Download The Enlightenment and the Science of Man

Wk1 Lecture Notes
The Enlightenment and the Science of Man.
The Human sciences – psychology, economics and the social sciences generally –
have their origins in the science of human nature that arose during the Enlightenment/
Some of the same questions asked today were asked in the C18 with regard to the role
of religion, religious institutions, God, magic etc. Behind these questions arose the
influence of ideas and approaches developed during the scientific revolution such as
the shift in the character of knowledge from the metaphysical to knowledge based on
experience and observation and the empirical approach to the justification of this
knowledge.
These approaches informed the science of man as it emerged in the C17. Hobbes
Leviathan is an example of the acceptance of the mechanistic philosophy and an
argument that the way men acted in society was not the result of the will of God but a
result of a mechanistic movement of bodies where motion/action was determined by
the motion/action of other bodies which resulted in their clashing.
Men were one aspect of the natural world/physical order and affected it/were affected
by it. Consequently there was the opportunity to change mans behaviour as a result of
changing the natural order.
Man was seen by Hobbes as self-interested and as a result involved in a constant state
of war. Hence the need to construct the State (the Leviathan), in order to create a force
capable of controlling (and wielding) the power over life and death.
Hobbes ideas were not based on scripture/religion/religious texts but on an
understanding of the way that humans behave. He had no awareness of a distinct
science of man.
Hume, in his Treatise of Human Nature saw the science of man in relation to other
(natural) sciences such as mathematics, natural philosophy, natural religion. He saw
the key to knowledge on the natural sciences in the science of man and the need to
discover how men think, reason and “know” the World. He saw this as a surer basis
for claims of knowledge.
The basis for knowledge was not to be found in metaphysics but in the “experimental
method of reasoning”. All knowledge was to be based on experience – to understand
how we know “we need to think about how we think and understand”.
Passions are more important for understanding behaviour than reason, and morality is
found in the judgements we make, moral subjects being concerned with man and his
behaviour.
Consequently man was “the object with which we reason” and becomes the heart of
the subject, not institutions or specific behaviour but “human nature” in the round.
Man is at the centre of the attempt to construct a science of human nature.
This becomes an established idea throughout the Enlightenment. Philosophy
(epistemology) remains a tool within this enterprise – that the grounds for scientific
knowledge are based on the nature of thought. Philosophy became “an under-labourer
for the sciences” (Locke).
Human nature was seen as manifest in the way people interact and behave in social
contexts. There was no single view on the nature of humans simply acceptance of the
idea of a human nature. Why did this happen?
1. The Enlightenment was not just a movement in thought but also had a social
and political dimension
2. Social transformation took place in the early modern period as a result of
increased commerce, the rise of the trading/commercial (middle) class.
3. The decline in the social and economic power of the nobility
The main authors of and audience for these new ideas were the bourgeoisie who had
greater economic resources than in the past and so gained increasing power with
regard to the sovereign (need for loans, capital etc) at the expense of the nobility. In
Europe the rise of absolutism increasingly negated the need for a nobility. As a result
the bourgeoisie demanded increasing access to power, resulting in the control of and
eventual decline of absolutism.
This increase in the power of the bourgeoisie, enthused with these new ideas led to
criticism of the old order and the institutions associated with it – the church as
guardians of morality, absolute monarchs, the old noble order.
Political theories reject the basis of absolutism. Political authority should be based on
the consent of the governed, people are sovereign, not the monarch or a political elite.
The emphasis is on the idea of a natural equality of men.
There is a close connection between this ideology and the idea of a human nature.
What is it that makes us equal? There is a coming together of science and politics and
the growth of the idea of a science of politics, as well as a political approach to
science, structured in order to satisfy human nature (Rousseau).
The idea of a “Human Nature” does not exist before the Enlightenment. The concept
is tied in to the social and political changes that occur in the Enlightenment.
Foucault argues that “man” does not exist prior to the advent of the human sciences.
That these sciences “invent” man and human nature and as such are central to the
formation of the modern world. Previously man had been immersed in divine and
natural order and that subsequently man occupies a central place with regard to and as
a result of his knowledge about himself the world and his place in it.
The science of man and human nature comes to underpin the science of knowledge.
The new object is man, possessed of human nature.
The search for human nature filters out differences between man. Human nature does
not explain difference; it is about “sameness” and leads to the question as to what
constitutes difference.
This leads to the development of empirical sciences concerned with cultural, racial
differences, a fascination with curiosities (emphasising difference) and the origins of
modern sociology and anthropology – the comparison and classification of people, a
process that is still essential to modern human sciences.
But why compare/classify? The underlying assumptions are not how to explain
difference but what is distinct about western civilization to make it so different from
the rest of the World. Why so different? Why so advanced in comparison?
The assumption id that difference is the product of social/cultural attributes. That
difference can be understood by looking at societies.
“Society” was another central concept in the Enlightenment. Society was constructed
in the Enlightenment concept of “civil society” which was a central concern for
Enlightenment thinkers juggling with the ideas of sovereignty and political consent.
Society was seen as the product of many things – geography(political and physical),
legal, religion, system of government, national spirit and character (Montesquieu
Spirit of Laws (1748)) – as an explanation of differences between societies in
different parts of the world.
By the end of the C18 society was an object of social enquiry. What causes it to be the
way it is, what is its effect on behaviour?
Differences in societies are perceived as the result of differences in time – different
rates of progress/development.
Societies are conceived of as passing through distinct stages of development. Adam
Smith In “The Wealth of Nations” (1776) puts forward the idea of societies
progressing through four economic stages –
Primitive, based on hunting
Pastoral, based on animal husbandry
Agricultural
Commercial society
The structure and organisation possessed by commercial society is not economic in
character, it is the development of arts, science, manners, customs that lead to modern
commercial society as a necessary requirement of the need to satisfy diverse needs.
The progress of society leads to the ability of individuals to pursue diverse needs in
ways as they see fit. It is seen as the epitome of modern liberty and freedom where
man has the time and ability to create scientific knowledge. The science of man is a
function of its development.
This type of history takes man as its object but what drives societies? Human nature,
self-interest, sociability or do these drive human nature.
What is the best way of meeting human needs in the social context? Is it Smith’s
increasing complexity and division of labour?
These are the questions we shall be looking at over the next few weeks…….