Empire is always combined with “colonization”, so it must face the culture and laws of different races, and must face the differences in way of life and political system; moreover, the empire must be able to digest and absorb these differences. Only in this way can the empire be a unified political body that will not collapse due to the isolation and confrontation of regions and ethnic groups.
Empire’s self-understanding must face the problem of “self” and “other”. After colonization and conquest, the mother country must understand the relationship between itself and the colony in a unified meaning system in order to realize its domination over the colony. For example, when England expanded into the British Empire, England gave the Empire so-called Britishness, but the old England no longer existed. It became the center of the British Empire and had to understand itself from the standpoint of the Empire. Therefore, empires must bring thinking about civilization. The problem of empire’s self-understanding requires it to reflect on human civilization in general, and to dissolve national and regional differences into a unified civilizational framework and logic.
Eighteenth-century Europe was at the intersection of time and space. As far as its reflection on human civilization is concerned, it has both unique soil and unprecedented urgency. At that time, Europe realized the transformation from feudal society to modern commercial society. At the same time, Europe also conquered overseas with the help of merchant ships and fleets, and colonized the Americas, India, North Africa and other places. Therefore, it is not only undergoing the changes of ancient and modern times, but also facing the dispute between the East and the West: because of colonization, it faces the differences and conflicts of civilizations around the world. In order to understand its own development and its relation to the world, the European mind must ponder the course of civilization. In this context, the “history of civilized society” of universal significance emerged in the Scottish Enlightenment. Both Smith and Ferguson believed that, just as animals and plants must grow from their infancy and enter the mature stage, human society must also enter civilization from its rough state. Due to the different stages of civilization development, different nations have differences in production techniques, and even political and legal systems. The growth and progress of civilization is the natural purpose of human society, and it has become the criterion for thinking about politics and judging whether it is good or not. The idea of civilization also provides a conceptual framework for the rationality of empires.
Jennifer Pitts notes that, in just fifty years, from the 1880s to the 1830s, there was a major shift in the Anglo-French liberal tradition in the face of imperial problems. If the most acute and far-reaching political philosophers can represent and embody the spirit of their times, then, during these fifty years, the spirit of the times has shifted from scepticism and criticism of empires to advocacy and support for empires. Imperial liberalism gradually took shape in this “great transformation”.
In his book Turning to Empire, Pitts focused on the issue of “Empire and Civilization”, focusing on analyzing the political theories of Smith, Burke, Bentham, Mill, and Tocqueville, and sketching a chronological history of British and French political thought . These classic thinkers represent the most important “moments” in the “Great Transformation” process. They largely shape or embody people’s understanding of realpolitik, thus embodying the spirit of an age. When these important “moments” are linked together, a historical picture of the evolution of thought can be drawn. Pitts is like a painter of ideas. She traveled through half a century of imperial thought (the end of the eighteenth century to the 1830s), carefully selecting some of the most representative scenes and drawing them as pictures. She then combines these drawings into a gallery of insights from her intellectual travels, and attempts to present the half-century in general, and its key shifts. In the past half century, in the face of foreign nations and civilizations, British and French political theories seem to have declined in a certain sense, losing the ability to understand foreign civilizations and even criticize reality. Therefore, the “great transformation” has also brought about a theoretical crisis. So, what is the source of this crisis? In the face of political and economic conflicts in today’s world, and even civilizational conflicts, what kind of inspiration can Pitts’ painstakingly created thought gallery provide? To answer these questions, we must deeply understand the shift of British and French political thought from “civilized empires” to “imperial civilizations” in the past half century.
The idea of business empires in Europe emerged roughly at the same time as the rise of European business societies. According to Smith’s historical narrative in the third volume of The Wealth of Nations, from the fall of the Roman Empire to the eighteenth century, the development of European society followed an “unnatural and regressive sequence”. During this period, Europe achieved a revival of civilization, shedding the poverty and despotism of the Middle Ages, and becoming rich and free. Among them, commerce played the most crucial role: in a sense, it was through commerce that Europe returned to the natural order of economic and social development in a roundabout way. Smith called this transformation a “revolution” of great importance to public happiness. But this revolution was the result of commerce, not violence. As Smith said, it was the development of European foreign trade that gradually freed the cities and villages of Europe. Therefore, trade is not only a force for shaping the internal order of Europe, but also an important force for building its commercial empire, and Europe has gradually developed a new concept that is different from conquering empires. This new type of empire first manifested itself through the mighty sea power of the Netherlands, which William Petty systematically summed up in Political Arithmetic, articulating the idea of this commercial empire. When Britain inherited the Dutch model and established its own maritime hegemony and business empire, the ideas expounded by Pedi gradually became the self-understanding of the British Empire. David Armitage, in The Origins of the Ideology of the British Empire, shows that for a long time the British believed that their empire was different from Portugal and Spain, or even from France and the Netherlands, as a business Empire, responsible for the spread of liberal British institutions and political practices. In this sense, commerce embodies a normative value: it has the power to correct injustice, eliminate tyranny, and even breed civilization.
Regarding social change in Europe, Smith made a theoretical explanation of general significance. Although European change took a seemingly unnatural (even regressive) approach, its break with medieval barbarism was rooted in the laws of nature within the global marketplace. The modern transition in Europe is a special case, but the reason for this transition is the generally valid natural law. At the level of moral philosophy and jurisprudence, Smith was committed to exploring principles that work in all times and places. At the political level, these universal principles are embodied and contained in their conception of empire. When Smith analyzed the cause and nature of national wealth, he also systematically expounded the principle of business empire. Once he found that the actual imperial policy was contrary to it, he criticized it on the level of utility and morality.
Smith successfully explained the development of Europe and human civilization, and also used it to reflect on the political practice of the British Empire and to re-plan the future of the Empire. However, by the late eighteenth century, the American colonies were in crisis and finally gained independence, and the British Empire achieved its expansion in India through a series of military conquests. Behind the turn of the British Empire, the imperial fantasy of expanding British-style freedom overseas has finally come to nothing and can no longer be sustained. At such a historical moment, Smith not only calmly analyzed the theoretical roots of this change, but also made a systematic critique of the political practice of the British Empire. In Pitts’s pedigree of imperial thought, Smith was the first thinker to appear and the most important critic of empire. If Pitts is trying to show the history of the decline and fall of the imperial spirit, Smith is undoubtedly at the apex of this downward path. In a sense, his thinking becomes a measure. By comparing with Smith, we can know why the concept of civilization turns to support imperial chauvinism, and how to overcome this “imperial turn” in thought, so as to find an ideological antidote for the expansion of imperialism in later generations.
Pitts emphasized in particular: “Adam Smith was one of the most original and esoteric theorists of social development in the eighteenth century. On the one hand, he believed that the rise of modern society had created Non-European societies that were considered to be at an earlier stage of development also held a respectful position. Between the two, Smith maintained a rare balance.”
Smith did believe that European societies had greater advantages in terms of modes of existence or material production. However, the production advantage does not bring the moral legitimacy that gives Europe the right or duty to rule the relatively backward non-European peoples. Smith cautiously reminded Europeans not to get caught up in “excessive conceit.” In order to persuade his country, and indeed Europe, to avoid making this mistake, he had to argue that European civilizational progress (or superiority) did not mean Europeans were superior in natural endowments or moral qualities. For Smith, the progress of civilization and the development of society first meant the development of the way of life. According to Smith, civilization is a natural and continuous process of development. Compared with primitive society, people in commercial society have the same emotional mechanism and moral ability, but they have a higher level of skill and division of labor. Therefore, in terms of the natural process of social development, the commercial society does not have moral superiority, but has a certain historical advance. It is in a higher stage of civilization history and has higher technical achievements.
Smith divided the process of human civilization into four stages: fishing and hunting, animal husbandry, farming, and commerce. Different countries in the world have different transportation conditions, and the division of labor cannot develop in a balanced way, so there are differences in the degree of civilization. In The Wealth of Nations, Smith devoted a chapter (Volume I, Chapter III) to the effect of market conditions on the differentiation of civilizations. The civilized places in the world are also rich places, and they all have unique water transportation conditions. The Mediterranean Sea is equivalent to an inland lake in Europe, with smooth seas and scattered islands, which is most suitable for early navigation; China and India both have shipping networks intertwined with large rivers. Smith tried to prove that it was the convenient market conditions that gave birth to the ancient civilizations in these regions and made them the source of world civilization. In “The Theory of Moral Sentiments”, Smith focused on demonstrating that throughout the ages, all nations have equally possessed the moral capacity of “sympathy”. In different stages of civilization, there will be specific differences in the virtues that people praise, but this only shows the difference in the environment and cannot reflect the level of moral ability. Therefore, he fully affirms the rough and brave qualities of members of primitive society, and his discussion of “Song of Death” is also moving. For those societies at an early stage of development, Smith always avoided characterizing them in a dismissive or demeaning way. Although he described pastoral society as “barbaric,” he did not consider it lowly. “He gave livestock society, and its customs and values, an astonishingly high degree of moral respect.”
Smith’s historical account shows that the rise of modern Europe was an accidental “revolution”, not the work of Europeans with reason and virtue. Therefore, European civilization did not confer a “white man’s burden,” nor did it confer any legitimate reason for imperial expansion. Even after the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe experienced a life of poverty and desolation, subject to barbaric customs and subjection to a legal system full of slavery. Therefore, the prosperity and civilization of modern Europe does not prove that they are superior in reason and moral ability, and are the natural rulers of world empires.
In Smith’s pen, a colony is a political and economic system, a legal and policy system constructed by the mother country for the pursuit of wealth. That is, the problem of empire is directly related to utility and justice: can the empire effectively achieve the purpose of enriching the country and enriching the people? Is the economic restriction of the colony by the mother country just? Following the principles of utility and justice, Smith conducted a traceable analysis and critique of the imperial cause in modern Europe and Britain. It is irrational to think that the imperial conquests started by Spain and Portugal and succeeded by Britain and France are irrational in motivation, just for the dream of an ethereal “El Dorado”. We don’t see any “unnecessarily necessary or obvious instance” in it. The mother country imposed various restrictions on the colonies, created a very strict mercantilist system, and finally shaped the colonies into “customer countries”, making them subservient to the interests of the “merchant and manufacturer class”. Colonial trade is essentially monopoly trade, which attracts huge capital from other economic sectors, deprives the mother country of its natural balanced economic structure, not only imposes a heavy burden on maintaining the colony, but also makes the economy and stability of the mother country difficult. Extremely vulnerable and heavily dependent on colonial trade. Moreover, this imperial system has two major injustices: the mother country restricts the colony for its own manufacturing and trade, and manufacturers and merchants sacrifice the interests of other citizens for monopoly profits. Mercantilist empires are ineffective and unjust, and the “white man’s burden” lacks human and moral foundations.
Although Smith criticized the empire, he had no intention of abandoning it completely. In his eyes, empire is a policy tool that should obey utility rationality and justice. Between empire and civilization, we should take civilization over empire. However, empires and civilizations are not diametrically opposed. If the mother country abandons mercantilism and follows the system of natural liberty, and establishes a just empire, the colony and the mother country are equal to each other, trade freely, the market will expand, and civilization will grow. If so, the spirit of civilization merges with the structure of empire, and utility merges with justice. When Britain faced the colonial crisis in the Americas, Smith suggested the establishment of an imperial parliament, so that the colonies, like the mother country, would not only enjoy full political rights, but also undertake full political obligations. His intention was to build such a civilized empire.
Scottish conjectured historians such as Smith and Ferguson used survival mode to divide the stages of social development, and also used this to think and understand the progress of civilization. Their speculative historiography seeks to probe the moral foundations of civilization, and thus examine empires. As an institution and legal system, empire constitutes the conditions and environment of civilization. Civilization is higher than and independent of empire, it constitutes the purpose of empire, and it is also the measure of thinking and criticizing empire.
However, with the passage of time, in the 19th century, it is speculated that although historiography still undertakes the important task of thinking about imperial affairs, its inner spirit and position have quietly changed. In the history of imperial thought presented by Pitts, the Scottish tradition of speculative historiography and the utilitarian tradition of Bentham gradually merged, and Mill and his son made a new interpretation. However, it is in the Mills’ thinking about empire that Pitts clearly sees the turning of theory and the rupture of tradition.
James Mill and John Stuart Mill were deeply involved in the East India Company’s colonial affairs in India. The Mills were both imperial officials and theoreticians. Their writings not only summarize and plan specific imperial affairs, provide a route and blueprint for colonial rule, but also summarize and reflect on the theoretical level, presenting a systematic concept of empire and civilization theory. Their ideas both truly reflect and further shape imperial practice. They were in the affairs of the empire, and they viewed and summarized the structure and principles of the empire from within, and their theoretical vision itself contained an identification with the practice of the empire. Their theoretical lives were inextricably linked to imperial practice, and their unique experiences themselves meant a departure—a departure from the theoretical traditions they claimed to inherit.
James Mill once considered himself the heir to the philosophical history of the Scottish Enlightenment. In the article “James Mill,” Duncan Forbes fully embraced the old Mill’s self-identification, both as a Bentham disciple and emphasizing that he “brought a kind of The concept of progress”. According to Forbes, Mill was deeply nourished by the philosophy of the Scottish Enlightenment, and his speculative historiography continued this tradition. He states: “A continuous chain of causality of thought links Condorcet, the Scottish ‘speculative’ historians, and Bentinck, etc. A higher mode of ‘civilization’ imposed on what they called semi-barbarian states.” That is, Forbes argues, these thinkers shared a concept of “civilization” with imperial policymakers, a common understanding of the empire’s mission of civilization , thus in a continuous and unbroken tradition of thought. Forbes’ articles are influential, and his views are representative.
Pitts challenged this convention, arguing that Forbes had made the double mistake of not seeing Mill’s change in Bentham’s thinking and ignoring the conflict between his speculative historiography and his Scottish predecessors. Pitts repeatedly emphasized that James Mill had brought about a “substantial rupture” by greatly simplifying the progress theory of the Scottish Enlightenment philosophers. “Mill’s historical writing undermines that tradition in two important ways. First, while Scottish historians, in contrast, envisaged a subtle hierarchy of development, Mill reduced it to a division between civilized and brutish. A rudimentary social typology. And, he eventually classifies all non-European societies under a single social ‘infancy’ category. Second, he argues that the stage of a society’s historical development is directly linked to the mental abilities of its members.” Therefore, Mill lacks any theory of historical development. In his view, all the backwardness of society, all barbarous customs and laws, testify to the inferiority of the mental powers of its members; on the contrary, the prosperity, progress, and refinement of a society testify to the excellence of its members in reason and moral powers . So, he claims, Indian and Chinese cultures are frozen in a stagnant state from which they can be rescued only by the intervention of a heroic legislator, or by the intervention of a more advanced society such as Britain .
John Stuart Mill introduced the concept of “national character” and combined it with a philosophical historical perspective. But he largely inherited Old Mill’s crude binary distinction between civilized and barbarian peoples. Little Mill argues that the ability to progress is an essential feature of human nature, but is “monopolized by a few selected societies.” These lucky peoples have to shoulder the responsibility of bringing progress to all mankind. According to his theory of national character, “benevolent dictatorship” is the “real good education” for barbarian peoples, which can help them “maximize the spirit of progress and stimulate the ardent desire for improvement.”
Pitts argues that a “philosophical anthropology” of individual cognitive abilities underpins their discourse on civilization. The cognitive abilities of the savages are not sufficient for them to obey any laws and thus to self-govern. To explain the differences in the degree of social development, the Scottish Enlightenment philosophies resorted to sophisticated theories of social development, which the Mills replaced with this crude “philosophical anthropology.” So they parted ways with Smith and Ferguson about how to understand the foundations of civilization, and their inheritance of Scottish philosophical history is only a mere appearance. As a result, civilization was captured by the empire and lost its critical power beyond the domination of reality. In the newly emerging concept of civilization, the empire itself became the bearer of civilization, and therefore shouldered the “responsibility of civilization”.
From the late 18th century to the 1830s, only half a century. However, in this half century, the attitude of British and French political philosophy towards empire has been completely subverted. According to Pitts’ analysis, the decay of the idea of civilization constitutes the pivot of this turn. Pitts sheds light on at least two main reasons for the turn in imperial thought over the past half century. The first of course is that reality captures the mind. With the expansion of Britain and France, their civilized self-confidence increased, and they regarded themselves as models of civilization, dismissing colonial society as “barbaric” too simply. As Pitts put it: “Free colonial reform itself, and liberal cosmopolitanism, has changed. In the mid-nineteenth century, the superiority of Britain and the justice of British colonial rule were almost recognized by the common people.”
Another reason comes from the inheritance of ideas itself. Pitts, keenly aware of the differences between the Mills and their eighteenth-century intellectual predecessors, rejected this interpretive tradition. On the fundamental question of moral philosophy, whether human beings generally have equal moral capacity, the Mills have departed from Smith and Ferguson, and thus have a very different understanding of civilization and empire. Pitts couldn’t help but feel sorry for that. In her opinion, Smith mainly expounded his theory of civilization and social development in his lectures on jurisprudence. Although he planned to systematically write works of jurisprudence, throughout his life, he failed to complete the “planned anthology”. Burned many jurisprudential manuscripts before his death. Therefore, with the passage of time, many subtleties in his thoughts are difficult to be understood by later scholars.
In just half a century, the focus of British and French political philosophy has shifted from civilization to empire. In the past half century, Britain and France have gone further and further on the road of imperial conquest, and the imperial power has continued to expand. However, its concept of civilizational empires has instead declined, losing interest and attention to the complexities of non-European societies, and losing the ability to criticize and reflect on empires. The empire’s mind then became closed, unable to understand reality, unable to foresee the future, and unable to control its destiny. The ideological picture Pitts outlines is profound. She shows the independence of political thought from reality and power, and naturally highlights the unique value of thought that transcends time and space. According to Pitts, the ideological track of “turning to empire” is a downward path. Adam Smith is the beginning and the culmination of this path. In the gallery of ideas of civilization and empire, Pitts rediscovered Smith, a great but long-neglected visionary of civilization and empire, a political philosopher who pondered the changes of civilization, and even the origin and general order of civilization. Facing the “clash of civilizations” in the contemporary world, his thoughts can still inspire us.
——-
This article is from: https://ift.tt/EV1HZMP
This site is only for inclusion, the copyright belongs to the original author