Henderson 1
June 17, 2011
POLS 2300
Jeffery Ferlo
Michelle T. Henderson
Enlightenment, Absolutism and Modern Society:
An Analysis of Kant’s Definition of Enlightenment and Modern Society
A fundamental concern among the middle class scholars and philosophes of the mid to
late 18th century was the definition of “enlightenment”. All men of this age involved in the
revolutions of Europe and America understood fundamentally that the concept of enlightenment
and what it meant was vital to the role that citizens would play within the revolutions and
changes happening within their countries. The definitions given by these men shaped the
thoughts and actions of our founding fathers and led them to create a government that would
ensure its citizens the ability to continue toward enlightenment as they saw it; one where all were
free to think and speak as they wish without fear of punishment and retribution. With all of the
tools we have been given, and the plethora of knowledge and ideas we have to draw on, our
society has not only failed to reach enlightenment but has regressed into a society that does not
even encourage its citizens to strive for it. No longer do we seek to form our own opinions and
continue towards a society where our government listens to what the people wish, adapting as
necessary to those desires. We have instead become a society dependent upon being given our
opinions, and the sound bytes to back them up.
Definition of Enlightenment
What is enlightenment? Immanuel Kant, an 18th Century German Scholar who lived
during the reign of King Frederick the great defined enlightenment in his Essay “An Answer to
the Question: What is Enlightenment” as “man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity.
Immaturity is the inability to use one's understanding without guidance from another. This
immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve
and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! [dare to know] ‘Have
courage to use your own understanding!’--that is the motto of enlightenment.”i (Kant)
By the conclusion of his essay, Kant argues that the only way for man throw off this
state of “Immaturity” is to be allowed by the government to speak freely about whatever you so
wish as long as you meet two criteria: 1) that you do not overstep your position if you are a
public employee and/or authority of some kind or wantonly disregard your duties as a citizen;
and, 2) you allow the soverienty of the government to be such that they can reign in social
discord should it become necessary. By staying within the limits of these two criteria, it was
Kant’s belief that society would eventually morph from one of absolute monarchy to that of a
representative or pure republic purely because the monarchy would adopt, phase by phase, the
Henderson 2
new and enlightened ideas of its citizenry, gradually handing over power to a parliament or
congress and giving the citizens greater and greater say in the politics of that country.
In order to more fully understand why Kant believed that it was necessary to have
freedom of thought and discussion on the one hand but an unswerving commitment to follow the
rules, so speak, on the other, you must understand the polity and social issues of 18th century
Prussia. During this time King Frederick the Great was the ruler of Prussia and was considered,
even then, a monarch who encouraged the idea of progression and enlightenment within his
borders. This created a unique situation allowing the middle class bourgeois of Prussia the
ability to have free thought and dialogue without total fear of being arrested like their
counterparts in France. Frederick was still, however, an absolute monarchist who expected to be
obeyed. Another factor that greatly influenced Kant to approach his enlightenment philosophy
this way was the belief by all scholars of Prussia in the 18th century that the superstitious beliefs
and reliance’s of the uneducated poor when corrected through education and encouragement to
think on their own could lead to rebellion and major social upheaval.ii In the Journal of History
of Philosophy article Kant’s Politics of Enlightenment, Ciaran Cronin, an Assistant Professor of
Philosophy at the University of Illinois said: “…the regime of public reason [Kant] proposes
threatens to intensify the tension between enlightenment and obedience to authority… Thus on
of Kant’s primary concerns in the essay is to argue that the regime of public reason was not only
compatible with absolute government but could be justified as an extension to the political
domain of official Prussian policy…”iii
Because of the situation that Kant lived in he was able to define enlightenment as
something that can only be obtained when man begins to think and act for himself without fear
of retribution from their fellow citizens or any religious or government entity, while at the same
time advocating a strict and immediate obedience to the sovereignty of the country both in the
capacity of a citizen (no matter the class) and in the capacity of a public employee or
representative.
Kant’s Enlightenment and our Current Society
Are we as a society currently “Enlightened” as defined by Kant? No, we are not. As
Kant stated in answer to the same question within his essay “As matters now stand, a great deal
is still lacking in order for men as a whole to be, or even to put themselves into a position to be
able without external guidance to apply understanding confidently to … issues.”iv The driving
factor which would determine enlightenment according to Kant is mans ability to think, on his
own, form opinions without being told by an outside influence what those thoughts and opinions
should be and be governed by a sovereignty that allows freedom of speech and discussion of
ideas without negative consequence.
In our current society, not only is this not the norm it has become pandemic in that the
opposite is now true. Our current society is awash with groups of people, both politically,
religiously and economically, who recite ideological rhetoric they have been spoon fed by their
selected group without a thought as to what the rhetoric might actually mean or for the
consequences that following that ideology may have. Our two major political parties are no
exception to this blind spouting of ideas and thought that no other view is correct in society.
Henderson 3
Currently a very hot topic issue within our country is the right of same sex couples to marry and
receive the legal benefits given to those who are opposite sex couples. A Gallup Poll released
on May 25, 2010 showed that that American acceptance of rights had passed the 50% threshold;
most Americans are for gay rights.v
According to Kant, because there is a large percentage of the population who openly
accept gay marriage, the government should make it legal because that is what the population
wants. Kant made a specific example in his essay of the church imposing an unchangeable
contract upon its congregation in order to “…preclude forever all further enlightenment of the
human race [as] absolutely null and void, even it should be ratified by the supreme power, by
parliaments, and by the most solemn peace treaties. One age cannot bind itself and thus conspire
to place a succeeding one in a condition whereby it would be impossible for the later age to
expand its knowledge…to rid itself of errors, and generally to increase its enlightenment.” He
then goes on to say regarding the action the government should take in such a situation that after
it becomes obvious, if not unanimous, that the population wants to make a substantive change
the government should “…take under its protection those congregations that, in accord with their
newly gained insight, had organized themselves under altered institutions…”vi Instead of our
government protecting this group of people and acknowledging its people’s “newly gained
insight” our political parties feed the flames by throwing out party lines and slogans either
advocating hate towards gay Americans or hate towards those who do not wish to allow those
Americans their rights; no one is advocating that everyone become educated on the idea and
form an opinion for themselves.
Another criteria that must be meet in order for a society to be “enlightened” is that those
who work as public employees, officials, military personnel, clergymen or any other type of
public official must be allowed, in a private setting, to voice their own opinions and thoughts to
their fellow citizens without fear of retribution. On the Federal level in our country today, it is
become more and more common for those employees or public persons who express their
discomfort of disagreement with a policy of our current Administration to be severely punished
for expressing such thoughts. Recently, a former Federal Government employee was charged in
federal court for violating the 1917 Espionage Act. The reason he was charged was because he,
“...impart[ed] to the public all of his carefully considered and well-intentioned thoughts
concerning mistaken aspects of that symbol, as well as his suggestion for the better arrangement
[of those concerns].”vii For this, he has been indicted by the Federal Government and is
awaiting trial.viii
Immanuel Kant reasoned that in order to have an enlightened society, you must be able to
have freedom to learn, assimilate and discuss on your own issues and questions of the day in
order to form opinions. Until society as a whole can do this, and not instead rely upon the
“knowledge” of others to tell them what to think instead, we will never reach the enlightenment
he speaks of. Our current society has been given the tools, including the essays and theories of
those who originally strove for a society in which all people could think, live and act freely but
we have chosen not to take those tools and use them to our full benefit. Our society is currently
one where the majority asks for their opinions and thoughts to be given to them so that they can
fit into the mold that they think best suits their way of life. Until we again strive for freedom to
Henderson 4
express our thoughts and have a government that will actually listen to them, we will stay in an
“age of enlightenment” instead of living in an “enlightened age.”
i
An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment, Immanuel Kant, 1784, p.1
http://www.english.upenn.edu/~mgamer/Etexts/kant.html
For a more detailed discussion on the polity and context of Kants Essay, see James Schmit “The Question of
Enlightenment: Kant, Mendelssohn, and the Mittwochsgesellschaft” Journal of History of Ideas Vol. 50, Issue 2
(1989): 269-291
ii
Kant’s Politics of Enlightenment, Cronin, Ciaran, Journal of the History of Philosophy, Vol. 41, No. 1, January
2003, pp. 51-80 (Article) http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/hph/summary/v041/41.1cronin.html
iii
iv
Kant, p.3
American’s Acceptance of Gay Relations Crosses 50% Threshold, Gallup, May 25, 2010
http://www.gallup.com/poll/135764/americans-acceptance-gay-relations-crosses-threshold.aspx
v
vi
Kant, p.2
vii
Kant, p.2
viii
The Secret Sharer: Is Thomas Drake an Enemy of the State?. Jane Mayer, The New Yorker Magazine, May 23,
2011 http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer