French Enlightenment
By Riccardo Piroddi
Abstract: L’Illuminismo francese trovò una delle sue espressioni più emblematiche nell’Encyclopédie (1751-1765), diretta da Diderot e d’Alembert. Quest’opera ambiva a rendere il sapere accessibile a tutti, promuovendo un pensiero razionale, laico e critico, in linea con i principi dell’età dei lumi. Denis Diderot concepì la politica come un contratto fondato sul consenso dei cittadini. Contrario al dispotismo e all’ingerenza religiosa, difendeva la proprietà privata e il diritto del popolo a scegliere i propri rappresentanti. Per lui, l’autorità politica legittima nasce solo dalla volontà collettiva. Voltaire, sostenitore della tolleranza e dei diritti civili, proponeva che ogni sistema politico si adattasse alla specifica realtà storica e culturale di un popolo.
Promosse un’idea di legge fondata sulla ragione e contribuì alla diffusione della fisiocrazia, teoria economica che poneva l’agricoltura al centro dello sviluppo e chiedeva riforme profonde sotto l’egida di uno Stato forte. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, invece, criticò duramente la società moderna e il concetto di progresso, considerandoli fonte di disuguaglianza e corruzione morale. Propose una nuova idea di contratto sociale basato sulla volontà generale, espressione del bene comune. Per Rousseau, la sovranità non può essere delegata e la vera democrazia si fonda sulla partecipazione diretta dei cittadini. La religione, depurata dagli elementi dogmatici, doveva diventare uno strumento civile al servizio dell’unità dello Stato. Insieme, questi pensatori ridefinirono i concetti di libertà, sovranità e giustizia, ponendo le basi per le moderne democrazie laiche e rappresentative.
A pivotal moment in the development of the French Enlightenment, or l’âge des lumières, was the publication of the Encyclopédie, ou dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers (Encyclopedia, or a Systematic Dictionary of the Sciences, Arts, and Crafts), between 1751 and 1765. This monumental 17-volume work was spearheaded by Denis Diderot and Jean le Rond d’Alembert, with contributions from notable figures such as La Mettrie, Helvétius, Fontenelle, Rousseau, Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Condillac.
The central goal of the Encyclopédie was to democratize knowledge, making it accessible to a wide audience while systematically presenting the scope and principles of human understanding through a rational and secular lens. It aimed to offer a comprehensive view of society, analysed through the frameworks of chronology, history, and geography. What set this work apart was the autonomy of its contributors, who embodied secular thinking and were driven by a profound sense of intellectual freedom. This independence allowed the Encyclopédie to serve not only as a vast compendium of knowledge but also as a reflection of Enlightenment values, promoting critical inquiry and the pursuit of progress.
Denis Diderot
Denis Diderot (1713–1784), originally educated by Jesuits, eventually abandoned religious studies and became deeply involved with the secular intellectual circles of his time in Paris. As a French philosopher, he embraced John Locke’s social contract theory, arguing that rulers derive their authority from the consent of the governed. He believed that each nation is driven by the collective will to uphold this contract. In this context, Diderot rejected the notion of an “ordering God” and critiqued the paternalism and absolutism that dominated French politics during his era.
Central to Diderot’s philosophy was the concept of consensus, which he saw as the foundational basis for political power. He clearly articulated the dangers of despotism, warning of its potential to degenerate into tyranny. While Enlightenment thinkers generally did not see democracy as the ideal system of governance, they emphasized the importance of representation. For Diderot, citizens were not passive subjects but active participants in political life, with the right to choose their representatives in a process akin to the selective monarchy of England.
Diderot also defended private property, particularly land ownership, viewing it as essential to the formation of a functioning political society. This emphasis on property rights marked a significant democratic shift in Enlightenment thought. He identified the people as the sole source of sovereign power, considering them the only legitimate legislators. Furthermore, he argued for the right to resist rulers who acted against the general will.
Diderot’s ideas were strongly influenced by republicanism and a political philosophy grounded in citizen consent. He advocated for the exclusion of religious influence from public affairs and called for a system of public education that adhered to the principles of tolerance and humanity, laying the foundation for a secular, inclusive society.
Voltaire
Voltaire (pseudonym of François Marie Arouet, 1694–1778), a key figure among the philosophes, is widely regarded as one of the first modern intellectuals. He worked across various literary genres, advocating fervently for human freedom and religious tolerance, most notably in his Treatise on Tolerance (1762). Although not formally trained as a jurist, Voltaire argued that the state should be grounded in laws shaped by reason and natural law. He proposed a form of political relativism, suggesting that no single system of government is universally valid; rather, each state should adopt a form of governance that aligns with the distinct esprit—or character—of its people during a specific historical period.
Voltaire’s contributions to political theory, especially his involvement in the Encyclopédie, reflect key elements of Contractualism, such as the idea of law as a guarantor of equality among men. His unique perspective on Contractualism incorporated the principle of tolerance, arguing that the relationship between citizens and rulers should not be based on abstract political theories but rather grounded in the constitutional and institutional realities of each nation. He viewed history not as divinely guided, but as a process of secular progress influenced by political, economic, and social factors, particularly labour.
Voltaire’s ideas laid the groundwork for the development of Physiocracy, an economic theory promoted by François Quesnay, physician to King Louis XIV, and articulated in his Tableau Économique (1758). Quesnay contended that only the agricultural class—rather than merchants—produced a surplus, the difference between the input of resources and the output of goods. Physiocrats, who were proponents of natural law, believed that economic growth derived from humanity’s mastery over nature, with agriculture taking precedence over trade, a reversal of the mercantilist view.
For Physiocrats, agriculture was the sole activity capable of generating a rational and natural economic order, allowing capital to be reinvested in other productive sectors. They advocated for the redistribution of land among citizens, the elimination of feudal privileges, and the removal of taxes on pasture and grain trade. Such a societal reorganization, however, required the authority of a strong sovereign who could centralize power and implement the Physiocratic agenda, driving economic and social reform.
Jean-Jaques Rousseau
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) was one of the most versatile philosophers of the 18th century, engaging in a wide array of fields such as musicology, pedagogy, botany, drama, and political science. He was actively involved in the Encyclopédie project and frequently interacted with many leading thinkers of his time, though often contentiously.
At the heart of Rousseau’s philosophy is the sharp contrast between history and a just society. He famously posited that man, in his natural state, is inherently good and, without societal influences, has no inherent reason to form associations with others. Rousseau argued that there is a vast gap between the state of nature and civil society. In his words, “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains,” reflecting his belief that the formation of society imposes constraints on human freedom.
Rousseau believed that the creation of civil society was driven by a key human trait: perfectibility, the capacity for improvement, which pushes individuals to strive for higher levels of well-being. This drive, he argued, stems from two natural instincts—self-love (amour de soi) and compassion for others—which form the foundation of human sociality. However, Rousseau’s doctrine departs from Enlightenment ideals and traditional natural law by taking a critical stance on progress. He viewed progress not as a positive force but as a detrimental influence on both the material and moral development of humanity. While Enlightenment thinkers saw the arts and sciences as tools of emancipation, Rousseau contended that they had led to the corruption of humanity’s original virtues.
For Rousseau, this degeneration manifested in the rise of inequality and the loss of the natural innocence that characterized humanity in its primitive state. He traced the evolution of mankind from the state of nature to civilized society through two key developments: the emergence of the family and the institution of private property. Rousseau viewed private property and wealth as the primary sources of inequality, arguing that the abandonment of the state of nature created an “unjust pact,” giving rise to an unfair and unequal society. This perspective stood in opposition to both natural law and Aristotle’s belief that humans are inherently political animals.
Rousseau argued that the state institutionalizes abuse and exploitation by enshrining laws, judicial systems, bureaucracies, and arbitrary power, all of which serve to reinforce class inequalities between masters and slaves, the rich and the poor. In response, Rousseau’s conception of the social contract aimed to protect citizens from the abuses of those in power. Unlike Hobbes, who viewed the social contract as a pact of submission (pactum subjectionis), Rousseau framed it as a pact of union (pactum unionis), forming not a sovereign institution but a community of free and equal individuals. This contract serves to curb the potential for individuals to oppress one another in exchange for the collective guarantee of civil liberties.
At the core of this social contract is the concept of the general will, which represents the common good. The general will has two defining features: it limits individual selfishness in favour of mutual protection, and it serves as the driving force of the political body, ensuring that its sole objective is the happiness and well-being of the people. In Rousseau’s model, the political body, which he also called the Republic, operates under different roles depending on its function. It is referred to as the “State” when it maintains the established order in a passive capacity, the “sovereign” when it actively legislates for the common good, and “power” when it exerts its strength in relation to other states. Thus, Rousseau’s vision of governance is fluid and dynamic, focusing on the evolving collective will of a community striving toward the happiness and equality of its members.
According to Rousseau, the loss of natural rights in the social contract does not, as Hobbes suggested, lead to totalitarianism. Instead, the surrender of individual rights, which is the essence of the social contract, ensures equality by preventing domination by others. The general will, which represents the moral dimension of the political community in its pursuit of collective happiness, is not external to the individual; rather, it expresses the individual’s will in alignment with the common good. As a result, politics becomes the vehicle for moral values, even if the general will does not always align perfectly with individual desires—it consistently reflects the shared interest of the community.
Rousseau identified four key characteristics of sovereignty as expressed through the general will: it is inalienable, indivisible, infallible, and absolute. Its ethical foundation lies in the moral and civic virtues of each citizen. The law, as the primary expression of this sovereign will, guarantees justice and individual freedom when grounded in these principles, restraining transgressions and curbing the desire for oppression.
While Rousseau’s philosophy is often viewed as atheistic in the traditional sense, it is underpinned by a unique “mystical” and “religious” faith in civil society. He believed that regardless of the form of government, a state founded on the “common good” must be democratic, as it reflects the collective will of the political body. This body, seen as both a collective consciousness and a moral entity, exists to secure the happiness of its citizens. Thus, Rousseau’s vision of democracy is deeply rooted in the idea that the state should serve as an extension of the people’s moral aspirations, unified in the pursuit of the common good.
Rousseau’s social contract challenges the concept of political representation, as he believed the general will cannot be delegated or transformed into representation. Elected members of parliaments, therefore, should only act as commissioners, proposing laws that the collective will of the people alone has the authority to ratify. The legislator, in Rousseau’s view, takes on an almost mythical, demiurgic role, embodying an ethical figure with the pedagogical responsibility to guide, inspire, and moralize the general will of the people. This model of governance, which Rousseau termed the Republic, represents a vision of total democracy.
However, Rousseau acknowledged that such a pure democracy is only feasible in an ideal, “perfect” world. In practical terms, he recognized two additional traditional forms of government: aristocracy and monarchy. The choice between these forms, he argued, depends on the specific geographical and historical circumstances of a given state.
Religion, according to Rousseau, plays a crucial role in the establishment of a cohesive, unitary state. He advocated for a civil religion, one marked by simple, universal principles that do not interfere with political affairs but are nonetheless under the control of the state. This civil religion would foster civic unity and loyalty, without the divisiveness of traditional confessional faiths, thus supporting the stability and moral fabric of the republic.
