Last week I read and digressed (recall) on Josephine Quinn’s excellent (2024) How the World Made the West: a 4,000 Year History. Along the way I expressed some misgivings on how she tells the story about her main polemical target, the tendency to treat civilizations as social kinds, especially associated with the idea of superiority and homogeneity. I added Quinn “associates this idea with eighteenth century stadial thought, and especially nineteenth century Victorian (and French) imperialism.” In her account Mirabeau first uses the term in the 1750s, and then the (somewhat reactionary) liberal Guizot rethinks the history of Europe in light of it setting the stage for all kinds of imperialist (and often liberal) uses of the concept. Since I assume you are loyal readers, I won’t repeat it here.
Share this post
On Quinn (part II), Hume, More, and the…
Share this post
Last week I read and digressed (recall) on Josephine Quinn’s excellent (2024) How the World Made the West: a 4,000 Year History. Along the way I expressed some misgivings on how she tells the story about her main polemical target, the tendency to treat civilizations as social kinds, especially associated with the idea of superiority and homogeneity. I added Quinn “associates this idea with eighteenth century stadial thought, and especially nineteenth century Victorian (and French) imperialism.” In her account Mirabeau first uses the term in the 1750s, and then the (somewhat reactionary) liberal Guizot rethinks the history of Europe in light of it setting the stage for all kinds of imperialist (and often liberal) uses of the concept. Since I assume you are loyal readers, I won’t repeat it here.