On the ‘‘Misogyny’’ of Jean-Jacques Rousseau: \u3cem\u3eThe Letter to d’Alembert\u3c/em\u3e in Historical Context

Evidence suggests that the feminist consensus on Jean-Jacques Rousseau “misogyny” is breaking down.New studies are emerging that bring to light the many sympathetic portrayals of women in Rousseau’s works and the important role he ascribed to women within the family. Some modern feminists are even finding ways of reading Rousseau that speak to women’s concerns today. Overturning the notion that Rousseau was an arch-misogynist will be an uphill battle, however, given how very widespread it has become. Moreover, before we can arrive at a coherent and convincing appraisal of Rousseau’s views on women, a curious paradox needs to be addressed: even feminist admirers of Rousseau tend to accept the established feminist canon on him, and in fact build upon it. Therein lies a fundamental problem for Rousseau scholarship and for women’s studies in general. This article contributes to the recent reevaluation of Rousseau’s attitudes toward women by reconstructing the historical context of Rousseau’s Letter to d’Alembert, in which some of his most outrageously “misogynist” statements are made

Why Constant? A Critical Overview of the Constant Revival

Recent years have seen a remarkable renewal of interest in the thought of Benjamin Constant (1767–1830). For long recognized as the author of the literary masterpiece Adolphe, Constant is now receiving increasing attention for his political writings. Paperback editions of his major works are presently available in both French and English, helping to establish his growing reputation as a founding father of modern liberalism. Constant\u27s stature as a seminal liberal thinker has benefited from the recent climate of opinion in the Western world and, in particular, from the return to fashion of liberalism as a social and political doctrine. Paradoxically, however, this political climate has also led to some problems, since presentist concerns have left an undeniable imprint on the image we have of Constant

Rousseau, the Anticosmopolitan?

Rousseau\u27s repeated criticisms of the Enlightenment\u27s ideal of cosmopolitanism has led to his thought being characterized as \u27anticosmopolitan\u27. His work abounds in denunciations of the ideals of equality of treatment and universal rights supported by his contemporaries. Moreover, his liking of solitude, introspection and socialization in small circles and his preference for patriotism over equity among all men seem to set him up as the counterpoint of the universalism his contemporaries defended. However, a deeper insight into the work of the author of The Reveries of the Solitary Walker shows that, far from being incompatible with true cosmopolitanism, the moral principles that Rousseau praised are the proper conditions to develop humanitarianism, leading to universalism – in fact a form of cosmopolitanism

Two Liberals on Religion: Constant and Tocqueville Compared

As founding fathers of modern liberalism, Benjamin Constant and Alexis de Tocqueville shared a common sensibility as well as a number of key concerns. Of central importance to both men was the need to protect individual rights and freedoms against what they saw as an encroaching social power. Having learned the lessons of the French Revolution, they knew that power, whether concentrated in the hands of one man, or executed in the name of the people , was a dangerous thing. Thus they worked throughout their lives to establish and defend a representative system with constitutional guarantees that would protect fundamental rights such as freedom of the press, the safety of private property, and religious toleration. Both men felt that such guarantees were essential to shield individuals from despotic government. But both Constant and Tocqueville also agreed that, in the end, laws and constitutions were not enough. Evidently, liberal political structures needed something more than laws and constitutions to survive. The success of liberal regimes depended on the social, intellectual and moral capital of the society that they governed. This essay will briefly compare and contrast the views of Tocqueville and Constant on the right role of religion in the modern society. This paper is a modest attempt to help resituate Tocqueville\u27s ideas on religion in their proper nineteenth century French context by contrasting them to those of Benjamin Constant.Comparing the views of Constant and Tocqueville allows us to see more clearly their distinctiveness. It also enables us to appreciate the richness and complexity of early liberalism\u27s engagement with religion

Nouvelles perspectives sur \u3cem\u3eDe la religion\u3c/em\u3e: Benjamin Constant et la Franc-maçonnerie

Dès la fin du Directoire, pendant le Consulat, puis sous l\u27Empire, la maçonnerie française connait une période d\u27expansion. Les historiens s\u27accordent à dire qu\u27elle devient alors le conservatoire des idées de 1789 , l\u27officine du libéralisme politique et social . Ainsi n\u27est-il pas surprenant de constater que plusieurs des amis, collègues et alliés de Constant sont franc-maçons.La franc-maçonnerie de 1789 est fortement anti- ultra , ce qui explique pourquoi, dès 1820, des ultras s\u27adressent à la justice ou à la Chambre des Pairs pour obtenir l\u27interdiction de l\u27ordre. Cela étant, et vu que De la religion est un ouvrage anti- ultra écrit par un libéral de gauche, on pourrait s\u27attendre à y trouver un commentaire sur la Franc-maçonnerie. Or, il semble bien qu\u27une discussion intéressante sur la franc-maçonnerie existe dans De la religion de Benjamin Constant, mais elle a été jusqu\u27à présent négligée. Cet ouvrage n\u27est en effet pas uniquement une critique de la politique ultra du gouvernement : Constant ne vise pas seulement le courant de pensée représenté par les Maistre, Lamennais ou Bonald. Résumer De la religion comme one of the last major expressions of modern anticlericalism serait donc quelque peu trompeur. L\u27argument de Constant est bien plus subtil et intéréssant que cela, parce que De la religion semble aussi contenir une critique de certaines prémisses maçonniques et, par conséquent, d\u27un courant de pensée important parmi les libéraux de son époque

Rousseau\u27s Gift to Geneva

People often seem to forget that Rousseau dedicated his Second Discourse to “The Republic of Geneva.” This is a shame because, in doing so, they miss precious clues not only about the meaning of the Discourse itself, but also about its place in Rousseau’s political thought as a whole. It is no accident that Rousseau dedicated the Discourse on Inequality, his most radical work of all, to his hometown of Geneva; but it requires some research into the historical context to understand why. In Geneva a patrician ruling elite was using social contract theory to subvert the democratic principles of the city’s ancient constitution. Arguments taken from theorists such as Pufendorf, Barbeyrac and Burlamaqui - joined with notions of doux commerce that were current during the Enlightenment - were being used to legitimize an increasingly oligarchical regime. As perhaps the period’s most famous “citizen of Geneva,” Rousseau’s duty was to speak out. Rousseau’s Dedication makes it clear that he did, indeed, intend to send a message to his fellow citizens. Their republic was in danger and needed their immediate attention. Through ostensible flattery, Rousseau delivered an ingenious criticism of the values of Geneva’s patrician magistrates as well as a strong warning about the direction in which they were taking the republic. In fact the Dedication also contains an outline of Rousseau’s theory of the ideal democratic state. However, it is not just the political ideas expressed in the Dedication and the Second Discourse that are so interesting and worthy of attention; it is also how he delivers his message. Rousseau reinforced his overall political message by appropriating, and then subverting, the rules and conventions of gift-giving

On the Intellectual Sources of \u3cem\u3eLaïcité\u3c/em\u3e: Rousseau, Constant, and the Debates about a National Religion

That French Protestants gave strong support to laïcité is by now well established. In recent work, Patrick Cabanel has even made a compelling case for the Protestant sources of laïcité, placing particular emphasis on the Protestant entourage of Jules Ferry (1832-1893) and stressing the inspiration provided by the pro-Protestant intellectual, Edgar Quinet (1803-1875.) This article suggests that we look even earlier in time for the intellectual sources of laïcité. Seminal ideas can be found in the writings of two liberal Protestants, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) and Benjamin Constant (1767-1830.) Rousseau is usually counted among the opponents, and not the advocates, of laïcité. On the other hand, Benjamin Constant’s copious writings on religion and church-state relations tend to be ignored altogether. This helps to explain why it is sometimes incorrectly suggested that Tocqueville (1805-1859) was the first French liberal of note to believe in the separation of church and state. As this article will show, before the Third Republic, and even before both Tocqueville and Quinet, there was Benjamin Constant, who certainly deserves a place among the founding fathers of laïcité. Moreover, while existing scholarship tends to describe Constant’s relationship to Rousseau as adversarial, the perspective adopted here will show that their views converged and reinforced each other in interesting ways. Indeed, it is where their thought converges that one can identify a certain Protestant vein of thinking that went on to inform more modern notions of laïcité