruism could destroy the "effect of love," whilst excessive pity rendered a man incapable of remedial action.
For Shaftesbury, the sense of compassion & kindness were rooted in nature and instinct and preceded instruction and reason which were secondary, serving to determine the best way of promoting the good but not an end in itself. Thus the innate impulse to the good was the basis of the social ethic that informed British philosophical and moral discourse throughout the eighteenth century. Subsequent philosophers that followed Shaftesbury agreed on the moral sense as universal attribute and viewed it as a corollary of reason and interest, but independent of and prior to both.
Burke unfairly gained a Counter-Enlightenment reputation owing to his revulsion in the atrocities of the French Revolution but he was a supporter of American independence who urged the government to respect the rights and freedom of both Americans and Englishmen during the war of independence. Himmelfarb shows that his views never deviated from the notions about moral virtue that characterized the British Enlightenment.
John Wesley did not care only about the next life but was concerned about improving social conditions in this life. He argued that to renounce reason was to renounce religion, that religion & reason go hand in hand, and that irrational religion is harmful. Religion and reason combined were needed to improve society. The Methodists produced a vast corpus of educational material on medicine, literature, grammar, science, natural history and more. Himmelfarb observes that the endeavor succeeded in uplifting the common people. Evangelicals and Methodists distributed food, clothes and money to the poor, visited the sick and those in jail, ameliorated the plight of the unemployed and contributed to the abolition of slavery.
The French Enlightenment deified reason so the French Revolution turned against religion. Most of the leaders of the French Enlightenment were militant atheists and materialists. The worship of rationality contained a snobbish elitism and contempt for common people that contributed to the excesses of the revolution and later led to the dictatorship of Napoleon. Philosophes like Diderot and Voltaire despised the ordinary people for their faith and ignorance but there were noble exceptions like Montesquieu.
The Enlightenment in the American colonies closely resembled the British one. It was inspired by the moral and social philosophy of Smith, Hume and Burke with its humane and realistic social ethic. According to Himmelfarb, America has inherited and retained aspects of the British Enlightenment that the British themselves have discarded and that continental Europe never adopted. The combination of virtue and freedom produced a strange paradox: the USA is the most capitalistic and simultaneously the most moralistic of nations. American liberty is unique in that it's based on a virtue that was put into practice by British Methodists and Evangelicals whose traditions were cherished by their American counterparts.
As in Britain, the American Enlightenment harbored no antagonism towards religion. On the contrary, it was considered the source of morality. Although church and state were separated, church and society were intertwined; she claims the role of religion contributed to the success and endurance of American institutions. The Founding Fathers recognized the ability of religion to unite society even though two of them -- Franklin and Jefferson --were deists.
In conclusion, Himmelfarb claims that the American Enlightenment is thriving today whilst the British and French versions have petered out. There is some truth in this as in the late 20th century France became the breeding ground of irrational pseudo-philosophies like postmodernism and deconstruction but these have spread to, and to a large extent taken over, the humanities in American academia.
Yet France also preserved the evolutionary strain in the person of moral intellectuals like Jean-François Revel, Alain Besançon, Andre Glucksmann and Chantal Delsol. Having pondered Himmelfarb's informative analysis, it might perhaps make sense to divide the Enlightenment into Anglo-Saxon and Continental traditions which represent the evolutionary versus the revolutionary strains. The text is served by copious notes and this informative book concludes with an index.
The British "moral philosophers" differed from the French "philosophes'. What made them moral philosophers was their belief in a moral sense thought to be so deeply entrenched in the human soul as empathy/compassion as to have the same compelling power as innate ideas.The author views Lord Shaftesbury's Inquiry Concerning Virtue or Merit as the start of the British Enlightenment. Shaftesbury credited humanity with this innate moral sense. Adam Smith's laissez-faire economics and belief in natural equality expressed in On the Wealth of Nations mirrors Shaftesbury's concept of social affection. Smith believed that sympathy and benevolence were moral virtues inherent to the human condition.
Although formidable figures, Locke and Hobbes had little lasting influence on the issues that defined the British Enlightenment. According to Locke things could be judged good or evil only by reference to pleasure or pain, which themselves resulted from sensation. Shaftesbury disagreed - virtue did not derive from reason, religion, sensation or self-interest.These were instrumental in promoting or suppressing it but he saw the moral sense as the real source of virtue. This moral sense is the guide to distinguishing right from wrong. Shaftesbury did not shy away from discussing the baleful passions like envy, malice, cruelty and lust that torment mankind. He even warned of excessive virtue, since an immoderate degree of e.g. altruism could destroy the "effect of love," whilst excessive pity rendered a man incapable of remedial action.
For Shaftesbury, the sense of compassion & kindness were rooted in nature and instinct and preceded instruction and reason which were secondary, serving to determine the best way of promoting the good but not an end in itself. Thus the innate impulse to the good was the basis of the social ethic that informed British philosophical and moral discourse throughout the eighteenth century. Subsequent philosophers that followed Shaftesbury agreed on the moral sense as universal attribute and viewed it as a corollary of reason and interest, but independent of and prior to both.
Burke unfairly gained a Counter-Enlightenment reputation owing to his revulsion in the atrocities of the French Revolution but he was a supporter of American independence who urged the government to respect the rights and freedom of both Americans and Englishmen during the war of independence. Himmelfarb shows that his views never deviated from the notions about moral virtue that characterized the British Enlightenment.
John Wesley did not care only about the next life but was concerned about improving social conditions in this life. He argued that to renounce reason was to renounce religion, that religion & reason go hand in hand, and that irrational religion is harmful. Religion and reason combined were needed to improve society. The Methodists produced a vast corpus of educational material on medicine, literature, grammar, science, natural history and more. Himmelfarb observes that the endeavor succeeded in uplifting the common people. Evangelicals and Methodists distributed food, clothes and money to the poor, visited the sick and those in jail, ameliorated the plight of the unemployed and contributed to the abolition of slavery.
The French Enlightenment deified reason so the French Revolution turned against religion. Most of the leaders of the French Enlightenment were militant atheists and materialists. The worship of rationality contained a snobbish elitism and contempt for common people that contributed to the excesses of the revolution and later led to the dictatorship of Napoleon. Philosophes like Diderot and Voltaire despised the ordinary people for their faith and ignorance but there were noble exceptions like Montesquieu.
The Enlightenment in the American colonies closely resembled the British one. It was inspired by the moral and social philosophy of Smith, Hume and Burke with its humane and realistic social ethic. According to Himmelfarb, America has inherited and retained aspects of the British Enlightenment that the British themselves have discarded and that continental Europe never adopted. The combination of virtue and freedom produced a strange paradox: the USA is the most capitalistic and simultaneously the most moralistic of nations. American liberty is unique in that it's based on a virtue that was put into practice by British Methodists and Evangelicals whose traditions were cherished by their American counterparts.
As in Britain, the American Enlightenment harbored no antagonism towards religion. On the contrary, it was considered the source of morality. Although church and state were separated, church and society were intertwined; she claims the role of religion contributed to the success and endurance of American institutions. The Founding Fathers recognized the ability of religion to unite society even though two of them -- Franklin and Jefferson --were deists.
In conclusion, Himmelfarb claims that the American Enlightenment is thriving today whilst the British and French versions have petered out. There is some truth in this as in the late 20th century France became the breeding ground of irrational pseudo-philosophies like postmodernism and deconstruction but these have spread to, and to a large extent taken over, the humanities in American academia.
Yet France also preserved the evolutionary strain in the person of moral intellectuals like Jean-François Revel, Alain Besançon, Andre Glucksmann and Chantal Delsol. Having pondered Himmelfarb's informative analysis, it might perhaps make sense to divide the Enlightenment into Anglo-Saxon and Continental traditions which represent the evolutionary versus the revolutionary strains. The text is served by copious notes and this informative book concludes with an index.
Die hilfreichsten Kundenrezensionen auf Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com:
3.7 von 5 Sternen
13 Rezensionen
25 von 28 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
5.0 von 5 Sternen
Stimulating comparisons
17. Juni 2008
Von Ralph Blumenau
- Veröffentlicht auf Amazon.com
Format:Taschenbuch
This superb, lucid and perhaps somewhat partisan book is primarily concerned with the British Enlightenment and with the differences between it and the Enlightenment in France and in America. The author points out that the mainstream of the British Enlightenment did not give absolute priority to Reason, which can easily lead people astray, but to innate moral sentiments and feelings of compassion and benevolence, which Reason and self-interest may support but can also pervert. Where the mainstream French Enlightenment aimed to regenerate mankind, the British wanted to improve it. Where the French were revolutionary, the British were evolutionary. Where the French were militantly anti-clerical, the British, even if they were Theists or Deists, had no intention to attack the Church as such - indeed men like Thomas Woolston, Conyers Middleton and Matthew Tindal were actually in Holy Orders. And the French philosophes generally had little sentiment to spare for the despised canaille, to whom they allowed `neither a moral sense nor a common sense that might approximate reason'. Education, important as it was in the writings of Helvétius and Holbach, would simply be wasted on them. They wanted enlightened reform, of course; but for the most part they pinned their hopes for this on the very unBritish notion of Enlightened Despotism, unreliable as their experience of actual Enlightened Despots turned out to be.
I have used the word `mainstream', which Himmelfarb does not use. She does of course recognize that there were two distinct varieties of the British Enlightenment - that associated with Shaftesbury, Hutcheson, Hume and Adam Smith and which she seems to regard as `mainstream'; and that associated with Radicals like Richard Price, Joseph Priestley, Tom Paine and William Godwin. These had more in common with mainstream French philosophy. In so far as evolutionary thought and practice has played a bigger role in British history than has revolution, the implication that the Shaftesbury-Smith tradition was in the British mainstream appears to be justified. Similarly, there are some Enlightenment thinkers in France - she discusses Montesquieu and Rousseau - who do not fit into the French mainstream as Himmelfarb has described it.
She challenges some ideas which, until fairly recently, were widely taught and accepted: that Adam Smith's fame rests on his work as an economist (The Wealth of Nations, 1776), whereas it had been established as a moral philosopher (The Theory of Moral Sentiments, 1759) and that, moreover, the latter book had the same moral foundation as the former. I cannot personally agree with this argument. She does make a case for the latter also being based on moral principles (freedom, the fundamental equality of human beings, and self-interest); but I don't think they include the basic notion in the former that morality flows from innate benevolence.
Himmelfarb includes Edmund Burke among the figures of the British Enlightenment. The causes he championed in his earlier career (Ireland, the American colonies, India, the rights of John Wilkes) clearly qualify him as Enlightened; and Himmelfarb argues that his opposition to the French Revolution, which has made him appear to many, both at the time and since, as an opponent of the Enlightenment, cannot be read as such. His opposition was to the FRENCH conception of the Enlightenment (shared by the British Radicals), but it was quite consonant with the British Enlightenment ideas which descended from Shaftesbury.
The author includes even John Wesley in the mainstream of the British Enlightenment. There is a widespread view that Methodism was anti-intellectual and anti-rational, that it encouraged only the minimum of educational attainments in its schools (in order, it is argued, to make the poor more docile), and that therefore it could not be part of the Enlightenment. Himmelfarb effectively demolishes these accusations with quotations from Wesley himself and with showing what syllabuses his schools actually taught and what a broad range of educational material he published: in the best Enlightenment tradition, Wesley was as interested in the intellectual as he was in the moral edification of the people. And, being in the British mainstream, he was not hostile to the Establishment (although the Establishment was scornful of him), and the wide scope of Methodist philanthropic, humanitarian and charitable enterprises joined those of many other 18th century groups which put the notion of benevolence into practice. Most of the French philosophes, on the other hand, were suspicious of charitable works - in part because they were mostly run by the hated Church, but also because they thought that they would encourage indolence among the poor!
120 pages of praise for the British Enlightenment are followed by just under 40 pages of criticisms of the French Enlightenment before we get 35 pages on the American Enlightenment. The political institutions of America, with the pride it took in the very practical achievements of republican liberty, was of course more `enlightened' than the institutions of Britain and would be an inspiration for the early phases of French republicanism. Even more so than in the British Enlightenment, there was in the American one no antagonism towards religion. Indeed, it was thought the source of morality; and, although church and state were separated, church and society were not. Unlike in the British Enlightenment, philanthropy played a much smaller part in the American one, partly because at the time there was little poverty among white Americans. The great blot on the American Enlightenment was of course the treatment of the Indians and of the slaves. The Founders, well aware that it violated the notion that all men were created equal, had a bad conscience about it and hoped that both problems would eventually disappear.
The Epilogue is, in my opinion, the weakest part of the book. It claims that the American Enlightenment is alive and well today, while that cannot be said of either the British or the French Enlightenment. The arguments here seem to me to be very weak, and an otherwise splendid book would have been better without this Epilogue.
I have used the word `mainstream', which Himmelfarb does not use. She does of course recognize that there were two distinct varieties of the British Enlightenment - that associated with Shaftesbury, Hutcheson, Hume and Adam Smith and which she seems to regard as `mainstream'; and that associated with Radicals like Richard Price, Joseph Priestley, Tom Paine and William Godwin. These had more in common with mainstream French philosophy. In so far as evolutionary thought and practice has played a bigger role in British history than has revolution, the implication that the Shaftesbury-Smith tradition was in the British mainstream appears to be justified. Similarly, there are some Enlightenment thinkers in France - she discusses Montesquieu and Rousseau - who do not fit into the French mainstream as Himmelfarb has described it.
She challenges some ideas which, until fairly recently, were widely taught and accepted: that Adam Smith's fame rests on his work as an economist (The Wealth of Nations, 1776), whereas it had been established as a moral philosopher (The Theory of Moral Sentiments, 1759) and that, moreover, the latter book had the same moral foundation as the former. I cannot personally agree with this argument. She does make a case for the latter also being based on moral principles (freedom, the fundamental equality of human beings, and self-interest); but I don't think they include the basic notion in the former that morality flows from innate benevolence.
Himmelfarb includes Edmund Burke among the figures of the British Enlightenment. The causes he championed in his earlier career (Ireland, the American colonies, India, the rights of John Wilkes) clearly qualify him as Enlightened; and Himmelfarb argues that his opposition to the French Revolution, which has made him appear to many, both at the time and since, as an opponent of the Enlightenment, cannot be read as such. His opposition was to the FRENCH conception of the Enlightenment (shared by the British Radicals), but it was quite consonant with the British Enlightenment ideas which descended from Shaftesbury.
The author includes even John Wesley in the mainstream of the British Enlightenment. There is a widespread view that Methodism was anti-intellectual and anti-rational, that it encouraged only the minimum of educational attainments in its schools (in order, it is argued, to make the poor more docile), and that therefore it could not be part of the Enlightenment. Himmelfarb effectively demolishes these accusations with quotations from Wesley himself and with showing what syllabuses his schools actually taught and what a broad range of educational material he published: in the best Enlightenment tradition, Wesley was as interested in the intellectual as he was in the moral edification of the people. And, being in the British mainstream, he was not hostile to the Establishment (although the Establishment was scornful of him), and the wide scope of Methodist philanthropic, humanitarian and charitable enterprises joined those of many other 18th century groups which put the notion of benevolence into practice. Most of the French philosophes, on the other hand, were suspicious of charitable works - in part because they were mostly run by the hated Church, but also because they thought that they would encourage indolence among the poor!
120 pages of praise for the British Enlightenment are followed by just under 40 pages of criticisms of the French Enlightenment before we get 35 pages on the American Enlightenment. The political institutions of America, with the pride it took in the very practical achievements of republican liberty, was of course more `enlightened' than the institutions of Britain and would be an inspiration for the early phases of French republicanism. Even more so than in the British Enlightenment, there was in the American one no antagonism towards religion. Indeed, it was thought the source of morality; and, although church and state were separated, church and society were not. Unlike in the British Enlightenment, philanthropy played a much smaller part in the American one, partly because at the time there was little poverty among white Americans. The great blot on the American Enlightenment was of course the treatment of the Indians and of the slaves. The Founders, well aware that it violated the notion that all men were created equal, had a bad conscience about it and hoped that both problems would eventually disappear.
The Epilogue is, in my opinion, the weakest part of the book. It claims that the American Enlightenment is alive and well today, while that cannot be said of either the British or the French Enlightenment. The arguments here seem to me to be very weak, and an otherwise splendid book would have been better without this Epilogue.
50 von 62 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
4.0 von 5 Sternen
Authentic Endeavors
24. September 2004
Von John Zxerce
- Veröffentlicht auf Amazon.com
Format:Gebundene Ausgabe
I had mixed feelings about this book. Himmelfarb cannot be discarded as merely an undistinguished poorly reasoned historian (as some critics seem to want to suggest). On the contrary she's a redactionist of importance in the area of historical movements and measures. And this work proves it again.
What Himmelfarb tries to do is reclaim the Enlightenment from what she sees as misguided French thinkers. It's difficult not to see her connections between a decline of religion, and the cultural outflowing resulting from aspects of the French Enlightenment.
In contrast she presents the British Enlightenment as connected with social affections, based on a more solid moral foundation than that of the French with it's naked "ideology of reason" - a term I wish she would have explained in further detail.
With that said, I found her claims regarding the French Enlightenment to be over-simplified. She claims, a preoccupation with reason as the primary fault of the French Enlightenment. However, I don't find this convincing in that the English movement was also very much focused on rationality, logic, and reason. My guess is her reaction here is too strong and too generalized. Furthermore, does she miss the need for societies to be built on the ideal of rigorous intellectualism?
On the whole, her work is both sophisticated and easy to get at, and certainly makes credible contributions to this field with her more conservative approach. Any honest evaluator cannot write this book off as a docile and unenthusiastic romanticizing of the events. - rather, it's a worthy read, worthy of evaluation.
What Himmelfarb tries to do is reclaim the Enlightenment from what she sees as misguided French thinkers. It's difficult not to see her connections between a decline of religion, and the cultural outflowing resulting from aspects of the French Enlightenment.
In contrast she presents the British Enlightenment as connected with social affections, based on a more solid moral foundation than that of the French with it's naked "ideology of reason" - a term I wish she would have explained in further detail.
With that said, I found her claims regarding the French Enlightenment to be over-simplified. She claims, a preoccupation with reason as the primary fault of the French Enlightenment. However, I don't find this convincing in that the English movement was also very much focused on rationality, logic, and reason. My guess is her reaction here is too strong and too generalized. Furthermore, does she miss the need for societies to be built on the ideal of rigorous intellectualism?
On the whole, her work is both sophisticated and easy to get at, and certainly makes credible contributions to this field with her more conservative approach. Any honest evaluator cannot write this book off as a docile and unenthusiastic romanticizing of the events. - rather, it's a worthy read, worthy of evaluation.
21 von 28 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
5.0 von 5 Sternen
The American Concept as an Excpetional Ideal
20. Februar 2005
Von Zecon
- Veröffentlicht auf Amazon.com
Format:Gebundene Ausgabe
Leveraging the concept of "American Exceptionalism" coined by de Tocqueville in Democracy in America, Lipset noted that exceptional in this sense is to be interpreted as qualitatively different from all other countries. The concept of American Exceptionalism as expressed by Lipset has broad academic acceptance and credibility. While there are those who might challenge this concept, it is fair to say that Americans continue to see themselves as different or unique from the rest of the world. This is not to say that America is better than the rest of the world, but that America is what it is because of its unique balance of public and private interests governed by constitutional ideals that are focused on personal and economic freedom.
It is through the lens of American Exceptionalism that we can best comprehend what Himmelfarb has put forward in The Roads to Modernity. Her comparison of the French, British and American Enlightenments yields some interesting differences providing greater context to the concept of American Exceptionalism. Himmelfarb completes this comparison with alacrity and evenhandedness. She does not end up being an apologist for the neo-conservative movement even though her eye is on present-day politics nor is this book a paean to Libertarians. On some level it is fair to criticize her for lightly brushing aside the Scottish Enlightenment and all but ignoring the Italian Renaissance as well as great Enlightenment thinkers outside of France, Britain and America. However, her point about the uniqueness of the American Enlightenment might have been lost if the comparison went to far a field intellectually.
Her main point is that the American Enlightenment's influence is alive and vibrant in American political discourse even today while the influence of the French and British Enlightenments are all but footnotes to the current political discourse of those nations. She opens herself to criticism from the political left because she espouses the centrality of religion to the success and endurance of American civic and political institutions, is unwilling to de-moralize political economy, and recognizes the importance of the individual and the social virtues. Many today forget that religion was viewed as key to the triumph of our democratic experiment by our Founding Fathers. Those who seemingly forget or conveniently brush over this fact only mention the two of the Founding Fathers who were deists (Franklin and Jefferson).
I am in full agreement with Himmelfarb that America was exceptional at its founding and remains so even today. Himmelfarb deftly succeeds in defining these qualitative differences. America today is a paradox to Europeans and many on the American left who can not seem to come to terms with the American focus and reliance on individuality, capitalism, and religion.
It is through the lens of American Exceptionalism that we can best comprehend what Himmelfarb has put forward in The Roads to Modernity. Her comparison of the French, British and American Enlightenments yields some interesting differences providing greater context to the concept of American Exceptionalism. Himmelfarb completes this comparison with alacrity and evenhandedness. She does not end up being an apologist for the neo-conservative movement even though her eye is on present-day politics nor is this book a paean to Libertarians. On some level it is fair to criticize her for lightly brushing aside the Scottish Enlightenment and all but ignoring the Italian Renaissance as well as great Enlightenment thinkers outside of France, Britain and America. However, her point about the uniqueness of the American Enlightenment might have been lost if the comparison went to far a field intellectually.
Her main point is that the American Enlightenment's influence is alive and vibrant in American political discourse even today while the influence of the French and British Enlightenments are all but footnotes to the current political discourse of those nations. She opens herself to criticism from the political left because she espouses the centrality of religion to the success and endurance of American civic and political institutions, is unwilling to de-moralize political economy, and recognizes the importance of the individual and the social virtues. Many today forget that religion was viewed as key to the triumph of our democratic experiment by our Founding Fathers. Those who seemingly forget or conveniently brush over this fact only mention the two of the Founding Fathers who were deists (Franklin and Jefferson).
I am in full agreement with Himmelfarb that America was exceptional at its founding and remains so even today. Himmelfarb deftly succeeds in defining these qualitative differences. America today is a paradox to Europeans and many on the American left who can not seem to come to terms with the American focus and reliance on individuality, capitalism, and religion.
›
Gehen Sie zu Amazon.com, um alle 13 Rezensionen zu sehen
3.7 von 5 Sternen
Waren diese Rezensionen hilfreich?
Wir wollen von Ihnen hören.
Kunden diskutieren
|
Das Forum zu diesem Produkt
Fragen stellen, Meinungen austauschen, Einblicke gewinnen Aktive Diskussionen in ähnlichen Foren
Kundendiskussionen durchsuchen
|
Ähnliche Foren
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lieblingslisten
Ähnliche Artikel finden
Ihr Kommentar
Möchten Sie die Produktinformationen aktualisieren oder Feedback zu den Produktabbildungen geben?
|
