This essay seeks to define why the Scottish Enlightenment theorists rejected previous attempts at social theory and instead formulated their own social theory. It also seeks to define what was scientific about their approach compared to other theorists who formulated other social theories. Firstly the enlightenment will be defined and previous attempts at social theory outlined. Secondly the theorists social theory will be outlined and finally a discussion of why their approach could be considered scientific. This essay will argue that it was the theorists’ departure from conjecture and sermon which made their theory so radical for its time, and their application of the new framework of Newtonian science which allowed their application to be considered scientific.

The enlightenment was a period of philosophical thought and intellectual development which began in the eighteenth century (Ritzer, 2010). The enlightenment theorists sought to combine empirical research with the developing model of Newtonian science. The theorists were convinced that the world around them could be understood using reason and research and that the institutions which governed social values and societal norms were rooted in irrationality and actually acted to inhibit human development (Ritzer, 2010). The theorist’s arguments clashed with the conjectural and traditionally espoused history of the social institutions such as the Church and the political regimes of the countries they operated in (Broadie, 2011). The theorists were not concerned with this however and sought to further their intellectual development through a ‘republic of letters’ whereby their ideas were shared with their peers in the public sphere. They were convinced that an individual’s capacity to reason would result in their ideas being accepted by society at large (Ritzer, 2010). This is personified in Kant’s motto “have the courage to use your own reason” (Berry, 1997, 2). Berry (1997) argues that the Scottish enlightenment thinkers, hereafter referred to as Scots, attached less weight to reason as they were aware of the tenacious resistance that the Scottish church could respond with. They instead attached more weight to the widespread customs and habits of society as they saw this much more decisive in fashioning individual behaviour than reason (Berry, 1997, 7). The scots were not concerned with shaping individual behaviour but explaining why society came to be the way it did and how it could be improved as time went on (Broadie, 2011).

Broadie (2001) argues that the Scottish enlightenment had two essential features. Firstly the Enlightenment thinkers only thought for themselves, which is they did not allow their arguments to assent to something simply because someone or something which holds a position of authority has sanctioned it. Secondly Broadie argues that the enlightenment was characterised by a social virtue of tolerance. In a tolerant society’s people are able to put their ideas into the public domain without fear of retribution from religious, political, or other such authorities. In contrast in medieval times nature was seen as the direct creation of a divine master (Hawthorn, 1987, 8). As nature is seen as the creation of a god, it could not be understood fully, as the only way to understand how god created nature was to study previous sermon and revelation – something which was based on conjecture and classical theories. God was seen as expressing himself in nature, and as nature could be understand through the senses, so they reasoned that god could be understood through nature (Hawthorn, 1987, 8). The Scottish enlightenment theorists; Hume, Ferguson and Smith to name a few, rejected this form of social theory based on conjecture and instead defined their own.

During the enlightenment a new framework of ideas emerged about human beings and their societies. In particular, the theorists were concerned with the social world around them and how it was being changed by industrialisation and changes in the way in which labour was organised (Cross, 2011, 20). This focus on the world around them created new questions about forms of social interaction, about human history, and of political and economic activity. Cross (2011, 20) argues that this questioning of the social world was based on new scientific methods and no longer looked to classical theorists or religious texts for answers based on conjecture. Instead the theorists of the enlightenment sought to explain how and why specific conditions had arisen and what could be done to improve these conditions. Society, they contended, must be explained not as the outcome of a specific social contract but rather as something which has its own history (Hawthorn, 1987, 29). The theorists believed that human nature is everywhere the same but does not appear so due to the differing cultures and social norms present. (Hawthorn, 1987, 29)

In Scotland the so called “Scottish School” of the enlightenment included Adam Ferguson, John Millar, David Hume and Adam Smith (Powell, 2008, 15). This group argued that society was a research topic in its own right and that it could be studied through observation. They saw a direct link between social context and human actions (Powell, 2008, 15). Hume believed society could be characterised in terms of the links between social customs and how these customs interacted with institutions. Similarly Ferguson studied groups and argued that the division of labour which came with this new modernity was a threat to social stability, but also had the potential for progress (Powell, 2008, 15). The enlightenment was an era in history that allowed social theory to be developed. It was a theory which was modified according to the different political and cultural circumstances in which the Scots lived.

The social contract emerged as a theory during the enlightenment to explain the origin of society and the legitimacy of state authority over the individual (Friend, 2004). Callinicos (2011) argues that social theory has three identifying features. Firstly it is concerned with society, which was conceived as separate from political institutions. Secondly it differentiates between different types of societies’. Finally it is concerned with modernity, and in particular the type of society which had developed in the west and was now coming to dominate the world through the advance of colonial possessions. The Scots were writing at a time when observational knowledge of societies wholly different from their own was becoming available due to the colonial conquests made worldwide by European countries (Callinicos, 2011). In addition the Scottish enlightenment developed in a country that was part of the first constitutional monarchy and benefitted from one of the most advanced schooling and university systems in Europe. Furthermore around Glasgow an industrial economy was developing which had direct links to colonial conquests around the globe, and this is a link that Adam Smith made direct use of to discover information about other societies (Callinicos, 2011). It was this information and the new Newtonian approach which allowed them to define a new form of social theory.

Hume explicitly rejected the notion of social contract theory, a previous attempt at social theory, for several reasons (Hume, 2012). Firstly Hume argued that if there is a contract between the people and a ruler, then this contract would form the basis for the rulers’ authority and legitimacy. However consent to a contract can only be made explicitly or implicitly and Hume argued that no such agreement existed. Hume argued against explicit consent as most rulers in history have ruled through force or peaceful succession, and not by choice. Similarly if a ruler is elected he is not elected by all of the electorate, and thus not all of society has explicitly agreed to be ruled by them. Secondly if the contract was based on implicit consent (i.e. by continuing to live there) we must accept the legitimacy of the government. Hume rejects this notion because not all people have the means or the ability to move to a society which they give consent to, therefore if not everyone can leave, there can be no implicit social contract which legitimises the rulers rule (Hume, 2012). In addition to this Hume argues that not only is there no explicit or implicit consent but often explicit dissent occurs, in direct conflict with the social contract theory. Hume (2012) argues that some people are inherently not satisfied with the government and will only pay obedience out of fear and not through allegiance. This explicit dissent from the social contract clearly disagrees with the social contract theory (Friend, 2004). This outright rejection of previous theories is central to how and why the theorists went on to understand the historical evolution of society.

Ferguson (1980) argued that to explain the origins of social institutions you must ground the origin in established evidence or at least hypothesise based on that evidence. Any attempt to explain the origin of institutions which do not do this fail to provide a firm basis in knowledge (Smith, 2009, 15). This is a clear dismissal of the idea that humanity has deliberately designed social institutions, and instead supports the enlightenment view that social institutions are instead seen as emerging through the interaction of many individuals over time (Smith, 2009, 15). Smith and Millar’s four stage models is intended to demonstrate this and also how social institutions are shaped not by design, but by the interaction of different people at different points in history who all face different historical problems and it is how they react to these problems that shape the institutions. (Smith, 2009, 19) Smith (2009) argues that the Scots are advancing the argument that we can use historical evidence to notice patterns and thus build conceptual models about how social institutions emerge and evolve over time. The Scots argued that this would deepen our knowledge of social life because it would reveal the natural forces that are shaping the world around us (Hume, 2012 & Ferguson, 1980). Hawthorn (1987, 30) argues that the Scots believed that an investigation of present circumstances would reveal the correct laws and morality within which civilised society could prosper.

The scots had no interest in social contract theories, myths or divine arguments. Their rejection of Rousseau’s argument about the origin of social institutions is grounded in their belief that they did not align with historical evidence (Smith, 2009, 14). Both Hume and Ferguson argue that the social contract, and any other tradition of assenting to an argument because it is argued from a position of authority, are a product of party politics and that they reveal nothing useful about the origin or operation of political institutions (Smith, 2009, 14). The science of man is supposed to be a means of explaining political institutions in such a way that accords with historical evidence. Enlightenment thought was in essence the first preparation of the development of social scientific thought (Cross, 2011, 29).
Hamilton (1992, 21-22) argues that the enlightenment thinking took place within a broad paradigm and that there are several key features of this paradigm which made their approach scientific. Firstly the theorists recognised the fundamental importance of reason and rationality in their writings. Secondly the theorists used the tenets of empiricism to understand that they could only analyse what they could observe through their senses. Thirdly they recognised that the only way to expand human knowledge is by using the methods of scientific rationale developed during the scientific revolution of the 17th century. Furthermore the theorists adopted the idea of universalism to explain that reason and science can provide explanation for all phenomenon in all circumstances, disregarding previous notions of truth by conjecture. In addition the theorists believed that society could be improved through the application of reason and science which would result in increasing levels of well-being and happiness in society (Hamilton, 1992, 21-22). Furthermore the theorists argued in their writings that the individual is of central importance and that their reason cannot be subject to a higher authority (such as the church) or traditional knowledge based on classical theories. In addition the theorists advocated toleration and the idea that everyone has the same wants and needs and that other cultures are not inferior to European culture, as had been argued. Furthermore freedom, secularism and anti-clericalism were also central to their ideas (Hamilton, 1992, 21-22). The theorists believed that the traditional constraints on beliefs acted to inhibit the development of human knowledge as the traditional religious conjecture and metaphysical speculation which were espoused as the divine right did not correctly describe human history. It is for these reasons that the theorists stood in opposition to the church or any organised religion based in superstition. In addition the theorists were enthusiastic about technological progress and believed any advancement had uses in all of the other fields of human thought at that time (e.g. the advancement of astronomy helped to advance navigation at sea) (Cross, 2011, 21). Finally the enlightenment thinkers had a great desire for political reform in the countries in which they lived. It is this paradigm which together forms the scientific basis which underpinned the enlightenment (Cross, 2011, 21).

In conclusion the Scottish enlightenment theorists rejected previous notions of social contract theory because they believed that no theory could be based on conjecture or sermon, and instead should be based on sound reasoning and observable evidence. Similarly it is this grounding in observable evidence and hypothesis as in Newtonian science, as well as the decision to hold all of their discussions in the public sphere, which made their approach truly scientific. The Scots saw their work as a positive force in society; a source of harmony, integration and order (Ritzer, 2010). The Scots saw their task as not to criticise the society that they lived in but to gather data on the reasons why it operated in the way that it did. By asking questions about how and why societies had come to be the way they were and about the historical and social conditions that had become dominant, the enlightenment thinkers paved the way for other sociological theorists to expand on this social theory.

REFERENCES

Berry, C., (1997) Social theory of the Scottish enlightenment, University of Edinburgh press
Broadie, A. (2011) The Scottish Enlightenment, Canongate: Edinburgh
Callinicos, A., (2011) Social Theory (2nd Ed), Polity Press
Cross, S., (2011) Sociological theory and analysis, University of London press
Ferguson, A. (1980). An essay on the history of civil society, 1767. Transaction Publishers.
Friend, C. (2004). Social contract theory. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Hawthorn, G., (1987) Enlightenment and Despair, Redwood Burn: Towbridge
Hume, D. (2012). A treatise of human nature. Courier Dover Publications.
Powell, M, (2008) The enlightenment and the development of social theory, McGrawHill
Ritzer, G., (2010) Classical sociological theory, McGrawHill
Smith, C. (2009) The Scottish enlightenment: unintended consequences and the science of man, Journal of Scottish Philosophy, 7(1), pp9-28