-
Burke, Radical Cosmopolitanism, and the Debates on Patriotism in the 1790s
- Studies in Eighteenth-Century Culture
- Johns Hopkins University Press
- Volume 28, 1999
- pp. 311-339
- 10.1353/sec.2010.0322
- Article
- Additional Information
Burke,RadicalCosmopolitanism, andtheDebateson Patriotism in the 1790s EVANRADCLIFFE EarlyinherVindicationoftheRightsofMen(1790),MaryWollstone- craftmakesapassionateargumentagainstwhatshecallsEdmundBurke's "servilereverenceforantiquity"inhisReflectionsontheRevolutionin France(1790).Aspartofherargument,sheassertsthatthisreverencewould implicitlysanctiontraditionalpracticesthataredeeplyimmoral,practices suchasthe"inhumancustom"oftheslavetrade.But,surprisingly,herattack onBurkedoesnothomeinonwhatsheseesasanimplicitdefenseofslavery. Instead,shedirectsherpolemicinadifferentdirection.Whatsheattacks himforismakingalinkbetweenslaveryandpatriotism;andwhatshefocusesonisnotslaverybutpatriotism .HerprimaryobjectionisthatBurke's tendencytobindupcertaintraditionalpracticeswith"theloveofourcoun- try"willhavetheperniciouseffectofdegradingthenobleidealofpatrio- tism.WollstonecraftcriticizesBurkebymaintainingthathiskindofpatrio- tismisnotatrulypublicideal,butinsteada"selfishprinciple"towhich"everynobleroneissacrificed."Shecontrastshisversionofpatrioticfeeling toamorebroadlyhumanidentity,assertingthatinBurke"[t]heBriton"or "thecitizen"—bywhichshemeansone'sartificialidentificationwithone'scountry—overcomesthedeeperandmoreimportantidentitiesof"theman" or"theimageofGod."Inherview,BurkereplacestheoldGreekandRoman "enthusiasticflame"ofpublicconcernwithadebasedversionofpatriotism inwhich"selfisthefocus."1 311 312/RADCLIFFE Wollstonecraft'sconcernwithBurke'sversionofpatriotismistypicalof theBritishdebatesabouttheFrenchRevolution.TheRevolutioncontroversy raisedquestionsaboutallkindsofloyaltiesandconnections,anditfocused toaremarkableextentonthenatureandvalueofloveofcountry,seenin bothpoliticalandbroadlymoralterms.Politically,conservativesencour- agedapatriotismthat,inordertocondemnreform,associatedreformwith Frenchprinciples;inturn,thisconservativeformofpatriotismgenerated strongresistancefromradicals.Butthepartisandebateaboutloveofcountrywentbeyondpoliticalissues,forfromitsbeginningitinvolvedquestions inheritedfrompreviousmoraldiscourse,questionsthatoftendealtwiththe eighteenth-centuryproblemofegoism.Hence,alongwiththeissueofwho couldeffectivelyclaimpatriotismforhisorherside,cameotherquestions: Isloveofcountryatrulypublicaffection,orjustanextensionofloveofself? Whatistherelationbetweenloveofcountryandmoreextensiveconnec- tions,suchasauniversallinktohumanity(alinkatwhichWollstonecraftis glancingwithhercontrastbetween"theman"and"theBriton")?Andwhat exactlyisthebasisforloveofcountry?Burkewasatthecoreofthecontro- versyoverthesequestions.Exploringthedebateswithaneyetowardthe relationandpotentialconflictbetweenpatriotismanduniversalattachments— andalsotowardearliermoraldiscourse—cannotonlyshedlightonthede- bates,butalsorevealmorepreciselywhereBurke'sindividualityandorigi- nality lie. Burke'sarguments,aswewillsee,areparticularlyhis,2buttheproblems towhichhewasrespondingwerenotindividualtohim.Whatpoliticalwrit- ersinthe1790swereallwrestlingwithwerethepotentiallytroublesome relationshipsbetweenloveofcountryandotherattachments,boththosethat aremoreextensive,likeuniversalbenevolence,andthosethatarelessexten- sive,likeloveofselforfamily.Thesearerelationshipswhichhavebeenoverlookedbymodernscholars.Althoughhistorianshaverecentlyillumi- natedtheroleplayedbytherhetoricofandideasaboutpatriotismineigh- teenth-centuryBritain,theiranalysesslightanimportantdimensionofradi- calideologyinthe1790s,andthusoftheconservativeresponsetoit.What theyleaveoutistheradicals'beliefintheprecedenceofuniversalattach- mentsandaffections,abeliefinvestedwithmoralaswellaspoliticalsignificance ,andonewhichwasacenterofcontroversyinthedecade.Scholars havenotedtheradicals'advocacyoftheuniversalrightsofman3(anadvo- cacywhichconnectsthemtomodernpoliticalthought),butthisdoctrineof rightsisdistinctfromtheuniversalismthatwasmostcentraltomanyradi- cals.Theseradicalswouldhavedescribedtheiruniversalismprincipallyin termsofbenevolence—anideawhichispartoftheBritishsentimentaltradi- tion(butnotofourmodernpoliticaldiscourse),andwhichisnotnecessarily BurkeandtheDebatesonPatriotisminthe1790s/313 impliedinthelanguageoftherightsofman.ThomasPaine,forexample, doesnotrefertouniversalbenevolence,althoughhedoestalkoftherightsof man. Butformostradicals(incontrasttoPaine)itwasbenevolence,conceived ofasaninclinationofouraffectionsratherthanatheoreticaldoctrineof rights,thatcounted.4Andtheseradicalstendedtoassertcosmopolitanviews thatmadeacomprehensiveloyaltysuperiortoalimitedconnectiontoone's country,thoughstillusuallycompatiblewithit(indeed,beforethe1790sthe potentialconflictbetweenbroadconnectionsandnarroweroneshadnotbeen seenasparticularlypressingorashavingimmediatepoliticalimplications). Incontrast,conservativessoughttodiscreditreformersandtheirthinkingby drivingawedgebetweenuniversalconnectionsandnationalloyalty;during theRevolutioncontroversy,conservativediscourseonpatriotismwasinlarge partareactiontoradicalcosmopolitanism.Oneitherside,whencontrover- sialistsdefinedaproperloveofcountry,theyalmostalwayshadtodosoby statingitsrelationshiptotheidealofuniversalbenevolenceor(asitwas oftenformulated)thefigureofthecitizenoftheworld.Thedebate,signifi- cantinitself,isalsoacrucialcontextforBurke'scommentsonloveofcoun-try.Becausedoctrinesofuniversalattachmentseriouslythreatenwhathe takesasthebasisofsociety,theyspurhimtoafullarticulationofhisviews ofpatriotism. Burke'sdiscussionsofpatriotismarealwayscomplex,oftenunconven- tional,andsometimesapparentlyself-contradictory.Heassertsthatourapparentlymostextensiveaffectionsareactuallyselfish ;healsoseemsto contendthatloveofcountryisnoblewhenit'sBritishbutfundamentally flawedwhenit'sFrench.Hetreatspatriotismbothassomethingbasicinthe livesofBritishcitizensbutalsoassomethingthattheyneedtorelearn.He insistsontheimportanceofhistorytopatriotism,but(unlikemostconserva- tivepatriotsappealingtohistory)doesnotusehistoryasasourceofheroic examplesthatwillrevealBritishpreeminence.Mostfundamentally,hecon- structsaformofpatriotismthatisspecificallyBritishbutalsoremarkably un-chauvinistic;BurkeanpatriotismisbothBritishandalsoappropriateto Europeingeneral.IfBurke'spatriotismhasan"other,"that"other"isnot theusualBritishsuspects(suchasFranceorCatholicism)buttheabstrac-tionofuniversalbenevolence. II."Consideryourselvesmoreascitizensoftheworld" BritishsupportersoftheFrenchRevolutioncontinuedtomaketheclaim ofpatriotismthatreformershadmadethroughouttheeighteenthcentury: theyassertedthattheywerethetruepatriotsbecauseitwasonlytheywho 314/RADCLIFFE wouldservethegeneralpublicgoodandpreserveconstitutionalliberties. ButthecosmopolitanpaththatsupportersoftheRevolutiontookwasnew, andwouldnothavebeeneasilypredictabletoaparticipantinearliereigh- teenth-centuryBritishpolitics.Althoughmanyopponentsofthegovernment inthe1790shadexpresseduniversalistviewsbeforetheRevolutioncontro- versy,neverthelesstheoppositiontothegovernmentearlierinthecentury hadbeenlargelychauvinistic;reformersemployedarhetoricofpatriotism imbuedwithhostilitytoFranceandothernations.5ButwhentheFrench RevolutionseemedtoofferaspurtoprogressivechangesinBritain,radi- cals—whilenotdiscardingtheirclaimtobetruepatriots—begantoappeal frequentlytouniversalbenevolence,theideathatbenevolenceandsympathy canbeextendedtoallhumanity.Thisideawasactuallynotasrevolutionary asitmighthavebeen;itcouldhavebeenusedasalevellingdoctrinethat extendedbenevolenceandsolidarityacrossclasslines,butinsteaditwas seenasreachingprimarilyacrossgeographicaldistances.Thisgeographical extensionwascrucialtotheradicals'program,foriftheywantedreformin FrancetobecomeamodelforreforminBritain,theyneededtoaccomplish twoends.First,theyneededtobuildlinkstoFrance;astheradicalLondon CorrespondingSocietywroteinalettertotheFrenchNationalConvention,"we,insteadofnaturalenemies,atlengthdiscoverinFrenchmenourfellow citizensoftheworld."6Second,theyneededtocombattraditionalBritish distrustofwhattheFrenchdid,especiallyafterBritainwenttowarwith France;theyhadtohaveawayofopposingconservativecallstopatriotic solidarityagainsttheFrench. ThecosmopolitanviewsthatmanyBritishsupportersoftheFrenchRevo- lutionheldhadtwodistinctsources:notonlyuniversalbenevolence,which hadbeenexploredbyeighteenth-centuryBritishmoralphilosophers,butalso thefigureofthecitizenoftheworld,whichhaditsrootsinStoicphilosophy (andwascommonamongEnlightenmentphilosophes).Thesesourcescorre- spondtothetwochiefemphasesofcosmopolitanism—detachmentfromlesser connections(thecitizenoftheworld),orstrengtheningofgreaterconnec- tions(universalbenevolence).Althoughthedistinctionbetweentheseorien- tationswasusuallyunnoticed,ithadpracticalpoliticalimplications. Beingacitizenoftheworldimpliedthatonehadachievedacomprehen- siveviewbydisentanglingoneselffromprejudicesandpartialattachments; althoughonecouldhaveattachmentstoparticularpeopleorplaces,these attachmentscouldcarryweightonlyiftheywerebasednotonprejudice, tradition,ormereaccident,butratheronreason—andinanyeventsuch attachmentsshouldnotbetoostrong.Indeed,sincedetachmentwascrucial,onecouldbeacitizenoftheworld—anunbiasedphilosopher,aneutralsci- entist,adetachedhistorian,animpartialjudge(tousecommonimages)— BurkeandtheDebatesonPatriotisminthe1790s/315 withoutassertinganysignificantinterestinthewelfareofhumanityatlarge. Incontrast,universalbenevolencewasinpracticetheBritishradicals'pre- ferredtermpreciselybecauseitmadeastrongercaseforconcernforothers; itimpliednotdivestment,butanactiveextensionandstrengtheningofties andaffections.Theradicalsofthe1790sinheritedthisversionofthecosmo- politanidealfromBritishmoralphilosopherssuchasFrancisHutchesonand LordShaftesbury,who,intheeighteenth-centurydebateabouthowexten- siveouraffectionsandloyaltiescanbe,hadarguedthatwecanandshould seekuniversalbenevolence.7 Thusradicalscoulddrawontheeighteenth-centuryconcernwithegoism. AcentralgoalofBritishmoralphilosophershadbeentocriticizetheegois- ticaltheoriesofhumanbehaviorsetoutbyHobbesandMandeville—"the selfishsystem,"asitwassometimescalled—8andtheattackonegoismhad alsoformedpartofpoliticalrhetoric,oftenbywayofchargesofunpatriotic selfishnesslevelledagainstpoliticalfigures(usuallyoftheCourtparty).9 Havinginheritedtheviewthategoismwasthegreatenemy,Britishsupport- ersoftheRevolutionsoughttoputittotheirownuse.Sometimestheyfol- lowedthemostuncompromisingofcommentariesontheselfishnessofpa- triotism,theonemadebyJonathanEdwardsincolonialNewEngland.ToEdwards,patriotismwassimplyanextensionofselfthatdidnotsharethe natureoftruevirtue:loveofcountry,ifitwasn'tpartofuniversalbenevo- lence,wasasflawedas"anyotherprivateaffection,"evenifitextended"to asystemthatcontainsthousandsofindividuals."10Afewradicalsinthe1790s builtonthisextremeview,nonemoreconsistentlythanEdwards'sadmirer WilliamGodwin.Godwinblamesloveofcountryfor"aspiritofhatredand alluncharitablenesstowardsthecountriesaroundus,"becausemostpeople have"akindofselfishimpulseofprideandvain-glory,whichassumesthe formofpatriotism,andrepresentstoourimaginationwhateverisgainedto ourcountryassomuchgainedtoourdarlingselves."11 Butpatriotismretainedenoughoftheauraofpublicspiritthatithadhad duringmostoftheeighteenthcenturyformostradicalstowanttoclaima truepatriotismforthemselves,justasearlierreformershad.12Accordingly, theyusuallyrepresentedpatriotismaspotentiallybutnotinherentlyandirretrievablyselfish ,andsoughttodefineaproperpatriotisminaparticularway. Someopposedtheselfishnessthatwaspotentialtopatriotismbyusingthe ideaofreason,arguingthatonly"rational"patriotism,asdistinctfrom"natu- ral"patriotism,wasvaluable.13AsHazlittputitduringalaterphaseofthe debate,"ourcountry...isnotanaturalbutanartificialidea,"andpatrio- tismcannotbe"theoffspringofphysicalorlocalattachment."14Indeed,any- onewhoadvocatesthestanceofthecitizenoftheworldcannotaccepta narrowlynationalpartialityasnaturalandinevitable,andtheradicalstooka 316/RADCLIFFE positionthatwasanechoofearliercosmopolitanwriters.Theseearlierwrit- ers,whileacknowledgingthatgeographicalattachmenthadsomepower,arguedthatonecouldandshouldbecomemoredeeplyattachedtoproperprin - ciples;thus,toHutcheson,inanextremecase—forexample,ifone'scountry becomestyrannous,orunjust,orcorrupted—onecouldevengiveupone's nationallove."InhisoppositionmanifestoTheIdeaofaPatriotKing(writ- ten1738,published1749),Bolingbroke(whopraisescosmopolitanism)as- sertsthat"[patriotismmustbefoundedingreatprinciples."16SinceradicalswhosupportedFrenchprincipleshadtoopposeBritishchau- vinism,theypursuedthislineofargument,aswhenRichardPricewrotein hisDiscourseontheLoveofOurCountry,"byourcountryismeant...not thesoilorspotofearthonwhichwehappentohavebeenborn;...[but]that bodyofcompanionsandfriendsandkindredwhoareassociatedwithus underthesameconstitutionofgovernment,protectedbythesamelaws,and boundtogetherbythesamecivilpolity"(Discourse,2-3).Afewwritersin the1790swentevenfurtherthanthis,however,followingtotheirlogicalend thepossibleimplicationsofanattachmenttoprinciplesinsteadofgeogra- phy.WhenJosephFawcettspellsoutthedutiesofwhathecalls"thePatriot oftheChristianschool,"heseesthattheymayincludeturningagainstone's owncountry"ifhisfellow-countrymenopposetherights,[or]settheirface againstthewelfare,ofhisfellow-men;iftheyengageinunrighteouswar, [or]iftheygoouttounjustbattle."17GodwinmakesasimilarpointinPoliti- calJustice,arguingthattheattachmentofapersontothewell-beingofhis countrymen"willbetothecause,andnottothecountry.Whereverthereare menwhounderstandthevalueofpoliticaljusticeandarepreparedtoassert it,thatishiscountry.Whereverhecanmostcontributetothediffusionof dieseprinciplesandtherealhappinessofmankind,thatishiscountry"(515 [5.16];seealso627[6.4]).18 ManysupportersoftheRevolution,however,foundthekeytoproperlove ofcountrynotsolelyordirectlyinprinciplesorreason,butratherinatruly unselfishaffection—universalbenevolence.Universalbenevolence,thatis, couldservetooverruleapotentiallymisguidedpatriotism.Hereradicalsfol- lowedaleadofHutcheson's,whohadsuggestedthatweexpectofhuman- kind"thattheirgeneralbenevolenceshouldcontinuallydirectandlimit,not onlytheirselfishaffections,buteventheirnearerattachmentstoothers...."'9 ThusRichardPriceassertedthat"wemustremember,matanarrowerinter- estoughtalwaystogivewaytoamoreextensiveinterest....weoughtto considerourselvesascitizensoftheworld..."(Discourse,10).ToPrice,a testfortrueloversofcountryshouldbethequestion,areyou"alwayscon- sideringyourselfmoreascitizensoftheworldthanasmembersofanypar- ticularcommunity?"(Discourse,44).Similarly,Fawcettmaintainedthat"the BurkeandtheDebatesonPatriotisminthe1790s/317 partialityoftheaffectionstoanyparticularcommunity"isagoodthingonly if"restrainedfromoffendingagainstthelawsofuniversalbenevolence" (Sermons,2:157). Asthesecommentssuggest,JohnDinwiddy'spointthatradicalpatrio- tism"becameparadoxicallytingedwithcosmopolitanism"("England,"57) ismisleading.Cosmopolitanismwascrucialformanyradicals,andalthough thereisapotentialconflictbetweenpatriotismanduniversalism—aconflict onwhichconservativesinsisted—radicalshadaclearideaofhowthetwo idealsmightcooperate.20AsSamuelRomillyputit,"Thetrueinterestsofa nationneveryetstoodinoppositiontothegeneralinterestsofmankind,and itnevercanhappenthatphilanthropy,andpatriotismcanimposeonanyman inconsistentduties."21III."TheFriendofeveryCountry—buthisown" AspartoftheirresistancebothtoBritishradicalismandtotheimplica- tionsofFrenchprinciplesforBritain,conservativesthusneededtoattack cosmopolitanism.Theysawthattheelevationofthecosmopolitanidealcould underminemepowerofBritishpatriotism—apatriotismthattheyhopedwould beaneffectiveweaponagainstFrenchideas(whichtheyoftensawasagreater threatthanFrenchmilitarypower).Accordingly,conservatives,ledbyBurke, bothattackeduniversalbenevolenceanddefendedpatriotism.Butthesewere notstraightforwardtasks.Conservativesneededtoredefineuniversalbe- nevolence,whichmightseemtobeagreatandworthyideal,asactually selfisli—asamorallyflawed,treacherous,anddestructive"phantom"orseductress (Parr,SpitalSermon,2:375,365).Andtheyalsoneededtodefine patriotismastheidealthatwouldbothchallengecosmopolitanismandevoke supportofthecurrentBritishgovernment. Toopposetheparticularstrainofcosmopolitanismrepresentedbyuniver- salbenevolence,conservativescould(andsometimesdid)followtheoppo- nentsofShaftesburyandHutchesonintheeighteenth-centuryphilosophical debates.WriterssuchasHume,AdamSmith,andLordKarneshadcon- tendedthatbecausewealwaysfeelfarmoreforthoseclosetousthanforthosedistantfromus,universalbenevolenceisbeyondourcapabilities;they hadaddedthatloveofcountryistheutmostaffectionofwhichwearecapable ,andthatitshouldthusbeourcrucialpublicloyalty.Butwhileconser- vativesdidpursuethisavenue,theyfoundaneasierpathinassailingthe figureofthecitizenoftheworld.Becauseofthefrequencyofthisfigurein thewritingsofFrenchphilosophes,conservativescouldlinkradicalstothose suspectFrenchwriters,regardlessofhowdistinctivetheBritishradicalsre- allywere.Andalthoughadvocatesofthecitizenoftheworldcouldassert 318/RADCLIFFE thatthisstanceincludedaconcernforalltheworld,theirpositionwasopen toattackonthescoreofself-involvement.Thisconservativeattack,which echoedancientdenunciationsoftheStoics,22gavetheconservativestheir ownwayofoccupyingthehighmoralgroundoftrueunselfishnessandpub- licconcern.Theydeniedthatuniversalbenevolencelaywithinhumancapa- bilities,andtheyalsowentfurther;theysoughttoshowwhatbeliefinitmust reallymean,andwhyitmattered.Theycontendedthatifuniversalattach- mentscouldnotreallyexist,thenthecryofuniversalbenevolencemustcon- cealsomeselfishdesign.Thustheypursuedearlierhintsthatacosmopolitan stancemightactuallybeacoverforpersonalselfishnessandindifferenceto others. Beforethe1790s,attacksonthecitizenoftheworldhadusuallyaccused himchieflyofindifference,asinGibbon...
