Jonathan Israel is Professor Emeritus of Modern European History in the School of Historical Studies at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. This interview is based on his new book, The Expanding Blaze: How the American Revolution Ignited the World (1775-1850) (Princeton, 2017).
[...]
JF: In 2 sentences, what is the argument of The Expanding Blaze?
JI: The book’s argument is that the American Revolution was the spark that created the expanding blaze that transformed the Western world by setting the basic model – democratic republicanism versus aristocratic republicanism- which shaped the early stages of the French Revolution (before Robespierre’s tyranny) and all the revolutionary movements of the Western world between 1782 (Geneva) and 1848. The key argument is that democratic versus aristocratic republicanism defines the inner logic of the American Revolution, and Radical Enlightenment versus ‘moderate Enlightenment’provides the ideological format, the ideas, that justify the two warring sides within the American Revolution.
JF: Why do we need to read The Expanding Blaze?
JI: The book is needed to help better situate the American Revolution than has been done in its world historical context and especially in its general Enlightenment context.
Friday, September 1, 2017
Fea: "The Author’s Corner with Jonathan Israel"
Check it out here. A taste:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Why I don't give a spit:
By "Enlightenment," in the American context we mean almost exclusively the Scottish Common Sense Enlightenment [SCSE].
JF: When and why did you decide to become an American historian?
JI: I am not an ‘American Historian’ but a historian of the Enlightenment. I see the American Revolution as a fundamental chapter in the history of world enlightenment.
Exactly.
See, the new academic fad is "Atlanticism," which diminishes the only worthwhile achievement of Western Civilization, its crowning jewel, America. [I would include in the immediate SCSE family what we call the "Anglosphere."]
The other effect of this "Atlanticism" is to bleach out the effect of religion, specifically Christianity--more specifically the Anglosphere's Protestantism.
The "Enlightenment" is a polyglot and as used here conceals more than reveals. The French Revolution, continental philosophy, and modernity/leftism/pan-Europeanism have nothing to do with Enlightenment-era America.
These frauds talk so much BS to each other, all without a discouraging word.
heh heh I missed this last bit
JF: What is your next project?
JI: My next project is write a short book on the transatlantic origins of the modern Jewish revolutionary consciousness.
I really am Laughing Out Loud. Obvious he was into the academic "Atlanticism" fad and this confirms it. Which would actually be germane--and even interesting--re Jews in the Western World.
And anyone writing about the "modern Jewish revolutionary consciousness" has already revealed himself as an identitarian. And worse, admitting the existence of a "modern Jewish revolutionary consciousness" gives fuel to every anti-Semitic [right wing?] slander in the book about Jews and communism, etc.
First of all, thanks to John Fea and thanks to you, Jon, for highlighting this work.
As usual, TVD immediately jumps the shark in his flippant kneejerk ad hominem screed denouncing something he knows nothing about (the book), once again validating the idea that if ya got nothing just start pounding the table and slinging crap.
Israel has done a tremendous amount of intellectual scholarly lifting concerning the Enlightenment(s) for well over two decades beginning his written corpus with The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall 1477-1806 (Oxford History of Early Modern Europe), 1998, followed by:
Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity 1650-1750 (2002). (expanding on Henry F. May's work)
Enlightenment Contested: Philosophy, Modernity, and the Emancipation of Man 1670-1752 (2009).
A Revolution of the Mind: Radical Enlightenment and the Intellectual Origins of Modern Democracy (2011).
Democratic Enlightenment: Philosophy, Revolution, and Human Rights, 1750-1790 (2013).
And yes, I have either read all of or am working my way through the above - no easy task.
Anyone, lay or academic, should wade into these books for a better foundational understanding of the origins of American intellectual development leading to the founding generations. As to the Scottish Enlightenment it is well represented in the Expanding Blaze, but Tom wouldn’t know that because he’s not read or begun to read the book or would ever undertake the task – that would be too much work. And, the Scottish Enlightenment itself was not a hermetically sealed intellectual development and heavily relied on work from the ancient Greeks/Romans through all of early modern European intellectual development.
Of course, Tom doesn’t like anyone or anything that challenges the remarkably narrow view of history that he always promotes, American or otherwise.
I once heard or read a critical review of one of Israel’s books where the author of the review complained that Israel too readily rattled off numerous names associated with the enlightenment, some well know and some obscure, in essence complaining about his own lack of knowledge. Apparently he found this confusing. Confounding. Sad.
If you’re going to critique Israel and his work you should at least be up to the task and put forth valid arguments.
As to Israel writing about the "modern Jewish revolutionary consciousness,” Tom seems to already know what’s in a book not even written yet. Bold move. Still sad. You might want to get to know the author a little better.
For the faithful I will post the reminder that Jesus, a Jew, was/is considered radical. So, there’s that.
JI: I am not an ‘American Historian’ but a historian of the Enlightenment. I see the American Revolution as a fundamental chapter in the history of world enlightenment.
IOW, slave to the narrative.
Anonymous Art Deco said...
JI: I am not an ‘American Historian’ but a historian of the Enlightenment. I see the American Revolution as a fundamental chapter in the history of world enlightenment.
IOW, slave to the narrative.
Um, glad someone got it. I am not arguing with Dr. Israel's blather that flows therefrom, only with the legitimacy of his starting point, which he stipulates.
Garbage In Garbage Out
Anonymous jimmiraybob said..
As to [Mr] Israel writing about the "modern Jewish revolutionary consciousness,” Tom seems to already know what’s in a book not even written yet. Bold move. Still sad. You might want to get to know the author a little better.
Again you miss the point. This admits that there exists [proudly, unapologetically] a "modern Jewish revolutionary consciousness” and that undeniably links Judaism with leftism.
Which pleads guilty to the charge of the far right.
For the faithful I will post the reminder that Jesus, a Jew, was/is considered radical. So, there’s that.
For the faithful I will post the reminder that Jesus, a Jew, was/is considered radical. So, there’s that.
Spoken as one who is clearly not "faithful," from nobody who actually has read the Bible beyond a few verses they read at Mother Jones and has no idea what the Bible actually says.
Please stop arguing people's religion against them. As an unbeliever, you have no more standing arguing the Qur'an against Muslims.
We would not argue the Book of Mormon against the Church of Latter-Day Saints either. This is offensive to the purposes of this blog, both religiously and intellectually. We are here for understanding. Please don't do this again, man.
"As an unbeliever, you..."
”…no idea what the Bible actually says.”
I'm hardly attempting theology and was not attempting to get all Biblical on yo self. But nice try. If nothing else, I was arguing the fully human aspect. I hardly need special permission to argue the historical record, especially against those that think they own it.
And what I said is no different than what many of the truest believers and theologians have said throughout history.
You see, in your narrow right vs. left view of what is and is not radical and revolutionary you completely miss the point that to be radical and to be revolutionary means changing the world from the status quo, which, unless you’re schooling me on a brand new form of understanding Jesus and Jesus’ mission and message, is exactly what he did.
You do not seem to understand that which you are telling me that I cannot understand.
Again, you have absolutely no credible perspective on what Israel may or may not write about "modern Jewish revolutionary consciousness" in a book that has not yet been written.
tl;dr
Post a Comment