PHILOSOPHICALTRADITIONS GeneralEditor AmelieOksenberg Rorty
I.John M.Rist(editor),7heStoics 2.AmelieOksenberg Rorty
(editor),EssaysonAristotle'sEthics 3.MylesBurnyeat
(editor),7heSkepticalTradition 4.AmelieOksenberg Rorty
(editor),EssaysonDescartes'sMeditations 5.RichardSchacht
(editor),Nietzsche,Genealogy,Morality:EssaysonNietzsche's Genealogy
of Morals 6.AmelieOksenberg Rorty
(editor),EssaysonAristotle'sRhetoric 7.JamesSchmidt
(editor),WhatIsEnlightenment?Eighteenth-CenturyAnswersand
Twentieth-CenturyQuestions What IsEnlightenment? Eighteenth-Century
Answersand Twentieth-Century Questions EDITEDBY JamesSchmidt
UNIVERSITYOFCALIFORNIAPRESS BerkeleyLosAngelesLondon University of
California Press Berkeley and LosAngeles,California University of
CaliforniaPress London,England Copyright1996 by The Regents of
theUniversity of California Library of Congress
Cataloging-in-Publication Data What isEnlightenment? :
eighteenth-century answersandtwentieth-century questions/ edited by
James Schmidt. p.em.- (Philosophicaltraditions; 7)
Includesbibliographical referencesand index. ISBN
0-520-20225-2(alk.paper).- ISBN0-520-20226-0(pbk.: alk.paper) I.
Enlightenment.I. Schmidt,James.II.Series. B802.W471996 190-dc20
Printed intheUnitedStates of America 2345689 95-46975 CIP
Thepaperusedinthispublicationmeetstheminimumrequirementsof
AmericanNational
StandardforInformationSciences-PermanenceofPaperforPrintedLibraryMaterials,
ANSIZ39.48-1984 i CONTENTS PREFACEIIX Introduction:What
IsEnlightenment? AQuestion,ItsContext,and SomeConsequencesII
JamesSchmidt Part I.THEEIGHTEENTH-CENTURYDEBATEI45 1.The Question
andSome AnswersI47 What IstoBeDone towardtheEnlightenment of
theCitizenry?(1783)I49 JohannKarl Miihsen On theQuestion:What
IsEnlightenment?(1784)I53 MosesMendelssohn
AnAnswertotheQuestion:What IsEnlightenment?(1784)I58 ImmanuelKant
Thoughts on Enlightenment (1784)I65 KarlLeonhard Reinhold ACoupleof
GoldNuggets,fromthe ... Wastepaper, or Six AnswerstoSix Questions
(1789)I78 ChristophMartinWieland 2.The PublicUseof ReasonI85 On
Freedom of Thought and of thePress:ForPrinces, Ministers,and
Writers (1784)I87 ErnstFerdinandKlein v V! CONTENTS On Freedom of
thePress and ItsLimits:For Consideration by Rulers, Censors,and
Writers (1787)I97 CarlFriedrichBahrdt Publicity(I 792)I114
FriedrichKarlvonMoser Reclamation of theFreedom of Thought
fromthePrincesof Europe, Who Have Oppressed It UntilNow (1793)I119
JohannGottliebFichte 3.Faith and EnlightenmentI143 Letter
toChristian Jacob Kraus (18December1784)I145 JohannGeorgHamann
MetacritiqueonthePurism of Reason(1784)I154 JohannGeorgHamann On
Enlightenment:IsIt and Could It BeDangerous totheState,
toReligion,or Dangerous inGeneral? A Word toBeHeeded by Princes,
Statesmen, and Clergy (I 7 88)I168 AndreasRiem 4.The Politicsof
EnlightenmentI189 Something LessingSaid:ACommentary on Journeys
ofthePopes(!782)I191 FriedrichHeinrich Jacobi True and
FalsePolitical Enlightenment (I 792)I212 FriedrichKarlvonMoser On
theInfluenceof Enlightenment on Revolutions(1794)I217
JohannHeinrichTiiftrunk DoesEnlightenment Cause
Revolutions?(1795)I225 JohannAdam Bergk Part
II.HISTORICALREFLECTIONSI233 TheBerlin Wednesday SocietyI235
GunterBirtsch The SubversiveKant:The Vocabulary of "Public" and
"Publicity"I253 JohnChristianLaursen On Enlightenment fortheCommon
ManI270 JonathanB.Knudsen Modern Culture Comes of Age:Hamann
versusKant on theRoot Metaphor of EnlightenmentI291 GarrettGreen
CONTENTS Jacobi's Critique of theEnlightenmentI306 DaleE.Snow Early
Romanticism and the AujkldrungI317 FrederickC.Beiser
Progress:Ideas,Skepticism,and The Heritage of theEnlightenmentI330
RudolphVierhaus Part III.TWENTIETH-CENTURYQUESTIONSI343 What
IsEnlightenment?I345 Rudiger Bittner Reason Against
Itself:SomeRemarks on EnlightenmentI359 MaxHorkheimer What
IsEnlightened Thinking?I368 GeorgPicht What IsCritique?I382 Michel
Foucault The Unity of ReasonintheDiversity of ItsVoicesI399
JurgenHabermas The Battleof Reason with theImaginationI426
HartmutBO"hmeandGernotBiihme TheFailureof Kant's ImaginationI453
JaneKneller TheGender of EnlightenmentI4 71 RobinMaySchott
Autonomy,Individuality,and Self-DeterminationI488 LewisHinchman
Enlightened Cosmopolitanism:The PoliticalPerspective of theKantian
"Sublime"I517 KevinPaulGeiman CONTRIBUTORSTOPARTSIIANDIIII533
SELECTBIBLIOGRAPHYI537 INDEXI555 V!! PREFACE
Latein1783anarticlethatappearedinaBerlin journalasked,almostin
passing,"What isenlightenment?"Forthenextdecadeadebateon
thena-tureandlimitsofenlightenmentragedinpamphletsand
journals.Inthe process,theideals and aspirationsof theEnlightenment
weresubjected toa
scrutinysothoroughitisonlyaslightexaggerationtosuggestthatsubse-quentcriticshaveraisedfewpointsthat
werenotalready consideredinthe 1780s.
Onlyoneoftheseessays-ImmanuelKant's"AnAnswertotheQues-tion:WhatIsEnlightenment?"
-iswellknownintheEnglish-speaking world.Thisbook
beginsthelong-overduetaskof acquaintingreaderswith some of the
others. Part I provides aselection of some of the more important
contributionstotheeighteenth-centuryGermandiscussionof thequestion
"Whatisenlightenment?"PartIIbringstogetheranumberofrecent
essaysonthehistoricalcontextinwhichthisdiscussiontookplaceandon
thosewho participated inthedebate.The essaysgathered in Part III
reflect
onthesignificanceoftheseeighteenth-centuryanswersforourowntime.
Inthisprefatorynote,Iwouldliketosketchthegeneralrationalebehind
theselection,editing,andtranslationof
theessaysthatconstitutethisvol-umeandtooffersomethankstothosewhoaidedinbringingthisbookto
completion. WhiletheEnlightenment wasaEuropean event,thedebateon
thequestion "What isenlightenment?" wasuniquely German.For reasons
that defy easy
explanation,neitherFrenchphilosophesnorScottishmoralists(toname
only
thetwomostlikelyparties)wereasconcernedastheirGerman-speak-ingcolleagueswiththequestionofwhatenlightenmentwas.Inselecting
essaysfromtheGerman discussionof thequestion,Ihavebeen guided both
lX XPREFACE by myownsenseof
whatthedebatewasabout(asubjectIdiscussatsome
lengthintheintroduction)andbythechoicesofthosewhohavegone
beforeme.NorbertHinskeandMichaelAlbrecht'sWasistAujklarung?Bei-trageausderBerlinischenMonatsschrift(Darmstadt:WissenschaftlicheBuchge-sellschaft,1973)reprintedawide-rangingselectionofarticlesfromthe
journalthat firstlaunchedthediscussionof
thequestion"Whatisenlight-enment?"It wasquicklyfollowedbyEhrard
Bahr'sWasist
Aujklarung?The-senundDifmitionen(Stuttgart:Reclam,1974),whichbroughttogetherafew
of themoreimportantcontributionsfromother
journals,andbyZwiBat-scha'sselectionofessaysonthesubsequentdiscussionoffreedomofthe
press,AujklarungundGedankenfreiheit(Frankfurt:Suhrkamp,1977).Mention
shouldalsobemadeofFrenchandSpanishtranslationsofsomeofthese
essays-Jean
Mondot,Qy'est-cequelesLumieres?(Saint-Etienne:Publications
del'UniversitedeSaint-Etienne,1991)andAgapitoMaestreandJose
Romagosa,c"QyeesIlustraci6n?(Madrid:Technos,1988).Whilethesecollec-tionsdifferintheirchoicesandfocus,thereareafewcommonpointsof
contact.
SincemanyoftheleadingintellectualsinGermanyparticipatedinthe
discussionofthequestion"Whatisenlightenment?"itisdifficultforany
collection toignore thecontributionsof Kant,MosesMendelssohn,
Johann
GeorgHamann,FriedrichHeinrichJacobi,andChristophMartinWie-land.ThedebatewasalsojoinedbywriterssuchasFriedrichKarlvon
MosP-r,CarlBahrdt,andKarlLeonhardReinholdwho,whilewellknown
ineighteenth-centuryGermany,maynotbefamiliartopresent-dayread-ers.AndreasRiempresentsauniquecase:thenotorietyhegainedinthe
lateeighteenthcentury restslargely
onhispamphletUberAujklarung,oneof themost widely read contributions
tothedebate.Other contributions merit inclusionbecauseof
theirhistoricalimportance;forexample, JohannKarl
Mohsen'slecturewasinstrumentalinlaunchingthedebateinthefirst
place.Certainessaysbyobscureauthorswhoremainedobscure(suchas
JohannHeinrichTieftrunkandAdamBergk)areincludedbecausethey
developlinesof argumentthathelpustoseethebroaderimplicationsof the
question.Finally, Johann Gottlieb Fichte's essay on freedomof
thought,
whilenotdirectlyaddressingthequestion"Whatisenlightenment?"isa
major contribution to discussion of freedom of the press towhich
the debate on enlightenment led. Despite the labors of German
historians over the last several decades,the
GermanEnlightenmentremains,atbest,arumorinmuchof
theEnglish-speakingworld.ItisworthrememberingthatBerlinwasoneofthemore
importantintellectualcentersineighteenth-centuryEuropeandthatthe
debateon thenatureof enlightenment wasborn out of thesensethat it
was timetotakestockof whathadbeenaccomplishedintheway of
enlighten-mentinPrussiaandwhattheprospectsmightbeforafurtherenlighten-PREFACE
Xl ment,bothinbeyond.Theessaysinthesecondpartofthis
bookexplorethehistoncalcontextthatgaverisetothisstocktakin Gunter
Birtschprovidesanaccountof theBerlinWednesdaySociety groupof
.civilservantsandmenof letterswhoinaugurated dis-
ofthequestwn;JonathanKnudsenexaminesdiscussionsofthe
of"popularenlightenment";FrederickC.Beisertracestherela-tiOnshipbetweentheEnlightenmentandromanticism;andRudolphVier-haus
analyzestheEnlightenment's faithinand skepti.cismabot
..,u,progress. JohnChnshanLaursen'saccountofKant'snotionofpublitD1
S 'd".,CIy,ae sIscusswnof Jacobi s political thought,andGarrett
Green's exami-nationofHamann's :ritiqueof
theEnlightenmentreflectonthepositions of someof themoreImportant
participants in thedebate.
Theanswersthattheeighteenthcenturygavetothequestion"Wht rh?"aIS en
Igtenment.arenot,however,of
historicalinterestonly.TheEnlight-enment stands at thethreshold of
themodernageandthese ,answersInevi-tablytell
agooddealabouthowwemakesenseofourownsituation. essays .mthe partof
thisbookattempt,fromavarietyof
perspec-tives,toraisequestiOnsabouttheeighteenthcentury'sanswers.Emphasis
here beenonthat areeither unpublished,untranslated,or
otherwisenotreadilyavailable.RudigerBittner,MaxHorkheimer,Michel
Foucault,andJurgenHabermasposesomegeneralquestionsaboutthe current.
status the ."projectof .enlightenment."GeorgPichtexploresthe
theologicalramificatwnsofenlightenedthinking.HartmutandGt B ..
herno o. me .andKneller investigatethetensionbetween reason and
imagi-m
sthought.RobinMaySchottandLewisHinchmanscruti-mzetheEnlightenment's
ideal of "autonomy." Finally,Kevin Paul Geiman
offerssomereflectionsonthecosmopolitanhopesthatinformedKt' ....ans
wntmgson politics. Theproblemof relation.shipof
historicaltextstopresent-day concerns
totheforemaparticularlyforcefulwayintheactoftranslation.
This.Isnottheplaceforanextendedconsiderationofthehermeneutic that
surround every attempt tomovetexts fromone language and one
.agemtoan?ther.Itmaysufficetolay out afewof thegeneralconsid-
thatgmdedthiswork.Ideally(and,of course,intranslationmore
thanmanyotherhumanendeavor,thingswillnever beideal)thereshould
beaway o: theseeighteenth-century German textsthat respects
boththehistoncaldistancethatseparatesusfromtheEnlightenmtd hf..enan
tetiesoand usage stillbind ustoit.Instriking thisbalance
betweenanachromsmandarchaism,ithelpstorememberthatthewriters of.
theGerm.anEnlightenmentreadEnglishbooksand shared
acertainter-mmologywiththeircounterpartsinotherpartsofEuropeHen
...ce,on
encountenngthetermmoralzscheGifiihleitmightbeworthremembering XII
PREFACE thatthewriter waslikelythinkingof
whatScottishmoralistscalled"moral
sentiments"-not"moralfeelings"-orthat,intheeighteenthcentury,
aMenschenrechtwasa"RightofMan,"nota"humanright."Butother
termsthateighteenth-centuryGermanandEnglishoncesharedarenow
losttotranslators.Atthecloseoftheeighteenthcentury,whenJohn
RichardsontranslatedKant'sfamousdefinitionofEnlightenment-"der
AusgangdesMenschenausseinerselbstverschuldetenUnmiindigkeit"-theEnglish"nonage"providedhimwiththeperfecttermforcapturing
whatKantmeantbyUnmiindigkeit.Whilewehavekept"dotage,"weno
longerhave"nonage,"sothetranslatormustbeataretreatto"imma-turity."Butother,lessopaquearchaismsareworthpreserving,ifonlyto
drivehomethat thesearenot textsfromour own time.Thus
ineighteenth-century Englishasineighteenth-century German,onecould
render
asupe-rior"eyeservice"aswellas"lipservice,"andthereisawholelexiconof
now-forgottentermsforinsultingclergythatfreethinkingEnglishshared
withfreethinkingGermans.It isprobably worthafewfootnotestoremind
readers of what our languageonce could do.
Eighteenth-centuryGermanwasstill,inmanyways,influx,andphilo-sophicalandpoliticalterminologywasbynomeanssettled.Vocabularies
differradicallyfromauthortoauthor.Bergk,Tieftrunk,andFichtemade
extensiveuseoftheterminologyofKant'scriticalphilosophy,andcon-ventionsfortranslatingthatterminologyarereasonablywellestablished.
ButMendelssohnandReinholddrewheavilyonthevocabularyofChris-tianWolff,andsincesolittleWolffhasbeentranslatedintoEnglishthe
translatormusttakeadetourfromWolff'sGermanwritingstohisLatin
writingsandfromtheretrytofindawaybacktoEnglish.Indealingwith
Hamann,whooncewrotethat"tospeakistotranslate-fromthetongue
ofangelsintothetongueofmen,"itisneverclearwhatlanguageheis
speaking.Writers'stylesdiffer,asdotheirintendedaudiences.Wieland
tried tobe witty (and,at times,naughty),Bahrdt's discussionof
freedomof
thepressdrewonthevocabularyofnaturallawtheories,theessaysby
RiemandJacobiseethewithanger,andErnstFerdinandKlein'sessay
takestheformof an extended impersonation of Frederick
theGreat.These
differencesinterminologyandstyleareworthpreservingsincetheydrive
homerather powerfully thedifferencesin voicesthat wereacentral part
of that great cosmopolitanargument that wastheEnlightenment.
Sincetheeditorandtranslatorsworkedfromeighteenth-centuryorigi-nals,thereareafewcaseswhereerrorsthathavecreptintosubsequent
Germanreprintshavebeen corrected.Theseare,forthemostpart,minor, but
at least now readers willknow that theofficer who quipped that
limiting
freedomofthepressinordertopromotepoliticalstabilitywouldbelike
paving thecountrysidetoprevent molesfromharming
thefieldswasnot-asZwiBatscha'sreprinthasit-General
vonRyanbutratherGeneralvon PREFACEXIII Kyau.Efforts
havealsobeenmadetolet readers know who people likeGen-eral vonKyau
wereandtoclarify someof thereferencesandallusionsthat
arelikelytostymiepresent-day readers.Inthecaseof thatnotoriously
her-meticwriter Hamann,thishasresulted in arather extensivebody of
notes.
Allthatremainsistoofferthanksformoney,advice,andassistance.The
NationalEndowment fortheHumanities(NEH)hasbeenexceedingly
gen-erousinitssupport of
thisproject.Ifirstcametoappreciatethecomplexity
oftheeighteenth-centuryGermandiscussionofthequestion"Whatis
enlightenment?" asaresult of an NEH Fellowship forUniversity
Teachers. AsthedirectorofthreeNEHSummerSeminarsforCollegeTeachers,I
wasabletoexploretheseessayswith scholarswhoshared my sensethatthe
questionsaskedintheeighteenthcenturystillmatter.Agrantfromthe
NEHDivisionof TextsandTranslationsprovidedthefundsnecessaryto
beginworkonthetranslation.IamgratefultoStephenRossof theNEH
andDavidBerndtoftheOfficeofSponsoredProgramsatBostonUni-versityfortheirencouragementandadviceintheprocessof
applyingfor
fundingandtoSusanTomassettioftheUniversityProfessorsProgramat
Boston University forher aid inadministering thesegrants.
Boththetranslatorsandtheeditorhavespentthelastseveralyears
annoyingfriends,colleagues,and,sometimes,totalstrangerswithpleasfor
helpintranslatingopaquepassagesandinidentifyingobscureallusions.
ParticularthanksgotoKarlAmeriks,JamesBernauer,DanielBreazeale,
WalterFelscher,AnkeFinger,JohnGagliardo,GeorgediGiovanni,Gail
Hueting,JohnS.King,RamonaNaddaff,KristinPfefferkorn-Forbath,
SabineRoehr,AlexandervonSchoenborn,StevenScully,andW.Daniel
Wilson.FrederickBeiser,RudigerBittner,KennethHaynes,Dorothy Rogers,
JonathanKnudsen,andGittaSchmidtwereofenormoushelpin
reviewingthetranslations and suggesting revisions.
IamgreatlyindebtedtoKevinGeiman,GarrettGreen,LewisHinch-man,ArthurHirsch,KennethHaynes,JaneKneller,JonathanKnudsen,
John Christian Laursen,Dale Snow,and Thomas Wartenberg fortheeffort
they put intotheirworkonthisbook and fortheir friendship.It hasbeen
a joy towork withthem.
Finally,itisunlikelythatIwouldhaveembarkedonthisprojecthadit not
been for Amelie Rorty's enthusiasm, and inconceivable that I would
have finisheditwithout her continued encouragement,her constant
counsel,and her ever-increasing threats. Introduction What
IsEnlightenment?AQuestion, ItsContext,andSomeConsequences
JamesSchmidt TheEnlightenmenthasbeenblamedformany
things.Ithasbeenheldre-sponsiblefortheFrenchRevolution,fortotalitarianism,andfortheview
thatnatureissimplyanobjecttobedominated,manipulated,andex-ploited.IthasalsobeenimplicatedinonewayoranotherinEuropean
imperialism and themost aggressiveaspectsof
capitalism.Whilesomehave insisted that itsskepticismabout "absolute
values"infects our culture witha
"nihilisticsluggishness,"othershavesuggestedthatliberalsocietiesshould
divest themselves of the Enlightenment's obsession with
"philosophical foun-dations." 1
Itissaidthatitspassionforrightsandlibertiesunleashedade-structiveindividualismthatunderminesanysenseofcommunity.2
Yetit
hasalsobeenarguedthatitsassumptionthathumannaturewasinfinitely
malleablehasprovidedtheintellectualinspirationforattemptsbytotal-itarianstatestoeradicatealltracesof
individualityfromtheirsubjects.3It
hasbeencriticizedforitsinsensitivitytothetragiccharacterof
moralcon-flictsandforitsnaiveassumptionthatalldilemmashavesimplesolutions.'
It hasbeenarguedthatitsattempttoconstructamoralphilosophyended
infailure,leavinguswitheitheranimpoverishedmoralvisionthatsup-pressesallvaluesthatcannotbereducedtoinstrumentalefficiencyora
corruptedmoraldiscourseinwhichethicalevaluationsarenothingmore
thanamaskforindividualpreferences. 5
Ithasbeencastigatedforitsaffec-tionfor"mastermetanarratives"anditshostilitytoward"otherness.
"6 Its racismand itssexismhavenot passed unnoticed. 7
Lookingoverthislistofcharges,onewondershowoneperiodcould
havebeenresponsibleforsomuchandsomanydifferentkindsofharm.
Puzzledbythemultitudeof accusationsleveledagainstit-and astonished
atthediversity of itscritics-one might wellask,"What
isenlightenment?" It turnsout that thequestionisnotanewone. 1
2INTRODUCTION EIGHTEENTH-CENTURYANSWERS
InDecember1783,theBerlinischeMonatsschriflpublishedanarticlebythe
theologianandeducationalreformer JohannFriedrichZollnerquestioning
theadvisabilityof purely
civilmarriageceremonies.Observingthatalltoo often"under thenameof
enlightenmenttheheartsandmindsof menare
bewildered,"heaskedinafootnote,"Whatisenlightenment?Thisques-tion,whichisalmostasimportantaswhatistruth,shouldindeedbe
answeredbeforeonebeginsenlightening!AndstillIhaveneverfoundit
answered!"8 Hedidnot havetowait long forananswer.Withinayear,the
BerlinischeMonatsschriflpublishedresponsesfromMosesMendelssohnand
ImmanuelKant.9 Other authorsentered thefray,andthedebatespreadto
other journals. 10Bytheendofthedecade,thediscussionhadbecomeso
pervasivethat whenChristophMartin Wieland,aloneinhisprivy,glanced
at thepieceof wastepaperhehad picked uptocompletehistask,hefound
himselfstaringatalistof
sixquestionsthatbeganwith"WhatisEnlight-enment?"11
Theseattemptsatdefiningenlightenmentdidlittletodispelthecon-fusionthat
had grown uparound theterm.Looking back over the literature
Zollner'squestionhadspawned,theauthorof ananonymous1790article
intheDeutscheMonatsschriflarguedthatthetermhadbecomesodivorced
fromanyclearconventionsof usagethatdiscussionsof ithaddegenerated
into"awarofallagainstall,"betweencombatantswhomarshaledtheir
ownidiosyncraticdefinitions. 12Thelackofacleardefinitionoftheterm
can in part beattributed tothe way the grounds of the debateshifted
in the
courseofthediscussion.Atfirst,thequestion"Whatisenlightenment?"
centeredontheissueof howmuchenlightenment of thecitizenry
waspos-sibleor desirableand,moreconcretely,on
whetherafurtherliberalization ofcensorshipregulationswasadvisable.
13Thesequestionstookonanew urgency inthesecond phaseof
thedebate,whichcommenced with Johann
ChristophWoellner'sReligionandCensorshipedictsof1788.Thedebate on
censorshipwasnowintimately intertwined withthequestionof
thepos-sibletensionsbetweenenlightenmentand faith.14
Finally,withtheoutbreak of theFrench Revolution-and especially
after theexecutionof LouisXVI in January1793-the
discussionwasextendedtoencompassthequestion of
whetherenlightenmentnecessarilyunderminedpublicauthority and led
topoliticalturmoil. 15Thusbythecloseof
theeighteenthcentury,answer-ingthequestion"Whatisenlightenment?"meantexploringtherelation-shipbetween
public discussion,religiousfaith,and political authority.
ThePublicUseof Reason
ItisdoubtfulthatZollnerwasasconfusedaboutthemeaningofAujkliir-ungashisarticleimplied.LikeMendelssohn,Zollnerwasamemberof
the INTRODUCTION3 Mittwochsgesellschaft,asecretsocietyof"Friendsof
theEnlightenment" closelylinkedtotheBerlinischeMonatsschrifl. 16
On17December1783-the monthof Zollner'srequestforadefinition-J. K.
W.Mohsenreadapaper
tothesocietyonthequestion"Whatistobedonetowardstheenlighten-mentof
fellowcitizens?"whichurgedmemberstodetermine"what
isen-lightenment."
17Discussionofthetopiccontinuedoverthenextseveral
months,withMendelssohndeliveringalectureinMay1784thatservedas
thebasisof hissubsequentarticleintheBerlinischeMonatsschrifl.
18Zollner's footnotewasthuslessatestimonytohisignoranceof
thetermthantothe intenseinterestinthequestionwithinthesmall group
of influentialmenof letters, jurists,and civilservants whomadeup
theMittwochsgesellschaft.
TheMittwochsgesellschaftwasarecentadditiontothehostofsecret
societiesthatflourishedinPrussiaandtheotherGermanstatesinthelast
half of theeighteenth century. 19Such societiessatisfiedanumber of
needs. In an agein which many individuals no longer foundmeaning
intherituals of orthodox religion,theceremonies
associatedwithsomeof thesesocieties
maywellhaveprovidedanappealingandpowerfulsubstitute.20
Inapo-liticalsystemthatofferedfewopportunitiesfortheexerciseofpolitical
agency outside of thebureaucratic structureof the monarchical
state, many
ofthesesocietiesfurnishedanarenainwhichpoliticalopinionscouldbe
debatedandprogramsforreformarticulated.21Andfinally,inasociety
withastrictly definedsocialhierarchy,secretsocietiesprovided
asetting in which members of differentreligions,professional
groups,and socialclasses could come into contact with one another
and find a fellowship and solidarity that
wasnotavailableinthepublicrealm. 22 AsMohsennotedattheclose of
histalk,themembersof theMittwochsgesellschaftcouldcarry outtheir
responsibilitiesas"well-intentionedpatriots"onlybecause"thesealof
se-crecy"protectedthemfromboththefearofoffendingpatronsandthe
"thirst forhonor or praise."23
InhislecturetotheMittwochsgesellschaft,Mohsenwasfarfromsan-guineaboutthefutureprospectsforenlightenmentinPrussia.Whilehe
began by hailingthetriumphof enlightenmentinBerlin,herather quickly
suggested that one of themost crucial tasksfacingthe
Mittwochsgesellschaft wastodetermine whytheidealsof
theEnlightenment had beenresistedby
muchofthepublic.Behindthequestion"Whatisenlightenment?"stood the
more troubling question of "why enlightenment hasnot progressed
very farwithourpublic,despitemorethanfortyyearsof freedomtothink,to
speak,andalsotopublish."24 The"fortyyears"of whichMohsenspeaks
referstothereignof Frederick theGreat,whohad begunhisreignwith an
easingofcensorshiplawsandatolerationof divergentviewsonreligious
questions.Politicaldissent,however,waslesswelcomeandasGotthold
EphraimLessingbitterlyobserved,allthatFrederick's' r e f o r ~
sultimately
amountedtowasthefreedom"tomakeasmanyidioticremarksagainst 4
INTRODUCTION
religionasonewants."ContrastingwhatcouldbesaidinPrussiaabout
politicalissueswithwhatwasbeingwritteninVienna,France,andDen-mark,Lessingconcluded
that Frederick ruledover"the mostenslavedland in Europe."25 By
the1780s,calls foraloosening of censorship had begun to
appearinthepress,includingananonymousessay(subsequentlydeter-mined
tohavebeen written by the jurist and Mittwochsgesellschaftmember
ErnstFriedrichKlein)publishedintheBerlinischeMonatsschriftinwhichthe
author,speakinginwordstakenfromthewritingsof theyoungFrederick,
implicitlycriticizedFrederick'scurrentpoliciesbysubtlyurgingtheaging
monarch to followtheexampleof his younger self. 26
Mi:ihsen'slecturelaunched adebatewithintheMittwochsgesellschafton
howfartheremovalofrestrictionsonthefreedomofpressshouldpro-ceed. 27
Atissuewastheconcernthatafreeandunrestricteddiscussionof
religious,moral,andpoliticalconcernsmightunderminetheconventional
moresand beliefson which society rested.Somemembers feltthat
thedan-gersassociatedwithtoorapidan"enlightenment"of thepublic
wereover-stated.Mendelssohnremindedthefaintheartedthat"whenweighingthe
advantagesanddisadvantagesbroughtaboutbyenlightenmentandthe
revolutionswhichhavearisenfromit,oneshoulddifferentiatebetweenthe
firstyearsof acrisisand thetimeswhich follow.Theformeraresometimes
only seemingly dangerous and are the grounds for improvement." Even
if one concededthat"certain
prejudices,heldbythenation,mustonaccountof circumstances be spared
by all judicious men," Mendelssohn askedwhether
thisdeferencetoprejudicesshould"besetthroughlawandcensors"or
whether,like"thelimitsof
prosperity,gratitude,andsincerity,"itshould
be"lefttothediscretionofeveryindividual."Heclosedhisrejoinderby
notingthatrecentlytheMontgolfierbrothershadmadethefirstsuccessful
hot-airballoonflight.Eventhoughitwasuncertainwhetherthe"great
upheaval"causedbytheirachievementwouldleadto"thebettermentof
humansociety,"Mendelssohnaskedthemembership,"Wouldoneon accountof
thishesitatetopromoteprogress?"Answeringhisownquestion
heconcluded,"Thediscoveryofeternaltruthsisinandforitselfgood; their
controlisamatter forProvidence. "28 WhileMendelssohn's arguments
wereseconded by many in thesociety/9 others weremore wary: The
jurist Klein was willing toconcede that, in
gen-eral,"everytruthisusefulandeveryerrorharmful."Buthealsoinsisted
thatitwasnecessarytoconsiderthepracticalimpactof enlightenmenton
different groups within society.Because it issometimes difficult
toassimilate
individual,isolatedtruths,thesetruthswillremainunconvincingandwith-out
effect.It isthus possiblethat "for acertain classof men,acertain
error canservetobringthemtoahigherconceptof thingswhichareworthyof
greaterattention."Insuchcases,a"useful error"willdomoretopromote
thepublicgoodthanthetruth. 3oCarlGottliebSvarez,Klein'scolleaguein
INTRODUCTION5
theMinistryofJustice,agreed,notingthatthemoralityofthegeneral
publicrestsonbeliefsthatare"uncertain,doubtful,or completely
wrong," andsuggestedthatenlightenmentisdangerouswhenit"takesfromthe
peoplethesemotivesof ethicallygoodbehaviorandsubstitutesnoother."
Insuchcases,"oneadvancesnotenlightenmentbut ratheracorruptionof
morality. "31 Thetensionbetweentheagendaof
enlightenmentandtheexigenciesof societyliesattheheartof
theessaysMendelssohnandKantwroteinre-sponsetoZollner'squestion.WhileMendelssohn'sinitialresponsetoMi:ih-sen'slecturebetrayed
fewreservationsabout theconsequencesof increased
enlightenment,hisessay intheBerlinischeMonatsschriftwas
lessconfident.He
distinguished"civilenlightenment"(Biirgeraujkliirung),whichmustadjustit-self
accordingtotheranksof society itaddresses,from"human
enlighten-ment"(Menschenazifkliirung),which,addressing"man
asman"andnot"man
ascitizen,"paidheedneithertosocialdistinctionsnortothemaintenance
of socialorder.Nothingensuresthatthesetwotypesof enlightenmentwill
complement oneanother."Certain truths,"henoted,"whichareusefulto
man,asman,can at timesbeharmful to himascitizen."32 In ashort
article publishedayear later in
theBerlinischeMonatsschrift,hewaseven moreleery
oftheabusivetoneofsomeof hiscontemporaries'commentsonreligion.
"Nothingismoreopposedtothetruegoodofmankind,"hecautioned,
"thanthisshamenlightenment,whereeveryonemouthsahackneyedwis-dom,fromwhichthespirithasalready
long
vanished,whereeveryonerid-iculesprejudices,withoutdistinguishingwhatistrueinthemfromwhat
isfalse. "33 Inhisresponsetothequestion,Kant
soughttobalancethedemandsof enlightenedreasonandcivilorderby
distinguishingbetween"public"and "private"usesof reason-a
distinctionthat has puzzledreaders forthe last two centuries. 34 By
"public" use,Kant meant that "use which anyone makes of itasa
scholar[Gelehrter]beforetheentire publicof thereadingworld."Itis
contrastedtothat"private"usewhichindividualsmakeof theirreasonin
thosespecificcivilpostsorofficesthathavebeenentrustedtothem. 35 In
one'sprivateuseof
reason,onebehaves"passively,"boundbyan"artifi-cialunanimity"toadvanceortodefendcertain"publicends."Onefunc-tionsas"part
of amachine,"and"one iscertainlynotallowedtoargue."
Incontrast,inone'spublicuseofreason,oneactsas"amemberofthe
entirecommonwealth[ganzesgemeinenWesen],indeedevenofacosmopoli-tan
society[ Weltbiirgergesellschajt]."Here anindividual"can certainly
argue, withouttherebyharmingtheaffairsinwhichheisengagedinpartasa
passivemember."Restrictionsontheprivateuseof reasoninnoway
con-tradict thegoal of enlightenment,but thepublic useof reason
must remain free,since"it alonecan bring aboutenlightenmentamong
men."36 WhileMendelssohnwaswillingtoconcedethattheremightbecertain
6 INTRODUCTION
unhappycircumstancesinwhichphilosophymustremainsilentlestitpose
athreattopublicorder,Kantwasuncompromisinginhisinsistencethat
thepublicexerciseofreasonshouldneverberestricted.Examiningthe
questionofwhetheritmightbepossiblefora"societyofclergymen"to
commititselfbyoathtoanunalterablesetofdoctrines,Kantanswered
decisively:
Isaythatthisiscompletelyimpossible.Suchacontract,concludedforthe
purposeof closingoff foreverallfurtherenlightenment of
thehumanrace,is utterlynullandvoidevenif
itshouldbeconfirmedbythehighestpower,by Imperial Diets,and
bythemostsolemnpeacetreaties." Anattempttorequireconformity
toafixedsetof doctrinesisvoidbecause
itfailsthetestthatanyproposedlegislationmustpassifitistobelegit-imate.Invoking
hisreformulation of social contract theory,Kant explained, "The
touchstoneof everything thatcanbeconcludedasalaw forapeople
liesinthequestion:couldapeoplehaveimposedsuchalawuponitself?" When
weapplythistesttotheproposal torestrictreligiousbelief toafixed
setofdoctrines,wefindthatwhileitmightbepossibleforapeopleto
agreetosuchrestrictionsonfreeinquiryforashortperiodoftime,"in
ordertointroduceacertainorder,asitwere,inexpectationof something
better"eveninthiscaseindividuals-"asscholars"-wouldstillretaina
righttoputforwardalternativeviewsinwriting. 38 Thuswhileindividual
religiousconfessionsmightrequiretheirmemberstoconformtoafixedset
ofdoctrines,itwouldbeabsolutelyimpermissibleforthestatetouseits
coercivepowertopreventthecriticismofthesedoctrinesinbooksand
articles. Faithand Reason Thesediscussionsof thequestionof
thelimitsof enlightenmentwereonly
thepreludetotheimpassioneddebateoncensorshipsparkedbyan abrupt
changeinPrussianpolicyregardingfreedomofexpression.FrederickII
diedinAugust1786andwassucceededbyhisnephew,FrederickWilliam
II,whoseascenttothethronepromptedconsiderableanxietywithinthe
BerlinEnlightenment.39 Intheearly1780s,FrederickWilliamhadbeen
drawn toChristian mysticismand wasincreasingly influenced by
opponents
oftheEnlightenmentsuchashismosttrustedadviser,JohannChristoph
Woellner.40 The year beforeFrederick Williambecameking,Woellnersent
himatreatiseon religionthat stressedtheimportanceof Christian
faithfor
supportingthePrussianstate,denouncedthemalevolentinfluenceof such
"apostlesofunbelief"asFriedrichGedikeand JohannErichBiester,the
publishersof
theBerlinischeMonatsschrijt,andcalledforthereplacementof K.
A.Zedlitz,theenlightenedheadofthePrussianEcclesiasticalDepart-ment.'1Woellner
did not shrink fromcriticizing Frederick himself,charging
INTRODUCTION7
thatFrederick'spublicdisplayofhislackofreligiousfaithwasthechief
causeof theirreligionand unbelief that wasrifeinBerlin.42
ThefirstSunday afterhisascenttothethrone,FrederickWilliammade
itclearthatheintendedtosetadifferentexamplefromthatof
hisprede-cessor.Heattended servicesat theMarienkirche,
fromwhosepulpit Zollner
deliveredoneofhistypicallyunorthodoxandenlightenedsermons.Itis
unlikelythatFrederickWilliamwaspleasedbywhatheheard,norcould
subsequent visitstothechurches where Johann Joachim Spalding and
Frie-drichSamuelGottfriedSackpreachedhavemadehimanymorecomfort-ablewiththereligiousteachingthathadflourishedduringFrederick's
reign.43 Zollner, Spalding, Sack, and other enlightened members of
the Berlin
clergyembracedanapproachtoChristiandoctrineknownas"neology"
thatcombinedhistoricalandcriticalapproachestotheinterpretationof
Scripturewithanemphasisontheprimacyofthemoralandpractical
dimensionsofChristianteaching. 44 Whiletheycontinuedtomaintainthe
importanceof revelationasthebasisforChristian faith,theyassumedthat
thedoctrinalcontentof
thisrevelationcontainednothingbeyondthefun-damentaltenetsof
"naturalreligion"andhencewascompletelyaccessible
tonaturalhumanreason.Anypartof
theScripturesthatpresentedprob-lemsforthem-for
example,suchdoctrinesasoriginalsin,eternal
punish-ment,orpredestination-wasshownthroughhistoricalandphilological
criticismtobeof
dubiousauthenticityandwastypicallyavoidedasasub-jectforsermons.45
Theysawnoconflictbetweenenlightenedreasonand
Christianfaith:enlightenmentbattledsuperstition,fanaticism,andpreju-dice-and,
properly understood,Christianity had nothing todo with
super-stition,fanaticism,orprejudice.Thegoaloftheirpreachingandwriting
wastopurgesuchmisconceptionsfromthemindsof thefaithfulandinstill
asenseofmoralrectitudeandsocialresponsibilitythatoftenextendedto
such political mattersastheloyalty of subjectstotheCrown.46
Whileneologistsmayhaveseennoconflictbetweenenlightenedreason
andChristianfaith,whenpushedfarenough,theirattemptto"purify"
Christianfaithcouldleadtoconclusionsthatwereantitheticaltoconven-tional
Christian teaching.Few pushed harder than Hermann Samuel
Reima-rusandCarlFriedrichBahrdt.Reimarus'smassiveApology
fortheRational Worshipersif God,fragments of which were published
by Lessing after
Reima-rus'sdeath,arguedthatrevelationcouldaddnothingtowhatwasalready
knownthroughnaturalhumanreasonYHecalledintoquestionthehistor-icalveracityofthebiblicalnarrativeandexploredtheinternalcontra-dictionsintheaccountofChrist'sresurrection.Jesus'teachingwasdis-tinguishedfromthatof
hisdisciples,whoinReimarus'sviewtransformed
whathadbeenanattempttorevitalizeJudaismintoanewreligioncen-teredontheimageof
Jesusassaviorof theentirehumanrace.Theresult
ofReimarus'scritique,inHenryE.Allison'spithysummary,wasthat 8
INTRODUCTION ''Jesusbecomesregardedasawellmeaning,butdeluded
fanatic,theapos-tlescleverandself-seekingdeceivers,andtheChristianreligionacolossal
fraud."48 Inmuchthesamespirit,between1782and1785Bahrdtpublisheda
seriesofwidelyreadarticlesrecountingthelifeof Jesusinathoroughly
rationalizedfashion.49 ConvincedbyJohannAugustEberhardthatthere
wasnothinginChrist'steachingthatwasnotalreadypresentinSocrates
andpersuadedthataprocessofmythologizationsimilartowhatGedike
foundinstoriessurroundingSocrates'birthmustbeatworkintheNew
Testament,BahrdtpresentedaJesuswhoseintentionswereconfinedto
removing superstition andprejudicefrom Judaism.Hespeculatedthat asa
boy Jesushad been instructedinSocrates'teachingsby agroupof
Alexan-drianJews,fromwhomhealsolearnedtousemedicationscapableof
awakeningindividualsindeathlikecomas-hencetheexplanationforthe
"miracles"heallegedlyperformed.Bahrdt'sChristfoundedasecretsoci-ety,whichliketheMasonicmovementwasdedicatedtothespreadof
rationalfaithandbrotherhood.Itsmembersnursedhimbacktohealth
afterhisnear-fatalencounterwiththecross.Afterafewsubsequentap-pearancesbeforehisfollowers,hewithdrewtospendtherestof
hislifein asecret lodge,where fromtimetotimeheadvisedSaint Paul. 5
Inthefaceofwritingssuchasthese,itislittlewonderthatW oellner
regarded enlightenment asathreat to thereligiousfabricthat held
Prussian
societytogether.ButoppositiontoBahrdtcouldalsobefoundamongless
reactionary thinkers.For example,the moderateFriedrichKarl von
Moser, appalledbyBahrdt'sNewTestamenttranslationof1773,succeededin
havinghimremovedfromhisteachingpositionatGiessen. 51 Moserwas
wellknownasan advocateof enlightenedabsolutism and
constitutionalism,
andinhiswritingshesoughttostrikeamiddlecoursebetweenenlighten-mentandorthodoxy.Atpainstodistinguish"trueenlightenment"from
"falseenlightenment,"heinsistedthat"allenlightenmentthatisnot
groundedinandsupportedbyreligion ...
isnotonlythewaytodestruc-tion,immorality,anddepravity,butalsotothedissolutionandruinof
all civilsociety,andtoawarof
thehumanracewithinitself,thatbeginswith
philosophyandendswithscalpingandcannibalism."52 Moserarguedthat
whenenlightenment"takesfrommanwhatherequiresforcomfort,light,
support,and peace"or"wishestogivehimmorethanhecan use,employ,
andmanageaccordingtohispowersofintellectandunderstanding,"it
turnsintotheveryenemiesitsoughttothwart.Itbecomes"deception,
fraud,fanaticism[Schwiirmerei],treachery against man. "53
DespiteWoellner'srevulsionagainsttheEnlightenment,thefirsttwo
yearsof Frederick
William'sreignweredifficulttodistinguishfromthatof hisuncle.54
Thebreak cameonlyafter
Woellnerhadconsolidatedhisposi-tionwithinthecourt,eventuallyreplacingZedlitzasministerof
justiceon INTRODUCTION9 3 July1788 and assuming responsibility over
the EcclesiasticalDepartment.
SixdayslaterheissuedhisReligionEdict,whichcriticizedProtestant
clergyforreviving"themiserable,long-refutederrorsoftheSocinians,
deists,naturalists,andother sectarians"anddisseminating them among
the
peopleinthenameof''Aujkliirung."Whileallowingclergytobelievepri-vatelywhatevertheywished,theedictrequiredadherencetotheBible
andthe"symbolicbooks"intheirteaching.Those"so-calledenlighteners
[Aujkliirer]"whorefusedtoconformwerethreatenedwithdismissal,and
futurecandidatesforpastoralandteachingpositionsweretobecarefully
scrutinized sothat there would benodoubts astotheir "internal
adherence to thecreed they areemployed toteach. "55
ThereactiontoWoellner'sedict wasimmediateand intense.Prominent
membersoftheBerlinclergyincludingWilliamAbrahamTeller,Sack,
Spalding, and Zollner requested that their preaching
responsibilitiesbeter-minated,andinSeptember1789fiveofthesixclericalmembersofthe
Lutheran UpperConsistory resignedtheir positionsinprotest.56
Afloodof pamphletsdenouncedtheedict. 57 In oneof themostwidelyread
polemics, AndreasRiem,co-editorof
theBerlinischesJournalderAujkliirungandpastor at
theFriedrichshospital,launchedapassionateattackonthecentral
assump-tion behind the edict-that restrictions on the spread of
enlightenment were
necessaryinordertopreventanunderminingofthecustomaryreligious
faiththatsecurespublicorder. 58
Listingtheatrocitiesspawnedbyreligious
fanaticism,Riemarguedthatitwasenlightenmentratherthanreligious
orthodoxy that provided themost secure foundation forpolitical
rule.Riem publishedhispamphlet anonymously but
wassoonidentifiedastheauthor.
StatingthathecouldnotabidebytheprovisionsofWoellner'sReligion Edict
because they would forcehim toteach doctrines that-since they
con-tradicted what could beknownonthebasisof pure reason-were
contrary tohisown convictions,heresigned hisposition at
theFriedrichshospital.
Tosilencecritics,WoellnerissuedtheCensorshipEdictinDecember
1788,whichstipulatedthatwritingsonreligiousmattershadtobesub-mittedtoacommissionforapproval.
59 Whilethismeasuredidforcethe BerlinischeMonatsschriftandFriedrich
Nicolai's AllgemeineDeutscheBibliothekto
leaveBerlin,prosecutionsundertheedictproveddifficult,sincemostcen-sorsweredrawnfromthesameenlightenedgroupof
councillorswhohad opposed W oellner' s ReligionEdict in the
firstplace. 60 Inthehopeof
secur-ingamoreenergeticenforcementoftheReligionandCensorshipedicts,
Woellner establishedthe Summary Commission of Inquiry
(lmmediat-Exami-nations-Kommission)inMay1791,entrustedwiththetaskof
examiningthe fitnessof clergy and teachersaswellaswith
theresponsibility forcensoring theologicalbooks.But
heretoohisactionsmet withconsiderableand often
successfulopposition,andwhateverhopehemighthavehadforadecisive
victory over thepartisans of enlightenment remained frustrated. 61
AsMoser 10 INTRODUCTION observed fouryears later,enlightenment had
advanced too fartobeturned back."The
timeshavepassed,anditistoolatetotry toshutoutthelight.
Thelongeritgoeson,themoreitcomestothis:whetherthislightshould only
illuminate and enlighten[leuchtenund erleuchten]or ignite and
inflame?"62 Attemptstopreservepublicorder by restraining
thefreedomof expression
madeasmuchsenseastryingto"pavethemeadows,sothatmolescould not harm
them. "63
Nevertheless,Woellner'seffortswerenotentirelywithoutconsequence.
Bahrdt wasbrieflyimprisonedinthefortressatMagdeburg forhissatirical
farce,DasReligions-Edikt;RiemwasexiledfromPrussiain1793forhispo-liticalcriticismsoftheregime;and,inprobablythemostfamouscase,
afterthepublicationofReligionwithintheLimitsof
ReasonAlone,Frederick
WilliamthreatenedKantwithfuture"unpleasantmeasures"shouldhe
continueto"misuse"hisphilosophyto"distort and disparagemanyof the
cardinalandbasicteachingsof theHolyScripturesandof Christianity.
"64
NorshoulditbeassumedthatWoellner'seffortsmetwithuniversalcon-demnation,evenamongenlightenedintelligentsia.ShortlybeforeJohann
GottliebFichtewrotehis"ReclamationoftheFreedomofThoughtfrom
thePrincesofEurope"-animpassioneddefenseofthefreedomofthe
press-hedraftedashortdefenseof Woellner'sedicts,arguingthatthey
wereaimedonlyatabusesof freedomofexpressionthatunderminedthe
faithof thecommonpeople.65 ItwasonlyafterhisownCritiqueof All
Reve-lationwascensoredinHallethatFichterevisedhisviewsand,drawingon
argumentsfromsocialcontracttheory,mountedoneofthemostt ~ e o r e t
ically ambitious of eighteenth-century defensesof freedom of
expressiOn. Fichte's vacillationislesspuzzling thanitmay initially
appear.It should
berememberedthattheinstitutionofcensorshipwasbynomeansanath-ematoallpartisansof
enlightenment.There wasawidespreadrecognition
thattheenlightenmentofthecitizenrymustbesensitivetotheparticular
requirementsofthedifferingestateswithinsociety. 66 Inhiscommentson
Mohsen'slecturetotheMittwochsgesellschaft,Gedikestressedthaten-lightenmentwasa"relative"conceptdifferentiatedaccordingtosuchcri-teriaas"place,time,rank,sex.""Thoroughgoingequalityofenlighten-ment,"heassuredhisfellowmembers,"isaslittledesirableasfullequality
ofranks,andfortunatelyjustasimpossible."67 Becauseenlightenmentis
differentiatedaccordingtothedifferingranksinsociety,itfallstothecen-sor
to determine, in Svarez's words,"the degree of enlightenment of
powers ofcomprehension,ofcapacitiesofthoughtandaction,andof
expressive capabilities"appropriatetoeachclass.68
HencewhileSvarezexpressedan admiration forthe efforts of his
colleaguestorefineand rationalize morality
andreligion,heneverthelesshopedthattheywould"notseektoexplain away
anddefineaway hellandthedevil,intheusualsenseof thesewords,
fromtheheartofthecommonman."69
ThemembersoftheMittwochs-INTRODUCTION11 gesellschaftand W
oellneragreedon at leastthismuch:customary religious
beliefswereanindispensablemeansofmaintainingthecoherenceof civil
society. 7he Politicsif Enlightenment
After1789,anewelemententeredintothediscussionofthequestion
"Whatisenlightenment?" -the
problemoftherelationshipbetweenen-lightenmentandrevolution.TheFrenchRevolutionmarkedtheculmina-tionofacenturyofpoliticalupheavalsthatbeganinEnglandwiththe
"GloriousRevolution"of1688andcontinuedwithuprisingsinHolland
(1747andagainin1787),Corsica(1755and1793),Geneva(1768and
1781-1782),theAmericancolonies(1775-1783),London(1780),Ireland
(1780-1785),Bohemia(1783),theAustrianNetherlands(1788-1790),and
Poland(1791).Writingin1794,Kant'sdisciple,JohannHeinrichTief-trunk,observed,"Wenowliveinacenturyof
enlightenment.Shouldthis be said tobean honor or adisgraceforour
century?Wealsoliveinacen-turyofrevolutions.Isitenlightenmentwhichcurrentlyunderminesthe
peace of states?"70 Thepossibilitythat toomuchor
toorapidanenlighten-mentofthecitizenrymightrendthesocialfabrichadhauntedconsid-erationsofthequestion"Whatisenlightenment?"fromtheoutset.But
after thesummer of1792,asthenews fromFrancebecamemoreand more
disturbing and with French armiesadvancing intotheRhineland,it
seemed asif theworst fearsabout enlightenment werebeing confirmed
daily. Between1792and1793,theRevolutionentereditsmostradicalphase.
InAugust1792,LouisXVIwasdeposedandarevolutionaryrepublices-tablished.Massarrestsofroyalistsympathizersfollowed,manyofwhom
wereamongthehundredsof prisonersslaughtered whenmobsenteredthe
prisons during the"September Massacres."The newly established
National
ConventioninitiatedtreasonproceedingsagainstLouis,andhewasexe-cutedin
January1793.Bythesummerof1793,the Jacobinshadcrushed
theGirondistopposition,andtheCommitteeonPublicSafety inaugurated
theReignofTerroragainstsuspectedopponents.AnoticeinanAugust l
793issueof
theOberdeutscheAllgemeineLiteraturzeitung,themostprominent
journaloftheCatholicenlightenmentinAustria,suggestshowdisturbing
thisturnofeventsmusthavebeenforthosewhosupportedthecauseof
enlightenment.
Theempireofignoranceandsuperstitionwasmovingcloserandcloserto-wardsitscollapse,thelightof
theAujkliirungmademoreandmoreprogress, and the convulsive gestures
with which thecreatures of the night howled at the dawning day
showedclearly enough that they themselvesdespaired of victory
andwereonlysummoninguptheirreservesforonefinaldementedcounter-attack.ThenthedisordersinFranceerupted:andnowtheyrearedagain
theiremptyheadsandscreechedatthetopsof theirvoices:"Lookthereat
12INTRODUCTION
theshockingresultsoftheAujkliirung!Lookthereatthephilosophers,the
preachersof sedition!"Everyoneseizedthismagnificentopportunity
tospray their poisonat thesupporters of the
Aujkliirung.11Asrevolutionturnedtoterror,conservativecriticsofenlightenmentwere
transformed,inT. C. W.Blanning'swords,"fromoutmodedalarmistsinto
farsightedprophets. "72
TheideathatthereisaconnectionbetweentheEnlightenmentandthe
FrenchRevolutionisbynowsofamiliarthatitisdifficulttoimaginehow
troublingtherelationmusthaveseemedintheearly1790s.73 Becausewe
tendtoassumeanaturalaffinitybetweentheEnlightenmentandliberal
politics,weforgetthatmanyAujklii.rerswerenotliberals,thatsomeofthe
moreardent liberalswereby nomeans welldisposedtoward
theEnlighten-ment,andthatitwasbynomeansassumedthat
politicalrevolutionwasa means foradvancing thecauseof enlightened
political reforms.In the years immediately following1789,agood deal
needed to besorted out. If liberalismisdefinedasaconceptionof
politicsthatgivespriorityto
"rights"overthe"good"andholdsthatthechiefendofthestateisto
secureindividual liberty ratherthantoattain publichappiness,then
fewof
theleadingfiguresintheBerlinEnlightenmentcouldbeclassifiedaslib-erals.74TheyacceptedChristianWolff'sviewthatitwasthedutyofthe
statetoundertakemeasuresthatwouldfurtherthecommonwell-beingof
itscitizensandviewedaslegitimatethepolicepowersthatthestateexer-cisedoverthematerialandspirituallivesofitscitizensinpursuitofthis
goal.
75Kantinsisted,inanessaypublishedintheBerlinischeMonatsschrifiin
September1793,thata"paternalgovernment,"establishedontheprin-cipleof"benevolence"towarditspeople,represented"thegreatestcon-ceivabledespotism"andcalledinsteadfora"patrioticgovernment"inwhich
each citizen waspledged todefendtheindividual's right toliberty. 76
But his rejectionof "public well-being"asthepropergoalof
politicswasasnovel ashisrejectionof happinessasthefoundationof
moralphilosophy.Men-delssohnwasclosertothenorm.SolidlybasedonWolffandhearkening
back toAristotle,hesawtheultimate purposeof political
lifeasresiding in
thegreatestpossibleexpansionofthecapacitiesofitscitizenry.Sucha
conception of politics waswilling toaccept adegreeof
stateintervention in the livesof itscitizenry that Kant
wouldhaverejected as"paternalistic. "77
Justasitwaspossibleineighteenth-centuryPrussiatoembraceenlight-enmentbut
eschewliberalism,sotooitwaspossibletoadvocateliberalism
whileattackingenlightenment.Nothinkerdemonstratedthisbetterthan
FriedrichHeinrich Jacobi.Hisreadingof DavidHumeandThomasReid
convincedhimthatreasoncannotattaincertaintyabouttheexistenceof
externalobjects.Our experienceof suchobjects,heargued,takestheform
of arevelationthatiscompletelybeyondargument,whichhedescribedas
INTRODUCTION13 "faith. "78 Carryingthisdichotomy
betweenthespheresof faithand knowl-edgeintothedomain of
theology,herejected theneological project of
rec-oncilingfaithandreason,insistingthatreasonalonecanneverleadusto
certaintyofGod'sexistence.InhisfamousdiscussionswithLessingthat
sparkedthe"PantheismDispute,"hearguedthatSpinoza'sphilosophy
demonstratedthatanyattempttoproceedonthebasisofreasonalone
inevitablyresultedinacompletelydeterministicandfatalisticsystemthat
deniedboththepossibilityof humanfreedomandtheexistenceofaper-sonal
divinity.
79Jacobi'sdisgustwiththeBerlinEnlightenment-whichhedubbedthe
"morgueberlinoise"andwhosemembers'"magisterial,self-satisfieddemean-our"hedespised80-extended
toitspolitics.Appalledby"thestupidityof peoplewhoinour
centuryregardsuperstitionasmoredangerousthanthe growingpowerof
unrestrainedautocracy,"hewasoneof theearliestand most vigorous
advocates of liberalism in Germany.81His1782essay
"Some-thingLessingSaid"arguedthatcivilsocietywas"amechanismofcoer-cion"whosefunctionshouldbesimply"tosecureforeverymemberhis
inviolableproperty in hisperson,thefreeuseof allhispowers,and
thefull enjoymentof thefruitsof theiremployment. "82 Attemptsto
justify amore extensivestateinterventioninthelivesof
itscitizens-whether justifiedby appealsto"interestsof
state"orthe"welfareof thewhole"-led onlyto "theadvancementof
self-interest,money-grubbing,indolence;ofastupid admirationof
wealth,of rank,and of
power;ablindunsavorysubmissive-ness;andananxietyandfearwhichallowsnozealandtendstowardthe
most servileobedience. "83
TheresponseofGermanthinkerstotheFrenchRevolutiontendedto
traceacoursethatranfromearlyenthusiasmtosubsequentdisillusion-ment,althoughthereareenoughexceptionstomakethisagrossgeneral-izationatbest.Itwaspossibleforasupporterofenlightenedabsolutism
suchasEwaldFriedrich vonHertzberg,whoservedintheforeignministry
ofbothFrederickandhissuccessorinadditiontopursuingacareerasa
manoflettersinhisroleascuratoroftheBerlinAcademy,towelcome
theFrenchRevolution whiledefending thePrussianmonarchy.Heinsisted
thatwhiletheFrenchmonarchywasdespoticandruledwithoutrestraint,
Prussianmonarchswererestrainedbyancientrightsandcorporativepriv-ileges.84AslongastherevolutioninFranceappearedtobenothingmore
than an attempt toset constitutional limitations on themonarch,it
could be viewedaslittlemorethanan efforttobring about astateof
affairsthat had long existedin Prussia.It wasonly when it became
clear that theinstitution of themonarchy itself wasunder
attackthattheRevolutionbecamesome-thing moretroubling.
Foratleastsomesupportersof
theEnlightenment,theideaofrevolu-tionitself
wassuspect.WritingayearbeforetheRevolution,Riemviewed
14INTRODUCTION
the"PatriotRebellion"inHollandastheworkof"unenlighteneddem-agogues"andheldthattheAmericanRevolutionwasamisfortunethat
couldhavebeenavoidedhadtherebeenmoreenlightenedleadershipin England
and thecolonies. 85Tieftrunk cametomuch thesameconclusionin
his1794essay,"OntheInfluenceofEnlightenmentonRevolutions."Far
frompromotingviolentrevolutions,heargued,"trueenlightenment ... is
...
theonlywaytoworkagainstthemsuccessfully."Enlightenmentin-structscitizenstoobeytheirprincesandteachesprinceshowtoimprove
theirnations.Thethreattopublicordercomesfroma"pseudoenlighten-ment"that"mocks,doubts,andspeakswitharrogantself-assuranceabout
everythingothersholdsacredandvenerable."Itisthis"pseudoenlighten-ment"thatmustbeartheblameforeventsinFrance.ForifFrancehad
been"truly enlightened,"it"wouldeitherneverhavebegunitsrevolution
or elsecertainly havecarried itout better."86
JohannAdamBergk,ayoungerandmorepoliticallyradicalfollowerof Kant
than Tieftrunk,cametodifferentconclusions inhisI 795essay,"Does
EnlightenmentCauseRevolutions?"ForBergk,revolutions-which
hedis-tinguishedfrom"insurrections"byisolatedindividualsandfrom"rebel-lions"byamajority-couldoccuronlyif
the"moralenlightenment"of a
peoplehadevolvedtothepointwheretheywerecapableofrecogniz-ingrightsandduties.Mere"speculativeenlightenment"wouldproduce,at
best,a"cunning,clever,refined,selfish,and stillcowardly"nation
that,out
offearofviolence,"quietlyenduresallinsultstoitsinalienablerights."
This,Bergkargued,wasthestateof EuropebeforetheFrenchRevolution. In
theFrenchRevolution-and,equally important,inKant's moral
philos-ophy-Bergk sawevidenceof atransitiontoanew levelof
moraldevelop-ment.87Now it waspossibleforpeoplestodemandthat
materialconditions "correspondwiththepronouncementsof
conscience,"and"ifthenation
recognizesorsensestheinjusticesthatburdenitandmockitshumanity,
thenarevolutionisunavoidable."Enlightenmentthusstands"justlyac-cusedasthecauseofrevolutions."Buttherecanbenoquestionofre-strainingenlightenment,since"onceenlightenmentspreadsitsrootsina
nation,itiseasiertoexterminatemankindthantoexterminateenlighten-ment."""Hisadvicetorulerswhosoughttoavoidrevolutionswassimple
enough:"Donotworryaboutthewelfareoftheworld;youdonotknow
whatyouwant.Onethingisdemandedof you:todowhatisright."89 For
Bergk,theageofrevolutionsandtheageofenlightenmentledtoacom-mongoal:astatethatrejectedthepaternalisticconcernwithimprovingits
citizenry and instead dedicated itself tothepreservation of
liberty.
Kant'sparadoxicalstancetowardtheFrenchRevolutioniswellknown:
heopposed revolutionson principlebut regardedtheFrench Revolutionas
evidenceofthemoralimprovementofthehumanrace.90 His1793essay, "On
theCommonSaying:'ThisMayBeTrueinTheory,butItDoesNot INTRODUCTION15
ApplyinPractice,'"rejectedthenotionof a"righttorevolution"largely
onthegroundsthatsucharightistypicallyestablishedbyinvokingthe
principleof happiness astheend forwhich civilsocietyisfounded.
91Yet in hismostextendedtreatmentof theFrenchRevolution-the second
part of TheConflictof theFaculties- Kant argued that the"wishful
participationthat
bordersalmostonenthusiasm"thatgreetedtheFrenchRevolutioncon-stitutesa"sign"withinhistorythatdemonstratesthepresenceof
aprinci-pleat work that
wouldallowustohavehopeforthefutureprogressof the species.92
WhatisnotablehereisthatKanthasshiftedthegroundsof the
debatefromaconsiderationofthecourseoftheRevolutiontoaconsid-erationof
thereactionof
spectatorstotheevent.Withthismove,thesuc-cessorfailureoftheRevolutionbecomesirrelevanttothequestionof
moralprogress.ForKant,theRevolutionmarkedthemomentinhistory
whentherewasanactualefforttoputintopracticethegoalthatnature
haddictatedtothespecies:theachievementofarepublicanformof
con-stitution.Whatmatteredwasnottheultimatesuccessorfailureofthat
attempt but rather the factthatitspokesopowerfully tothehopesof
those who firstbeheld it.
WiththeFrenchRevolution,discussionofthequestion"Whatisen-lightenment?"cametoaclose.HowoneunderstoodtheEnlightenment
cametobedeterminedbythestanceonetooktowardtheRevolution.For
criticsof theRevolution,enlightenment wasaprocessthat underminedthe
traditionalpatternsofbeliefonwhichpoliticalauthorityrestedandthus
reducedpoliticstoabrutalbattlebetweendespotismandanarchy.For
thosewhoremained loyaltowhatthey sawastheidealsof theRevolution,
enlightenmentembodiedthevisionofasocietygovernedbylawandrea-son.Asthenewcenturydawned,thelinesofengagementwereclearly
drawn.FortheRight,enlightenment wasasynonymforapoliticalnai"vete
withmurderousconsequences. 93 FortheLeft,itexpressedtheunfulfilled
dreamof ajust andrationalsociety.94 Withbothsidessurethatthey knew
theanswer,thequestion"What isenlightenment?"nolongerneededtobe
asked. TWENTIETH-CENTURYQUESTIONS It
isonlyinthelastfiftyyearsthatthequestionof enlightenmenthasbeen
reopenedin earnest.Both"theEnlightenment"(spelledwithacapital"E"
and preceded by thedefinitearticle)and "enlightenment"(withneither
the capitalnorthedefinitearticle)haveonceagainintruded
intoscholarly and
politicaldiscussions.Historians,sociologists,andpoliticaltheoristshave
probedthesocialrootsoftheEnlightenment,stresseditsrelationtoeigh-teenth-centurypoliticalandsocialmovements,andcontrasteditsdevelop-mentindifferingnationalcontexts.At
thesametimeothershavecriticized, 16INTRODUCTION
fromavarietyofphilosophicalandpoliticalperspectives,theblindness,
naivete,andinconsistenciesofwhattheyterm"theprojectofenlighten-ment."Wearethusinthecuriouspositionofhavinggainedagreater
appreciationof thediversityof opinionsandintentions
withintheEnlight-enmentwhilebecomingincreasinglysuspiciousof
manyofthethingsthat weonceassumedtheEnlightenmentrepresented."What
happened," Jean Amery askedayear beforehisdeath,
thattheEnlightenmentbecamearelicof intellectualhistory,goodenoughat
best forthediligentbutsterileexertionsof scholars?What
sadaberrationhas
broughtustothepointwheremodernthinkersdonotdaretoemploycon-ceptssuchasprogress,humanization,andreasonexcept
withindamning quo-tation marks?95 What happened can best be
understood by tracing how threebroad linesof argument,originating
in differingresponsestotherelationshipbetweenthe
EnlightenmentandtheFrenchRevolution,havecometodominaterecent
accounts of thenature and viability of "the project of
enlightenment." The
first,whichisconcernedwiththerelationshipbetweenreason,authority,
andtradition,takestheformof adeepening of Edmund Burke's misgivings
abouttheRevolution.Thesecond,whichfocusesonthedisturbingaffin-itybetweenreason,terror,anddomination,continuesalineofargument
inauguratedbyG. W. F.Hegel'sPhenomenologyofSpirit.Thethird,which
seekstoliberatetheidealofenlightenmentfromallassociationwiththe
FrenchRevolution,findsitsoriginsinthewritingsofFriedrichNietzsche.
Whileallthreeof theselinesof criticismsometimesresembleoneanother,
thereareimportantdifferencesthatjustifytheirbeingtreatedseparately.
And,conversely,whilethesecriticismsdivergeinimportantways,they
shareoneimportantfeature.Sincetheyoriginateafterthedebateonthe
question"Whatisenlightenment?"hadbeendisplacedbyotherconcerns,
thesecriticismsof"enlightenment"shareanignoranceoftheEnlighten-ment's
own effortsat self-definition. Reason,Authoriry,andTradition InI
781,at thestart of theCritiqueof PureReason,Kant announced, Our
ageis,in especialdegree,theageof criticism,and
tocriticismeverything mustsubmit.Religionthroughitssanctityand
law-givingthroughitsmajesty
mayseektoexemptthemselvesfromit.Buttheythenawaken just suspicion,
and cannot claimthesincererespectwhichreasonaccordsonlytothatwhich
hasbeenabletosustain thetestof freeand openexamination. 96
Incharacterizinghisageas"anageofcriticism,"Kantanticipatedthe
answerhewouldgivethreeyearslatertothequestionof whetherhiswas
"anenlightenedage.""No,"heresponded,"butwedoliveinanageof
enlightenment."97 Churchand statehavebeen putonnoticethatthey canno
INTRODUCTION 17 longer count onthedeferencetraditionally
accordedthem.Nor canthein-dividualsimply accept passively
whatevertraditionteachesor
whatauthor-itydictates.Enlightenmentdemandsthatwe"thinkforourselves"
-that is,onemustalways"look withinoneself ...
forthesupremetouchstoneof truth. "98
ForBurke,thenotionthattraditioncouldsimplybesetasideasanun-foundedprejudicewasadangerousillusion.In
hisReflectionsontheRevolution inFrance,hewrote, In thisenlightened
ageI am bold enough toconfessthat wearegenerally men of
untaughtfeelings,that,insteadof castingawayallouroldprejudices,we
cherishthemtoaconsiderabledegree,and,totakemoreshameuponour-selves,wecherishthem
becausetheyareprejudices;and thelongertheyhave lastedand
themoregenerally they haveprevailed,themore wecherishthem.
Weareafraidtoputmentoliveandtradeeachonhisownprivatestockof
reason;becausewesuspectthatthestockineachmanissmall,andthatthe
individualswoulddobetter toavailthemselvesof thegeneralbank and
capi-talof nations and of ages.99
ContrastingtheattitudesofEnglish"menofspeculation"toFrench"lit-erarymenandpoliticians,"heobservedthatwhiletheFrench"haveno
respectforthewisdomofothers,"thoseEnglishwhoarenotpartofthe "clan
of theenlightened," insteadof exploding
generalprejudices,employtheirsagacity todiscoverthe
latentwisdomwhichprevailsinthem.If theyfindwhattheyseek,andthey
seldomfail,they think
itmorewisetocontinuetheprejudice,withthereason
involved,thantocastawaythecoatofprejudiceandleavenothingbutthe
nakedreason;becauseprejudice,withitsreason,hasamotivetogiveaction
tothat reason,and anaffection whichwillgiveit permanence.'00
The"nakedreason"ofenlightenmentwaspoliticallydangerousbecause
itwasincapableofturningvirtuesintohabitsorofmakingone'sduty
becomeapartofanindividual'snature.Prejudice'sreasons,incontrast,
could movemen toaction.
Thereis,however,atleastoneproblemwithBurke'sargument.He
writesthatwe"cherish"ourprejudices"becausetheyareprejudices"-
becausetheyarefamiliarandwellestablished-butimmediatelyoffersa
ratherdifferentreasonforrespectingprejudices:theyhaveserveduswell
and thus are,in asense,"reasonable." SinceBurke's central concern
was to insistthat our familiarand well-established
prejudicesserveusmuch better
thananyoftheutopianschemesofthepartisansofenlightenment,he
avoidedboth thedifficultquestionof whether
wewouldstillcherishaprej-udiceshouldwenotbesuccessfulinfindingthat"latentwisdom"weare
seekingandtheevenmoredifficultquestionof whoexactlycomposesthe
"we"thatfindssuchwisdominthesewell-establishedprejudices.Certain
18INTRODUCTION prejudicesthat areundoubtedly "cherished" by
onegroupinsociety might strikeothersasabhorrent.Adefenseof
enlightenmentneednotinsistthat allprejudices berejected simply
becausetheyare prejudices.Voltaire,forexam-ple,acknowledgedthat
thereare"universal andnecessary prejudices"that, on reflection,
provetobe sound and useful:our idea of virtue,hesuggested,
ismadeupof suchprejudices. 101 Allitneedstosuggestisthatbeforewe
availourselves yet again of "the general bank and capital of
nationsandof ages,"wemakesurethat theaccount isnot bankrupt.102
Againstthis lineof
criticismBurkeisfacedwiththeunpleasantalternativeof defending
preju-dicessimply becausethey are prejudices or of conceding
theEnlightenment's
positionandgrantingthatweoughttocherishprejudicesonlyinsofaras
theyhaveproventobereasonableandthusdeservingof our affection.
Amoresuccessfuldefenseoftraditionagainstenlightenmentwouldin-volveraisingthequestionofwhether"reason"itselfdoesnotitselfulti-mately
reston prejudices.It isthislineof argument that liesattheheart of
Hans-GeorgGadamer'scritiqueoftheEnlightenment.103 Hearguesthat
theEnlightenmentitself restsona"fundamental prejudice" -a
"prejudice against prejudice itself."104 The Enlightenment's
tendency to equate
"preju-dice"with"false,""hasty,"or"unfounded"judgmentsrestsonthepre-suppositionthatreason,nottradition,constitutestheultimategroundof
authority.But what isthisif not aprejudicein favorof reason?
AgainsttheEnlightenment'soverlyhastyidentificationof"prejudice"
with"false judgment"Gadamer appealstotheliteralmeaningof
theGer-manVorurteil,"prejudgment."Hearguesthatalloureffortstomakesense
of theworldnecessarilybeginwithanticipationsandprojectionsof
mean-ingthatarerootedintheparticular,historicalsituationof
theinterpreter. These preliminary judgments arenotbarriersthat must
beremovedbefore trueunderstanding begins;they areinstead
theindispensableconditions for
anyunderstanding.Becauseofitsmisunderstandingoftheroleofpreju-dices,theEnlightenmentoverlookedwhatforGadameriscentraltoau-thority,properlyunderstood:"authority
hastodonotwithobediencebut ratherwithknowledge."105
Itinvolvesarecognitionthatone'sownknowl-edge islimited and that
others may well haveabetter understanding.Nor is
tradition,asGadamerunderstandsit,opposedtoreason.Traditiondoes
notpersistsimplythroughinertia;itmustbe"affirmed,embraced,culti-vated."It
must be preserved,and"preservation isan actof reason,though an
inconspicuous one.''106 The critiqueof prejudice
preventedtheEnlightenment fromrecognizing
thatindividualscanneverfreethemselvescompletelyfromthehistorical
tradition inwhichthey aresituated. 107
Infact,historydoesnotbelongtous;webelongtoit.Longbeforeweunder-standourselvesthroughtheprocessof
self-examination,weunderstandour-selvesinaself-evidentwayinthefamily,society,andstateinwhichwelive.
INTRODUCTION Thefocusof
subjectivityisadistortingmirror.Theself-awarenessofthein-dividualisonlyaflickeringintheclosedcircuitsof
historicallife.Thatiswhy the prejudicesof theindividual,
farmorethanhis judgments,constitutethehistoricalreality of
hisbeing. 108 19
Thus,forGadamer,Kant'simperativeto"thinkforoneself"isabstract,
empty,and ultimately impossihle.Allthinking isgrounded
intraditionsand prejudicesthat can neverbeentirely eliminated.
Gadamerdoesnotdenythepossibilityof reflectionandcritique.While
Burkeattributedtotraditionsa"wisdomwithoutreflection,"Gadamer
recognizesthataproperlyfunctioningtraditioniscapableofreflectingon
and,toacertainextent,criticizingthepresuppositionsonwhichitrests.
109 But thoughGadamer recognizesthat wearenever sobound by
aparticular
historicalsituationastobeunabletoengageindialogueswithothertradi-tions,heneverthelessinsiststhattheattempttoilluminateourownhistor-icalsituation
willalwaysremain incomplete.
Wealwaysfindourselveswithinasituation,andthrowinglightonitisatask
thatisneverentirelyfinished ....
Allself-knowledgearisesfromwhatishis-toricallypregiven,whatwithHegelwecall"substance,"becauseitunderlies
allsubjectiveintentionsandactionsandhencebothprescribesandlimits
everypossibilityofunderstandinganytraditionwhatsoeverinitshistorical
alterity. 110 ThetaskGadamer assignstophilosophical hermeneutics
isthus"to retrace thepath of Hegel'sphenomenology of
spirituntilwediscoverinallthatis
subjectivethesubstantialitythatdeterminesit."111
Reflectioncanmakeus awareof thetradition weinherit,but it can
neverreleaseusfromit. In his critique of Gadamer's rehabilitation
of tradition, Jiirgen Habermas hasquestionedGadamer's assumption
that what hasbeen givenhistorically
"doesnotremainuntouchedbythefactthatitistakenupintoreflec-tion.
"112
HesuggeststhatGadamer's"undialecticalconceptofEnlighten-ment"hasunderestimated
theability of reflectiontocriticizeauthority and tobreak theholdof
dogma.Intheprocessof questioning tradition,weare
forcedtotakeastandonnormsandbeliefsthathadpreviouslybeensim-plyaccepted.Byreflectingonthereasonsthatsupporttheclaimstradition
makesonus,blindacquiescenceistransformedintoconsciousagreement.
Viewedthisway,enlightenmentisopposed,nottoauthorityperse,but
rathertothoseformsof authoritythataremaintainedby forceand
decep-tionratherthanbyrecognitionandconsent. 113
Gadamerthusoverlooks what Albrecht Wellmer
takestobetheEnlightenment's centralinsight:
Theenlightenmentprincipleof reasoncanbeinterpretedasthedemandfor
theabrogationofallrepressiveconditionsthatcouldclaimnolegitimacy
otherthantheirsheerexistence .... [T)he"dialogue"whichwe,according
to 20INTRODUCTION
Gadamer,"are,"isalsoacontextofdominationandassuchpreciselyno
dialogue. ForHabermas,itistheemancipatorypromiseof
reflection,whichliesat theheartof
Kant'snotionofenlightenment,thatrepresents"theperma-nentlegacybequeathedtousbyGermanIdealismfromthespiritofthe
eighteenth century." 115
WhatisultimatelyatissueinthedisputebetweenHabermasand
Gadameristhenatureof theclaimthislegacyhasonustoday.Gadamer
arguesthatbecauseHabermashasbeenmisledbytheEnlightenment's
"abstractantithesis"betweenan"ongoing,naturaltradition"andthe"re-flectiveappropriation"of
thistradition,hefailstoseethat"reflection"is
itselfapartofaparticularhistoricaltradition. 116
Farfromconstitutinga
breakwithalltradition,theEnlightenmentrepresentedanelaborationof
particularelementswithinonetradition.Theimperative"thinkforyour-self"makessense,then,onlybecausethosewhoheedKant'scallarenot
thinkingbythemselves.Theyareratherthinkingwithothers,asmembers of
aparticulartraditionin whichactivitieslike"critique"and"reflection"
haveameaning.But if reflectionhasmeaning only
withinaparticulartra-dition,therewillbelimitsonitsabilitytocallthistraditionintoquestion.
Tosupposethatitispossibletoplaceourselvesinapositionwherewe
couldreflecton thevalidity of thetradition weinhabitisonapar
withthe assumptionthat wecould somehow stepoutsideof our
languageand certify
thatitindeedgivesusatrueaccountoftheworld.Forreasontoaccom-plisheither,itwouldbenecessaryforittoseveritstiestotraditionorto
language.FromJohannGeorgHamannthroughGadamertoAlasdair
MacintyreandRichardRorty,themorepersuasiveof theEnlightenment's
criticshavestressedtheimpossibility of doing this.117
Enlightenment,Disenchantment,and Domination
Whilethequestionoftherelationshipofreasonandtraditionoriginated
amongcriticsof thegeneralprogramof theEnlightenment,morerecently
thosewhoshareitsidealshavebeenplaguedbythesensethatsomething
hasgoneterribly awry.The Enlightenment's attempt to freetheworld
from thedomination of mythology and superstition hasfallenprey
toafataldia-lecticinwhichenlightenmentitselfrevertsintomythologyandfostersnew
formsof dominationthatareallthemoreinsidioussincetheyclaimtobe
vindicatedbyreasonitself.ThisistheargumentofMaxHorkheimerand
TheodorAdorno'sDialecticof Enlightenment.Writtenin1944astheSecond
WorldWargroundtoaclose,itsoughttounderstandwhathadbrought
reasontoturnagainst itself. 118 Muchof theforceof thebook lay
initspro-foundambivalence.Attheoutset,HorkheimerandAdornoaffirmedtheir
allegiancetotheprogressivehopesoftheEnlightenment.Theysawtheir
INTRODUCTION21 task as"not theconservation of the past, but
theredemption of past hopes" andinsistedthat"freedom ...
isinseparablefromenlightenedthought." 119 Yet at the heart of their
argument lay abitter paradox:"Enlightenment has always aimed at
liberating men from fearand establishing their sovereignty.
Yetthefullyenlightenedearthradiatesdisastertriumphant." 120
Enlighten-ment itself,they argued,"already containstheseedof
theregressionappa-rent everywhere today." 121 In thisaccount of the
self-destruction of enlightenment,Horkheimer and
Adornowereresumingananalysisof theEnlightenmentthat,likeGada-mer's
critique, can be traced to the discussion of the relationship
between the EnlightenmentandtheFrenchRevolution.Their
model,however,wasnot Burke'sRiflectionsantheRevolutioninFrancebut
rather Hegel's Phenomenologyof Spirit.Hegel'saccountof theworldof
the"self-alienatedspirit" -a world
that,perhapsironically,hedubs"culture"(Bildung)-culminatesinasec-tionentitled"AbsoluteFreedomandTerror."122
ItarguesthattheEn-lightenment'seffortstoemancipatemankindresultonlyin"death"-a
death"whichhasnoinnersignificanceorfeeling,"adeaththatis"the
coldestandmeanestofalldeaths,withnomoresignificancethancutting off
ahead of cabbage or swallowing amouthful ofwater."123 The
Enlighten-ment, which sought tocreateanew world in which reason
would ascend the throne and in which allinstitutions would be
measured against thestandard of utility,turns out to be incapable
of building anything.The universal free-dom that the Enlightenment
brought into the world culminates in a"fury of destruction. "124
Whilemuchof Hegel'slanguageresemblesBurke's,hisaccountis,ina
fundamentalsense,opposedtothat of
RifiectionsontheRevolutioninFrance. 125
ForBurke,theRevolutionwasamistake,theconsequenceofaterrible
foolishnessthat. ought,and perhaps could,havebeen avoided.If
theFrench aristocracyandclergy-onwhomBurkelavisheswhathasstrucksome
latercommentatorsasexcessivepraise-hadsomehowbeenabletohold
out,ifthelegionsof
politicallynaivewritersandphilosophershadsome-howbeenkeptoutoftheNationalAssembly,perhapsdisastercouldhave
beenavoided."Rageandfrenzywillpulldownmoreinhalfanhour,"he
observedsadly,"than prudence,deliberation,and foresightcan build
upin ahundred years."126 Hegel,however,doubted whether thesurvival
of an institution over time
testifiedtoitsreasonableness.Writingin1817of
thedemandbytheWur-tembergEstatesthattheirkingrestoretherightsguaranteedtothemby
their"ancestral constitution,"heobserved, One mightsayof
theWurtemberg Estateswhathasbeen saidof thereturned
Frenchemigres:theyhaveforgottennothingandlearntnothing.They seemto
havesleptthroughthelasttwenty-fiveyears,possiblytherichestthatworld
historyhashad,and forusthemostinstructive,becauseitistothemthat our
22INTRODUCTION
worldandourideasbelong.Therecouldhardlyhavebeenamorefrightful
pestleforpulverizing falseconcepts of law and prejudices about
politicalcon-stitutionsthanthesetwenty-fiveyears,buttheseEstateshaveemergedun-scathed
and unaltered.127 ForHegel,theFrenchRevolutioninaugurated anewagein
which,in
Joa-chimRitter'swords,"thefuturehasnorelationtotradition."128 While
Burkesawthedisasterof theRevolutiontolieinitsforgettingof
theles-sonsofthepast,forHegel,itsdisasterlayinitsfailuretofindaninstitu-tional
formadequatetotheprinciples on which the present rests.
AsHegelsawit,thetaskwastocreatepoliticalinstitutionsthatcould
bereconciledwiththeprinciplethat,forhim,representedtheirrevocable
achievementofthemodernage:thefreedomoftheindividual.Thisre-quiredsomewayof
mediatingbetweentheparticularityoftheindividual
andtheuniversalityof laws.Theanalysisof "culture"inthePhenomenology
of Spirittracesanumber of failedattemptsat
findingsuchareconciliation.
TheFrenchRevolutionwasbutthelastandgreatestofthesefailures,in
whichanattempt tomeasureallthingsagainstthestandardof thegoodof
thewholeultimately expresseditself inarageagainsttheindividual.
Jean-JacquesRousseau's"GeneralWill"thusleadstoRobespierre'sTerror,
not-asBurkewouldhaveargued-becauseRousseauhadturnedhis back on
thelessons of the past, but rather because the ancient models of
de-mocracythatRousseauinvokedwerenolongeradequatetothemodern age.
But what sortof political organization would beadequate?In
thePhilos-ophyof
Right,Hegelthoughthefoundasolutionwiththedevelopmentof
thatuniquelymoderndomainthathedenotedwiththevenerableterm "civil
society"(biirgerlicheGesellschajt).In civil society individuals
meet asfree
andindependentcreaturesofneedandcarriersofrights.Heretheygive
freeplaytotheiruniquenessand peculiarity while,behindtheirbacks,the
universalhasitsway with them through the systemof lawsthat
itisthetask of
politicaleconomytomap.Civilsocietyisthedomaininwhich"partic-ularityiseducateduptosubjectivity."129
Itisherethatthebourgeois-the
individualwhocaresonlyforhisowninterests-learnstobecomeacit-oyen-anindividualwhoiscapableofwillingthegeneralgood.
130 Orso Hegel argued in1820. Adecade later,in the wakeof the July
Revolution in Paris,heobserved in letters tofriendsthat everything
that had onceseemed so"solid andsecure"had begunto"totter."131
Ashismostfamousdisciple would later observe,allthat wassolid was
melting into air.
AcenturyafterHegel'sdeath,Horkheimerassumedthedirectorshipof
theInstituteforSocialResearchattheUniversityof Frankfurt.Thework
ofHorkheimerandhiscolleaguesintheFrankfurtSchoolrepresenteda
concentratedeffortatseeinghowtherelationshipbetweenthefamily,the
market,andthestatehadbeentransformedinadvancedcapitalism. 132
INTRODUCTION23
WhileHegelhadarguedthattherelativeindependenceofthesethree
spheresallowedforadifferentiatedarticulationof freedominwhichone
founddifferentsortsofsatisfactionsinone'srolesasfamilymember,as
bourgeois,andascitizen,theresearchof theFrankfurtSchoolarguedthat
theboundariesbetweenthesesphereshadbeeneffaced.Stateandmarket
hadbecomeintertwined,whilethesocializationofchildrenwithinthe
structureof family-whichhadallowedforthedevelopmentof individual
autonomy-hadbeenoverwhelmedbypowerfulsocialforces. 133 Hitler's
Germany and Stalin'sRussiaseemedtothemtoprefigureahorrifyingnew
worldin whichalltracesof individuality wouldbeextinguished. 134
Against thisgrimbackgroundtheDialecticof
Enlightenment,thatbleakestofbooks, waswritten.
Hegelprefacedhisaccountofthedialecticofculturewithhisfamous
analysisof Sophocles'Antigone.Horkheimer and Adornowent back
further, toHomer's Odysseus.Here they found,in oneand thesame
figure,thefirst Aufklarerand thefirstbourgeois. 135 The
mythicpowersOdysseusconfronts
arelockedinacycleofendlessrepetition;likeblindnature,theydothe
samethingoverandover.Heisabletoovercomethembymasteringthe
artofappearingtoyieldtothembutalwayssomehowfindinganescape clausein
the contract."The formula forthecunning of Odysseus isthat the
redeemedand instrumental spirit,by resigning itself to yield to
nature,ren-derstonaturewhatisnature'sandyetbetraysitintheveryprocess."136
ThusOdysseus,boundtothemast,canlistentothesongofthesirens,
whilehismen,theirearsstopped,rowgrimly onward.Inthis,Horkheimer
andAdornofoundanaptimagefortheroleofartinmodernsociety: strippedof
itsmythic powers,it becomesapastimeforthosewhoarefreed fromlabor.
Thisapparenttriumphofenlightenmentovermythology,likethetri-umphof
enlightenmentoverfaithinHegel'sPhenomenology,turnsouttobe
onlyastruggleof enlightenment withitself. 137
Mythology,astheauthors of the Dialecticof Enlightenment understood
it,wasalready astep in the direction of enlightenment.
Mythologyitself setoff theunending processof
enlightenmentinwhichever
andagain,withtheinescapablenecessity,everyspecifictheoreticviewsuc-cumbstothedestructivecriticismthatitisonlyabelief-untiltheveryno-tionsofspirit,oftruthand,indeed,enlightenmentitself,havebecomeani-misticmagic.
1e Enlightenment,asHegel recognized,demands thateverything
bemeasured againstthestandardof utility.Reasondoesnotexemptitself
fromthisde-mand and henceisnow defined solely in instrumental
terms.
Themoreideashavebecomeautomatic,instrumentalized,thelessdoesany-body
seeinthemthoughtswithameaning of theirown.They areconsidered
24INTRODUCTION
things,machines.Languagehasbeenreducedtojustanothertoolinthe
giganticapparatusofproductioninmodernsociety ....
[]Justice,equality, happiness,tolerance,alltheconceptsthat ...
wereinpreceding centuries
sup-posedtobeinherentinorsanctionedbyreason,havelosttheirintellectual
roots. 139
Enlightenmentroutssuperstitionandobscurity,butintheprocessitcor-rodesthesubstantiveprinciplesthathadonceservedasincentivestoprog-ressor-attheveryleast-aschecksonbarbarism.Oncereasonhas
becomeamereinstrument,itserveswhateverpowerdeploysit.Hegel's
accountof theself-destructionof theEnlightenmentendedwiththeimage
of theguillotine,amachinethatsorationalizedpunishmentthatitneeded
onlytotouchthebodyforamomenttodeliveritssentence.Horkheimer
andAdorno'sDialecticof Enlightenmentkeptpacewithadvancementsinthe
technologyofrationalizedcruelty:itclosedwithanexaminationofthat
rageagainstallthatisdifferentthatculminatedinthedeathcampsof the
Third Reich.
Thelastsentenceofthediscussionofanti-SemitismintheDialecticof
Enlightenment-added,theprefacetellsus,threeyearsafter
theinitial"pub-lication"ofthebookinmimeographedform(theinitialformofpub-lication,perhaps,canbeviewedasexemplary
of thebook'sthesis,sinceif
itsaccountoftheeradicationofindividualityiscorrect,thisshouldbea
bookwithveryfewreaders)140-strikes
astrangelyhopefulnote:"Enlight-enment,inpossessionof itself
andcoming topower,can break through the limitsof enlightenment."141
But how? InaletterHorkheimerwrotetoHerbert Marcuseshortly
afterthecom-pletionof thefirstchapterof theDialecticof
Enlightenment-whichhechar-acterized,accuratelyenough,as"themostdifficulttextIeverwrote"
-he admitted that the work "sounds somewhat negativistic." While
promising to dosomething toremedy this,heconfessed,
Iamreluctant,however,tosimplyaddamorepositiveparagraphwiththe
melody,"Butafterallrationalismandpragmatismarenotsobad."The
intransigentanalysisasaccomplishedinthisfirstchapterseemsinitselftobe
abetterassertionofthepositivefunctionofrationalintelligencethanany-thing
onecould sayinorder toplay down theattack. 142
BythetimeHorkheimerhadcompletedtheexcursusentitled'juliette,or
EnlightenmentandMorality,"hemusthaveconcludedthatitwasonly
throughamercilessly"negativistic"critiqueofwhatenlightenmenthad
becomethatthe"pasthopes"oftheEnlightenmentmightberedeemed.
Heappeared tohave foundamodel forhisown work inthose"dark writers
ofthebourgeoisie"-suchasMandeville,deSade,andNietzsche-who
"havenottriedtowardofftheconsequencesofenlightenmentwithhar-monizingdoctrines."Itwasthefailuretorecognizethetiesbetweenfor-INTRODUCTION25
malizedmoralityandevil,betweenreasonandcrime,andbetweencivil
societyanddominationthatboundenlightenmenttothatwhichsoughtto
negateit.Incontrast,thedark writers'mercilessrevelationof
theEnlight-enment'scomplicitywithdomination"freesfromitsshelltheutopiathat
inheresintheKantianconceptionofreasonaswellasineverygreatphi-losophy:thatahumanitythatnolongerdistorteditself,wouldnolonger
needtodistort."143
Thus,paradoxically,itwasonlybytakinguptheargu-mentsof
theEnlightenment'smostvehementcriticsthatthehopesofen-lightenment
might be kept alive. Nietzsche'sNewEnlightenment
Amongthe"darkwriters"towhomHorkheimerturnedforinspiration,
nonehadamorecomplexrelationshipwiththeEnlightenmentthanNietz-sche.Attimes,Nietzschespokeasif
hisgoalwasthatof disentanglingthe eighteenth-centuryEnlightenment
fromitscomplicity
withdemocraticrev-olutions.ThushelaboredtofinishMenschliches,Allzumenschlichessothat
itmightappearm1878,thehundredthanniversaryofthedeathof Vol-taire.
144
ItisnotVoltaire'smoderatenature,butRousseau'spassionatefolliesandhalf-liesthatcalledforththeoptimisticspiritofRevolutionagainstwhichIcry:
"Ecrasezl'infame!" It
isthisspiritthathasforalongtimebanishedthespiritof
theEnlightenmentandof progressiveevolution:letussee-each
ofuswithinhim-self-whether it ispossibletocallit back!'"
Enlightenment,asNietzscheunderstoodit,"addressed itself only
tothein-dividual."Itsassociation with revolutionary politicswasnot
theleast of the damagedone by Rousseau.
Hewhograspsthiswillalsoknowoutof ... whatimpurityithastobe
cleansed:soasthen tocontinuethework of theEnlightenment
inhimself,and to strangletheRevolutionat birth. 146
TheenlightenmentNietzschedemandedmustbeclear-sightedenoughto
seetheshallownessandthecommonnessoftheegalitariandreamsofthe French
Revolution. 147
OnewayoffurtheringthegoalsoftheEnlightenmentwastocallon
theveryforcesthathadopposedit.Inasectionof
Menschliches,Allzumens-chlichesentitled"ReactionasProgress"hearguedthatapparentlyreac-tionary
responsesto"blunt and forcefulspirits"often only prepare theway
forfurtherprogress.ThusArthurSchopenhauerhadadeeperhistorical
understanding of Christianity than theEnlightenment,but
once"themode
ofhistoricalinterpretationintroducedbytheAgeofEnlightenment"had
been corrected, "we may bear the banner of the Enlightenment-the
banner bearingthethreenamesPetrarch,Erasmus,Voltaire-further
onward." 148 26INTRODUCTION
ThesameargumentismadeevenmoreforcefullyinMorgenrotewhenNietz-schesuggestedthateventhoughGermanresistancetotheEnlightenment
had takentheformof apiety towardtraditionandacult of feeling,
afterappearingforatimeasancillariesofthespiritofobscurantismand
reaction,thestudy of history,understanding of
originsandevolutions,empa-thyforthepast,newlyarousedpassionforfeelingandknowledgeoneday
assumedanewnatureandnowflyonthebroadestwingsaboveandbeyond
theirformerconjurersasnewandstrongergeniiofthatveryEnlightenment
againstwhichtheywerefirstconjuredup.ThisEnlightenmentwemustnow
carryforward:letusnotworryaboutthe"greatrevolution"andthe"great
reaction"againstitwhichhavetakenplace-theyarenomorethanthe
sportingofwavesincomparisonwiththetrulygreatfloodwhichbearsus
along!149Insuchpassages,Nietzsche-likeKarlLeonhardReinholdbeforehim-outlineswhatmightbecharacterizedas"a
dialecticof thecounterenlight-enment":allattempts
toresistenlightenment paradoxically turn out only to
servethecauseof further enlightenment. 150
Whatistroublingaboutthissecretcomplicitybetweenenlightenment
andcounterenlightenmentisthattherelationshipcaneasilybereversed:
whilecounterenlightenment may servethecauseof enlightenment,it is
just aspossiblethatenlightenment willleadtoanew
obscurantism.Inacryptic notefrom1885Nietzscheobserved,"When
IbelievethatIamafewcen-turiesaheadinenlightenmentnotonlyofVoltairebutevenofGaliani,
whowasfarprofounder-how farmustIhavegotintheincreaseof dark-ness[
Verdusterung].
"151TheideathataprogressinAufklarungwassimulta-neouslyanadvanceinVerdiisterungfindsitsmostpowerfulexpressionin
Nietzsche'sfamousparableofthemadmanwhoannouncesthedeathof God.Even
in"the bright morning hours"hemust carry alantern and asks,
"Isnotnightcontinuallyclosinginonus?Do wenotneedtolight lanterns in
themorning?"152 Thisse.nsethateveryadvanceof enlightenmentmay
wellbeonlyafur-therstepmtothedarknesspermeatestheworkof
Nietzsche'smostfaithful
twentieth-centurydisciple,MichelFoucault.Fromhisveryfirstbook-whichhedescribedasapart
of that "great Nietzscheaninquiry"that seeks
toconfront"thedialecticofhistory"withthe"immobilestructuresof
td"153 hhd.. rageY- esougttoemonstratehow every victory of
enlightenment wasalsoatriumphof anewandinsidiousformof
domination.Tukeand
Pinelarrivedineighteenth-centuryprisonstoseparatecriminalsfromthe
insane-andforcedtheinsane"toenterakindofendlesstrialforwhich
theasylumfurnishedsimultaneouslypolice,magistrates,andtorturers."'H
Freudshatteredthesilencesurroundingsexuality-andinauguratedthe
"nearlyinfinitetaskoftelling-tellingoneselfandanotherasoftenas
possible"anythingthatmightbelinkedintheremotestway' tothebody
INTRODUCTION27 anditspleasures. 155 InBirthof
theClinic,thelightthatpenetratesthedark interior of the body
insearchof life findsonly death, just asin Discipline and
Punishtheprisoners whohavebeen freedfromthedarknessof thedungeon
arecaptured allthemoresecurely inthelightthat
floodsthroughthePan-opticon.156Likethe"dark writers of
thebourgeoisie,"everywhereFoucault looked hefoundacomplicity
between enlightenment and domination. But-once
againlikeNietzsche-attimesFoucaulttookupthebanner of
theEnlightenment.Inthelastdecadeof hislife,hereflectedagainand
againonKant's1784essay,"WhatIsEnlightenment?"andintheend
announcedthathewouldliketoseehisown workunderstoodasapartof
the"criticalontologyof ourselves"thatKant's work hadopened.
157Inthe verylastof
hisdiscussionsofKant'sessay,enlightenmentmarchesunder
abanneronwhichanevenmoreunlikelysetofnamesisinscribedthan
Nietzsche'strinityPetrarch,Erasmus,andVoltaire.Theenlightenmentto
whichFoucaultdeclaredhisloyaltysomehowmanagestoembraceboth
ImmanuelKant and Charles Baudelaire.158
Foucault'speculiarcouplingofKantandBaudelairesuggestshewas
concerned neither withthecontent of Kant'saccount of enlightenment
nor with itsconnection toKant's moral philosophy.His emphasis
instead fellon
whatheunderstoodKanttobedoinginposingthequestion"Whatis
enlightenment?"inthefirstplace.JustasConstantinGuys-thepainter
whoseworkBaudelaireexaminesinhisessay"ThePainterofModern
Life"-soughttocapturewhatwaseternalin"theephemeral,thefugi-tive,thecontingent,"soKant-as
Foucault read him-attempted tofinda philosophical significancein
the passing controversies of hisage.LikeGuys, Kant sought "to
distil theeternal fromthetransitory." 159 Foucault thuscame to
seein Kant's essay away of doing philosophy that couldserveasamodel
forhisownefforts.Kant issaidtoheralda"critical ontology of
ourselves"in which"the critiqueof what weareisatoneand
thesametimethehistoricalanalysisof thelimitsthatareimposedonus
andanexperimentwiththepossibilityofgoingbeyondthem."16Kant
foundthe"mottoofenlightenment"inHorace'sSapereAude!-whichhe
glossedas"Havethecouragetouseyourownunderstanding!"Foucault kept
themotto but changed theexegesis:forFoucaultlikeNietzschebefore
him,enlightenmentmeantaboveallelsehavingt h ~couragetoreinvent
oneself. ReopeningtheQuestionof Enlightenment ~ h .
eEnlightenment's criticsareinagreement,then,that thereissomething
Sinisterabout thelightitcasts.Burkecomplained that
allthepleasingillusionswhichmadepowergentleandobedienceliberal,
whichharmonizedthedifferentshadesof
life,andwhich,byablandassim-28INTRODUCTION
ilation,incorporatedintopoliticsthesentimentswhichbeautifyandsoften
privatesociety,aretobe dissolvedby thisnew conquering empire of
light and reason.161 HamanndismissedtheEnlightenmentas"a
merenorthernlight,"a"cold,
moonlight"thatservedonlyasacloakforself-appointedguard-Ianswhosoughttoruleoverothers.
162 AsheexplainedinalettertoMen-delssohn,"I avoidthelight,my dear
Moses,perhapsmoreout of fearthan maliciousness."163
AndHorkheimerandAdorno'sfearshavebeenechoed
inFoucault'sfamousdiscussionofthatmostunsettlingofallenlighten-mentschemes,JeremyBentham'sPanopticon.164
Anuntroubledpartisanof
enlightenment,Benthamsoughttoreplacethedarkdungeonsoftheold
regimewithbuildingscomposedofcellsopenontwosidestothelight
whichtogetherwouldformalargeringof asmanystoriesof cellsaswere
necessary tohousethepopulation at hand.In thecenter of thering
hepro-posedtheconstructionofawatchtower,fromwhoseshieldedwindows
theactivitiesof theresidentsof
thesunlitcellscouldbeobserved.Thisar-rangementgavethoseinthetowerapower
farbeyond whattheynormally possessed:sincethoseinthetower seebut
cannot beseen,itreally doesnot
matterwhoisinthetower(Benthamnotedthatchildrenmightfinduseful
employment here)or even whether,at any given moment, there
wasanyone init at all.It wasenough that thetower serveasareminder
tothe prisoners
intheirsunlitcellsthattheycanalwaysbewatched.Thosewhowatchare
hiddenand henceomnipresent.Thosewhoarewatched
areisolatedatom-ized,andalwaysvisible-releasedfromdungeonsbutheldallmore
securelybythelightthatbathesthem. 165 Hereisavisionworthyof
Hork-heimerandAdorno'sdarkestmoments:thefullyenlightenedworldhas
becomeamassiveprison. It isworth asking,however,whether this
portrait of theEnlightenment is
atallfaithfultoitssubject.Reservationscanberegisteredonatleasttwo
fronts.First,theimages of theEnlightenment wehaveconsidered hereare
atbest,caricaturesthathighlightcertainfeaturesbutmissothers.Second:
what thesecaricatures missmay very wellbe what isof greatest
importance inunderstandingthecontinuingviabilityof
someversionofthehopesof theEnlightenment. What isstriking ishow
rarely thecritiqueof "enlightenment" ever
both-erstoengagethinkerswhowerepartof "theEnlightenment."Burkegoes
afterDr.PricebutnevertroubleshimselfwithaskingwhetherFrench
thinkersmightnotactuallyhavegivensomethoughttothequestionof
whether"prejudices"couldeverbecompletelyeradicated. 166 Gadamer,as
usual,does better.Heacknowledgesthat the"prejudiceagainst
prejudices" neverwentasfarinGermany
asitisallegedtohavegoneinEnglandand
FranceandsuggeststhattheGermanwillingnesstorecognize"the'true
prejudices'oftheChristianreligion"inpartbroughtaboutthat"mod-INTRODUCTION29
ificationandmoderationof Enlightenment"thatlaidthegroundworkfor
theromanticmovement."But,"hequicklyassuresus,"noneof thisalters the
fundamentalfact." 167 True prejudices stillmust be confirmed by
reason, evenif
someAufklarerwerelessconfidentthantheirFrenchcounterparts
thatreasonwasuptothetask.Butmorerecentandmoreextendeddis-cussionsof
thehistory of theconceptof prejudiceprovideamorecomplex picturein
whichreasonisnot quitesoimperiousand prejudicenot quiteso