Adam Smith and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are canonical figures in political theory, ethics, intellect... more Adam Smith and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are canonical figures in political theory, ethics, intellectual history, and economics. They have independently generated masses of commentary, just shy, perhaps, of the likes of Hobbes or Marx. Yet, despite the unfathomable breadth of the literature, much scholarship has supposedly perpetuated a strawman. Until the turn of the millennium, as the editors tell us, 'there was a popular, if crude, notion that the two were in some sense opposites or even enemies' (3). Smith was regarded as an advocate of liberalism, and as a supporter of commercial society which operated according to the self-regulating principle of selfishness. Rousseau, on the other hand, idolised the noble savage, was an advocate of republicanism, and a critic of commercial society and civilisation at large. Recent developments in both Smith and Rousseau scholarship, as well as the emergence of comparative Smith/Rousseau studies, which began in earnest in the early 2000s, has led to a broad acceptance that these eighteenth-century giants are, in fact, more aligned than had previously been understood. To date, key areas of comparative investigation have included self-interest, the role of interpersonal comparisons ('amourpropre' for Rousseau and 'sympathy' for Smith), and the problems of commercial society. In these areas, and many more, scholars have noted a surprising level of similarity. Thus, with few exceptions, the essays contained in this fine book develop what seems to be the new consensus. What this edition offers, in fourteen essays including an editor's introduction, is a representative sample of current scholarship on the Smith/Rousseau comparative enterprise. The posthumous publication of Istvan Hont's Politics in Commercial Society (2015) has clearly energised those interested in the Smith-Rousseau connection, and is used a as a starting point for several essays in this compilation. Indeed, Ryan Patrick Hanley's contribution (16-31) is essentially a review of that work. In short, Hont urged us to see Smith and Rousseau 'not just as authors of dead texts but also as presences in our contemporary theorising' (Hont, 2015: 24), and it is in this spirit that this collection is presented. While all of the essays are rewarding, only a sample can be addressed here. Mark Hulliung is the only contributor to offer a sustained critique of the Smith-Rousseau connection. It is a refreshing piece, in which he goes so far as to claim that the supporting evidence to read Rousseau as an important intellectual interlocutor of Smith, and a major figure in the Scottish Enlightenment, could 'hardly be thinner' (36). His fellow contributors may disagree, but Hulliung does raise some uncomfortable observations about the state of Smith/Rousseau scholarship. It is true that Smith rarely refers to Rousseau in his major works, and his consideration of Rousseau in the 'Letter to the Edinburgh Review' is brief. On balance, however, the arguments in favour of the project prevail. After all, Smith makes plenty of textual references to Rousseau elsewhere, they both address similar questions, and, as John McHugh (109-123) recognises, Smith's critique of Mandeville's 'licentious system' is also a critique of Rousseau's (110). Nevertheless, Hulliung's suggestion that many Smith/Rousseau scholars should 'admit frankly that they have not been thinking as historians but rather as political theorists' (45-46) is legitimate. Given that Hulliung's essay
Adam Smith and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are canonical figures in political theory, ethics, intellect... more Adam Smith and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are canonical figures in political theory, ethics, intellectual history, and economics. They have independently generated masses of commentary, just shy, perhaps, of the likes of Hobbes or Marx. Yet, despite the unfathomable breadth of the literature, much scholarship has supposedly perpetuated a strawman. Until the turn of the millennium, as the editors tell us, 'there was a popular, if crude, notion that the two were in some sense opposites or even enemies' (3). Smith was regarded as an advocate of liberalism, and as a supporter of commercial society which operated according to the self-regulating principle of selfishness. Rousseau, on the other hand, idolised the noble savage, was an advocate of republicanism, and a critic of commercial society and civilisation at large. Recent developments in both Smith and Rousseau scholarship, as well as the emergence of comparative Smith/Rousseau studies, which began in earnest in the early 2000s, has led to a broad acceptance that these eighteenth-century giants are, in fact, more aligned than had previously been understood. To date, key areas of comparative investigation have included self-interest, the role of interpersonal comparisons ('amourpropre' for Rousseau and 'sympathy' for Smith), and the problems of commercial society. In these areas, and many more, scholars have noted a surprising level of similarity. Thus, with few exceptions, the essays contained in this fine book develop what seems to be the new consensus. What this edition offers, in fourteen essays including an editor's introduction, is a representative sample of current scholarship on the Smith/Rousseau comparative enterprise. The posthumous publication of Istvan Hont's Politics in Commercial Society (2015) has clearly energised those interested in the Smith-Rousseau connection, and is used a as a starting point for several essays in this compilation. Indeed, Ryan Patrick Hanley's contribution (16-31) is essentially a review of that work. In short, Hont urged us to see Smith and Rousseau 'not just as authors of dead texts but also as presences in our contemporary theorising' (Hont, 2015: 24), and it is in this spirit that this collection is presented. While all of the essays are rewarding, only a sample can be addressed here. Mark Hulliung is the only contributor to offer a sustained critique of the Smith-Rousseau connection. It is a refreshing piece, in which he goes so far as to claim that the supporting evidence to read Rousseau as an important intellectual interlocutor of Smith, and a major figure in the Scottish Enlightenment, could 'hardly be thinner' (36). His fellow contributors may disagree, but Hulliung does raise some uncomfortable observations about the state of Smith/Rousseau scholarship. It is true that Smith rarely refers to Rousseau in his major works, and his consideration of Rousseau in the 'Letter to the Edinburgh Review' is brief. On balance, however, the arguments in favour of the project prevail. After all, Smith makes plenty of textual references to Rousseau elsewhere, they both address similar questions, and, as John McHugh (109-123) recognises, Smith's critique of Mandeville's 'licentious system' is also a critique of Rousseau's (110). Nevertheless, Hulliung's suggestion that many Smith/Rousseau scholars should 'admit frankly that they have not been thinking as historians but rather as political theorists' (45-46) is legitimate. Given that Hulliung's essay
Adam Smith and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are canonical figures in political theory, ethics, intellect... more Adam Smith and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are canonical figures in political theory, ethics, intellectual history, and economics. They have independently generated masses of commentary, just shy, perhaps, of the likes of Hobbes or Marx. Yet, despite the unfathomable breadth of the literature, much scholarship has supposedly perpetuated a strawman. Until the turn of the millennium, as the editors tell us, 'there was a popular, if crude, notion that the two were in some sense opposites or even enemies' (3). Smith was regarded as an advocate of liberalism, and as a supporter of commercial society which operated according to the self-regulating principle of selfishness. Rousseau, on the other hand, idolised the noble savage, was an advocate of republicanism, and a critic of commercial society and civilisation at large. Recent developments in both Smith and Rousseau scholarship, as well as the emergence of comparative Smith/Rousseau studies, which began in earnest in the early 2000s, has led to a broad acceptance that these eighteenth-century giants are, in fact, more aligned than had previously been understood. To date, key areas of comparative investigation have included self-interest, the role of interpersonal comparisons ('amourpropre' for Rousseau and 'sympathy' for Smith), and the problems of commercial society. In these areas, and many more, scholars have noted a surprising level of similarity. Thus, with few exceptions, the essays contained in this fine book develop what seems to be the new consensus. What this edition offers, in fourteen essays including an editor's introduction, is a representative sample of current scholarship on the Smith/Rousseau comparative enterprise. The posthumous publication of Istvan Hont's Politics in Commercial Society (2015) has clearly energised those interested in the Smith-Rousseau connection, and is used a as a starting point for several essays in this compilation. Indeed, Ryan Patrick Hanley's contribution (16-31) is essentially a review of that work. In short, Hont urged us to see Smith and Rousseau 'not just as authors of dead texts but also as presences in our contemporary theorising' (Hont, 2015: 24), and it is in this spirit that this collection is presented. While all of the essays are rewarding, only a sample can be addressed here. Mark Hulliung is the only contributor to offer a sustained critique of the Smith-Rousseau connection. It is a refreshing piece, in which he goes so far as to claim that the supporting evidence to read Rousseau as an important intellectual interlocutor of Smith, and a major figure in the Scottish Enlightenment, could 'hardly be thinner' (36). His fellow contributors may disagree, but Hulliung does raise some uncomfortable observations about the state of Smith/Rousseau scholarship. It is true that Smith rarely refers to Rousseau in his major works, and his consideration of Rousseau in the 'Letter to the Edinburgh Review' is brief. On balance, however, the arguments in favour of the project prevail. After all, Smith makes plenty of textual references to Rousseau elsewhere, they both address similar questions, and, as John McHugh (109-123) recognises, Smith's critique of Mandeville's 'licentious system' is also a critique of Rousseau's (110). Nevertheless, Hulliung's suggestion that many Smith/Rousseau scholars should 'admit frankly that they have not been thinking as historians but rather as political theorists' (45-46) is legitimate. Given that Hulliung's essay
Adam Smith and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are canonical figures in political theory, ethics, intellect... more Adam Smith and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are canonical figures in political theory, ethics, intellectual history, and economics. They have independently generated masses of commentary, just shy, perhaps, of the likes of Hobbes or Marx. Yet, despite the unfathomable breadth of the literature, much scholarship has supposedly perpetuated a strawman. Until the turn of the millennium, as the editors tell us, 'there was a popular, if crude, notion that the two were in some sense opposites or even enemies' (3). Smith was regarded as an advocate of liberalism, and as a supporter of commercial society which operated according to the self-regulating principle of selfishness. Rousseau, on the other hand, idolised the noble savage, was an advocate of republicanism, and a critic of commercial society and civilisation at large. Recent developments in both Smith and Rousseau scholarship, as well as the emergence of comparative Smith/Rousseau studies, which began in earnest in the early 2000s, has led to a broad acceptance that these eighteenth-century giants are, in fact, more aligned than had previously been understood. To date, key areas of comparative investigation have included self-interest, the role of interpersonal comparisons ('amourpropre' for Rousseau and 'sympathy' for Smith), and the problems of commercial society. In these areas, and many more, scholars have noted a surprising level of similarity. Thus, with few exceptions, the essays contained in this fine book develop what seems to be the new consensus. What this edition offers, in fourteen essays including an editor's introduction, is a representative sample of current scholarship on the Smith/Rousseau comparative enterprise. The posthumous publication of Istvan Hont's Politics in Commercial Society (2015) has clearly energised those interested in the Smith-Rousseau connection, and is used a as a starting point for several essays in this compilation. Indeed, Ryan Patrick Hanley's contribution (16-31) is essentially a review of that work. In short, Hont urged us to see Smith and Rousseau 'not just as authors of dead texts but also as presences in our contemporary theorising' (Hont, 2015: 24), and it is in this spirit that this collection is presented. While all of the essays are rewarding, only a sample can be addressed here. Mark Hulliung is the only contributor to offer a sustained critique of the Smith-Rousseau connection. It is a refreshing piece, in which he goes so far as to claim that the supporting evidence to read Rousseau as an important intellectual interlocutor of Smith, and a major figure in the Scottish Enlightenment, could 'hardly be thinner' (36). His fellow contributors may disagree, but Hulliung does raise some uncomfortable observations about the state of Smith/Rousseau scholarship. It is true that Smith rarely refers to Rousseau in his major works, and his consideration of Rousseau in the 'Letter to the Edinburgh Review' is brief. On balance, however, the arguments in favour of the project prevail. After all, Smith makes plenty of textual references to Rousseau elsewhere, they both address similar questions, and, as John McHugh (109-123) recognises, Smith's critique of Mandeville's 'licentious system' is also a critique of Rousseau's (110). Nevertheless, Hulliung's suggestion that many Smith/Rousseau scholars should 'admit frankly that they have not been thinking as historians but rather as political theorists' (45-46) is legitimate. Given that Hulliung's essay
Uploads
Papers by Jack Edmunds