What do you think?
Rate this book
Permanent Revolution: The Reformation and the Illiberal Roots of Liberalism
How did the Reformation, which initially promoted decidedly illiberal positions, end up laying the groundwork for Western liberalism?
The English Reformation began as an evangelical movement driven by an unyielding belief in predestination, intolerance, stringent literalism, political quietism, and destructive iconoclasm. Yet by 1688, this illiberal early modern upheaval would deliver the foundations of liberalism: free will, liberty of conscience, religious toleration, readerly freedom, constitutionalism, and aesthetic liberty. How did a movement with such illiberal beginnings lay the groundwork for the Enlightenment? James Simpson provocatively rewrites the history of liberalism and uncovers its unexpected debt to evangelical religion.
Sixteenth-century Protestantism ushered in a culture of permanent revolution, ceaselessly repudiating its own prior forms. Its rejection of tradition was divisive, violent, and unsustainable. The proto-liberalism of the later seventeenth century emerged as a cultural package designed to stabilize the social chaos brought about by this evangelical revolution. A brilliant assault on many of our deepest assumptions, Permanent Revolution argues that far from being driven by a new strain of secular philosophy, the British Enlightenment is a story of transformation and reversal of the Protestant tradition from within. The gains of liberalism were the unintended results of the violent early Reformation.
Today those gains are increasingly under threat, in part because liberals do not understand their own history. They fail to grasp that liberalism is less the secular opponent of religious fundamentalism than its dissident younger sibling, uncertain how to confront its older evangelical competitor.
The English Reformation began as an evangelical movement driven by an unyielding belief in predestination, intolerance, stringent literalism, political quietism, and destructive iconoclasm. Yet by 1688, this illiberal early modern upheaval would deliver the foundations of liberalism: free will, liberty of conscience, religious toleration, readerly freedom, constitutionalism, and aesthetic liberty. How did a movement with such illiberal beginnings lay the groundwork for the Enlightenment? James Simpson provocatively rewrites the history of liberalism and uncovers its unexpected debt to evangelical religion.
Sixteenth-century Protestantism ushered in a culture of permanent revolution, ceaselessly repudiating its own prior forms. Its rejection of tradition was divisive, violent, and unsustainable. The proto-liberalism of the later seventeenth century emerged as a cultural package designed to stabilize the social chaos brought about by this evangelical revolution. A brilliant assault on many of our deepest assumptions, Permanent Revolution argues that far from being driven by a new strain of secular philosophy, the British Enlightenment is a story of transformation and reversal of the Protestant tradition from within. The gains of liberalism were the unintended results of the violent early Reformation.
Today those gains are increasingly under threat, in part because liberals do not understand their own history. They fail to grasp that liberalism is less the secular opponent of religious fundamentalism than its dissident younger sibling, uncertain how to confront its older evangelical competitor.
464 pages, Hardcover
Published February 18, 2019
6 people are currently reading
167 people want to read
About the author
James Simpson
185 books10 followersWilliam James Simpson (writing as James Simpson), Ph.D., is a lecturer and Chair of the English Department at the University of Cambridge, and a Fellow of Girton College. His primary focus is on medieval literature, as well as Middle English and early modern literature and culture (1150-1600).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
Read
April 19, 2020Skimmed.
Simpson interrogates the relationship between Protestantism and liberalism. The conventional Whig line argues that the Reformation was a step on the march towards the liberal future, and views Luther’s 95 theses as a step towards proto-liberal individualism. But, Simpson points out, medievalists tend to see the Reformation as an illiberal, ideologically absolutist movement that emphasized man’s powerlessness in relation to God. Why, Simpson asks, did the proto-liberalism of 1688 have such illiberal roots? How did we get from one to the other?
Essentially, Simpson’s answer holds that the reformation was a form of “permanent revolution” - that like all revolutions, it proposed a radical break with the past, and increasingly sought self-purification. Thus Simpson characterizes the main theological debates in early-modern England as intra-Protestant debates, rather than debates between Protestants and Catholics. Repeated clashes between Protestants led to the rise of liberalism as a defense mechanism to secure the revolution and stop it from devouring its own.
He works primarily with literary and religious sources.
Simpson does not account for the other reformations of early modern Europe in any meaningful way - one wonders why other Protestant countries did not give birth to liberalism? Perhaps because only England was sufficiently removed from the Catholic powers of Europe? But this is not made explicit. Further, I wonder just what kind of reformation Simpson sees occurring in England. Was there a long “reformation from below” based in English exceptionalism (AG DIckens), of which the 1534 break with the church was merely the culmination? Or was there a “reformation from above” effected as part of the process of early modern state formation and centralization (Eamon Duffy) leading to a subsequent process of Protestantizing culminating in the reign of Elizabeth? Simpson doesn’t explain WHY there was a reformation - and his failure to do so leaves a hole in his story. Perhaps the intra-Protestant fighting was merely a result of the fact that there were more Protestants over the course of this period (I.e., as Protestantism went “mainstream”)? How can he be sure it was the inevitable result of the revolutionary nature of the reformation without accounting for the reformation’s success?
His question is exceedingly fascinating, but I’m not sure he answers it successfully. The lack of treatment of other countries or the causes of the reformation leaves him open to considerable criticism.
Simpson interrogates the relationship between Protestantism and liberalism. The conventional Whig line argues that the Reformation was a step on the march towards the liberal future, and views Luther’s 95 theses as a step towards proto-liberal individualism. But, Simpson points out, medievalists tend to see the Reformation as an illiberal, ideologically absolutist movement that emphasized man’s powerlessness in relation to God. Why, Simpson asks, did the proto-liberalism of 1688 have such illiberal roots? How did we get from one to the other?
Essentially, Simpson’s answer holds that the reformation was a form of “permanent revolution” - that like all revolutions, it proposed a radical break with the past, and increasingly sought self-purification. Thus Simpson characterizes the main theological debates in early-modern England as intra-Protestant debates, rather than debates between Protestants and Catholics. Repeated clashes between Protestants led to the rise of liberalism as a defense mechanism to secure the revolution and stop it from devouring its own.
He works primarily with literary and religious sources.
Simpson does not account for the other reformations of early modern Europe in any meaningful way - one wonders why other Protestant countries did not give birth to liberalism? Perhaps because only England was sufficiently removed from the Catholic powers of Europe? But this is not made explicit. Further, I wonder just what kind of reformation Simpson sees occurring in England. Was there a long “reformation from below” based in English exceptionalism (AG DIckens), of which the 1534 break with the church was merely the culmination? Or was there a “reformation from above” effected as part of the process of early modern state formation and centralization (Eamon Duffy) leading to a subsequent process of Protestantizing culminating in the reign of Elizabeth? Simpson doesn’t explain WHY there was a reformation - and his failure to do so leaves a hole in his story. Perhaps the intra-Protestant fighting was merely a result of the fact that there were more Protestants over the course of this period (I.e., as Protestantism went “mainstream”)? How can he be sure it was the inevitable result of the revolutionary nature of the reformation without accounting for the reformation’s success?
His question is exceedingly fascinating, but I’m not sure he answers it successfully. The lack of treatment of other countries or the causes of the reformation leaves him open to considerable criticism.
December 17, 2020
Greatly enjoyed this book. A MUST read for all liberals and progressives.
Fighting a rising tide of nationalism and aggressive conservatism cannot be done by simply saying that democratic principles should be protected.
Democratic rights and institutions are not of themselves a world view strong enough to drive popular movements. There has to be more. It can religious, humanist or some other worldview with an organising idea and set of principles, but societies need more than universal principles, as powerful as they might be.
Also crucial message of the book is that the current form of Western society does not rest on some liberal revolution or movement, but has see its fair share of highly illiberal antecedents, and the fact that we are on some wave of progression to a more just and equal society, does not mean that the cycle will turn. And global governance and international bodies will not help nation states defend themselves from extremes at both ends.
Fighting a rising tide of nationalism and aggressive conservatism cannot be done by simply saying that democratic principles should be protected.
Democratic rights and institutions are not of themselves a world view strong enough to drive popular movements. There has to be more. It can religious, humanist or some other worldview with an organising idea and set of principles, but societies need more than universal principles, as powerful as they might be.
Also crucial message of the book is that the current form of Western society does not rest on some liberal revolution or movement, but has see its fair share of highly illiberal antecedents, and the fact that we are on some wave of progression to a more just and equal society, does not mean that the cycle will turn. And global governance and international bodies will not help nation states defend themselves from extremes at both ends.
November 3, 2021
Incisive, well-written, essentially accurate regarding the outcome of Protestantism.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews