Adam Ferguson, a profound Scottish philosopher and historian during the Scottish Enlightenment, was a leading advocate on the ‘Idea of Progress’, resulting in his production of a conjectural history on human civilization. The gobbet that will be analysed within this essay is sourced from Ferguson’s An Essay on the History of Civil Society, whereby he accentuated this concept of universal history and progression. In this gobbet as well as within his academic writing, Ferguson emphasises his distinctive theory of human sociability, which defined the progression of the human race as societal as well as individual. Ferguson argues that the human race is ‘susceptible for improvement’ and aspires toward perfection, evident in its transition from ‘rudeness’ to ‘civilisation’. However, Ferguson’s argument stands out in comparison to most Enlightenment thinkers; his assessment on the progression of civilisation contrasts with his theory on the fragility of modern civilization and its fall to despotism, setting him apart from the eighteenth century mainstream, but also causing major criticism due to the ambiguity in his argument. Ferguson’s ideas majorly develop due to the upheaval within Scotland and France during the Enlightenment; it is thus critical to understand the context behind this period, in order for Ferguson’s theories to be justified. This essay will therefore review Ferguson’s gobbet in terms of this historical context in order to recognise his unique input into modern academic history writing within the Enlightenment period.
An examination of Ferguson’s gobbet brings to light his idea of the superiority of the human race in comparison to other animals. This is evident in the fact that animals only advance ‘from infancy to age or maturity’, whereas mankind has the ability to develop as a civilization and build on the ‘foundations formerly laid’. Ferguson argues that humans differentiate largely in comparison to animals as we are ‘destined’ for progress and divine union. His theory of human sociability builds from the idea of a transition from ‘savagery’ to ‘civility’, illustrating the inevitable progression of humanity.
Ferguson’s concept of human progression is a fundamental theme that prevails throughout his Essay, whereby he debates the nature and extent of human sociability through society itself, but also through government, law and property. His argument is complex as it not only advocates for progression, but paradoxically fears it; Ferguson was convinced that an increased pace of progression could reduce civil society to a commercial society, which would foster an environment for despots to ascend. This argument aligns well with Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who advocated that a ‘hideous despotism’ was to establish itself on the ruins of civil society after a myriad of revolutions. Furthermore, Ferguson’s ‘Idea of Progress’ unusually pursues a Machiavellian approach whereby ‘tumult and discord’ was a potential benefit for a prospering civilization, thus bringing unclarity to his writing. Despite the intricacy behind Ferguson’s argument, the gobbet clearly exposes the history of human civilization and its prestige in progression allowing it to align with the ideals of the Enlightenment.
When investigating the historical context behind the gobbet and Ferguson’s argument, we must consider that Ferguson was writing during the Scottish Enlightenment, whereby Scotland was ‘a living sociological museum of stages or modes of existence’ leading to mass turbulence within the nation. Social, economic and political upheaval was rife in Scotland during this period due to mass transitions taking place. This was evident in: the drastic changes to the Scottish constitution, the movement toward a commercial society and the debate over military defence in Scotland due to their exclusion from the Militia Act of 1757. Ferguson’s establishment of the Poker Club in 1762 emphasised his advocacy for the militia virtue as he saw national defence as an economic and moral problem within Scotland; this illustrated more complexities to Ferguson’s argument as pro-militia could potentially hinder progression. Furthermore, Adam Smith identified Scottish Enlightenment as an attempt to ‘legitimise bourgeois civilisation at an early age of its growth’; however, Ferguson was against this, which influenced his desire to study society in order to explore the drastic ‘social and material’ changes taking place.
The intellectual context behind Ferguson’s concept of human sociability developed from Smith’s idea of ‘The Four-Stage Theory of Development’, which exhibited a stadial progression from the Age of Hunters to the Age of Commerce, expressing the natural tendency of progression. Moreover, David Hume’s call for a scientific approach to human nature stimulated Ferguson’s desire to study the history of civilisation empirically. Ferguson was also majorly influenced by Jean-Jacques Rousseau who had Stoic prejudices due to his own belief in this school of thought; the Stoics linked luxury with decline, highlighting Ferguson’s hostility toward commerce. Despite Ferguson’s belief as a Presbyterian, of progress being part of a ‘divine plan’, he was still concerned with the commercial stage of progression and its likelihood to lead to ruin. Ferguson used Britain to exemplify this thought; he supposed that Britain’s continuation on their present path toward industrialisation in the late eighteenth century was bound to degenerate and essentially result in social, economic and political breakdown exacerbating the likelihood of despotism, similarly to the fate of the Roman Empire. Ferguson’s constant relation back to the Roman Empire to explain his perception on human civilisation indicates his methodological approach toward a cyclical history and accentuates his fear that despotism posed the greatest danger to civil society.
Moreover, Ferguson, similar to many of his European contemporaries, began to explore the dangers of civilization and the distinctive threats to the stability and liberty of Europe’s large and increasingly prosperous states. He was driven by the underlying concern with the history of society, that modern states propel civilization toward instability, revolution and military government. This is well-substantiated by the French Revolutionary discourse, which only further validated his perception on the side effects of progression and modernity. Ferguson’s interpretation of the events of 1789 highlighted the dangers of the modern conception of liberty and democratic politics. In his Essay, Ferguson foreshadows the revolution by warning about the dangers of popular politics and military establishment long before the occurrence of the events of 1789, suggesting that Ferguson had accurately assessed Europe’s condition prior to revolt in order to anticipate such a downfall of civilization. Again, Ferguson used the analysis of Rome to validate his argument; the fall of the Roman Empire was due to increasingly ‘populist quality’ of Roman politics, which advanced from commercial society.
Although Ferguson’s argument on human sociability was validated through his historical context and past examples, there are major criticisms against his ideas. Ferguson is interpreted as a distinctively ‘antimodern’ thinker as his writings contrasted with much of the writings of advanced Enlightenment thinkers at the time. He is seen to be extremely ambiguous; his promotion of martial values as well as his analysis of the fragility of modern civilisation, has puzzled his contemporaries. Moreover, a number of scholars suggest that Ferguson’s concepts of retrogression and the corrupting effects of commercialisation had disappeared in his later writings, thus accentuating that his argument was not consistent. Additionally, Lisa Hill criticises Ferguson as she suggests he demands a lot from his readers by pushing them to uncover the layers of his moral philosophy, requiring a great deal of effort. Readers will also find Ferguson’s attempts at reconciliation very unclear and indecisive. This is exemplified by the fact that he attacks commerce and its role in state degeneration, however, contradicts this theory by emphasising its positive social and economic effects, thus highlighting incoherency in his writing. It must be acknowledged that Ferguson’s arguments were valuable within social and natural history, however scholars do consider his obscurity as a fundamental flaw in his work.
Regardless of his critics, it is undeniable that Adam Ferguson’s distinctive moral philosophy had an immense impact beyond Britain and Europe, with his publications being translated into all major languages. As a moral philosopher, he was able to shape the advancement of social science in the late eighteenth century by persuading an ‘enlightenment readership’ where God and the concept of finality were relevant in the scientific study of society. Ferguson’s development on the ideas and concepts from Montesquieu’s Spirit of Laws through his own methodological approach, forged the foundations of the modern social science of the present.
Referring back to the gobbet, it undeniably highlights a key concept placed forward by Ferguson; his unique perspective of human sociability and the extent of progression as a civil society. Ferguson forms his theories from Smith, Rousseau, Hume but differentiates himself through his pessimistic attitude toward the progress that prevailed in the Enlightenment and his recognition and concern for human sociability. His work was clearly impactful, evident by how his moral and political concepts provoked a ‘shudder’ amongst the ‘tranquil philosophers’ of Enlightenment Europe, according to Edward Gibbon. Ferguson expresses his argument through conjectural history and uses ancient examples, such as the Roman Empire to depict a cyclical nature to the history of civilization. He argues that although progression is natural, the pace at which we progress is fearful and could ultimately result in the regression of a progressive society.
2019-11-21-1574343498