1/This case against Steve Pinker's "Enlightenment Now" - i.e., that the Enlightenment created modern racism - has gotten a huge amount of attention and approval.
But I want to push back against it just a bit.
But I want to push back against it just a bit.
2/It's true that many of the people we call "Enlightenment" thinkers - Kant, Hume, etc. - said racist things.
But does that mean those racist things are part of "the Enlightenment"?
Pinker et al. would say "no".
But does that mean those racist things are part of "the Enlightenment"?
Pinker et al. would say "no".
3/Now, that argument - i.e. that "the Enlightenment" represents a set of good ideas that we moderns get to pick and choose - has a flavor of "No True Scotsman" to it.
It's not fair to defend an ideology by limiting its definition to the subset that we feel is defensible!
It's not fair to defend an ideology by limiting its definition to the subset that we feel is defensible!
4/But it IS a worthwhile exercise to distill good ideas from historical intellectual movements, while discarding the bad ones.
Ideas should not be package deals. We should get to choose which lessons we learn and which we repudiate. Otherwise, philosophy becomes religion.
Ideas should not be package deals. We should get to choose which lessons we learn and which we repudiate. Otherwise, philosophy becomes religion.
5/So Pinker et al. SHOULD get to define "The Enlightenment" to exclude the racism of Kant, Hume, etc., as long as they make it clear that this is what they're doing.
And doing this should disallow Pinker et al. from making arguments-from-authority.
And doing this should disallow Pinker et al. from making arguments-from-authority.
6/Now, it ALSO might be the case that even the Enlightenment ideas that Pinker praises might be inextricably bound up with racism.
But I don't think Bouie (or Heer) has made that case successfully, yet.
But I don't think Bouie (or Heer) has made that case successfully, yet.
7/MUST we recognize racial hierarchies in order to argue for egalitarian concepts like natural rights, social contracts, empiricism, etc.?
I personally don't think so.
But if you really want to tie the Enlightenment to racism, I think this is the case you need to try to make.
I personally don't think so.
But if you really want to tie the Enlightenment to racism, I think this is the case you need to try to make.
8/A real Enlightenment-equals-racism case might go like this: "The only way to get a country to support greater equality at home, or within a subset of the populace, is to pair that demand with colonization or subjugation of other populaces, at home and abroad."
9/You might marshal historical evidence in favor of that proposition.
You might point to egalitarian, Enlightenment-style thinkers in other centuries, like Fukuzawa Yukichi, who also advocated imperialism: iun.edu/~hisdcl/G369_2…
You might point to egalitarian, Enlightenment-style thinkers in other centuries, like Fukuzawa Yukichi, who also advocated imperialism: iun.edu/~hisdcl/G369_2…
10/A real Enlightenment-equals-racism case wouldn't rely only on the statements of Hume, Kant, etc., but would attempt to show a *causal* link between Enlightenment-style ideologies and racism, colonialism, or imperialism.
11/But I don't think that case has been made yet.
And until it is made, I think we should allow Pinker et al. to promote their toy model of "The Enlightenment", as long as we're all clear that it's a toy model.
(end)
And until it is made, I think we should allow Pinker et al. to promote their toy model of "The Enlightenment", as long as we're all clear that it's a toy model.
(end)
