For more information
Call 1-800-351-0222
Call 1-800-351-0222
"SPIRIT OF LAWS, THE" (CHARLES DE MONTESQUIEU).
Term Paper ID:25204
Get This Paper Free! or
Essay Subject:
Critical analysis of 18th Cent. social & political theorist's major work.... More...
6 Pages / 1350 Words
1 sources, 7 Citations,
MLA Format
$24.00
More Papers on This Topic
Paper Abstract:
Critical analysis of 18th Cent. social & political theorist's major work.
Paper Introduction:
Charles de Montesquieu, in his major work on social and political theory, The Spirit of Laws, explores, among other subjects, the impact of the physical environment, history, and social customs on the development of political institutions. This study will examine his approach, focusing on his emphasis on the establishment of the right government for the right people and culture at the right place and time. This approach sets Montesquieu apart from most political theorists who generally focus on one ideal government. Montesquieu seems at first glance to take a far less judgmental and moralistic attitude than most such theorists, accepting societies and their institutions as inevitably varied according to their particular needs. However, the deeper one delves into his writing and ideas, the clearer it becomes that he is shaped by the
Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.
In addition, the author is remiss in applying to himself the sameobjectivity he would apply to the many societies he so superficiallyanalyzes. Heis unconvincing in his claims that political institutions reflect, or arereflected by, environment, social customs, and history. What ofthe United States, whose people love all sorts of music, and yet are asaddicted to luxury and debauchery as any group of Greeks? Chicago: EncyclopediaBritannica, 1952. However, the deeper one delves into his writing andideas, the clearer it becomes that he is shaped by the prevailing biasesand prejudices of his own white, paternalistic culture, and that his ideasmake up not a well-thought out social or political philosophy but a set ofpersonal opinions with little of substance to support them. Does this make every people ofevery nation perverse of temper? Would he say that the "humour" and"disposition" of the German people led them to find appropriate leadershipin Hitler, or the same for the Russian people and Stalin? Montesquieu seems at first glance to take a far lessjudgmental and moralistic attitude than most such theorists, acceptingsocieties and their institutions as inevitably varied according to theirparticular needs. is what we call the civil state" (Montesquieu 3). Asvague and exasperating as Montesquieu can be, and often is, his ideas arenevertheless intriguing. For example, with respect to the role of music inthe shaping of political institutions, Montesquieu seems to be arguing thatmusic and institutions mutually affect one another: That judicious writer, Polybius, informs us that music was necessary to soften the manners of the Arcadians, who lived in a cold, gloomy country; that the inhabitants of Cynete, who slighted music, were the cruellest of all the Greeks, and that no other town was so immersed in luxury and debauchery (Montesquieu 17). When it comes to social customs involving women as leaders,Montesquieu is not surprisingly shown to be a male chauvinist, but againhis claim that reason and nature supports his claims is unsupported byevidence or even by a sustained argument. Clearly, Montesquieu opens many fascinating avenues of inquiry withsuch anecdotal, vague, contradictory and incomplete evidence, but hecertainly does not answer all the questions which he raises. Is there anynation on earth in whose history cannot be found examples of suchpunishment based on religious intolerance? . This study will examine his approach, focusing onhis emphasis on the establishment of the right government for the rightpeople and culture at the right place and time. One might fairly ask what manners does Montesquieu mean? Montesquieu is full of prejudices which show how his ownperceptions are shaped profoundly by the society in which he himself wasnurtured. Can Montesquieu fairly claim that the people of an agriculturalsociety are most easily conquered because of that agriculture (17-18), oris it because of a corresponding lack of the technology which makes apeople militaristic? In other words, Montesquieu is saying that the Iroquois do not trulylive according to their own laws. Charles de Montesquieu, in his major work on social and politicaltheory, The Spirit of Laws, explores, among other subjects, the impact ofthe physical environment, history, and social customs on the development ofpolitical institutions. Which nation does truly live according toits laws? Montesquieu'sargument that law is rational because it governs all people is simplenonsense. What are a people's"inclinations" and how should they shape the political institutions? However, to be fair, Montesquieu clearly is not determined to devisea fully rational, fully delineated sociopolitical system, nor to analyzeexisting systems with rationality or order his guiding principle. If he had wished, he could have just as easily found exampleswhich support opposite claims. Work CitedMontesquieu, Charles de. Arepeople so different, because of these environmental and sociohistoricalfactors, that each nation has and should have a unique set of politicalinstitutions, based on those factors? The mischief is that their law of nations is not founded on true principles (Montesquieu 3). Does he mean they are cannibals? Again, the more deeply one analyzes Montesquieu's ideas, and the morehe enunciates those ideas, the more obvious becomes only his own biases andnot the true nature of the societies he seeks to examine. He is far more intent on simply expressinghis undigested opinions than on sincerely studying the social and politicalinstitutions of a nation and presenting his findings objectively. Would he call Margaret Thatcher or GoldaMeir or Bhutto weak or moderate? In any case, is the fact that they are easilyconquered a sign of their virtue or lack thereof? If he believeshe does answer them with such evidence, he is wrong. Montesquieu has much confidence in his views, butonly an uncritical reader will be convinced of those views' truth. The strength of individuals cannot be united without a conjunction of all their wills. He simply makes bald statementsbased on the most blatant prejudice and apparently expects his readers toblindly agree with him: "It is contrary to reason and nature that womenshould reign in families, as was customary among the Egyptians." However,women are suited to administer a government because the same weakness leadsto "lenity and moderation" (5 ). And is Montesquieu wise in taking the word of one writer, no matterhow judicious, for such a claim? He writes with minimal insight of American Indians: All countries have a law of nations, not excepting the Iroquois themselves, though they devour their prisoners: for they send and receive ambassadors, and understand the rights of war and peace. How can Montesquieu claim that music, orthe lack thereof, is responsiblefor the cruelty of a people? These judgments come from a man wholives on a continent where the Crusades once flourished. To thecontrary, Montesquieu is a writer along the lines of Nietzsche orMontaigne, at least in terms of those writers' penchant for meanderingintently through a subject and being distracted often by promising detours.Such a style of writing is often fascinating, often exasperating, and oftensimply absurd. Of the Japanese, he writes that they have a "perverse temper" whichis demonstrated in the way they severely punish people for refusing to giveup their Christian faith (213-214). For example, Montesquieu writes that the political and civil laws should be in relation to the climate of each country, to the quality of its soil, to its situation and extent, to the principle occupation of the natives, whether husbandmen, huntsmen, or shepherds: they should have relation to the degree of liberty which the constitution will bear; to the religion of the inhabitants, to their inclinations, riches, numbers, commerce, manners, and customs (Montesquieu 3). This approach setsMontesquieu apart from most political theorists who generally focus on oneideal government. Like Machiavelli, forexample, Montesquieu finds isolated examples which seem to give evidence ofthe accuracy of his declarations, but he is most selective in thoseexamples. What evidence does he have that the Iroquois "devour theirprisoners"? And whatmusic? Montesquieu's apparently open-minded tolerance for whatever system apeople choose for themselves is refreshing on the one hand, but on theother hand such pure sociological objectivity makes one wonder ifMontesquieu is perhaps too detached. Montesquieu briefly examines different political systems, including,for example, monarchy and the "government of many," but dismisses thenotion that there is an ideal system, aside from the most appropriate onefor the particular circumstances at hand: Better is it to say, that the government conformable to nature is that which best agrees with the humour and disposition of the people in whose favour it is established. . For that is precisely whatMontesquieu states is the case: Law in general is human reason, inasmuch as it governs all the inhabitants of the earth: the political and civil laws of each nation ought to be only the particular cases in which human reason is applied. The Spirit of Laws. "The conjunction of those wills . These claims maywell be true, but his anecdotal, biased, and superficial opinions do notsupport those claims. What would he say about the Germans, whocherished music, and yet were certainly as cruel as any Cynetes? They should be adapted in such a manner to the people for whom they are framed that it should be a great chance if those of one nation suit another (Montesquieu 3). This bias and judgment comes after Montesquieu claims that everygovernment should be assessed according to its own unique circumstances. If the law is totalitarian and based on torture and terror, as itoften is, would Montesquieu still call it rational? One cannot blame Montesquieu for such leaders, of course, but one canquestion his basic premise--that the best government is found for a certainpeople based on the physical environment, history, and social customs. What is a nation's "situation and extent"?
If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:
or
We can write a Custom Essay just for you.
Browse Essays by Subject