Charles de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu played a number of important roles in the development of 18th century thought. He published a number of works which were aimed at throwing cold water on any unrestrained sense of Euro-centrism by providing various accounts of the (sometimes exaggerated) differences between his own Judeo-Christian culture and other non-Christian cultures which seemed to get by just as well. Nevertheless, he did not accept, and indeed fought against the strong form of cultural relativism which such accounts might seem to suggest. He saw that while there were innumerable and significant differences across cultures, he also saw similarities which arose from each culture being forced to interact with the same natural reality. Montesquieu would take these similarities and develop an account of the role of despotism in societies, an account which would greatly influence America’s Founding Fathers.
In the 18th century, relativism was seen as a growing problem. A number of factors contributed to this “problem.” First was the popularity of John Locke’s philosophy which said that no person could ever know anything except what they experienced, a doctrine which lead inexorably to relativism for the mere fact that each person experiences the world in a unique way (indeed, according to Locke this is the very reason for the uniqueness of each individual).
More fundamentally, however, man’s experience of the world will also be relative to the nature and features of his sensory apparatuses, apparatuses which are limited in both quantity as well as quality. In the same vein, Voltaire asks his audience to imagine an alien species visiting earth (in the 18th century!) which had a vastly greater lifespan as well as 1,000 of senses rather than our commonly recognized 5. Such a species would still, according to Voltaire’s account of Lockian philosophy, complain of their ignorance and epistemic limitations.
The more influential factor in the problem of relativism was due to the growth of printing as well as literacy within the general public. By means of the new availability of literature, Europeans were becoming more and more exposed to foreign and exotic peoples which presented the reader with astonishing difference from “normal and natural” European culture. Such accounts, especially those of Montesquieu as we will see, made clear that not only were these cultures strange and exotic to the Europeans, but that the European culture was just as strange and exotic to these other people.
Such accounts provided rather detailed descriptions of how the elderly as well as women in foreign lands were treated very differently than they were in the West. They also described how different many of the traditions, genealogies, customs, morals and especially religions were in far away places. Indeed, the very possibility that non-Christian cultures could thrive and flourish, as they did in India and China to name but a few, came as a shock to the average European mind. Imagine the heterodoxy implicit in Voltaire’s beginning his history of the world, not with the story found in Genesis, but rather with China, whose records reached back even further than the date of creation, as found in the Bible.
In addition to these cultural forces, Montesquieu was personally influenced by a number of other factors in his life to better sense the importance of cultural relativism. His wife was a Huguenot, a Protestant in a Catholic France, which helped him appreciate the accident of birth into a particular religion, the same point made by Bayle who was himself a Huguenot. Montesquieu also had a Chinese friend who had converted to Christianity while still living in China. This friend had come to Europe expecting to find a Christian culture in the strongest sense of the term, including turning the other cheek, and everything else one read in the Sermon on the Mount. His friend’s experience of disillusionment brought to Montesquieu’s attention the curious nature and functions of society and culture.
These influences in Montesquieu’s life allowed him not only to see the contingency inherent in the features of foreign cultures, but also allowed him to see the contingencies and idiosyncrasies of his own culture. It was this latter change in perspective which allowed him to write The Persian Letters, an epistolary book composed of letters which were supposed to have been written by Persian traveler to his homeland, describing Western Civilization through “Persian” eyes. This perspective allows him to comment, in satirical form, upon the absurdities of many beliefs and customs regarding the pope, the king, nobles, bishops and so on; beliefs and customs which Europeans had until then taken for granted as being “natural.” In a word, The Persian Letters is aimed at seriously undermining any kind of ethnocentricity in the study of politics, religion, society, culture, etc.
This rejection of any one “true” or “natural” culture against which to compare, contrast and otherwise judge other cultures allows Montesquieu to ask other, for more fundamental question regarding the nature of society. What features and characteristics of society, both in general as well as particulars, are relative to place and time? Which are natural or universal? What can be changed in any given society? And so on. What features were of particular interest to Montesquieu were the varieties of despotism, liberty and ethics.
Let us first deal with Montesquieu’s views concerning the relativity of ethics, for liberty and despotism will need to be considered in tandem. While the customs, which include ethical norms, may vary widely across cultures, beneath each of these cultures in a common reality which each of the former must relate to somehow. In other words, while social laws as legislated by societies may vary, natural laws which are discovered by scientists do not. Thus, even though the particular way in which a society may interact with natural reality may not be the same (and it certainly is not), the functions which each particular and unique social institution serve should be more or less the same across cultures. The task of a science of history or a social science, according to Montesquieu, is to discover the common functions or forms which are at work beneath the particular features of each society.
This point has significant consequences for any theory of morals and/or politics. Certain actions have real or universal consequences, for the laws of cause and effect do not work differently for Christians than they do for Buddhists. This reality points to some form of universal values which must underlie any system of morals or politics. The problems of not only making a living in a natural world, but also of making a living in the context of other people who are also attempting to make a living in the context of both a natural world as well as other people, are common problems which must be addressed, in whatever particular fashion it happens to be, in order for the society to exist. While such solutions may not be perfect or permanent, they will all resemble what we call ethics and politics, even if the resemblance is only in function.
This leads to the tension between despotism and liberty. Montesquieu classifies what he sees as the main varieties of political systems and indicates what he takes to be their animating spirit. First is a republic, which he sees as being motivated by virtue and ruled by an aristocracy. Next is the monarchy, which is motivated by honor, one man rules according to law and custom. Then there is the despotism, wherein people are motivated by fear and are governed by the will and caprice of an individual. Finally, Montesquieu sees the most desirable form of government to be democratic in nature in which people are most free since they govern themselves. Unfortunately, however, he sees the democratic government as being the least stable of the four.
Montesquieu sees these forms of government as morphing into one another according to the tension between despotism and liberty. In the case of despotism, fear and terror in wielded in order to subject others to one’s will and caprice. Once this fear and terror is no longer eminent, however, liberty reasserts itself one way or another. Montesquieu offers two resolutions to this tension: First, a society must establish rights for individuals without the allowance of anarchy. Second, there must be a separation of power in that separate and distinct systems or concentrations of power must act as checks and balances upon one another. In this, we can see Montesquieu’s considerable influence upon the Founding Fathers.
