Théorie politique

H13(b) - Rhetoric and Revolution in Early-Modern French and Anglo-American Political Thought

Date: Jun 13 | Heure: 01:45pm to 03:15pm | Salle: 680 Sherbrooke St. West 1085

Chair/Président/Présidente : Travis Smith (Concordia University)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Travis Smith (Concordia University)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Ann Ward (Baylor University)

Seventeenth and Eighteenth-century French and Anglo-American political thought often highlighted the intersection of specific, stylized modes of discourse and distinct claims to political legitimacy. This panel will explore an aspect of this characteristic concern as it appeared in the relation between polite and political rhetoric, on one hand, and concerns about regime stability and justifications for revolution, on the other, as these issues were considered in the works of the Baron de Montesquieu, Madame de Scudery, David Hume and John Adams. This panel will draw out parallels between Mme. de Scudery and David Hume’s understanding of the importance of political rhetoric as a medium to define an inclusive public sphere, as well as Montesquieu and Adams’ efforts to ground a liberal theory of political legitimacy directed toward preserving balanced constitutions. The panel will also explore the question of political legitimacy in light of the conflict between traditional European contract theory and the indigenous concept of treaties. It is hoped that illuminating important early-modern examples of political discourse and political stability and non-western alternatives will provide salutary counter-models to the corrosively partisan and rhetorically impoverished political discourse today.

John Adams and the Conservative Theory of Revolution: Lee Ward (Baylor University)
Abstract: It is well known that John Adams was a hero of the American Revolution and later a severe critic of the French Revolution. In this respect, he differed from his old friend and political rival Thomas Jefferson, and rather resembled the famed British conservative thinker Edmund Burke, who defended the American colonies in their dispute with the British Ministry in the 1760’s and 1770’s and then to the surprise of many became an early and fierce opponent of the revolution in France. This paper will examine Adams’ attitude toward the modern idea of revolution as both a natural right and as historically contingent phenomena by comparing and contrasting Adams’ position on revolution with the argument of Burke. My aim is to reinterpret Adams’ treatment of the French Revolution, especially in his Discourses on Davila (1791) and his later correspondence with Thomas Jefferson in a series of letters from 1813, 1815, and 1823, as an effort to articulate a conservative theory of revolution that shared Burke’s attention to the preservation of the mixed constitution, but in contrast to Burke, confirmed Adams’ commitment to natural rights. The connection between Adams’ Discourses on Davila and Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France was made at the time with many in America including Thomas Jefferson and his supporters associating Adams’ position on the French Revolution with that of Burke. As such, I will conclude by examining the extent to which Adams’ and Jefferson’s differing interpretations of the right to revolution, both generally and in the specific context of France, contributed to the partisan and ideological divisions in the early American Republic.

Plutarch in drag? The political theory of Scudery’s “Les Femmes illustres” (1642): Rebecca Kingston (University of Toronto)
Abstract: This paper offers an account of the conception of the public sphere as found in Scudery’s Les Femmes illustres, ou harangues historiques. While largely thought to be written by Madeleine de Scudery, the work was published under the name of her brother George. It offers a series of imagined speeches by important women in the history of ancient thought at key moments of crisis or decision-making, as a means to imbue these historical figures with greater moral personality than is given to them in the extant sources where they remain largely silent. Still, the mode and manner of their imagined interventions here often violate expected norms of speech-making and delivery. This paper will explore how the feminist angle contributes to a broader commentary not only on who is to be included but on how to think about the public realm in the context of 17th century French absolutism.

Hume and Polite Rhetoric: Ali Elyasi (Carleton University)
Abstract: David Hume is well known for his philosophical inquiries concerning morals and human nature; however, his political thoughts are just as valuable as his philosophical endeavours. Perhaps the least studied aspect of the Scot’s political philosophy is his discussion on political rhetoric and its impact on factionalism of 18th century politics. To my knowledge, Marc Hanvelt is one of the few scholars who has undertaken a comprehensive study of Hume’s conceptualisation of, what Hanvelt calls, polite and eloquent rhetoric. According to Hanvelt, Hume believed that this type of rhetoric can overcome the problems of factional divide plaguing 18th century English politics. Polite and eloquent rhetoric incorporates tactics, such as tolerance, which distinguishes it from vulgar rhetoric used by factional leaders. True to the Socratic maxim of philosophy being a way of life, Hume actively exercised what he preached. The Scot became friends with individuals who had drastically different political principles than he did. From members of the Kirk to Jacobite rebels, Hume had interlocutors and audiences from various political backgrounds. However, it is the contention of this paper that Hume’s philosophy of rhetoric falls short of its stated goal: undercutting the foundational philosophical rigidity of the factions based on principle. Factions based on principle were Hume’s primary political targets and he aimed to open a philosophical opportunity for challenging these factions’ rigid subscription to metaphysical abstractions. In my paper, I aim to show how and why the Scot’s theory of polite rhetoric proved insufficient despite his eloquent efforts.

Contract, Treaty, and Relationship: Collective Debt, Collective Responsibility and Contractarian Confusions: Robert Sparling (University of Ottawa)
Abstract: Among the most important and most widely misunderstood claims of the Indigenous resurgence movement in Canada is the centrality of treaty in defining relationships between nations. Citing Theresa Spence’s assertion, “you are treaty, too,” Sarah Wiebe has recently demonstrated the degree to which this reminder shakes the foundation of the imaginary of non-Indigenous Canadians, who tend to exhibit both an ignorance of and an indifference to the ongoing relationship that treaty is supposed to entail. This raises a number of fundamental philosophical questions about how communities relate to one another. What are the principles by which collectivities relate to other entities over long periods of time? What type of relationality is entailed by treaties and how do these differ from contractual relationships, and in particular debt relationships? What treaty entails in one imaginary – a kind of long-term, perpetually-enacted bond between peoples—appears radically different from the many agreements between parties that we know of under the concept of ‘contract’. Certainly, when contractarian thinkers describe meaningful, long-term social relations in contractual terms (think of Hobbes’s or Kant’s descriptions of the family, for instance), readers tend to recoil at the mercenary, transactional nature of the description. Yet many quite meaningful long-term relationships can be described in contractual terms, just as many treaties between nations have something of the mercenary to them. In this paper, we will attempt to gain some insight into the distinction between these phenomena by examining the theory and practice of contract, treaty and collective debt in late eighteenth and early nineteenth-century European political thought. In particular, our focus will be on the phenomenon of long-term public debt, and the manner in which it is distinct from other forms of long-term collective promising. The European incomprehension of treaty as understood by Indigenous nations was and remains tied, I will argue, to confusions in contractarian political thought. Colonial powers have a strangely selective capacity for long-term memory: monetary debts incurred hundreds of years ago continue to be honoured today, yet memories of treaties fade, and ongoing relationships are repeatedly neglected and forgotten. In this paper, the tension between these two forms of collective historical responsibility will be explored.