In his book Liberalism Under Siege Aurelian Craiutu provides rich and incisive analysis of the French Doctrinaires, a group of historically important but often overlooked French liberal theorists whose centrist responses to the political crises of a radicalized nineteenth century France resulted in their being stereotyped as reactionary, dogmatic (hence their name) and ultimately not worth reading. Drawing on an admirably wide range of primary resources, many of which never have been translated into English, Craiutu explains why the image of the Doctrinaires that has been passed down to history lacks nuance and obscures a more precise historical understanding of modern liberalism, most of which takes Anglo-American paradigms as its central focus. In doing so he invites a wider appreciation of liberalism as it has been arrayed globally in the past two centuries.

In his review of Doctrinaire theory he carefully attends to problems that are sometimes ignored in the more academic liberal theories of modern Anglo-American scholarship, especially with respect to how the reality of politics and the limits of reason should be recognized as important components of free institutions. Craiutu is especially careful to center his analysis on issues the participants themselves believed central and important, rather than on the concerns of modern theorists, and his approach yields a much richer, historically grounded narrative that challenges a variety of precepts now often taken for granted. For example, his readings of Guizot, Royer-Collard, and Remusat, among others, remind us that representative institutions were not always considered democratic ones. The Doctrinaires, like their counterparts in England and early America, vested great trust in those possessing "natural superiorities," and not the enfranchised masses, to shape freer and sometimes more egalitarian institutions. This historical argument points out a theoretical weakness in modern liberalism, which Craiutu discusses in more detail in his conclusion: namely, that the connection between democracy and liberalism is much more tenuous than some may claim, making it clear that liberal institutions and the democratic franchise (which, Craiutu also points out, the Doctrinaires and their contemporaries did not consider as decisively characteristic of a democratic system as they did publicity and the free press) are not the theoretically necessary bedfellows some assume them to be].

One wishes, however, that Craiutu spent more time engaging Doctrinaire theory with modern liberalism. Although he does an excellent job of pointing out the differences between the two, he does not strenuously pursue the challenges to modern liberalism that his study brings forth. Throughout the book he references contemporary theories to explain the relevance of Doctrinaire thought to modern debates in political theory, but often the reader is left to draw her own conclusions as to whether the idea in question simply contributes nuance to, or outright challenges, the modern theory to which it is juxtaposed.

This is a small problem, however, that pales in comparison to the book's many strengths - including its methodology. As the struggle to "globalize" the canon of political theory continues, this book stands as a startling reminder that even within the tradition of "Western" political thought huge gaps exist in our understanding of how ideas took shape and what that implies for our contemporary grasp of them. Craiutu draws on the historical methods of Pocock and Skinner to sketch out the "language" of the Doctrinaires, showing how their response to contemporary problems about sovereignty and institutional reform in the wake of the French Revolution emerged from within a larger climate of increasingly egalitarian social conditions and historical change. His reading of Tocqueville is an excellent example of how this approach to texts, when properly employed, can enrich and even revise standard interpretations of canonical figures. Far from formulating this theory of democracy sui generis, Craiutu explains, Tocqueville was actually immersed in a dialogue about the importance of democracy as a "social condition" and its relative distinction from the political order that began with François Guizot's publication of The History of Civilization in Europe. Tocqueville's presentation of democracy as simultaneously meaning equality of conditions, a means of political self-government, a worldwide phenomenon, and government by the people can then be appreciated, not as confusion on Tocqueville's part, but as an important development and application of Guizot's idea of democracy as a social and moral, and not only political, force that systematically engages with other forces to induce progress.

Craiutu's account of the French Doctrinaires can be seen as a concrete demonstration of how profound the loss to the political theory discipline will be if it continues to downplay the necessity of language competence and historical understanding in interpreting the texts of its own, as well as other "non-Western" canons. Rather than seeing his subjects as "great men" who transcend the limitations and discursive categories of their historical situation to speak to each other about rarified academic topics modern scholars presume to prevail for all time, Craiutu's thoughtful inclusion in his book of photographs of these thinkers and the world they inhabited reminds his readers that these were real men, politicians who dealt with real political problems. These inclusions add factual emphasis as well as nuance and sympathy to his account of the Doctrinaires' "happy marriage of politics and philosophy."

 

Leigh Jenco, The University of Chicago

Back to top