Up until about twenty years ago, Dorinda Outram writes, historians tended to see the Enlightenment as “homogenous and basically unified in thought and action,” as a process in which human reason and science could guide human affairs, change society, and “liberate the individual from the restrains of custom or arbitrary authority.” Outram’s synthesis of the subject, however, emphasizes the diversity at the heart of the Enlightenment and suggests that the changing ways of understanding the era reflect the Enlightenment’s complexity.
As Outram points out, much recent historical research has focused on the social context in which Enlightenment ideas were produced, received, and marketed. Herein lay the source of great change during the eighteenth century, and herein also lay the source of great complexity. Economic expansion, population growth, increased literacy, and the proliferation of learned societies – to name only several of the many changes – diminished the authority of the monarchy and religious establishments while giving greater influence to the writers and thinkers who shaped the changes during the Enlightenment. One category in which change was particularly marked was that of religion. Some historians, such as Gay, Vovelle, and Thomas, saw the Enlightenment as above all a challenge to religion, while others – chiefly Hegel – saw the Enlightenment as a corollary to the Reformation insofar as both movements sought to free human thought. Nevertheless, as Outram argues, the picture becomes more complex when one looks beyond the small group of anti-religious writers confined mostly to the French Enlightenment. Many religious movements during this period sought to make orthodox religious beliefs commensurable with human reason and other Enlightenment ideals. This was an obvious and indeed reasonable response to the religiously motivated violence of the Thirty Years’ War, for example, and it led to an increased emphasis on toleration as a religious principle.
Religion did, however, come under threat during the Enlightenment, and the application of reason to the interpretation of scripture heightened the ambivalence surrounding not only Christianity, but also the legitimacy of the monarchs who found sanction by evoking a divine order. Moreover, where changing theological beliefs left off, emerging “science” picked up. Heretofore the two fields of inquiry had been closely connected, and indeed remained so for much of the eighteenth century. The Enlightenment never posed a uniform attack on religion, and religion never blindly refuted the precepts of the Enlightenment; the theme was one of complexity and ambiguity.
Outram carries the theme of complexity into her discussion of the “exotic.” Europeans confronted questions not only about colonialism and the exploitation of nature, but also the question of difference. Were Europeans different? Were European ideals universal? Was civilization morally ideal? Outram argues that Europeans often saw native peoples as natural and inherently good – not corrupted by civilization – and found in natives a set of qualities resembling those of classical Greece and Rome during their most virtuous eras. Many accepted that it was man’s duty to exploit the earth’s resources, for example, but considered slavery and colonialism an affront to Enlightenment ideals.
One of the greatest contradictions within Enlightenment thought involves that of gender. How could a movement seeking to establish freedom and equality simultaneously garner so-called scientific evidence to support the idea that women have a qualitatively lower ability to reason? As with the other topics of discussion, Outram emphasizes that the picture was one of complexity and ambiguity: the Enlightenment both created a masculine political culture, and provided the theoretical basis for those who were to later struggle to free women from restrictive definitions of gender. Similarly, the relationship between the monarchy and the people was one of complexity. Many states, particularly in central Europe, already possessed well-developed theories of legitimation – such as Cameralism – that in fact sought reform by reconciling traditional notions of hierarchy with emerging Enlightenment ideals. There remained certain contradictions, of course, such as the exclusion of large numbers of people from the exercise of universal rights, and the Enlightenment certainly influenced the course of the Revolution of 1789, but as Outram emphasizes throughout her book, the connections are less direct, and the Enlightenment less unified, than historians have traditionally assumed.
My main criticism is that Outram’s The Enlightenment may leave the uninitiated reader wondering where the study of the Enlightenment ends the study of the eighteenth century begins. One could study the Renaissance, or the Reformation, or the Romantic Movement – for example – as specific areas of inquiry within their respective centuries. Like the Enlightenment, each of these subjects would present a number of “complexities” and contradictions when considered alongside other themes occurring simultaneously. If traditional Enlightenment historians – Peter Gay, for instance – intended to write a history of “the Enlightenment,” how can they be criticized for failing to discuss the many other complex and contradictory movements occurring throughout the eighteenth century? In this way, perhaps Outram criticizes the book that Gay never intended to write; perhaps also she overstates the complexity of the Enlightenment. Nevertheless, her study is coherent and compellingly argued, and it finds its enduring value in the issues it emphasizes and the questions it raises.