How the thinkers of liberalism, imbued with the humanist values of the Enlightenment, were able to justify European colonial expansion ? It is this question that Jennifer Pitts tries to answer in the book that she devotes to the positions of the English and French liberals XVIIIe And XIXe centuries on the imperial issue.
Originally published in 2005 and translated with a speed that deserves to be praised, this book is the story of a regression, that which leads European thinkers to move from a critical vision of imperialism and a relativistic apprehension of non-European peoples to a justification without moods of colonial domination, in the name of the undisputed superiority of Europeans.
The Liberals and the Empire: History of a contradiction
Based on the study of some representative authors, the demonstration of Jennifer Pitts is interesting in several respects: in the first place, it relates to a pivotal period ranging from the last third of the XVIIIe century to the first half of XIXetoo rarely discussed by historians often trapped in the revolutionary caesura and the compartmentalization between modern and contemporary history. The work also addresses the question of imperial expansion at a time when it arises quite little, and in any case relatively less than at the time of triumphant colonization (1870-1914): it thus contributes to in a stimulating manner the intellectual beginnings, often ignored. It also has the interest of comparing English and French authors and bringing out in these famous feathers an interest, unknown in some, for the question of the Empire. As much as we know the attention paid by Tocqueville to Algeria, we generally do not know Burke’s positions on the issue. Similarly, the deep interference of Mill, father and son, in the affairs of the Empire (via the India Company) is not always taken into account, while it is often caricature, because of the self -proclaimed inheritance of Mill, the ideas of Bentham in the matter. In general, as Jennifer Pitts points out, the study of the imperial question in the cantors of equality between men, the protection of freedoms and the defense of pluralism makes it possible to uncover many contradictions and ambiguities, especially in the case of Tocqueville.
Finally, it is always stimulating to confront developments going in the opposite direction of a progressive conception of history. The literature on colonization has often tended to incriminate the lights in the cultural subjugation of non-European peoples, as if the triumphalism of philosophers moved by universal reason placed from the start to these other civilizations. On the contrary, this book shows that the authors of the Enlightenment, faithful to their critical and relativistic conceptions, were animated by great tolerance and prudence of good quality concerning these peoples who attracted their curiosity, but which they knew that they were not in condition to know them, to understand them and even less to judge them. Not that they only considered that Europe had reached a stage of civilization higher than that of others, but they considered that this gave it no particular right, no moral authority over the rest of the world. In addition, their approach to exotic customs and customs was nuanced, tolerant, and did not involve considering these populations as inferior. The turning point later performed in the years 1830-1840, when the English company of the East India completed its territorial expansion and where France began the military conquest of Algeria. The demonstration beats a Manichean vision in which always, but particularly since the lights, European thinkers would have justified the exploitation of other peoples. The chronology adopted and the welcome detour that the author makes about Ireland shows that this position is much more complex – and historical – than a certain literature confusing militancy and scientific approach claims.
Changing visions of progress
History of stiffening, therefore, of a progressive distrust of non-European peoples and their ability to govern, of an increasingly uninhibited acceptance of a hierarchy of peoples in their march towards civilization, which prepares the ground for the advent of biological racism, which is not yet questioned. This weft thread also crosses several chain sons, among which we will emphasize the evolution of moral conceptions as to the vision of progress as well as the question of imperial power and its benefits on democratic societies.
The first evolution that the work highlights concerns the concept of progress and theories on the development of societies over time. The attachment of the authors of the Enlightenment to universal standards in terms of morality makes them rise against the shortcomings to these standards committed in the territories under domination, in the name of the right of conquest and / or European superiority. They consider that moral standards must be respected everywhere and retain from the Scottish conjectural history that all human societies are endowed with reason and capable of governing themselves. This respect for cultural particularism, present in Burke and Smith as well as in Bentham or Condorcet, is based on a dynamic vision of progress where each civilization is advancing at its own pace. Smith also considers that the superiority of Europe in the matter is fortuitous and accidental. Opposite the vision of a condocet which, on the contrary, affirms that Europeans, morally superior to the others, have the means and the duty to civilize them in a peaceful way. If he denounces colonial violence, Condorcet begins a turning point by proclaiming his certainty of European superiority and a certain disdain for other cultures.
This last trend completely won in the middle of the following century. Cultural relativism has given way to a rigid dichotomy between civilized and progressive societies, on the one hand, and barbaric, backwards and stagnant societies on the other. At James Mill, non-European peoples, prisoners of their customs, are without judgment and unable to govern themselves. Europeans therefore have the duty to do it for them, even despotic ways: the theme of “ White man’s burden »Appearance here. It does not matter that it is based, in John Stuart Mill, on a finer theorization based on the notion of “ character “Individual or national: the fact is that these British liberals have distorted their intellectual heritage – that of Scottish history and benthamian utilitarianism – to replace this reified and Manichean vision of the societies classification, prelude to biological racism.
The positions are more nuanced at Tocqueville, more faithful to the Scottish lights and to Montesquieu. His approach, more relativistic and respectful of certain cultural practices, favors direct observation and is sensitive to the fate of the populations, which they recognize that they have a political organization, property rights, and sometimes the character of nations. However, his American experience convinced him that the indigenous peoples are condemned to disappear and that the development of liberalism and democracy can only go hand in hand with colonial expansion and the domination of enslaved peoples.
Liberal justifications for imperial power
The second evolution precisely concerns this political dimension, whether it is the judgment on the exercise of power in the colonies or its benefits on the political life of the metropolis. The authors of the Enlightenment are rather critical of the imperial enterprise, first for economic reasons: following Adam Smith, colonial adventures are considered a financial chasm preventing the natural development of the market economy. But the political reasons for this reluctance are no less numerous and important. These authors believe that there are dangers linked to the exercise of imperial power, the main one of which is the drift towards despotism likely to reach the metropolis. Burke, in particular, is particularly critical of imperial policy, due to the moral and political exclusion of subjects, practiced in the name of a morality with variable geometry. Putting America, Ireland and India on the same level, he defends, in the name of natural law and people, the idea that the rulers have accounts to be rendered to the governed, even that they should be associated with the government.
The flip-flop is clear among liberal authors, especially British. While Benjamin Constant considers that expansion inevitably leads to injustice and that it is a big threats to freedom and democratic practices, the Mill Father and son defend without moods the despotic character of the government exercised by the English company of the East Indies, considering that it is alone capable of civilizing the subjects of the Empire. As Jennifer Pitts notes, these are considered to be the subject of an administrative process and not as the actors in a political process.
As for Tocqueville, he supports colonial expansion in Algeria on the grounds that it serves the designs of liberal democracy in France. According to him, it indeed needs an epic breath, a large national project capable of uniting citizens and instilling prestige and glory in power. Constant’s reluctance is flight here: the colonial conquest is put at the service of the greatness of France, especially in its incessant rivalry with England. Tocqueville, however, does not represent a unanimous opinion since his ideas, in particular the link between imperial adventure and national honor, are strongly combated by left liberals such as Desjobert. Beyond its ambiguities and its contradictions, Tocqueville is nevertifying the basis of what will constitute one of the main arguments of the republican justification of colonial expansion.
An evolution is never linear and the author describes here a substantive trend by selecting the authors who serve him to support his demonstration. But the substance of his thesis, and the main interest of his book, is to pay attention to the anthropological foundation of liberal theories. Just as the work studying doctrines and liberal practices in the perspective of the gender, the attention paid here to another form of otherness, that of the peoples on which the Europeans have exercised their domination, exposes what constitutes, in our opinion, one of the most important intellectual milestones of the most important XIXe A century: the passage of a universal vision of the evolution of societies to a rigid dichotomy between civilization and barbarism, to use the famous formula of the Argentinian writer Sarmiento. Jennifer Pitts therefore book here an important contribution to the history of Western modernity, which should-let us wish-encourage other research.