What do you think?
Rate this book
Enemies of the Enlightenment : The French Counter-Enlightenment and the Making of Modernity
Critics have long treated the most important intellectual movement of modern history--the Enlightenment--as if it took shape in the absence of opposition. In this groundbreaking new study, Darrin McMahon demonstrates that, on the contrary, contemporary resistance to the Enlightenment was a major cultural force, shaping and defining the Enlightenment itself from the moment of inception, while giving rise to an entirely new ideological phenomenon-what we have come to think of as the "Right." McMahon skillfully examines the Counter-Enlightenment, showing that it was an extensive, international, and thoroughly modern affair.
280 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2001
About the author
Darrin M. McMahon
22 books25 followersDarrin M. McMahon is a historian, author, and public speaker, who lives in Tallahassee, Florida, and the Ben Weider Professor of History at Florida State University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
October 11, 2015
My initial impression of this book was slightly negative. It appears to be a dissertation turned into a tenure book, and it has, as such, the flaws of the genre: too many examples, a bit stilted, a certain superficiality and glibness. All that remains, and it costs the book a star. But that said, this is still a valuable and interesting piece of work.
McMahon traces the origins of the modern European Right to its roots in the Counter-Enlightenment (defined and analyzed), and this (the Counter-Enlightenment) is then traced not to the German Romantics (as is usually done), but to the French Catholic reaction against the Enlightenment and the ‘les philosophes’ in the period prior to the French Revolution (c. 1760) – that is, in the reaction to Voltaire and the encyclopedists. (The Counter-Enlightenment, as McMahon shows, spread from France to the rest of Europe only after it had been fully formed in France.).
The rhetoric of these ‘anti-philosophes’ was developed largely as a *religious* reaction against the desacralization of the state and of society. It lay, in other words, not in a social or political critique, but in an idealistic/religious one. The Revolution, itself, was then seen by these writers as confirmation of their worst fears – of what would happen if the world adopted the (godless) values of the Enlightenment; and these Counter-Enlightenment views then formed the basis of the Ultra-Royalist reaction of the Restoration (1815-1830). By then, ‘les philosophes’ had been replaced (as target) with “liberals” – which was the term used to describe the Independents -- that is, the moderates around Lafayette during the reign of Louis XVIII. But while the target was ‘modernized’, the rhetoric and critique was essentially unchanged. This rhetoric was laced, moreover, with an astounding vitriol (quelle surprise!!), derived from an essentially Manichean worldview that saw the forces of tradition arrayed in a good vs. evil ‘struggle unto death’ against the forces of secularization – an apocalyptic struggle that would brook no compromise – by a vitriol that survives on the Right into the modern era.
But as the tradition they defended, though clearly a form of “integral absolutism” (the indivisible unity of throne and altar) was a thoroughly *idealized* tradition, a tradition that never actually existed, McMahon argues, convincingly (in my opinion), that these ‘traditionalists’ were, in fact, revolutionaries (not conservatives), idealists (see above), and radicals (not real traditionalists). That is, the origins of the European Right, the contemporary European Right, lie not in some medieval or early modern conservatism (Burke), but in a very modern reaction or rebellion, aggressive and revolutionary, against the rationalism and secularism of the equally modern Enlightenment.
All this, moreover, backed with copious examples from contemporary sources and with abundant references to the secondary literature. So the author makes quite an impressive case for his position. It is a position, indeed, with which I have much sympathy, and which is also broadly consonant with the views of Zeev Sternhell, who likewise argued (in a controversial series of books, the best of which imo is this one:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10...)
that the ideological and intellectual roots of fascism lay not in Germany or in Italy, but in the integral and increasingly nationalist Right of 19th cen. France.
But there is still a bit more here, because McMahon is ultimately offering up a defense of the Enlightenment as such -- and not only against the reactionary critics of the Right (18th cen. and later), but also (in brief asides found in the introduction and conclusion) against leftwing postmodernist critics, from Horkheimer to Lyotard to Foucault. It is a defense of the rational, secular, individualism of the Enlightenment, offered from a historical vantage point, that is broadly consonant (to use that phrase again) with that offered (on more philosophical grounds, or rather, from the vantage point of the *history* of ideas) by Richard Wolin in his very interesting The Seduction of Unreason -- another book, not entirely flawless, but well worth the read:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34...
McMahon’s book, finally, can be read fairly quickly because one can, for the most part, simply read the first sentence of every paragraph and thus skim along like a rock over a pond.
McMahon traces the origins of the modern European Right to its roots in the Counter-Enlightenment (defined and analyzed), and this (the Counter-Enlightenment) is then traced not to the German Romantics (as is usually done), but to the French Catholic reaction against the Enlightenment and the ‘les philosophes’ in the period prior to the French Revolution (c. 1760) – that is, in the reaction to Voltaire and the encyclopedists. (The Counter-Enlightenment, as McMahon shows, spread from France to the rest of Europe only after it had been fully formed in France.).
The rhetoric of these ‘anti-philosophes’ was developed largely as a *religious* reaction against the desacralization of the state and of society. It lay, in other words, not in a social or political critique, but in an idealistic/religious one. The Revolution, itself, was then seen by these writers as confirmation of their worst fears – of what would happen if the world adopted the (godless) values of the Enlightenment; and these Counter-Enlightenment views then formed the basis of the Ultra-Royalist reaction of the Restoration (1815-1830). By then, ‘les philosophes’ had been replaced (as target) with “liberals” – which was the term used to describe the Independents -- that is, the moderates around Lafayette during the reign of Louis XVIII. But while the target was ‘modernized’, the rhetoric and critique was essentially unchanged. This rhetoric was laced, moreover, with an astounding vitriol (quelle surprise!!), derived from an essentially Manichean worldview that saw the forces of tradition arrayed in a good vs. evil ‘struggle unto death’ against the forces of secularization – an apocalyptic struggle that would brook no compromise – by a vitriol that survives on the Right into the modern era.
But as the tradition they defended, though clearly a form of “integral absolutism” (the indivisible unity of throne and altar) was a thoroughly *idealized* tradition, a tradition that never actually existed, McMahon argues, convincingly (in my opinion), that these ‘traditionalists’ were, in fact, revolutionaries (not conservatives), idealists (see above), and radicals (not real traditionalists). That is, the origins of the European Right, the contemporary European Right, lie not in some medieval or early modern conservatism (Burke), but in a very modern reaction or rebellion, aggressive and revolutionary, against the rationalism and secularism of the equally modern Enlightenment.
All this, moreover, backed with copious examples from contemporary sources and with abundant references to the secondary literature. So the author makes quite an impressive case for his position. It is a position, indeed, with which I have much sympathy, and which is also broadly consonant with the views of Zeev Sternhell, who likewise argued (in a controversial series of books, the best of which imo is this one:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10...)
that the ideological and intellectual roots of fascism lay not in Germany or in Italy, but in the integral and increasingly nationalist Right of 19th cen. France.
But there is still a bit more here, because McMahon is ultimately offering up a defense of the Enlightenment as such -- and not only against the reactionary critics of the Right (18th cen. and later), but also (in brief asides found in the introduction and conclusion) against leftwing postmodernist critics, from Horkheimer to Lyotard to Foucault. It is a defense of the rational, secular, individualism of the Enlightenment, offered from a historical vantage point, that is broadly consonant (to use that phrase again) with that offered (on more philosophical grounds, or rather, from the vantage point of the *history* of ideas) by Richard Wolin in his very interesting The Seduction of Unreason -- another book, not entirely flawless, but well worth the read:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34...
McMahon’s book, finally, can be read fairly quickly because one can, for the most part, simply read the first sentence of every paragraph and thus skim along like a rock over a pond.
August 4, 2016
The book read like an extended college thesis paper. It had a point to make--that the Anti-Philosophe faction both arose from and was a cause of the revolution--and the author made it. Though I will concede that Anti-Philosophe authors contributed to the vitriol of the revolutionaries, I don't believe that they caused that vitriol. The author also fails to distinguish between the Catholic Church and the Anti-Philosophe writers. He gives Edmund Burke short-shrift, claiming that he merely borrowed from earlier French writers. It seems that he had never read Edmund Burke. Burke went far beyond what the French writers had said. While they merely predicted bloodshed, Burke specifically predicted that the revolutionaries would kill their king (three years before he was dethroned), and that a general would arise to rule over the nation--foreseeing Napoleon's rise ten years before it began!
McMahon's short-sightedness about Burke is symptomatic of the author's overall reductionist tendencies. He reduces the entire Anti-Philosophe movement to an attempt by the Catholic Church to retain its power, though he does concede that many of the writers were men of faith. Nor does he delineate the role of Protestantism during those revolutionary times. I'm certain that a great part of the resistance to crown and church came from Protestant peoples, and not just from secular ones like Voltaire and Rousseau. McMahon does not account for protestant influences at all. He treats the revolution as if it were entirely secular in nature. It is ridiculous to think that while all of Europe had been torn for two centuries by wars between Catholic and Protestant churches that this antipathy played no part in the French Revolution. This subject deserves more from an author.
McMahon's short-sightedness about Burke is symptomatic of the author's overall reductionist tendencies. He reduces the entire Anti-Philosophe movement to an attempt by the Catholic Church to retain its power, though he does concede that many of the writers were men of faith. Nor does he delineate the role of Protestantism during those revolutionary times. I'm certain that a great part of the resistance to crown and church came from Protestant peoples, and not just from secular ones like Voltaire and Rousseau. McMahon does not account for protestant influences at all. He treats the revolution as if it were entirely secular in nature. It is ridiculous to think that while all of Europe had been torn for two centuries by wars between Catholic and Protestant churches that this antipathy played no part in the French Revolution. This subject deserves more from an author.
April 12, 2020
A surprisingly relevant intellectual history of an often-ignored group: the writers who opposed famous Enlightenment philosophers like Voltaire, Rousseau and Diderot. McMahon convincingly argues that rather than ignoring these Counter-Enlightenment thinkers, or seeing them as relic of a backward past, they are best seen as shockingly modern. And indeed, his survey of the writings of a host of lesser-known (but prolific) 18th and 19th Century writers shows how the arguments these men and women crafted to oppose the philosophes have surprising resonance right down to present-day politics.
December 18, 2017
Read this to find out where the Right came from, the very origin of the term "Right wing" is explained in this book. Also good to balance narratives of modern European history that prioritize "progress," science, and reason as the end-all-be-all of history.
December 3, 2023
Enemies of the Enlightenment by Dr. R.T. McMahon is a well researched and thought-provoking exploration of the tumultuous relationship between Enlightenment ideals and their opponents in France during a transformative period in history. The book is structured around key chapters that trace the evolving dynamics between Enlightenment thinkers, often referred to as Philosophes, and their adversaries, painting a vivid picture of the intellectual and political landscape of the time.
In the opening chapter, "Blinded by Light," McMahon introduces us to a group of French religious radicals who vehemently opposed Voltaire's "Irene" in 1778, marking the beginning of a fervent anti-Enlightenment movement. The author skillfully navigates through the propaganda war waged by these radicals against the Philosophes, revealing a complex interplay of religious sentiments, political maneuvering, and fears of a perceived Enlightenment conspiracy.
Chapter 2, "The Revolution as the Realization of Philosophy," explores the revolutionary period, highlighting how opponents of the Enlightenment attributed natural disasters and political upheavals to the wrath of God, an act of retribution against the perceived transgressions of the Philosophes. McMahon analyzes the emergence of conspiracy theories surrounding the Revolution, providing insight into the mindset of those who believed that the Enlightenment had paved the way for radical changes.
As the narrative unfolds in Chapter 3, "The Terror and the International Construction of the Enlightenment," McMahon explores the aftermath of the French Revolution, detailing the execution of Louis XVI and the Reign of Terror. The author examines how Catholic opponents of the Enlightenment fled France, taking their stories of conspiracy to host nations, thereby influencing anti-Enlightenment sentiments on an international scale.
"Concrete Literary Politics During the Reign of Napoleon" is the focus of Chapter 4, where McMahon dissects the religious revival that followed the French Revolution. The author analyzes the propaganda tactics employed by both sides, revealing how the anti-Philosophe discourse undermined the stability of Napoleon's regime, despite its authoritarian inclinations.
In Chapter 5, "The Future of the Past: The Restoration Struggle Against the Enlightenment," McMahon delves into the Restoration period, exploring the tension between Ultra Royalists dreaming of a return to Catholic glory and the liberal Restorationists. The author details how the Ultra waged a campaign against the Enlightenment, burning books and attempting to control education to eradicate perceived philosophical poison.
Throughout the book, McMahon relies on a wealth of primary sources, including journals, articles, and records, providing readers with a well-documented and nuanced understanding of the complex interactions between Enlightenment thinkers and their adversaries. The narrative is engaging and thought-provoking, making "Enemies of the Enlightenment" a valuable contribution to the understanding of intellectual and political history in 18th and 19th-century France.
In the opening chapter, "Blinded by Light," McMahon introduces us to a group of French religious radicals who vehemently opposed Voltaire's "Irene" in 1778, marking the beginning of a fervent anti-Enlightenment movement. The author skillfully navigates through the propaganda war waged by these radicals against the Philosophes, revealing a complex interplay of religious sentiments, political maneuvering, and fears of a perceived Enlightenment conspiracy.
Chapter 2, "The Revolution as the Realization of Philosophy," explores the revolutionary period, highlighting how opponents of the Enlightenment attributed natural disasters and political upheavals to the wrath of God, an act of retribution against the perceived transgressions of the Philosophes. McMahon analyzes the emergence of conspiracy theories surrounding the Revolution, providing insight into the mindset of those who believed that the Enlightenment had paved the way for radical changes.
As the narrative unfolds in Chapter 3, "The Terror and the International Construction of the Enlightenment," McMahon explores the aftermath of the French Revolution, detailing the execution of Louis XVI and the Reign of Terror. The author examines how Catholic opponents of the Enlightenment fled France, taking their stories of conspiracy to host nations, thereby influencing anti-Enlightenment sentiments on an international scale.
"Concrete Literary Politics During the Reign of Napoleon" is the focus of Chapter 4, where McMahon dissects the religious revival that followed the French Revolution. The author analyzes the propaganda tactics employed by both sides, revealing how the anti-Philosophe discourse undermined the stability of Napoleon's regime, despite its authoritarian inclinations.
In Chapter 5, "The Future of the Past: The Restoration Struggle Against the Enlightenment," McMahon delves into the Restoration period, exploring the tension between Ultra Royalists dreaming of a return to Catholic glory and the liberal Restorationists. The author details how the Ultra waged a campaign against the Enlightenment, burning books and attempting to control education to eradicate perceived philosophical poison.
Throughout the book, McMahon relies on a wealth of primary sources, including journals, articles, and records, providing readers with a well-documented and nuanced understanding of the complex interactions between Enlightenment thinkers and their adversaries. The narrative is engaging and thought-provoking, making "Enemies of the Enlightenment" a valuable contribution to the understanding of intellectual and political history in 18th and 19th-century France.
July 10, 2021
This is an academic study of the (French) Enlightenment and counter-Enlightenment, between about 1750 and 1850. Half the book consists of footnotes, so it is not a ‘popular,’ or ‘light’ read.
As a historical overview the book gives a good summary of the patterns of thought. We hear that the “Philosophers” drove the Enlightenment as an essentially “Rationalistic” enterprise. What they mean by Rationalism (and its political manifestation as “Liberalism) is not so much defined by reason, as defined by rejections of other people’s authority. So the Rationalists were often libertines, rejecting Society’s sexual morality. They were also anti-Church and anti-Monarchy.
Was the Enlightenment successful? In the early decades of the nineteenth century it was impossible not to look at the 25 years of war and terror which it unleashed upon Europe between 1789 and 1815. It also led to waves of refugees fleeing France. Just in Church terms we hear that more than 6000 priests fled to England and another 6000 to Spain (Kindle 24%).
To some extent these outcomes define the Counter-Enlightenment. It is fiercely pro-Church and pro-monarchy, and it is a deeply conservative attempt to re-pair what it saw as the damage of the French Revolution.
As for the “philosophers” (like Voltaire) who caused the revolution, the Counter-Enlightenment tried to damn their memory. We hear of mass burnings of their books. One incident in Grenoble involved more than 10,000 books being burned (Kindle 45%). Yet, their books continued to be printed and sold.
There is a strange irony at work in the Counter-Enlightenment. Whilst it is on the surface reversing the Rationalism and Liberalism of the French Revolution, it is unable to reverse the secularisation of the country. Indeed, the failure of the revival of the French Monarchy in the 1820s suggests that society has changed and cannot go back to an idealised version of its pre-revolution days.
The amount of detail within the book makes this a very informative account of the figures and ideas involved during this formative period of European history. At times the sheer amount of information is in danger of overloading the reader. For example, it would have been helpful to organise the book around more than just 4 chapters.
Overall, the wealth of detail makes the book thought provoking, but a casual reader looking for quick summaries may find it less appealing.
As a historical overview the book gives a good summary of the patterns of thought. We hear that the “Philosophers” drove the Enlightenment as an essentially “Rationalistic” enterprise. What they mean by Rationalism (and its political manifestation as “Liberalism) is not so much defined by reason, as defined by rejections of other people’s authority. So the Rationalists were often libertines, rejecting Society’s sexual morality. They were also anti-Church and anti-Monarchy.
Was the Enlightenment successful? In the early decades of the nineteenth century it was impossible not to look at the 25 years of war and terror which it unleashed upon Europe between 1789 and 1815. It also led to waves of refugees fleeing France. Just in Church terms we hear that more than 6000 priests fled to England and another 6000 to Spain (Kindle 24%).
To some extent these outcomes define the Counter-Enlightenment. It is fiercely pro-Church and pro-monarchy, and it is a deeply conservative attempt to re-pair what it saw as the damage of the French Revolution.
As for the “philosophers” (like Voltaire) who caused the revolution, the Counter-Enlightenment tried to damn their memory. We hear of mass burnings of their books. One incident in Grenoble involved more than 10,000 books being burned (Kindle 45%). Yet, their books continued to be printed and sold.
There is a strange irony at work in the Counter-Enlightenment. Whilst it is on the surface reversing the Rationalism and Liberalism of the French Revolution, it is unable to reverse the secularisation of the country. Indeed, the failure of the revival of the French Monarchy in the 1820s suggests that society has changed and cannot go back to an idealised version of its pre-revolution days.
The amount of detail within the book makes this a very informative account of the figures and ideas involved during this formative period of European history. At times the sheer amount of information is in danger of overloading the reader. For example, it would have been helpful to organise the book around more than just 4 chapters.
Overall, the wealth of detail makes the book thought provoking, but a casual reader looking for quick summaries may find it less appealing.
August 23, 2024
Fairly well written and excellently sourced using tons of more obscure writers and excerpts from contemporary pro Throne and altar newspapers and pamphlets beyond the standard De Maistre, De Bonald, Barruel and Chateaubriand. While generally fairly balanced and thankfully not written as character assassination it does unfortunately fall into apologetics sometimes as the author attempts to defend the first phase of the revolution or throws around the accusation of conspiracy theory.
Otherwise a fairly good book
Otherwise a fairly good book
May 19, 2014
Very good. I can see how this is seminal text of Enlightenment/Counter Enlightenment studies, but I can admit that it ran dry a few times. We had to speed through it as the class ran out of days quickly (snow days and sickness) but it still made for an interesting and lively class discussion.
Would not sacrifice extra days in Rousseau's _Social Contract_ for this text.
Would not sacrifice extra days in Rousseau's _Social Contract_ for this text.
October 24, 2016
Great summation of many of the characters and events within the enlightenment. I disagree with a few of his conclusions, but it is incredibly well written and helps to see the enlightenment and the french revolution from two different perspectives, from that of the philosophes and that of the royalists.
Read
September 23, 2010Enemies of the Enlightenment: The French Counter-Enlightenment and the Making of Modernity by Darrin M. McMahon (2002)
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews