Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17496977.2022.2148324
David Craig
ABSTRACT This essay argues that the “republicanism versus liberalism” debate that came to prominence in the 1980s was largely an artificial construction made possible by the recent genealogies of its constituent terms. The first section suggests that the idea of “early modern liberalism” took shape from the 1930s, and identifies three broad schools of thought: Marxist, democratic and classical. Despite their differences, they pioneered a stereotype of “liberalism” that was well established – especially in the United States – by the 1950s. The second section examines the so-called “republican tradition,” arguing it did not acquire that identity until the early 1970s, and that earlier work excavating the “commonwealth tradition” did not intend it as an alternative to liberalism. That only came into focus as a result of Wood’s work. The third section looks at elements of the debate in the 1970s, stressing the attempt to displace Locke and exploring the contribution of Pocock. He increasingly argued for the complex and interwoven nature of both “republicanism” and “liberalism,” partly as a response to revisionist work on the natural law origins of liberalism. By contrast, Appleby restated the older “liberalism” and pitted it against “republicanism,” thereby reinforcing the binary.
{"title":"Republicanism versus liberalism: towards a pre-history","authors":"David Craig","doi":"10.1080/17496977.2022.2148324","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17496977.2022.2148324","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This essay argues that the “republicanism versus liberalism” debate that came to prominence in the 1980s was largely an artificial construction made possible by the recent genealogies of its constituent terms. The first section suggests that the idea of “early modern liberalism” took shape from the 1930s, and identifies three broad schools of thought: Marxist, democratic and classical. Despite their differences, they pioneered a stereotype of “liberalism” that was well established – especially in the United States – by the 1950s. The second section examines the so-called “republican tradition,” arguing it did not acquire that identity until the early 1970s, and that earlier work excavating the “commonwealth tradition” did not intend it as an alternative to liberalism. That only came into focus as a result of Wood’s work. The third section looks at elements of the debate in the 1970s, stressing the attempt to displace Locke and exploring the contribution of Pocock. He increasingly argued for the complex and interwoven nature of both “republicanism” and “liberalism,” partly as a response to revisionist work on the natural law origins of liberalism. By contrast, Appleby restated the older “liberalism” and pitted it against “republicanism,” thereby reinforcing the binary.","PeriodicalId":39827,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual History Review","volume":"33 1","pages":"101 - 130"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47887402","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17496977.2022.2144822
J. Clark
ABSTRACT The contest between “Lockeian liberalism” and “classical republicanism” as explanatory frameworks for the intellectual history of the American Revolution, and therefore of the present-day United States, has been one of the longest running and most distinguished in recent U.S. historiography. It also has major implications for the history of political thought in the North Atlantic Anglophone world more widely. Yet this debate was merely suspended when it was held to have ended in an ill-defined compromise. Although some U.S. historians expressed doubts and qualifications, attention in U.S. historiography moved on to other themes while leaving the initial problem unsolved. This article reopens the question; it suggests that a historicization of both these two categories is now both possible and necessary, and that their supersession will advance understanding of the Revolution. It seeks to help solve this problem by the same means that the debate began: that is, by re-establishing a link between U.S. and U.K. historiographies.
{"title":"“Lockeian liberalism” and “classical republicanism”: the formation, function and failure of the categories","authors":"J. Clark","doi":"10.1080/17496977.2022.2144822","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17496977.2022.2144822","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The contest between “Lockeian liberalism” and “classical republicanism” as explanatory frameworks for the intellectual history of the American Revolution, and therefore of the present-day United States, has been one of the longest running and most distinguished in recent U.S. historiography. It also has major implications for the history of political thought in the North Atlantic Anglophone world more widely. Yet this debate was merely suspended when it was held to have ended in an ill-defined compromise. Although some U.S. historians expressed doubts and qualifications, attention in U.S. historiography moved on to other themes while leaving the initial problem unsolved. This article reopens the question; it suggests that a historicization of both these two categories is now both possible and necessary, and that their supersession will advance understanding of the Revolution. It seeks to help solve this problem by the same means that the debate began: that is, by re-establishing a link between U.S. and U.K. historiographies.","PeriodicalId":39827,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual History Review","volume":"33 1","pages":"11 - 31"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43612276","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17496977.2022.2147475
James A. Harris
ABSTRACT This article describes a debate about the basis of allegiance to government that is obscured from view by the historiographical controversy about whether it is liberalism or republicanism that is the key to understanding eighteenth-century Anglophone political thought. This debate is between those who subscribe, more or less, to the principles of Locke, and those who subscribe, more or less, to the principles of Filmer. Taking the Hanoverian succession as my point of departure, I present an outline account of what I take to be the mainstream eighteenth-century argument about the origin of government, up to and including the aftermath of the French Revolution. It played out largely in sermons and occasional pamphlets, written by individuals who, for the most part, did not acquire significant reputations, even in their own age. I then turn to a succession of more familiar writers, from Hume to Burke, who sought to transform argument about the source of political legitimacy by abandoning the question of the origins of government in favour, usually, of considerations of utility. Yet, as they attempted to change the terms of debate about the principles of government, these writers made constructive use of ideas and arguments usually associated with Filmer.
{"title":"Of the origin of government: the afterlives of Locke and Filmer in an eighteenth-century British debate","authors":"James A. Harris","doi":"10.1080/17496977.2022.2147475","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17496977.2022.2147475","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article describes a debate about the basis of allegiance to government that is obscured from view by the historiographical controversy about whether it is liberalism or republicanism that is the key to understanding eighteenth-century Anglophone political thought. This debate is between those who subscribe, more or less, to the principles of Locke, and those who subscribe, more or less, to the principles of Filmer. Taking the Hanoverian succession as my point of departure, I present an outline account of what I take to be the mainstream eighteenth-century argument about the origin of government, up to and including the aftermath of the French Revolution. It played out largely in sermons and occasional pamphlets, written by individuals who, for the most part, did not acquire significant reputations, even in their own age. I then turn to a succession of more familiar writers, from Hume to Burke, who sought to transform argument about the source of political legitimacy by abandoning the question of the origins of government in favour, usually, of considerations of utility. Yet, as they attempted to change the terms of debate about the principles of government, these writers made constructive use of ideas and arguments usually associated with Filmer.","PeriodicalId":39827,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual History Review","volume":"33 1","pages":"33 - 55"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41879889","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-21DOI: 10.1080/17496977.2022.2149141
Sara Miglietti
{"title":"The private is political: Anna Becker on the Renaissance household","authors":"Sara Miglietti","doi":"10.1080/17496977.2022.2149141","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17496977.2022.2149141","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39827,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual History Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48897318","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-20DOI: 10.1080/17496977.2022.2154998
Pedro Faria
{"title":"The structure of Hume’s historical thought before the History of England","authors":"Pedro Faria","doi":"10.1080/17496977.2022.2154998","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17496977.2022.2154998","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39827,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual History Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44892358","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-20DOI: 10.1080/17496977.2022.2152996
C. Lundberg
{"title":"Humanists and scholastics in early sixteenth-century Paris: new sources from the Faculty of Theology","authors":"C. Lundberg","doi":"10.1080/17496977.2022.2152996","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17496977.2022.2152996","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39827,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual History Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48514296","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-12DOI: 10.1080/17496977.2022.2149140
Milinda Banerjee
{"title":"Violent Fraternity: Indian Political Thought in the Global Age","authors":"Milinda Banerjee","doi":"10.1080/17496977.2022.2149140","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17496977.2022.2149140","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39827,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual History Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49660348","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-12DOI: 10.1080/17496977.2022.2148353
Stephen Gaukroger
{"title":"La Vie de Monsieur Descartes","authors":"Stephen Gaukroger","doi":"10.1080/17496977.2022.2148353","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17496977.2022.2148353","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39827,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual History Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46308586","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-05DOI: 10.1080/17496977.2022.2146977
Angus Brown
{"title":"Republican nostalgia, the division of labour, and the origins of inequality in the thought of the Abbé Sieyès","authors":"Angus Brown","doi":"10.1080/17496977.2022.2146977","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17496977.2022.2146977","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39827,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual History Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43071603","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-11DOI: 10.1080/17496977.2022.2119038
W. Bradford Littlejohn
but a whole host of economic, social, military, technological and cultural factors which linked with that ideology. What was happening on the eastern front from 1941 mattered. The stress on the utility of the subject can dissolve into a generalised need to study history, one in which H.P.T. is vital but has no special status. Though he is confident in the subject’s utility, Whatmore also holds that H.P.T. is “facing a time of crisis” (30). This is part of a wider crisis of historical studies, marked by a turn towards “nationalist political narratives, manufactured political consensuses and social-media driven moral crusades” (30). Two attitudes towards the past are gaining strength in wider society: that the present is better than the past and therefore the past is of no interest to us, and that the past is to be judged by the moral standards of the present. More narrowly, H.P.T. is subject to criticism not only for its–real if declining–gender and geographical imbalances. The voluble accusation is that H.P.T. is Eurocentric in character and thus “necessarily racist, blinkered, imperialist, and colonialist”, both in terms of the ideas that are studied and the fact it has tended to exclude other viewpoints (114). “Hero and villain studies” are back in vogue, as recent productions by many of our North American colleagues demonstrate. Out of crisis, however, comes opportunity. Whatmore sets out a qualified defence but also a sense of how H.P.T. needs to develop. It is not the methods that need modifying – contextualist approaches are well suited to the study of non-canonical authors and ignored traditions. The expansion of the studies of gender, global histories or subaltern histories are all welcome developments, but are not ones antagonistic to established methods. Diversification of the subject would serve us better than its destruction during a “purity spiral”–our current moment has a faint whiff of 1793 (117). Such diversification is, Whatmore stresses, picking up pace too. Indeed, he is enthusiastic about the new themes and expanded geographical coverage of the subject and embodies this development in the global coverage of the examples he uses. Overall, Whatmore presents a realistic yet optimistic picture of the subject’s future, in which H.P.T. lays claim to substantial importance for future political thinking rooted in Whatmore’s unusually confident sense that we can directly learn from the past about the present.
{"title":"Reforming the Law of Nature: The Secularisation of Political Thought, 1532–1682","authors":"W. Bradford Littlejohn","doi":"10.1080/17496977.2022.2119038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17496977.2022.2119038","url":null,"abstract":"but a whole host of economic, social, military, technological and cultural factors which linked with that ideology. What was happening on the eastern front from 1941 mattered. The stress on the utility of the subject can dissolve into a generalised need to study history, one in which H.P.T. is vital but has no special status. Though he is confident in the subject’s utility, Whatmore also holds that H.P.T. is “facing a time of crisis” (30). This is part of a wider crisis of historical studies, marked by a turn towards “nationalist political narratives, manufactured political consensuses and social-media driven moral crusades” (30). Two attitudes towards the past are gaining strength in wider society: that the present is better than the past and therefore the past is of no interest to us, and that the past is to be judged by the moral standards of the present. More narrowly, H.P.T. is subject to criticism not only for its–real if declining–gender and geographical imbalances. The voluble accusation is that H.P.T. is Eurocentric in character and thus “necessarily racist, blinkered, imperialist, and colonialist”, both in terms of the ideas that are studied and the fact it has tended to exclude other viewpoints (114). “Hero and villain studies” are back in vogue, as recent productions by many of our North American colleagues demonstrate. Out of crisis, however, comes opportunity. Whatmore sets out a qualified defence but also a sense of how H.P.T. needs to develop. It is not the methods that need modifying – contextualist approaches are well suited to the study of non-canonical authors and ignored traditions. The expansion of the studies of gender, global histories or subaltern histories are all welcome developments, but are not ones antagonistic to established methods. Diversification of the subject would serve us better than its destruction during a “purity spiral”–our current moment has a faint whiff of 1793 (117). Such diversification is, Whatmore stresses, picking up pace too. Indeed, he is enthusiastic about the new themes and expanded geographical coverage of the subject and embodies this development in the global coverage of the examples he uses. Overall, Whatmore presents a realistic yet optimistic picture of the subject’s future, in which H.P.T. lays claim to substantial importance for future political thinking rooted in Whatmore’s unusually confident sense that we can directly learn from the past about the present.","PeriodicalId":39827,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual History Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43261513","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：