The Enlightenment cover art

The Enlightenment

An Idea and Its History

Preview

Get 30 days of Standard free

£5.99/mo after trial. Cancel monthly.
Try for £0.00
More purchase options

The Enlightenment

By: J. C. D. Clark
Narrated by: Mike Cooper
Try for £0.00

£5.99 a month after 30 days. Cancel anytime.

Buy Now for £18.89

Buy Now for £18.89

LIMITED TIME OFFER

£0.99/mo for 3 months - terms apply. Offer ends 31 August 2026.

There are many books claiming to explain the Enlightenment, but most assume that it was a thing. J. C. D. Clark shows what it actually was, namely a historiographical concept.

The Enlightenment: An Idea and Its History provides a critical historical analysis of the Enlightenment in England, Scotland, France, Germany, and the United States from c. 1650 to the present. It argues that the degree of commonality between social and intellectual movements in each—and, more broadly, between the five societies—has been overstated for polemical purposes. Clark shows that the concept of 'the Enlightenment' was not widely adopted in those societies until the mid-twentieth century; indeed, that it was unknown in the eighteenth. Without the concept, people at the time were unable to act in ways that would have created the Enlightenment as a coherent movement. Since the conventional account has held that the Enlightenment was a phenomenon, the idea could be used as a component of what has been called a 'civil religion': a summing up of the myths of origin, aims, and essential values of a society from which dissent is not permitted. An appreciation that it was instead a historiographical concept undermines, in turn, the idea that there was any great transition to what came to be called 'modernity'.

©2024 J. C. D. Clark (P)2024 Highbridge Audio
Modern World Thought-Provoking Middle Ages Socialism Capitalism
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
All stars
Most relevant
This book is the historian's equivalent of turning up at a biker bar and starting a fight with all the regulars.

It's a book about "the Englightenment" that contests not that it didn't exist (that'd be too obvious and boring a provocation for Clark), but that it's a 20th century invention. A teleological historiographical concept created (to simplify Clark substantially) in response to the horrors of the two world wars and (a point not made explicitly) Cold War, the decline of Empire, and the rapid social changes of the latter half of the century.

I'll confess that my attention wavered a bit during the middle bulk of the book, where Clark wades through a long succession of potential examples people may use to contest his central thesis (hence dropping a star). But while his repeated assertions that various people were operating independently of each other / actively rejected the ideas of others / didn't see themselves as part of a "movement" / never used the term "the Enlightenment" (capitalised and with a definite article), I see no real need for anyone to do so in order to be unconsciously part of a shift in socio-cultiral perspective.

But then, maybe that's just because I've been primed to think that way thanks to my historical training. Including in a university that employed one of the people who gets it with both barrels here - Jonathan Israel, he of the extensive Radical Enlightenment thesis.

Clark has done a good job of convincing me that Israel is perhaps stretching his argument too far. But then again, all you have to do is look at the number and size of Israel's many books on the subject published over the last quarter century to see that maybe he's trying a little bit too hard to make his case...

I do like books about historiography. And especially a book about historiography that's very happy to pick fights.and challenge preconceptions. This one achieved that goal perfectly - I'll leave it up to the people it attacks (well, those that are still alive) to respond to the core points and details of the arguments, because I lack the detailed knowledge.

At its core, though, the main point strikes me as very sound - when is a trend or a movement really a trend or a movement? Just because we give something a label doesn't make it exist. And correlation is not causation, nor are patterns evidence of conscious connection - they could be coincidence. It's the job of the historian to apply critical thinking to such claims - not to adopt them as unthinking shorthand in ways that impose narrative links between things that may not actually have had any connections between them.

In the audio version be warned that there are substantial quotations that can be hard to discern from the author's own words and some longish passages of untranslated French that may frustrate some.

Thought-provoking

Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.