Lisa & Ian Murray wrote:
> Does this mean we shouldn't quibble about the meaning[s] of democracy and
"The Enlightenment" and "democracy" pose radically different questions.
As Jim says, there really is no special argument over the reference of
the former; the question you raise is not over the meaning of the word but
of the importance or validity we should attach to the thing. "Democracy,"
on the other hand, is a contested term, but I would argue that its meaning
is probably not worth arguing over. One just has to make clear what one
means by the word in a given context. Confusion will ensue in a
conversation, but it can be a fruitful confusion.
If you want to argue that that tendency in European thought conventionally
referred to as "The Enlightenment" was not a good thing, one can do so
without refusing the term -- in fact many have. One can even to some
extent make intellectual progress by arguing about what the term
names. I would suggest, for example, that Hobbes and Locke should
be seen as *influences* on "The Enlightenment," and Adam Smith and
Hume seen as *being influenced* by it, but there is potential advance
in the understanding of history by confining the term itself to an
intellectual trend in 18th century France.
I want to reread Ellen Wood's *The Pristine Culture of Capitalism*
before trying to carry this forward. She argues that the Englightenment
was *not* grounded in the growth of capitalism, for example, and
that the French bourgeoisie was not in fact a capitalist class. (Her
argument is more nuanced then this; I just mention it to point out that
refusing to use the term may not be all that enlightening a gesture.)
Carrol
