and their communication networks. They distinguished these social relations from control by kings or government officials. This is the basis for the idea of civil society, which remains prominent even today. When we say there is a “civil society” response to an emergency or social problem, we mean that churches and synagogues, non-governmental organizations, and volunteer groups have responded – which are distinct from government agencies. This distinction is rooted directly in the 17th- and 18th-century rise of the idea of society at least partially independent of government.
Second, there had to be an idea that what happened in society was valuable in itself. Early modern thinkers developed the idea that members of society had common interests, that these were morally important, and that social relations should be organized to advance them. Some used the term “commonwealth” to emphasize the connection between the way people were socially organized and their economic productivity and capacity to improve their quality of life. Both sociology and economics grew in part out of this shift in perspective. We see it, for example, in the reading from Adam Smith (and later in that from Émile Durkheim) on the importance of the division of labor. However, the change in perspective was not simply a matter of noticing the importance of social organization, but also a matter of valuing ordinary life. In the Middle Ages, for example, many religious thinkers argued that people should focus only on God, heaven and hell, and salvation, rather than on improving the quality of worldly life. This changed within religious thought as more people looked to the Bible and prayer for guidance in everyday affairs, such as family life. Eventually, theories about this worldly social life became more secular and less theological.
Almost as important, an explicit place for the rights of subjects appeared in political thought, as we saw a shift from the complete rights of kings to the notion that rulers had an obligation to serve the interests of the people they ruled. This was an important basis for the theory that revolution could be just, which was important to the founding of the United States (US) and the transformation of France in the late 18th century. The idea of a social contract traces this shift in thought from Thomas Hobbes to Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
Third, the idea of “the people” had to develop in a new way. For democracy to be possible, for example, it had to be possible for “the people” to express their collective opinions – whether through voting or in other ways, that is, from protest demonstrations to petitions. This required a strong idea of “the people” such as that embodied in the US Constitution, which begins, “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, […]” This opening sentence only makes sense if one believes that “the people” can act collectively to make a Constitution, which depends on the cultural idea that the people can be identified and have a common interest. This was shaped in the early modern notions of nation and citizenship, which defined membership in “the people” and also stressed their common rights, interests, and obligations.
These three core ideas remain influential throughout the modern era: society is distinct from government, ordinary social life is valuable, and large numbers of people can achieve enough social solidarity to make it meaningful to speak of “the people” as the basis for democracy. These ideas changed actual social life and also gave rise to sociology as the scientific field for studying social life. However, in addition to the rise of this new idea of society, the 17th and 18th centuries also saw the rise of new ideas about science and human reason; these are also important for the invention of sociology.
Enlightenment and Science
This second set of basic changes is often summed up in the idea of an “Age of Enlightenment,” stretching from the middle of the 17th century through the 18th century. This description was familiar to 18th-century thinkers themselves, who saw themselves as bringing the light of science, systematic analysis, and new ideas to the shadowy realms of tradition and ignorance. They expected the “light of reason” to illuminate a path of human progress, clarifying both the ways things worked objectively in the world and the values human beings should rightly hold. Like the idea of society, the Enlightenment directly shaped practical projects, such as the American Revolution and the French Revolution, not least by promoting the belief that human beings could choose the social conditions of their own lives, based on reason rather than simply accepting the institutions they had inherited.
The Enlightenment is a label for a collection of partially separate ideas, such as science, the exercise of individual reason, tolerance of difference, and equality of rights (including notably for women who had previously been excluded from most public life and began in this period the long struggle for equality). The reading in the following text from Immanuel Kant is among the most influential of all accounts of the Enlightenment, but it is a summary written near the end of the Age of Enlightenment – by which time most leading European thinkers considered themselves “enlightened.” Earlier thinkers, such as Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677) and René Descartes (1596–1650), had seemed much more revolutionary. When their ideas began to attract a growing range of followers in the 17th century, this was widely understood as a direct challenge to religion. Spinoza, for example, argued there should be tolerance for people who held contrary religious beliefs; many thought this amounted to saying that sinful error should be accepted. Descartes held that the basis for certain knowledge started with human reason (famously, he wrote, “I think therefore I am”). Although he held this was consistent with the biblical notion that God gave human beings the capacity for independent reason, many others thought this was an attack on the authority of the Bible.
Theories, such as those of Spinoza and Descartes, suggested that individuals should think for themselves and that reason was often a better basis for judgment than tradition. These “rationalist” ideas were soon complemented with the “empiricist” idea that evidence for the truth should be found in observations of the material world. Descartes’ contemporary Francis Bacon (1561–1626) had suggested this, but the idea really caught on with the dramatic growth in scientific knowledge that made the 17th century an age of scientific revolution. The father of modern physics, Isaac Newton (1642–1727), was among its most important figures. However, both reason and the search for empirical evidence – the hallmarks of science – were applied immediately not only to physics, chemistry, and medicine but also to the project of understanding social life: that is, how markets worked, what government was best, whether population growth would lead to famine, and so forth.
Throughout the modern era, some religious thinkers have remained uncomfortable with the rise of science. Others have sought to reexamine religious questions in light of science. Both religious thought itself and the place of religion in the world have changed. However, this did not necessarily mean an abandonment of religion. Immanuel Kant himself wrote a book arguing for “religion within the limits of reason alone.” He meant that it was not necessary to rely on mysterious revelations, but rather that the reason with which God had endowed human beings was sufficient. Certainly, many religious leaders disagreed, but most religious leaders did place more emphasis on the exercise of individual reason.
A variety of other social changes helped the Enlightenment spread its message of reason and reliance on empirical evidence. One of the most important was the printing press, which allowed a much wider distribution of books. With this came growth in literacy and education, which helped the rise of reason. Already in the era of the Protestant Reformation, more Christians had begun to read the Bible for themselves, and to think for themselves about its meaning, that is, do not simply rely on the teachings of religious authorities. This same sort of emphasis on individual reason was extended more widely to more questions.
The idea of individual rights was grounded largely in the notion that every individual could exercise reason for himself/herself. This was a key basis for the growing claims that women should have equal rights because they too could reason independently (whatever their other physical differences from men). The ideas of “human rights” coupled the emphasis on reason with equality. Because every human being had the capacity for reason, each deserved respect and had basic rights (such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of
