what is the intellectual revolution all about essay

From Knowledge to Wisdom

• The Basic Argument

Basic Argument for an Intellectual Revolution

Blunders of Enlightenment | Scientific Method | Rationality | Social Inquiry | Conclusion

Here is an outline of the argument for the urgent need to bring about a revolution in the aims and methods of academic inquiry, its whole character and structure, so that it takes up its proper task of promoting wisdom rather than just acquiring knowledge. Academia as it exists today is the product of two past great intellectual revolutions. The first is the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, associated with Galileo, Kepler, Descartes, Boyle, Newton and many others, which in effect created modern science. A method was discovered for the progressive acquisition of knowledge, the famous empirical method of science. The second revolution is that of the Enlightenment, especially the French Enlightenment, in the 18th century. Voltaire, Diderot, Condorcet and the other philosophes had the profoundly important idea that it might be possible to learn from scientific progress how to achieve social progress towards an enlightened world. They did not just have the idea: they did everything they could to put the idea into practice in their lives. They fought dictatorial power, superstition, and injustice with weapons no more lethal than those of argument and wit. They gave their support to the virtues of tolerance, openness to doubt, readiness to learn from criticism and from experience. Courageously and energetically they laboured to promote reason and enlightenment in personal and social life.

Back to Top

Blunders of the Enlightenment

Unfortunately, in developing the Enlightenment idea intellectually, the philosophes blundered. They botched the job. They thought the proper way to implement the Enlightenment Programme of learning from scientific progress how to achieve social progress towards an enlightened world is to develop the social sciences alongside the natural sciences. If it is important to acquire knowledge of natural phenomena to better the lot of mankind, as Francis Bacon had insisted, then (so, they thought) it must be even more important to acquire knowledge of social phenomena. First, knowledge must be acquired; then it can be applied to help solve social problems. They thus set about creating and developing the social sciences: economics, psychology, anthropology, history, sociology, political science. This traditional version of the Enlightenment Programme, despite being damagingly defective, was immensely influential. It was developed throughout the 19th century, by men such as Saint-Simon, Comte, Marx, Mill and many others, and was built into the intellectual-institutional structure of academic inquiry in the first part of the 20th century with the creation of departments of the social sciences in universities all over the world. Thus academic inquiry today, devoted primarily to the pursuit of knowledge and technological know-how, is the outcome of two revolutions: the scientific revolution, and the later profoundly important but very seriously defective Enlightenment revolution. It is this situation which calls for the urgent need to bring about a third revolution to put right the structural defects we have inherited from the Enlightenment. But what is wrong with the traditional Enlightenment Programme? Almost everything. In order to implement properly the basic Enlightenment idea of learning from scientific progress how to achieve social progress towards a civilized world, it is essential to get the following three things right.

• The progress-achieving methods of science need to be correctly identified.
• These methods need to be correctly generalized so that they become fruitfully applicable to any worthwhile, problematic human endeavour, whatever the aims may be, and not just applicable to the one endeavour of acquiring knowledge.
• The correctly generalized progress-achieving methods then need to be exploited correctly in the great human endeavour of trying to make social progress towards an enlightened, wise world.

Unfortunately, the philosophers of the Enlightenment got all three points wrong. And as a result these blunders, undetected and uncorrected, are built into the intellectual-institutional structure of academia as it exists today.

Scientific Method

First, the philosophes failed to capture correctly the progress-achieving methods of natural science. From D'Alembert in the 18th century to Popper in the 20th, the widely held view, amongst both scientists and philosophers, has been (and continues to be) that science proceeds by assessing theories impartially in the light of evidence, no permanent assumption being accepted by science about the universe independently of evidence. But this standard empiricist view is untenable. If taken literally, it would instantly bring science to a standstill. For, given any accepted scientific theory, T, Newtonian theory say, or quantum theory, endlessly many rivals can be concocted which agree with T about observed phenomena but disagree arbitrarily about some unobserved phenomena. Science would be drowned in an ocean of such empirically successful rival theories. In practice, these rivals are excluded because they are disastrously disunified. Two considerations govern acceptance of theories in science: empirical success and unity. But in persistently accepting unified theories, to the extent of rejecting disunified rivals that are just as, or even more, empirically successful, science makes a big persistent assumption about the universe. The universe is such that all disunified theories are false. It has some kind of unified dynamic structure. It is physically comprehensible in the sense that explanations for phenomena exist to be discovered. But this untestable (and thus metaphysical) assumption that the universe is comprehensible is profoundly problematic. Science is obliged to assume, but does not know, that the universe is comprehensible. Much less does it know that the universe is comprehensible in this or that way. A glance at the history of physics reveals that ideas have changed dramatically over time. In the 17th century there was the idea that the universe consists of corpuscles, minute billiard balls, which interact only by contact. This gave way to the idea that the universe consists of point-particles surrounded by rigid, spherically symmetrical fields of force, which in turn gave way to the idea that there is one unified self-interacting field, varying smoothly throughout space and time. Nowadays we have the idea that everything is made up of minute quantum strings embedded in ten or eleven dimensions of space-time. Some kind of assumption along these lines must be made but, given the historical record, and given that any such assumption concerns the ultimate nature of the universe, that of which we are most ignorant, it is only reasonable to conclude that it is almost bound to be false. The way to overcome this fundamental dilemma inherent in the scientific enterprise is to construe science as making a hierarchy of metaphysical assumptions concerning the comprehensibility and knowability of the universe, these assumptions asserting less and less as one goes up the hierarchy, and thus becoming more and more likely to be true. In this way a framework of relatively insubstantial, unproblematic, fixed assumptions and associated methods is created within which much more substantial and problematic assumptions and associated methods can be changed, and indeed improved, as scientific knowledge improves. Put another way, a framework of relatively unspecific, unproblematic, fixed aims and methods is created within which much more specific and problematic aims and methods evolve as scientific knowledge evolves. (A basic aim of science is to discover in what precise way the universe is comprehensible, this aim evolving as assumptions about comprehensibility evolve.) There is positive feedback between improving knowledge, and improving aims-and-methods, improving knowledge-about-how-to-improve-knowledge. This is the nub of scientific rationality, the methodological key to the unprecedented success of science. Science adapts its nature to what it discovers about the nature of the universe: see (4), (5) and (7) below.

So much for the first blunder of the Enlightenment.

Rationality

Second, having failed to identify the methods of science correctly, the philosophes naturally failed to generalize these methods properly. They failed to appreciate that the idea of representing the problematic aims (and associated methods) of science in the form of a hierarchy can be generalized and applied fruitfully to other worthwhile enterprises besides science. Many other enterprises have problematic aims; these would benefit from employing a hierarchical methodology, generalized from that of science, thus making it possible to improve aims and methods as the enterprise proceeds. There is the hope that, in this way, some of the astonishing success of science might be exported into other worthwhile human endeavours, with aims quite different from those of science.

Social Inquiry

Third, and most disastrously of all, the philosophes failed completely to try to apply such generalized progress-achieving methods to the immense, and profoundly problematic enterprise of making social progress towards an enlightened, wise world. The aim of such an enterprise is notoriously problematic. For all sorts of reasons, what constitutes a good world, an enlightened, wise or civilized world, attainable and genuinely desirable, must be inherently and permanently problematic. Here, above all, it is essential to employ the generalized version of the hierarchical, progress-achieving methods of science, designed specifically to facilitate progress when basic aims are problematic. Properly implemented, in short, the Enlightenment idea of learning from scientific progress how to achieve social progress towards an enlightened world would involve developing social inquiry as social methodology, or social philosophy, not primarily as social science. A basic task would be to get into personal and social life, and into other institutions besides that of science - into government, industry, agriculture, commerce, the media, law, education, international relations - hierarchical, progress-achieving methods (designed to improve problematic aims) arrived at by generalizing the methods of science. A basic task for academic inquiry as a whole would be to help humanity learn how to resolve its conflicts and problems of living in more just, cooperatively rational ways than at present. This task would be intellectually more fundamental than the scientific task of acquiring knowledge. Social inquiry would be intellectually more fundamental than physics. Academia would be a kind of people's civil service, doing openly for the public what actual civil services are supposed to do in secret for governments. Academia would have just sufficient power (but no more) to retain its independence from government, industry, the press, public opinion, and other centres of power and influence in the social world. It would seek to learn from, educate, and argue with the great social world beyond, but would not dictate. Academic thought would be pursued as a specialized, subordinate part of what is really important and fundamental: the thinking that goes on, individually, socially and institutionally, in the social world, guiding individual, social and institutional actions and life. The fundamental intellectual and humanitarian aim of inquiry would be to help humanity acquire wisdom - wisdom being the capacity to realize (apprehend and create) what is of value in life, for oneself and others, wisdom thus including knowledge and technological know-how but much else besides. One outcome of getting into social and institutional life the kind of aim-evolving, hierarchical methodology indicated above, generalized from science, is that it becomes possible for us to develop and assess rival philosophies of life as a part of social life, somewhat as theories are developed and assessed within science. Such a hierarchical methodology "provides a framework within which diverse philosophies of value - diverse religions, political and moral views - may be cooperatively assessed and tested against the experience of personal and social life. "There is the possibility of cooperatively and progressively improving such philosophies of life (views about what is of value in life and how it is to be achieved) much as theories are cooperatively and progressively improved in science. In science diverse universal theories are critically assessed with respect to each other, and with respect to experience (observational and experimental results). "In a somewhat analogous way, diverse philosophies of life may be critically assessed with respect to each other, and with respect to experience - what we do, achieve, fail to achieve, enjoy and suffer - the aim being so to improve philosophies of life (and more specific philosophies of more specific enterprises within life such as government, education or art) that they offer greater help with the realization of value in life" (see my From Knowledge to Wisdom, p. 254).

All in all, if the Enlightenment revolution had been carried through properly, the three steps indicated above being correctly implemented, the outcome would have been a kind of academic inquiry very different from what we have at present: see references (1), (3), (6), (8) and especially (2) and (9).. This difference, over time, would be bound to have a major impact. What we have at present, academic inquiry devoted primarily to acquiring knowledge and technological know-how dissociated from any intellectually more fundamental concern to help us resolve our conflicts and problems of living in more cooperatively rational ways - dissociated, that is, from the pursuit of wisdom - is a recipe for disaster. Scientific knowledge and technological know-how enormously increase our power to act. In endless ways, this vast increase in our power to act has been used for the public good - in health, agriculture, transport, communications, and countless other ways. But equally, this enhanced power to act can be used, and has been used, to cause human harm, whether unintentionally, as in environmental damage (at least initially), or intentionally, as in war. It is hardly too much to say that all our current global problems have come about because of the successful scientific pursuit of knowledge and technological know-how dissociated from wisdom. The appalling destructiveness of modern warfare and terrorism, vast inequalities in wealth and standards of living between first and third worlds, rapid population growth, environmental damage - destruction of tropical rain forests, rapid extinction of species, global warming, pollution of sea, earth and air, depletion of finite natural resources - all exist today because of the massively enhanced power to act (of some), made possible by modern science and technology. Nevertheless, science as such is not the problem, but rather science dissociated from the pursuit of wisdom, the result of our failure to put right the structural defects in academic inquiry, inherited from the blunders of the Enlightenment. Hence my conclusion: we urgently need to bring about a third intellectual revolution, one which corrects the blunders of the Enlightenment revolution, so that the basic aim of academia becomes to promote wisdom, and not just acquire knowledge. Every branch and aspect of academic inquiry needs to change if we are to have the kind of inquiry, both more rational and of greater human value, that we really need. I have devoted much of my working life to trying to get my fellow academics - my fellow human beings - to appreciate the fundamental importance of the above argument. The most detailed and complete statement of the entire argument is to be found in my book From Knowledge to Wisdom : see (2) below. A recent, reformulation of the argument, which includes subsequent developments, is to be found in Is Science Neurotic? : see (9) below. An earlier statement, in the form of a dialogue between a scientists and philosopher, is to be found in What's Wrong With Science? : see (1) below. Further developments of aspects of the argument can be found in my other two books, The Comprehensibility of the Universe (4), and The Human World in the Physical Universe: Consciousness, Free Will and Evolution (8). The best short statement of the argument is contained in the article "Can Humanity Learn to Become Civilized? The Crisis of Science without Civilization" (6), reproduced in (8), chapter 9. The other works mentioned below, (3), (5), (7) and (9), summarize different aspects of the argument.  " Arguing for Wisdom in the University " begins with an inflammatory account of the argument, and then spells out how I discovered and developed it, influenced especially by Karl Popper.  " Has Science Established that the Cosmos is Physically Comprehensible? " is my latest, and perhaps best, argument for my aim-oriented empiricist conception of science, the key step towards wisdom-inquiry. If you feel some sympathy with the above line of thought (you don't have to agree with all the details!), do join Friends of Wisdom (see above). If you do, I will keep you up to date about any developments that may occur.

Back to Top References

(1) N. Maxwell, 1976, What's Wrong With Science? (Bran's Head Books, Frome). (2) ________, 1984, From Knowledge to Wisdom (Blackwell, Oxford; 2nd ed., 2007). (3) ________, 1992, " What Kind of Inquiry Can Best Help Us Create a Good World? " Science, Technology and Human Values 17, pp. 205-227 (4) ________, 1998, The Comprehensibility of the Universe (Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford, paperback January 2003). (5) ________, 1999, " Has Science Established that the Universe is Comprehensible? " Cogito 13, 1999, pp. 139-145. (6) ________, 2000, " Can Humanity Learn to Become Civilized? The Crisis of Science without Civilization " Journal of Applied Philosophy 17, pp. 29-44. (7) ________, 2000, " A new conception of science " Physics World 13, No. 8, August 2000. (8) ________, 2001, The Human World in the Physical Universe (Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham and Oxford). (9) ________, 2004, Is Science Neurotic? (Imperial College Press, London). Back to Top

• Join Friends of Wisdom

This is an association of people sympathetic to the idea that academic inquiry should help humanity acquire more wisdom by rational means. Wisdom is taken to be the capacity to realize what is of value in life, for oneself and others. It includes knowledge, understanding and technological know-how, and much else besides. Friends of Wisdom try to encourage universities and schools actively to seek and promote wisdom by educational and intellectual means. At present, Friends of Wisdom communicate with one another in the main by email (JISCMAIL).

If you wish to join, click on the link below, and then click on "Subscribe" under "Options" on the LHS of the screen, and join:

or email: nick [at] knowledgetowisdom.org

• Friends of Wisdom Website .

© Copyright Nicholas Maxwell: All Rights Reserved

Essay on Intellectual Revolution

Students are often asked to write an essay on Intellectual Revolution in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Intellectual Revolution

What is an intellectual revolution.

An intellectual revolution is when people start thinking in new ways. It’s like a big change in how we understand the world. Imagine people long ago believing the Earth was flat, and then learning it’s round. That’s a huge shift in thinking!

Causes of Intellectual Revolutions

These revolutions often start when someone asks questions or has new ideas. Sometimes, when we learn more through science or meet other cultures, our old ideas change. It’s like updating a game to make it better.

Effects of Intellectual Revolutions

After an intellectual revolution, many things can change, like how we live or what we believe. Schools might teach different things, and new inventions can appear. It’s as if everyone’s minds get a fresh update.

250 Words Essay on Intellectual Revolution

What is an intellectual revolution.

An intellectual revolution is a big change in the way people think. It’s like when everyone starts to see the world in a new light. This can happen because of new ideas, inventions, or discoveries that make people question what they believed before.

Examples in History

History has seen many of these revolutions. A famous one is the Enlightenment in Europe, where thinkers like Newton and Voltaire helped people understand science and human rights better. Another is the Renaissance, when art and knowledge from the past inspired new creativity.

Why They Matter

These revolutions are important because they change societies. For instance, they can lead to new laws or ways of living. They encourage people to learn, be curious, and solve problems.

Today’s World

Today, we’re living through a digital revolution. Computers and the internet have transformed how we get information, talk to each other, and work. It’s making us rethink how we live and learn.

In short, an intellectual revolution is a big shift in thinking that can change the world. It’s like a new chapter in a book, offering fresh stories and possibilities. These revolutions make us smarter and help us build a better future.

500 Words Essay on Intellectual Revolution

What is intellectual revolution.

An intellectual revolution is when people start thinking in new and different ways. It’s like a big change in how everyone’s brains work. Imagine if one day, everyone decided that instead of walking, we would hop like kangaroos. That would be a big change, right? Well, an intellectual revolution is a bit like that, but with thoughts and ideas instead of hopping.

The Start of New Ideas

Long ago, people used to believe whatever they were told by their leaders or by old stories. But then, some brave thinkers started to question these beliefs. They began to use their own minds to understand the world. This was the beginning of an intellectual revolution. They looked at nature, did experiments, and used reason to find answers. This was a huge shift because it led to many discoveries and inventions that changed the world.

Changes in Society

When people begin to think differently, it changes how they live. In history, there have been times when lots of new ideas popped up, like during the Renaissance or the Age of Enlightenment. These ideas helped people see that they had rights and could make their own choices. They learned that they could ask questions about their leaders and demand fair treatment. This led to better laws and governments that cared about the people’s needs.

Science and Technology

An intellectual revolution can lead to big steps in science and technology. For example, when scientists started to understand germs, doctors could treat sicknesses better. Or when inventors learned about electricity, they could make light bulbs and power machines. These changes made life easier and helped people live longer and healthier lives.

Education and Knowledge

Education is a big part of any intellectual revolution. When new ideas are shared, people need to learn about them. Schools and books become more important because they spread knowledge. The more people learn, the more they can think of even newer ideas. It’s like a cycle that keeps going, making things better and better.

Challenges of Change

Not everyone likes new ideas. Sometimes, people who are used to the old ways feel scared or threatened by change. They might try to stop the new thinking or say it’s wrong. But usually, the new ideas are so strong that they keep spreading, and after a while, most people start to accept them.

Today’s Intellectual Revolution

Today, we are living in our own intellectual revolution with the internet and technology. We have so much information at our fingertips, and we can share our thoughts with the whole world in seconds. Kids like you can learn about anything you want, and you might even come up with the next big idea that starts a new intellectual revolution!

In conclusion, an intellectual revolution is all about changing the way we think. It’s exciting because it brings new discoveries and helps us build a better world. Just remember, every big change starts with a simple new thought, so keep thinking and who knows, you might be part of the next big revolution in thinking!

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Intellectual Property
• Essay on Intellectual Powers Of Man
• Essay on Integrated Marketing Communication

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

The developments described here cover a period of time that extends from about 650 until 350 BC. I am covering them within the context of the 5th Century because that is when the achievements themselves were most dramatic and when the connections to political and cultural changes are most noticeable. It is important to bear in mind (by way of context) the following:

• there is a close connection between the intellectual achievements and the vitality of the polis /citizenship discussed in the previous lectures. The same public discussion that allowed for different opinions to be expressed publicly about whether to go to war or to make peace also allowed for public discussion of political, social and religious issues.
• the Persian Wars (490-79) and the Peloponnesian War (431-404) are important temporal "brackets" and profoundly affected the process. The successes against the Persians are especially important because those successes appeared to validate the core values of the polis , namely consensual government, reasoned and public discussion.

The Intellectual Revolution: The Problem . .. During the 6th century BC and in the intellectual environment fostered by the polis an alternate view of nature developed. This new interpretation of natural events did not deny the existence to the gods, but stressed rather a perception of nature that resembles our own understanding of science . We need to define the characteristics of this new perception and to explain why such thinking became socially acceptable . Bear in mind that though much of science focuses on the explanation of routine natural events, the real test comes when one must confront and explain the unexpected . The critical characteristics are list in section I, B below

• The purpose of myth: to relieve anxiety about the unknown; to give the illusion of control over the forces of nature; to locate human beings in the cosmos .
• It is not devoid of truth, but rather appeals to a different level of truth.
• The subject of myth is the supernatural, the magical.
• Universe is natural whole
• Natural forces are subject to unchanging patterns or laws .
• Humans can ascertain those laws ; and do so in a public context.
• In myth, there is no separation of subject and object; external world seen as sympathetic or hostile; possessing will; in science the forces of nature are viewed as neutral in respect to human behavior, but knowable.
• Reason (in myth) serves purpose of immediate action; utilitarian. Science speculates about everything. Objects of interest (in myth) only in so far as they affect immediate human need; no knowledge for its own sake or to understand underlying cause; revelation.
• Each event is unique ... Ap...
• The definition of the First Principle / element: " Most of the first philosophers thought that primary elements in the form of matter were the only elements of all things: for the original source of all existing things, that from which a thing first comes-into-being and into which it is finally destroyed, the elementary substance persisting but changing in its qualities , this they declare is the element and first principle of existing things, and for this reason they consider that there is no absolute coming-to-be or passing away, on the grounds that substance is always preserved [conservation of matter ] …f or there must be some natural substance, either one or more than one, from which the other things come-into-being, while it is preserved . Over the number [of these elements ], however, and their form they do not all agree; but Thales, the founder of this type of philosophy, says that it is water (and therefore declared that the earth is on water), perhaps taking this supposition from seeing the nurture of all things to be moist...that water is the first and primary element " [explanation of transformation and change; solidification, rarification, condensation]. ... e.g.: e=mc 2 .
• Cosmology another view
• Theory of knowledge/skepticism: senses, panta rei ('everything flows'): Heraclitus says that all things are in process and nothing stays still, and likening existing things to the stream of a river he says that you would not step twice into the same river.
• Classification
• Accurate observation
• Analogy: heaven like an oven surrounded by fire ; the structure of the atom is like that of the solar system
• Law of contradiction: water vs. fire; motion; lightening ; Aristophanes.
• Verification: autopsy (=eye witness)
• Example of non-theological / naturalistic thinking: Herodotus on the Nile .
• The Revolution in Ionia: Some factors in the transformation of thinking.
• Extensive contact with East: data, material prosperity, leisure
• A human centered universe (humans make law; not given by gods)
• No priestly caste with vested interests in preserving the status quo. Breakdown of traditional religion?? Gods too human." A wise and clever man invented fear of the gods that there might be some means of frightening the wicked "; but be careful, also temple building
• Polis/Colonization: the "open society"
• High level of cultural achievement in a public dimension.
• Self confidence in polis and its values.
• The consequences of subjecting all issues to sustained, self-conscious, rational criticism are significant. Indeed, the process threatened the establishment.

• Utility Menu

The Harvard Colloquium

The harvard colloquium for intellectual history, what is intellectual history.

Intellectual history is an unusual discipline, eclectic in both method and subject matter and therefore resistant to any single, globalized definition. Because intellectual historians are likely to disagree about the most fundamental premises of what they do, any one definition of intellectual history is bound to provoke controversy. In this essay, Peter Gordon offers a few introductory remarks about intellectual history, its origins and current directions. (To read the full essay, click here .)

• Beirut Office
• Tunis Office
• The Arab Center, Washington DC
• CAREP Paris

• Research Papers

On the Intellectual and Revolution

Azmi Bishara

General Director of the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies (ACRPS) and Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies (DI). Bishara is a leading Arab researcher and intellectual with numerous books and academic publications on political thought, social theory and philosophy. He was named by Le Nouveau Magazine Littéraire as one of the world’s most influential thinkers. His publications in Arabic include Civil Society: A Critical Study  (1996); On The Arab Question: An Introduction to an Arab Democratic Manifesto (2007); To Be an Arab in Our Times (2009); On Revolution and Susceptibility to Revolution (2012); Religion and Secularism in Historical Context (in 3 vols., 2013, 2015); The Army and Political Power in the Arab Context: Theoretical Problems (2017); The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Daesh): A General Framework and Critical Contribution to Understanding the Phenomenon  (2018);  What is Populism?  (2019) and  Democratic Transition and its Problems: Theoretical Lessons from Arab Experiences  (2020). Some of these works have become key references within their respective field. His latest publication titled The Question of the State: Philosophy, Theory, and Context (2023) with a second volume forthcoming in 2024 titled The Arab State: Beginnings and Evolution.

Bishara’s English publications include Palestine: Matters of Truth and Justice (Hurst, 2022); On Salafism: Concepts and Contexts (Stanford University Press, 2022); Sectarianism without Sects (Oxford University Press, 2021), among other writings. His trilogy on the Arab revolutions, published by I.B. Tauris, consists of Understanding Revolutions: Opening Acts in Tunisia (2021); Egypt: Revolution, Failed Transition and Counter-Revolution (2022); and Syria 2011-2013: Revolution and Tyranny before the Mayhem (2023), in which he provides a theoretical analysis in addition to a rich, comprehensive and lucid assessment of the revolutions in three Arab countries: Tunisia, Egypt and Syria.

This essay is not an attempt to provide a comprehensive historical or sociological treatment of the subject of intellectuals and their role in revolution; rather, it is a conceptual contribution that aims to produce knowledge through critique and the differentiation of key terms-linguistically, conceptually, and historically. In so doing, Bishara examines terms such as "the intellectual," "the intelligentsia," "the organic intellectual," and, finally, "the public intellectual". For the latter, emphasis is placed on public intellectuals' ability to go beyond their specializations and engage directly with the public on issues concerning state and society.

Finally, the paper concludes that two types of intellectuals are scarce in the Arab revolutions: the "revolutionary intellectual," who maintains a critical distance not only from the regime, but also from the revolution, and the "conservative intellectual," who argues for the preservation of the regime due to the potential for change that exists within it, and the wisdom embedded in the state and its traditions. For Bishara, the role of the revolutionary intellectual does not end with the outbreak of a revolution, but, in fact, takes on greater complexity and significance once the need to propose post-revolutionary alternatives arises.

• Recent Currently selected

Related Articles

By the same author.

Latest Publications

Yasir Suleiman-Malley

Taissier Khalaf

Adnan Falahi

Wissal Elech

Mohammed Lachkar

Multiple Authors

Mohamed Abdelaaty

Salem Ouakari

Join our mailing list.

Please try again

Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies

Al Tarafa Street, Zone 70, Wadi Al Banat, Al Dhaayen, Qatar

P.O.Box 10277

Tel : +974 4035 4111

Fax : +974 4035 4114

Related Websites

• Usage Agreement

Support 110 years of independent journalism.

• Election 2024

The new battle of ideas: How an intellectual revolution will reshape society

Why we need a radical model for society in which the state does things with, not for, its citizens.  

By Paul Collier

We are living in a society which has been in manifest crisis. Prolonged crisis is both an indication that the ideas that have guided the society are flawed and a stimulus to rethink them. While our political parties have been flailing around in the minutia of chaotic emergencies, an intellectual revolution has begun. The looming battles of ideas will be as much within the parties as between them: between those who cling, and those who leap.

We should start by recognising we live in a world too complex to be fully understood. The best we can do is to learn by experimentation, copying what works – pragmatism. The concept is radical uncertainty , on which John Kay and Mervyn King have written an important eponymous book, published last year. In writing it, the authors recanted a set of established 20th-century ideas that they once taught. Integrity compelled them to leap.

The idea of radical uncertainty is complemented by a new account of how we come to understand the world, and how we form our values, by Joseph Henrich, the polymath who heads Harvard’s department of evolutionary biology. Don’t be put off by the confusing title, The Weirdest People in the World (2020). The key insight is that we have evolved to get most of our ideas not from our own sharp observation and analysis, but from the people in our socially networked communities. We have evolved this way because usually it is sensible: the collective mind of our network, which includes ideas stored for years, has observed much more than any one of its members.

Bringing these two ideas together, we rely mainly on our collective mind, but due to radical uncertainty it is seldom completely right.

One disturbing implication is that even bad ideas can be self-fulfilling, the fancy term being “ergodicity”. The ideas of a networked community generate the behaviour of its members; that behaviour aggregates into socio economic outcomes; and if those outcomes are consistent with what the ideas predicted, the whole sequence repeats.

Whatever the initial ideas, as our only partially understood world careers off like an unguided missile, outcomes will move away from expectations. This should lead to rapid revision of the ideas, but often it doesn’t. Instead, the community invents neutralising propositions that explain away the unexpected. In Iraq, the “mission” was not “accomplished”; the explanation being that “we needed more troops, so a surge”. Labour crashes to an unprecedented defeat in the 2019 general election; the explanation: “the northern working class are xenophobic and stupid”.

My own favourites: in 2018 the Turkish lira collapses as President Erdogan splurges to win the election; and Wirecard, the German payments provider, collapses as accounting fraud is exposed by British journalists. Both receive the same explanation: a shadowy network of foreign speculators. These neutralising propositions, which our partisan journalists churn out daily, can sustain bad ideas for a while, until they are finally overwhelmed by disaster.

Another quaint implication is that, in the face of the unknown, we need wisdom , a concept returning to social science after a long absence. If truth – complete knowledge of the world – is unknowable, wisdom is the best we can do: it comes from synthesising the generic knowledge of the expert with the contextual knowledge of the practitioner. Expertise is codified and readily shared, whereas context can only be understood by doing: in economics it’s “learning by doing”; in sociology “lived experience”. So, synthesis depends upon sharing expert knowledge with practitioners. Hence the practitioners should have the power to take decisions. Experts who believe they know enough to take the decisions themselves are dangerously overconfident, and so highly centralised decision structures – whether modern Whitehall or Marxist systems of central planning – are a recipe for unwise choices.

An implication important for progress is that, on rare occasions, an individual will have a new idea that is a better approximation to reality than the collective mind. Progress depends upon that disruptive new idea spreading. We now know from a valuable study of how ideas travel through networks, How Behaviour Spreads (2018), by Damon Centola, that even good new ideas only spread across communities if there are substantial overlaps between those communities. We all need to escape from our echo chambers and listen to each other.

[see also:  The world to come: The imminent shocks ]

Before you next insult some “enemy” group, ask yourself: how many people in it do you know personally? Have you tried to understand their point of view? Do they fit your stereotype? Is the typical working-class northerner really xenophobic? Are Tories really less moral than the typical Labour supporter? I like to think of myself as occupying the hard centre, and I have, in my time, been adopted or vilified by both sides, left and right. The application to politics of the loyalties appropriate for football strike me as comic. But they are also poignant: people are pouring their passions into beliefs that are too uncertain to bear the weight.

But the most uncomfortable implication is that different communities will coalesce around different ideas and values. In societies partitioned into different social networks, such communities will coexist, and depending on their ideas, they may be cooperative or violently antagonistic. Indeed, a common neutralising proposition is for each community to account for societal failure by blaming some other community. The cultivation of hatreds, though repellent, is strategic.

“Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves,” Confucius said. But that, unfortunately, is the journey on which the Labour Party’s activist membership appears to have embarked. Its composition has skewed disastrously far from the much larger group of voters the party needs to attract to win again. And the party membership is a small group, around 1 per cent of the electorate – “We are the 1 per cent!” The cultivation of hatreds against opponents is always viewed by most people as repellent. Two decades ago, with their denigration of those on benefits, it was the Conservatives who were seen by the apolitical majority as the “Nasty Party”, and it was hugely damaging.

Just as the Tories are overweight in bankers, Labour is overweight in lawyers, and they seem to regard the main function of the law as protecting minorities from majorities. But the law’s main function is the opposite: to enforce adherence to those common purposes that have been widely agreed by a democratic process, protecting them from free-riding by small but recalcitrant minorities – whether it’s employers that won’t pay the minimum wage, “influencers” peddling hate speech or crooks peddling drugs. Sometimes the law needs to protect people from the state, but again primarily this is about protecting the majority from state capture by well- connected insiders trying to impose their own agenda on everyone else. The law should be restraining the power of lobbies.

We do indeed need to protect individual rights against the abuse of power by the state; but often we don’t. Here, an insightful book is Hilary Cottam’s Radical Help (2018), which is already on the desk of many directors of social services. Under the guise of safety, old people are being removed from their homes against their will, and children are being removed from parents presumed guilty of child abuse unless they can prove their innocence. The children are placed in “care” (in its Orwellian usage). Such, indeed, is my lived experience: I lost a mother and later gained two children through it. My mother died to safeguard social services from liability should she have a home accident over a weekend. Bundled with my father into a care home, she fell and was dead in four days, having survived at home for nearly 50 years. Our children are our delight, but their birth-mother’s tragedy.

For a society to continue functioning well, it will occasionally have to change its values as better, new ideas spread across its communities. Such changes are “inflection points”; moments when the direction of the collective mind reverses. In his landmark book The Upswing (2020), Robert Putnam studies the balance between individualism and communitarianism in America over the past 140 years; swings between the “me society” and the “we society”. Putnam is a communitarian, but not extreme: both communities and individuals need rights, and periodically one overreaches at the expense of the other. He identifies two such inflection points, the first around 1900 when the Progressive movement began to reverse a descent into a rampant “me society”. Its ideas spread rapidly precisely because it was bipartisan, and based on forging new common purposes within local communities: the clingers in both parties resisted.

The process that forges common purpose is a participatory dialogue: the Irish use citizens’ assemblies, and Marvin Rees, the mayor of Bristol, holds city gatherings. In a dialogue, participants have equal voice, equal respect, an obligation to listen and to understand differing perspectives, and a purpose: to find goals that gain wide agreement and develop a plan for how to achieve them. Economists mock this aspiration; the inevitable outcome is supposedly “the tragedy of the commons”, where rampant self-interest frustrates collective action. Yet the economic Nobel Laureate Elinor Ostrom has showed that, time and again, real communities are able to avoid this “tragedy”.

The other, less happy inflection point for Putnam was the 1960s, when soixante huitards such as myself, while imagining that we were virtuously “tearing down capitalism” (which survived), turned out to be ungluing social connectedness (which didn’t). Inadvertently, we helped begin an accelerating descent into a society in which people have become even more obsessed with asserting their own superior virtue than they were in 1900.

To get a deeper understanding of virtue than the teenage antics of my generation, I recommend Virtue Politics (2019), a revolutionary reassessment of Renaissance humanism as an inflection point, which the author James Hankins explicitly compares to the Progressive movement. Central to all virtue ethics is the recognition that our minds are formed not by formal legal institutions, but by the habits of daily life.

Like other mammals, humans are inclined to be selfish, and bad habits can drag us down to being little else. But we are a highly unusual mammal, far more pro-social and creative than others. At our best, we override our individual interests to achieve common goals. Our daily experience in the organisations within which we live and work can either drag us down or lift us up. An overarching moral task in a society is to build organisational cultures pervaded by a practical ethic of decency.

The leaders of our organisations should regard their positions not as a prize to enjoy, but as a duty to fulfil. Their role is not as super-smart commanders-in-chief pulling levers and issuing orders, but as people whom we come to trust, who can then be communicators-in-chief, inspiring us to new common purposes and the mutual obligations needed to meet them. The collapse of trust in politics and business has left most politicians and CEOs unable to play that role.

The common message of Putnam and Hankins meshes with Henrich’s analysis of how societies can best cope with radical uncertainty. Exhibit A is Denmark, consistently among the best societies in the world on every objective and subjective measure of well-being. Agency is widely distributed around and within Danish organisations, which are continuously trying new ways of achieving their society’s common purposes. Successes spread readily between communities, unimpeded by dogmatic adherence to outdated ideas.

Sometimes the spread of successful new ideas needs leadership; sometimes it can happen by osmosis. Thanks to trusted political leadership, Danes swiftly accepted the new common purpose of protecting their neighbours from Covid, thereby missing the first two waves and rapidly bringing the third under control. In Britain, it has mainly been through osmosis that thousands of volunteers have used YouTube videos to train themselves to administer vaccines in pharmacies. Similarly, the creative invention of an immigrant entrepreneur – chicken tikka masala – spread by imitation to rapidly displace fish and chips as the nation’s top takeaway. But will the remarkable success of the Michaela Community School in north-west London – which is enabling deprived inner-city children to achieve stellar results – spread by osmosis as its unfashionable ideas for motivating children are enthusiastically imitated by other teachers? Stand by for the neutralising propositions that denigrate its achievement.

And so finally to Michael Sandel’s The Tyranny of Merit (2020), which has two game-changing ideas. One is to remind us why Michael Young, the architect of Labour’s 1945 manifesto, not only coined “meritocracy” in his futuristic 1958 work The Rise of the Meritocracy , but depicted it as a dystopia. For Young, if the successful came to see themselves as meriting or deserving their success, those who failed would be condemned to see their failure as equally deserved. They would be left “naked” of dignity, and so it has proved.

As shown by Paul Dolan, LSE’s brilliant East Ender psychologist, the middle classes’ narratives of success have so dominated the media (which they control) that their disdain for the supposed inadequacies of the working class – “xenophobic and stupid” – has become pervasive. The activist Labour membership, especially in London – the lawyers, journalists, teachers and academics – exude an excessive confidence in their own abilities and thus their own opinions. It is doubly exaggerated: not only is human knowledge inherently inadequate, but part of their income accrues from capturing the rents of metropolitan agglomeration – the advantages of living and working where they do –  which rightly belong to others.

The other Sandel game-changer is his concept of “contributive justice”. In forging common purposes, not only has everyone in the society the right to participate, but they also have mutual obligations to contribute to those purposes. It is these obligations that generate the rights. At the heart of contributive justice is agency. We thrive when we have some purpose in our lives other than self-indulgence, and the ability to contribute to it. And so, “distributive justice” (rights without obligations), which was a sensible agenda for the mid-20th century, will not be enough for the mid-21st.

Contributive justice is the shift from doing things for people – Blair’s de haut en bas Delivery Units – to doing them with people. The former is well motivated, but intrinsically contaminated by the patronising depiction of people as victims to be saved by saints. Contributing to common purposes provides the dignity of mutuality: everyone has an active role to play. But to contribute, people must be in a position to do so, and after decades of negligence, many are not. Rectifying that neglect is the foremost practical post-Covid priority. That combination – equality of respect; equality of participation in determining common purpose; and equality of standing as a contributor in achieving it – are what Sandel means by “equality of condition”, distinguishing it from both the Blairite equality of opportunity, and the socialist equality of outcomes.

There need be no tension between contributive and distributive justice, as long as they are recognised as generating distinctive obligations, and hence different rights. The agenda for contributive justice is the process of building a dense web of obligations that are mutually accepted and reciprocal. Elinor Ostrom’s work not only showed that there need be no tragedy of the commons, but also set out the principles of communitarian governance by which it was avoided. Such governance can work at many levels – both within small communities and across entire societies – and a polity needs its citizens to be able to cooperate at whichever level is best suited to the task at hand.

[see also:  Why the battle between left and right protectionism will shape the post-Covid world ]

If it is to reduce loneliness, local is best; if it is to enable Yorkshire to catch up with London, then cities must work together; if we need a national effort, the entire citizenry has to cooperate. Citizenship is not merely a legal concept of rights plus an obligation to obey the law. It is about willing compliance in national purposes that have been agreed through a participatory and inclusive political process. No state can be effective without it. The first of Ostrom’s principles is the need for clear and accepted boundedness of membership. Even very demanding rights and obligations can be agreed as long as they are mutual, with everyone knowing that they apply to all. Hence, the distinction between citizens and non-citizens is existential. Willing compliance with the state depends upon a sense of mutual belonging to the nation. Claims to be a “citizen of the world” at best reveal a misunderstanding, and at worst are a ruse by the successful to deny their obligations to their less fortunate fellow citizens: an opening for the pantomime of moralising celebrities.

While the essence of citizenship is reciprocity, distributive justice is inherently asymmetric: citizens can agree among themselves to accept obligations to non-citizens, by piggybacking on the political process built for common purposes. Helping the poorest societies catch up, and encouraging rich societies to help them do so, have been the guiding purposes of my own working life. But any rights they create for non-citizens can neither legitimately impose obligations on them, nor presume any mutually participatory politics. Hence, distributive justice is derivative of contributive justice.

So much for the new ideas; now for their application to practical policies that address the current anxieties. The temptation is to return to what Labour once was: the “cradle to grave” agenda of public service delivery. That mid-20th-century programme certainly transformed my life, from my caesarean birth in a newly NHS hospital, through my schooling at a newly state grammar school, through Oxford on a full needs-assessed grant, followed by an Economic and Social Research Council grant for my graduate work. I don’t mean to deride that agenda. But it was, and is, a top-down agenda, something done by the state to its grateful recipients. That worked for a population accustomed to wartime obedience.

But now, the demand for obligation-free rights has exploded into absurdities: Piers Corbyn, Jeremy’s brother, and the Conservative MP and former Brexit minister David Davis, are united in demanding the right of crowds to attend open-access gatherings during a pandemic. And it ignores agency: the voters Keir Starmer needs wanted to “take back control”, and not just from Brussels. That is what Labour should now offer them, because they want to be given agency over their lives.

And anxieties, not grievances, must be the focus. Anxieties are forward-looking, and have been accentuated by objective uncertainties such as the Covid crisis and Brexit; grievances are backward-looking, subjective and consequently infinite – figures as privileged as Donald Trump and Ivy League students claim victimhood. The Welsh nationalists are demanding reparations from England for the Industrial Revolution: Sheffield should compensate Swansea?

The Policy Institute at King’s College, London, recently released a national poll of concerns about widening inequalities and post-Covid priorities. It found there is one – and only one – new common purpose. It is not just the top priority, but the only dimension of inequality on which there is majority agreement across communities. It is the need to reverse widening spatial inequalities: where you live should not affect your life chances. The King’s College researchers described this as “unexpected”. Unexpected after the Brexit vote, the European Parliament elections shock, the Red Wall collapse?

The most evident spatial inequality is the privileged position of London versus almost everywhere else in the UK. Government is ridiculously overcentralised in the capital. In consequence, the distance between people and influence – the number of steps in the “I know someone who knows someone” chain – is enormously skewed in favour of the London middle class. It is not just government that is overcentralised: so is finance – the economy is a hub without spokes, in the telling imagery of Andy Haldane, the chief economist of the Bank of England. Two-thirds of Britain’s venture capital for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) goes to London and the south-east, a ludicrous mismatch between the distribution of enterprising people and the finance to fuel their ideas. These are the rents of agglomeration to which I alluded earlier. But spatial inequalities are also intra-regional: Blackburn suffers while Manchester thrives, and similarly Wolverhampton vis-à-vis Birmingham, and Rotherham vis-à-vis Harrogate.

Avoiding such spatial divergences would once have been relatively straightforward: Britain has become a complete outlier in the OECD. But renewing places once they have been broken is much harder. They suffer from a syndrome of interdependent and reinforcing problems, such as social deprivation, outdated skills, few high- productivity jobs, the exodus of youthful talent, an inflow of those on benefits, a bad external image and demoralisation and division among their communities. This can be changed, and elsewhere in the world there are plenty of examples, such as Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, and Newcastle in Australia. It takes a package: devolved authority; nationally provided resources; a local leadership which fuses generic and practitioner knowledge into a convincing narrative that builds common purpose; new commitments from national leaders; visible early changes on the ground; learning as you go. Such packages work by resetting local expectations from anxiety to hope, and external attitudes from dismissal to interest.

Bringing agency and spatial equity together, Labour needs unequivocally to commit to devolution: reject Old Labour’s fondness for centralisation, embrace Gordon Brown’s proposed commission, for England and Wales, as well as Scotland. It must also recognise that agency should also pass to the voluntary sector, which has been the real hero of the Covid saga – and that jobs are generated by business, which is starting to clean up its act.

I will close with a related inequality: reversing the prolonged de-skilling of the half of the population not destined for university, for which past Labour and Conservative governments share the blame. We should have a single lifetime entitlement to public finance for post-school training, whether it is used for going to university, a college of further education (CFE), or any accredited training course. Labour should no longer pander to the middle classes on student fees. The SNP squeezed CFE budgets in its struggle to finance free university education in Scotland for the European middle classes while charging English students for the right to be educated in Scotland.

Equality of condition would be a real Labour Party agenda for the many. Parity of respect; a policy agenda that the many have set; parity of agency in contributing to it; and parity in the ability of places and occupations to make their contribution. The clingers will cling: they will be shrill in their opposition, and quite probably they will be nasty. But if they succeed in shackling the Labour Party to ideas that are past, they will doom it to perpetual defeat and to being engulfed by a future it neither comprehends, nor to which it can relate. 

Paul Collier is professor of economics and public policy at the Blavatnik School of Government, Oxford University. His most recent books are “The Future of Capitalism” (Allen Lane) and “Greed is Dead” (Allen Lane, co-authored with John Kay)

[see also:  Why we must build a new civic covenant ]

The Saturday Read

Morning call.

• Administration / Office
• Arts and Culture
• Board Member
• Business / Corporate Services
• Client / Customer Services
• Communications
• Construction, Works, Engineering
• Education, Curriculum and Teaching
• Environment, Conservation and NRM
• Facility / Grounds Management and Maintenance
• Finance Management
• Health - Medical and Nursing Management
• HR, Training and Organisational Development
• Information and Communications Technology
• Information Services, Statistics, Records, Archives
• Infrastructure Management - Transport, Utilities
• Legal Officers and Practitioners
• Librarians and Library Management
• OH&S, Risk Management
• Operations Management
• Planning, Policy, Strategy
• Printing, Design, Publishing, Web
• Projects, Programs and Advisors
• Property, Assets and Fleet Management
• Public Relations and Media
• Purchasing and Procurement
• Quality Management
• Science and Technical Research and Development
• Security and Law Enforcement
• Service Delivery
• Sport and Recreation
• Travel, Accommodation, Tourism
• Wellbeing, Community / Social Services

Content from our partners

How the apprenticeship levy helps small businesses to transform their workforce

How to reform the apprenticeship levy

Louise Dawe-Smith: “Confidence is the biggest thing an apprenticeship can teach you”

The Liberal Democrats’ shallow soul

The UK doesn’t need to invest in wind farms

Our mental health crisis won’t be solved by pills alone

This article appears in the 28 Apr 2021 issue of the New Statesman, The new battle of ideas

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Acquisition
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music and Religion
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Society
• Law and Politics
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Games
• Computer Security
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business Strategy
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Systems
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Politics and Law
• Politics of Development
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous
• Next chapter >

1 Introduction

• Published: June 1997
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Revolutions are not made without ideas, but they are not made by intellectuals. Steam is essential to driving a railway engine; but neither a locomotive nor a permanent way can be built out of steam. This book deals with the steam. However, a sociological approach to intellectual history carries its own risks. Karl Marx himself did not fall into the error of thinking that men's ideas were merely a pale reflection of their economic needs, with no history of their own. So, although this book is concerned mainly with intellectual history, it claims that the thinkers were not isolated from their societies. The history of ideas necessarily deals with trends to which there are individual exceptions. The book argues that on the whole the ideas of the scientists favoured the Puritan and Parliamentarian cause.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• Google Scholar Indexing
• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Chapter 3 Introductory Essay: 1763-1789

Written by: Jonathan Den Hartog, Samford University

By the end of this section, you will:.

• Explain the context in which America gained independence and developed a sense of national identity

Introduction

The American Revolution remains an important milestone in American history. More than just a political and military event, the movement for independence and the founding of the United States also established the young nation’s political ideals and defined new governing structures to sustain them. These structures continue to shape a country based on political, religious, and economic liberty, and the principle of self-government under law. The “shot heard round the world” (as poet Ralph Waldo Emerson described the battles of Lexington and Concord) created a nation that came to inspire the democratic pursuit of liberty in other lands, bringing a “new order of the ages”.

This engraving of the 1775 battle of Lexington—detailed by American printmaker Amos Doolittle who volunteered to fight against the British—is the only contemporary American visual record of this event.

From Resistance to Revolution

As British subjects, the colonists felt flush with patriotism after the Anglo-American victory in the French and Indian War (1754–1763). They were proud of their king, George III, and of the “rights of Englishmen” that made them part of a free and prosperous world empire. Although Britain’s policies after the French and Indian War caused disputes and tensions between the crown and its North American colonies, independence for the colonies was not a foregone conclusion. Instead, the desire for independence emerged as a result of individual decisions and large-scale events that intensified the conflict with Great Britain and helped unite the diverse colonies.

As early as 1763, British responses to the end of the French and Indian War were arousing anger in the colonies. An immediate question concerned Britain’s relationship with American Indians in the interior. Many French-allied American Indians formed a confederation and continued to fight the British, especially under the leadership of the Odawa chief Pontiac and the Delaware prophet Neolin. Together, they hoped to reclaim lands exclusively for their tribes and to entice the French to return and once again challenge the English. Pontiac’s War led to American Indian seizure of western settlements such as Detroit and Fort Niagara. Rather than ending the dispute quickly, unsuccessful British attempts at diplomacy with France’s Indian allies dragged the war into 1766. (See the Pontiac’s Rebellion Narrative.)

Meanwhile, the British issued the Proclamation of 1763, which attempted to separate American Indian and white settlements by forbidding American colonists to cross the Appalachian Mountains. The hope was to prevent another costly war and crushing war debt. The British stationed troops and built forts on the American frontier to enforce the proclamation, but they were ignoring reality. Many colonists had already settled west of the Appalachians in search of new opportunities, and those who had fought the war specifically to acquire land believed their property rights were being violated by the British standing army.

The line drawn by the Royal Proclamation of 1763 from Lake Ontario to the Gulf of Mexico left much of the frontier “reserved for the Indians” and led to resentment from many colonists.

In 1764, the British began to raise revenue for the large army stationed on the colonial frontier and tightened their enforcement of trade regulations. This was a change from the relatively hands-off approach to governing they had previously embraced. The new ministry of George Grenville introduced the Sugar Act, which reduced the six-pence tax from the widely ignored Molasses Act (1733) by three pence per gallon. But British customs officials were ordered to enforce the Sugar Act by collecting the newly lowered tax and prosecuting smugglers in vice-admiralty courts without juries. Colonial merchants bristled against the changes in imperial policy, but worse changes were yet to come.

The introduction of the Stamp Act in 1765 caused the first significant constitutional dispute over Britain’s taxing the colonists without their consent. The Stamp Act was designed to raise revenue from the colonies (to help pay for the cost of troops on the frontier) by taxing legal forms and printed materials including newspapers; a stamp was placed on the document to indicate that the duty had been paid. Because the colonists had long raised money for the crown through their own elected legislatures, to which they gave their consent, and because they did not have direct representation in Parliament, they cried, “No taxation without representation,” claiming their rights as Englishmen. Although the colonists accepted the British Parliament’s right to use tariffs as a means to regulate their commerce within the imperial system, they asserted that the new taxes were aimed solely to raise revenue. In other words, the Stamp Act imposed a direct tax on the colonists, taking their property without their consent, and, as such, amounted to a new power being claimed by the British Parliament. (See the Stamp Act Resistance Narrative.)

Early voices of protest and resistance came from attorney and farmer Patrick Henry in the Virginia House of Burgesses and lawyer John Adams outside Boston. A group of clubs organized in Boston. Members ransacked the houses of Andrew Oliver, the appointed collector of the Stamp Tax, and Thomas Hutchinson, the colony’s lieutenant governor. Calls for active resistance came from the Sons of Liberty, a group of artisans, laborers, and sailors led by Samuel Adams (cousin of John and a business owner quickly emerging as a leader of the opposition). Petitions, protests, boycotts of articles bearing the stamp, and even violence spread to other cities, including New York, and demonstrated that the colonists’ resolve could keep the Stamp Tax from being collected.

This 1765 engraving entitled “Stamp Master in Effigy” depicts an angry mob in Portsmouth New Hampshire hanging a Crown-appointed stamp master in effigy. (credit: “New Hampshire—Stamp Master in Effigy ” courtesy of the New Hampshire Historical Society)

Meanwhile, delegates from nine colonies met in New York as the Stamp Act Congress to register a formal complaint in October 1765. The Congress was a show of increasing unity; it declared colonial rights and petitioned the British Parliament for relief.

The colonial boycott of British goods in response to the Stamp Act had its desired effect: British merchants affected by it petitioned the crown to revoke the taxes. In the face of this colonial resistance, a new government took leadership in Parliament and in 1766 repealed the Stamp Act. The colonists celebrated and thought the crisis was resolved. However, the British Parliament simultaneously passed the Declaratory Act, asserting its authority with the power to legislate for the colonies “in all cases whatsoever,” including taxing without consent. The stage was set to continue the conflict.

Like their British counterparts, many Americans adopted the custom of drinking tea. How does this teapot c. 1770 show the politicization of the cultural habit of tea drinking? (credit: “No Stamp Act Teapot ” Division of Cultural and Community Life National Museum of American History Smithsonian Institution)

Just one year later, Parliament began to pass the so-called Townshend Acts. The first of these was the Revenue Act, which taxed many goods imported by the colonies, including paint, glass, lead, paper, and tea. Despite the stationing of British troops in Boston to quell resistance, artisans and laborers protested the taxes, while in nonimportation agreements (boycotts), merchants and planters pledged not to import taxed goods. Women resisted the tax by rejecting the consumer goods of Great Britain, producing homespun clothing and brewing homemade concoctions rather than buying imported British cloth and tea. They organized into groups called the Daughters of Liberty to play their part in resisting what they viewed as British tyranny, and they formed the backbone of the nonconsumption movement not to use British goods. John Dickinson, a wealthy lawyer, penned the most significant protest, Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania. The tax “appears to me to be unconstitutional,” he wrote, and “destructive to the liberty of these colonies.” The key question was whether “the parliament can legally take money out of our pockets, without our consent.” The colonists’ boycott significantly hurt British trade and few taxes were collected, so Parliament revoked the Townshend Acts in 1770, leaving only the tax on tea. (See the John Dickinson Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania 1767-1768 Primary Source.)

British officials had stationed troops in urban areas, especially New York and Boston, to quell the growing opposition movements. Their presence led to numerous smaller incidents and eventually to the eruption of violence in Boston. In March 1770, soldiers guarding the Boston Customs House were pelted with rocks and ice chunks thrown by angry colonists. Feeling threatened, they fired into the crowd, killing six Bostonians. The soldiers claimed they had fired in self-defense, but colonists called it a cold-blooded slaughter. This was the interpretation put forward by the silversmith Paul Revere in his widely reproduced engraving of the event, now called the “Boston Massacre.” The soldiers soon faced trial, and John Adams—although no friend of British taxation—served as their defense attorney to prove that colonists respected the rule of law. Remarkably, he convinced the Boston jury of the soldiers’ innocence, but tensions continued to simmer. (See The Boston Massacre Narrative.)

Boston was ripe for resistance to British demands when Parliament issued the 1773 Tea Act. The intention was to save the British East India Company from bankruptcy by lowering the price of tea (to increase demand) while assessing a small tax along with it. Colonists saw this as a trap, using low prices to induce them to break their boycott by purchasing taxed tea from the East Indian monopoly. Before the three ships carrying the tea could be unloaded at Boston harbor, the Sons of Liberty organized a mass protest in which thousands participated. Men disguised themselves as American Indians (to symbolize their love of natural freedom), marched to the ships, and threw the tea into Boston Harbor—an event later called “the Boston Tea Party”. (See The Boston Tea Party Narrative.)

This portrayal of the Boston Tea Party dates from 1789 and reads “Americans throwing Cargoes of the Tea Ships into the River at Boston.” On the basis of the image and the artist’s caption do you think the artist was sympathetic to the Patriot or the British cause?

Parliament could not overlook this defiance of its laws and destruction of a significant amount of private property. In early 1774, it passed what it called the Coercive Acts to compel obedience to British rule. The Boston Port Act closed Boston Harbor, the main source of livelihood for many in the city. Other acts gained tighter control of the judiciary in the colony, dissolved the colonial legislature, shut down town meetings, and allowed Parliament to tear up the Massachusetts charter without due process or redress. The colonists called these laws the “Intolerable Acts.” Meeting in Philadelphia in September and October 1774, representatives of the colonies discussed how to respond. This First Continental Congress was an expression of intercolonial unity. The representatives agreed to send help to Boston, boycott British goods, and affirm their natural and constitutional rights. Few contemplated independence; most hoped to bring about a reconciliation and restoration of colonial rights. The representatives also agreed to meet again, in the spring of 1775. By that time, events had taken a very different course. (See the Acts of Parliament Lesson.)

From Lexington and Concord to Independence

Some Patriots in the colonies sought more radical solutions than reconciliation. Early in 1775, Patrick Henry tried to rouse the Virginia House of Burgesses to action:

The war is inevitable—and let it come! . . . Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me give me liberty or give me death!

Around the same time, Major General Thomas Gage, Britain’s military governor of Massachusetts, planned to seize colonial munitions held at Concord and capture several Patriot leaders, including Samuel Adams and John Hancock, along the way. On April 18, 1775, when it became clear the British were preparing to move, riders were dispatched to alert the countryside, most famously Paul Revere (in a trip immortalized by the poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow). As a result, the following morning, the Lexington militia gathered on Lexington Green to stand in protest. As the British column advanced, its commander ordered the colonists to disperse. A shot rang out—no one knows from where. The British opened fire, and after the skirmish, seven Lexington men lay dead.

The British advanced to Concord, where by now the supplies had been safely hidden away. After witnessing British destruction in the town, the Concord militia counterattacked at the North Bridge. This was Emerson’s “shot heard round the world.” Militia units converged from all over eastern Massachusetts, pursued the British back to Boston, and besieged the city. One militiaman who survived was young Levi Preston. Years afterward, he reported that “what we meant in going for those Redcoats was this: we had always governed ourselves and we always meant to. They didn’t mean we should.”

On June 17, 1775, the Battle of Bunker Hill erupted when the colonial troops seized and fortified Breed’s Hill and repulsed three British attacks. Running low on ammunition, the colonists held their fire until the last moment under the command, “Don’t fire until you see the whites of their eyes.” The British captured their position—and suffered unexpectedly high casualties—but the battle galvanized the colonists. Although they were still divided, many came to believe that King George, instead of merely having bad advisors or making bad policies, was openly going to war with them. Arguments for independence began to gain traction. The build-up to the call for independence had been long, but now there seemed no other recourse. (See The Path to Independence Lesson.)

One key voice urging independence was that of Thomas Paine, a recent immigrant from England. In early 1776, Paine published Common Sense, a bestseller in which he attacked monarchy generally before suggesting the folly of an island (Britain) ruling a continent (America). Paine called on the colonists “to begin the world over again” and was one of the clearest voices pushing them toward independence. (See the Thomas Paine Common Sense 1776 Primary Source.)

(a) Thomas Paine’s Common Sense helped convince many colonists of the need for independence from Great Britain. (b) Paine shown here in a portrait by Laurent Dabos was a political activist and revolutionary best known for his writings on both the American and French Revolutions.

The Second Continental Congress debated the question of independence in 1776. The commander of the Continental Army, George Washington of Virginia, agreed with Henry Knox’s audacious plan to bring massive cannons three hundred miles through the winter snows from Fort Ticonderoga to Boston. When Knox succeeded, Washington used the guns to end the siege of Boston. At the congress, cousins Samuel and John Adams argued for independence and convinced a Virginia ally, Richard Henry Lee to offer this motion on June 7:

That these United Colonies are and of right ought to be free and independent States that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is and ought to be totally dissolved.

Confronting its choices Congress also appointed a committee to prepare a Declaration of Independence. The committee consisted of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, Robert R. Livingston, and Thomas Jefferson a 33-year-old Virginian who accepted the task of drafting the important document. (See Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence Narrative.)

No contemporary images of the Constitutional Congress survive. Robert Edge Pine worked on his painting Congress Voting Independence from 1784 to 1788. How has this artist conveyed the seriousness of the task the delegates faced?

When the votes were tallied for Lee’s resolution about a month later on July 2, twelve states had voted for independence; New York abstained until it received instructions from its legislature. John Adams later wrote that it was as if “thirteen clocks were made to strike together.” The next two days were spent revising the language of the official Declaration, which Congress approved on July 4, 1776.

The Declaration of Independence laid down several principles for the independent nation. The document made a universal assertion that all humans were created equal. According to the ideas of John Locke and the Enlightenment, people were equal in their natural rights, which included life, liberty, and the ability to pursue happiness. The document also stated that legitimate governments derived their power from the consent of the governed and existed to protect those inalienable rights. According to this “social compact,” the people had the right to overthrow a tyrannical government that violated their rights and to establish a new government. The Declaration of Independence, which also included a list of specific instances in which the crown had violated Americans’ rights, laid down the principles of republican government dedicated to the protection of individual political, religious, and economic liberties. (See the Signing the Declaration of Independence Decision Point.)

Congress had made and approved the Declaration, but whether the country could sustain the claim of independence was another matter. The struggle would have to be won on the battlefield.

War and Peace

For independence to be secured, the war had to be fought and won. British generals aimed to secure the port cities, expand British influence, and gradually win the population back to a position of loyalty. They commanded a professional army but had to subdue the entire eastern seaboard. General Washington, on the other hand, learned how to keep the Continental Army in the field and take calculated risks in the face of a British force superior in number, training, and supplies. The support of the individual states, and the congressional effort to secure allies, were essential to the war effort, but they were not guaranteed. The British sent an army of nearly thirty-two thousand redcoats and German mercenaries. They also enjoyed naval supremacy and expected that their more-experienced generals would win an easy victory over the provincials. The campaigns of 1776, thus, were about survival.

After securing Boston, Washington moved his army to New York City, the likely target of the next British attack. In the summer of 1776, the British fleet arrived under the command of Admiral Richard Howe. It carried an army led by his brother, General William Howe, and consisted not only of British troops but also of German mercenaries from Hesse (the Hessians). The first blow came on Long Island, where British attacks easily threw Washington’s army into disarray. Washington led his army in retreat to Manhattan, and then from New Jersey all the way into Pennsylvania. By the end of the year, his situation looked bleak. Many of Washington’s soldiers, about to come to the end of their enlistments, would be free to depart. If Washington could not keep his army in the field or show some success, the claim of independence might seem like an empty promise.

It was critical, therefore, to rally the troops to a decisive victory. Washington and his officers decided on the bold stroke of attacking Trenton. On Christmas evening, they crossed the Delaware River and marched through the night to arrive in Trenton at dawn on December 26. There, they surprised the Hessian outpost and captured the city. Washington then launched a quick strike on nearby Princeton. The success of this campaign gave the Americans enough hope to keep fighting. (See the Washington Crossing the Delaware Narrative and the Art Analysis: Washington Crossing the Delaware Primary Source.)

The campaigns of 1777 brought highs and lows for supporters of independence. On the positive side, the Continental Army successfully countered a British invasion from Canada. Searching for a new strategy after the New Jersey campaign, the British attacked southward from Canada with an army under the leadership of General John Burgoyne. Burgoyne’s goal was to cut through upstate New York and link up with British forces coming north along the Hudson River from New York City. A revolutionary force under Horatio Gates and Benedict Arnold swung north to meet the slow-moving Burgoyne, clashing at Saratoga, near Albany, in September and October. There, the Americans forced Burgoyne to surrender his entire army. (See The Battle of Saratoga and the French Alliance Narrative.)

The victory at Saratoga proved especially significant because it helped persuade the French to form an alliance with the United States. The treaty of alliance, brokered by Franklin and signed in early 1778, brought much-needed financial help from France to the war effort, along with the promise of military aid. But despite the important victory won by General Gates to the north, Washington continued to struggle against the main British army.

John Trumbull painted this wartime image of Washington on a promontory above the Hudson River. Washington’s enslaved valet William “Billy” Lee stands behind him and British warships fire on a U.S. fort in the background. Lee rode alongside Washington for the duration of the Revolutionary War.

For Washington, 1777 was dispiriting in that he failed to win any grand successes. The major battles came in the fall, when the British army sailed from New York and worked its way up the Chesapeake Bay, aiming to capture Philadelphia, the seat of American power where the Continental Congress met. Washington tried to stop the British, fighting at Brandywine Bridge and Germantown in September and October. He lost both battles, and the defeat at Germantown was especially severe. The British easily seized Philadelphia—a victory, even though Congress had long since left the capital and reconvened in nearby Lancaster and York. The demoralized Continentals straggled to a winter camp at Valley Forge, where few supplies reached them, and Washington grew frustrated that the states were not meeting congressional requisitions of provisions for the troops. Sickness incapacitated the undernourished soldiers. Many walked through the snow barefoot, leaving bloody footprints behind. (See the Joseph Plumb Martin The Adventures of a Revolutionary Soldier 1777 Primary Source.)

Here again, Washington provided significant leadership, keeping the army together through strength of character and his example in the face of numerous hardships. Warmer weather energized the army. So did Baron Friedrich von Steuben, newly arrived from Prussia, whom Washington had placed in charge of drilling the soldiers and preparing them for more combat. In June 1778, a more professional, better disciplined Continental Army battled the British to a draw at the Battle of Monmouth, as the imperial army withdrew from Philadelphia and returned to New York.

As the war raged, it affected different groups of Americans differently. Many Loyalists (also known as Tories) were shunned by their communities or forced to resettle under British protection. Women who sympathized with the revolution supported the war effort by creating homespun clothing, often working in groups at events in their homes called “spinning bees.” When men went to war, the women kept family farms, businesses, and artisan shops operating, producing supplies the army could use. While her husband, John, held important offices, Abigail Adams took much of the responsibility for the family’s farm in Braintree, Massachusetts. She even collected saltpeter for the making of gunpowder. Some colonial women followed their brothers and husbands to war, to support the Continental Army by cooking for the camp and nursing injured soldiers. Their engagement with the revolutionary cause brought new respect and contributed to the growth of an idea of “Republican Mothers” who raised patriotic and virtuous children for the new nation. Although women did not enjoy widespread equal civil rights, adult women of New Jersey exercised the right to vote in the early nineteenth century if, like their male counterparts, they served as heads of households meeting minimum property requirements. (See the Abigail Adams: “Remember the Ladies” Mini DBQ Lesson and the Judith Sargent Murray “On the Equality of the Sexes ” 1790 Primary Source)

To African American slaves in the South, the British appeared to offer better opportunities. In 1775, Lord Dunmore the royal governor of Virginia, offered men enslaved by Patriots their freedom if they would take up arms against the colonists. Many did, although few had gained their freedom by the conclusion of the war. Meanwhile, Dunmore’s proclamation made southern planters even more determined to oppose British rule. No such offer of freedom was forthcoming from the Patriots.

Dunmore’s 1775 proclamation of freedom for slaves who took the loyalists’ side was made for practical reasons more than moral ones: Dunmore hoped to bolster his own forces and scare slave-owning Patriots into abandoning their calls for revolution.

The Continental Congress removed harsh criticism of the slave trade and slavery from Jefferson’s draft of the Declaration of Independence, because it wrongly blamed the king for the slave trade and ignored American complicity. Later, John Laurens and Alexander Hamilton failed in their efforts to free and arm slaves in South Carolina. Despite some southern opposition, Washington eventually allowed free blacks to enlist in the Continental Army. Free black sailors such as Lemuel Haynes, who became a prominent minister after the war, served in the navy. Largely from the North, these men helped Washington’s army escape from Long Island and cross the Delaware River. In most cases, they served alongside white soldiers in integrated units. Rhode Island and Massachusetts also raised companies entirely of free black soldiers. The natural-rights principles of the Revolution inspired the push to eliminate slavery in the North, either immediately or gradually, during and after the war.

American Indians would have preferred to stay neutral in the Anglo-American conflict, but choices were often forced on them. Some tribes sided with the British, fearing the unchecked expansion of American settlers. Most members of the Iroquois League allied themselves with the British and, led by Joseph Brant, launched raids against Patriot communities in New York and Pennsylvania. Many other tribes along the frontier, including the Shawnee, Delaware, Mohawk, and Cherokee, also fought with the British. The need to deal with Indian raids was one reason for George Rogers Clark’s mission to seize western lands from the British. His victories at Kaskaskia and Vincennes, in present-day Illinois and Indiana, respectively, significantly reduced British strength in the Northwest Territory by 1779.

In contrast, many fewer tribes fought on the side of the Americans. By deciding to do so, the Oneida split the Iroquois League. Other American Indian groups living in long-settled areas also sided with the United States, including the Stockbridge Indians of Massachusetts and the Catawbas in the Carolinas. Many American frontiersmen treated Indian settlements with great violence, including a destructive march through Iroquois lands in New York in 1779 and the massacre of neutral American Indians at the Moravian village of Gnadenhutten in eastern Ohio a few years later. These conflicts deepened hostilities between American Indians and white settlers and helped whites justify the westward expansion of the frontier after the war.

After 1778, the British turned their attention to the South, where they hoped to rally Loyalist support. The major port of Charleston, South Carolina, easily fell to the British general Henry Clinton in May 1780. Pacifying the rest of the South fell to General Charles Cornwallis. He dueled across the Carolinas with the U.S. general Nathanael Greene. Encounters at King’s Mountain and Cowpens were indecisive or narrow American victories, but they effectively neutralized larger British forces in the South. After fighting at Guilford Courthouse, Cornwallis decided to head north into Virginia. He settled at Yorktown and built defenses with the expectation that the British navy would arrive to bring his army back to New York. However, in the Battle of the Capes (September 1781), the French navy defeated the British force sent to relieve Cornwallis. As a result, Cornwallis remained stuck at Yorktown.

Recognizing an opportunity, the French Marquis de Lafayette alerted Washington, who brought the main body of his army south with French forces under Rochambeau to confront Cornwallis. As the Americans strengthened their siege with the help of French engineers, command of several actions fell to Washington’s former aide, Alexander Hamilton. After separate forces of American and French troops captured two fortifications in the British outworks with a bayonet charge, Cornwallis realized he had no choice but to surrender.

John Trumbull’s 1819-1820 painting Surrender of Lord Cornwallis hangs in the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol in Washington DC. American General Benjamin Lincoln appears mounted on a white horse and accepts the sword of the British officer to his right; Cornwallis was not present at the surrender. Note the American troops to General Lincoln’s left and the French troops to his right under the white flag of the French Bourbon monarchy.

The war continued for two more years, but there were no more significant battles. By capturing Cornwallis’s army, the revolutionaries had neutralized the most significant British force in America and cleared the way for American diplomats to broker peace. In Paris, Franklin, John Adams, and John Jay won British recognition of American independence. In the end, which came in 1783, not only was independence recognized, but the new nation gained a western border at the Mississippi River, unleashing a wave of immigration to settle the land west of the Appalachians.

Confederation and Constitution

The 1780s witnessed tensions between those who wished to maintain a decentralized federation and others who believed the United States needed a new constitutional republic with a strengthened national government. The first framework of government, the Articles of Confederation, sufficed for winning the war and resolving states’ disputes over land west of the Appalachians. Yet many believed the government created by the Articles had almost lost the war because it did not adequately support the army, and after the war it had failed to govern the nation adequately. With the nation’s independence recognized, Americans had to build a stable government in the place of the British government they had thrown off. Important debates emerged about the size and shape of the nation, continuities and breaks with the colonial past, and the character of a new governing system for a free people. Debates took place not only in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 but also in public discussions afterward in the states. Throughout the process, Americans considered various constitutional forms, but they agreed on the significance of constitutional government.

As they thought about these questions, they faced many immediate challenges in recovering from the war. Tens of thousands of Loyalists refused to continue living in the new republic and migrated to Great Britain, the Caribbean, and, most often, Canada. Many states allowed their citizens to confiscate Loyalist property and not pay their debts to British merchants, in violation of the 1783 Treaty of Paris. Economic depression resulted from a shortage of currency and lost British trade connections; businesses worked for several years to recover.

The United States did not even have complete control over its territory. Britain kept troops on the frontier, claiming it needed to ensure compliance with the peace treaty. Spain crippled the western U.S. economy by shutting down American navigation of the Mississippi River and access to the Gulf of Mexico. Individual states failed to fulfill their agreements to creditors and to other states. They passed tariffs on each other and nearly went to war over trade disputes.

In the face of these challenges, the first framework of government to be adopted was the Articles of Confederation. Although Congress began the process of drafting it shortly after independence and adopted the document in 1777, it approved a final version only in 1781. First, the title is significant: The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. The Articles set up a Confederation, or a league of friendship, not a nation. The states maintained their separate sovereignties and agreed to work together on foreign affairs but little else. As a result, the central government was intentionally weak and made up of a unicameral Congress that had few powers. It did not have the power to tax, so funds for the Confederation were supposed to come from requests made to the states. There was no independent executive or judiciary. Important decisions required a supermajority of nine of the thirteen states. Significantly, the adoption of amendments or changes to the document had to be unanimous. Several attempts at reforming the Articles, such as granting Congress the power to tax imports, failed by votes of twelve to one. As a result, government was adrift, and many statesmen such as Madison, Hamilton, and Washington began thinking about stronger, more national solutions. (See The Articles of Confederation 1781 Primary Source and the Constitutional Convention Lesson.)

Watch this BRI Homework Help video on the Articles of Confederation to review their weaknesses and why statesmen desired a stronger central government.

Nationalists such as Madison were also concerned about tyrannical majorities’ violations of minority rights in the states. For example, in Virginia, Madison helped promote freedom of conscience or religious liberty. He successfully won passage of Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which formally disestablished the official church and protected religious liberty as a natural right. The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom later provided a precedent for the First Amendment. Protecting political and religious liberties became key components in the creation of a stronger constitutional government. (See the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom Narrative.)

Even with all its problems, the Confederation Congress did achieve great success with the settlement of the West. It created the Ordinance of 1784, which provided for the entrance of new states on an equal footing with existing ones, and for their republican government. Jefferson’s proposal to forever ban slavery in the West failed by one vote. The Northwest Ordinance, enacted a few years later in 1787, was a thoughtful response to the question of how to treat a territory held by the national government. Each territory, as it gained population, would elect a territorial legislature, draft a republican constitution, and gain the status of a state. Through this process, the Old Northwest eventually became the states of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin. At the same time, the Northwest Ordinance’s final articles established the protection of the rights of residents, including the rights of  habeas corpus and the right to a trial by jury. It provided for public education to advance knowledge and virtue. Also, very significantly, the ordinance permanently outlawed slavery north of the Ohio River. Not only did this decision keep those future states free, it also demonstrated the principle that the national government could make decisions about slavery in new territories. (See The Northwest Ordinance 1787 Primary Source.)

The first steps leading to a new Constitutional Convention were small. Concerns about trade and the navigation of the Chesapeake led to a 1785 meeting, hosted by Washington at Mount Vernon, between delegates from Virginia and Maryland. That meeting prompted more ambitious designs. Madison, a young Virginia lawyer and landowner, urged Congress to call for a new convention to be held in Annapolis, Maryland, in 1786. Nationally minded leaders from several states attended, including Madison, Hamilton from New York, and Dickinson from Delaware. Because of the late invitation, however, five other states sent delegates who arrived only after the meeting had disbanded, so a quorum was never reached. The one accomplishment of the Annapolis Convention was to ask Congress to call for another convention to be held in 1787 in Philadelphia. This was the Constitutional Convention. (See The Constitutional Convention Narrative and The Annapolis Convention Decision Point.)

As states prepared for the new convention in Philadelphia, word came of a popular uprising in Massachusetts. To pay off its Revolutionary War debts, the Massachusetts legislature had increased taxes. This move was met with active resistance in the western part of the state, where many farmers feared losing their land because they could not make the payments due to a credit crunch, recession, and high taxes. The insurgents wanted to cut taxes, print money, abolish the state senate, and revise the state constitution. Under the leadership of Daniel Shays, a farmer and former revolutionary soldier, they closed the courts in Springfield to prevent property foreclosures and defied the state government. By January 1787, Shays’ Rebellion had dissipated—the state legislature had raised an army to put down the uprising, and its leaders had fled. Still, officials feared disorder would spread if the government were not strengthened. Henry Knox strongly advocated for reform, and the idea was accepted by many revolutionary leaders, including Knox’s friend and fellow nationalist, George Washington. (See the Shays’ Rebellion Narrative.)

As a result, when the delegates assembled in Philadelphia, in the same hall where Congress had declared independence, they did so with a sense of urgency. They opted for secrecy to ensure free deliberation, allow delegates to change their minds, and prevent outside pressures from swaying the debates. They even ordered the windows nailed shut—quite a discomfort through the summer months. One important first step was to name someone to preside over the convention, and this honor fell to Washington. His presence lent moral seriousness and credibility to the whole endeavor. Members of the assembled convention soon concluded that the Articles of Confederation were beyond saving, and a new frame of government would be required, even though this goal surpassed their mandate to revise the Articles. At this point, Edmund Randolph of Virginia stepped forward with the proposal for a new plan of government conceived by fellow Virginian Madison (who was also keeping extensive notes of the convention, despite a rule against doing so).

Madison’s Virginia Plan favored large states by opting for a bicameral Congress with representation in both houses to be determined by population size alone. This irked the smaller states, which responded with the New Jersey Plan, adhering to the existing practice of allowing all states equal representation in an assembly. With two opposing visions, there seemed no clear path forward, and some delegates feared the convention would falter. From this conflict, however, a third plan emerged, shaped by Sherman and other delegates from Connecticut. This Connecticut Compromise or “Great Compromise” delineated the bicameral Congress we have today, with separate houses each offering a different means of representation: proportional to population in the House of Representatives and equal in the Senate, where each state would elect two senators. The crisis had been averted. (See Argumentation: The Process of Compromise Lesson.)

The convention then moved on to other matters. For instance, delegates considered the nature of the executive—a potentially delicate topic given that the presumed first executive was Washington. Hamilton argued for a very strong executive, possibly even one elected for life. However, although the convention created the presidency, it also hemmed it in, to be checked by the other branches. The Electoral College, in which each state’s votes were equal to the sum of its two senators plus its number of representatives in the House, was instituted as another part of the federal system. Significantly, the delegates spent minimal time on the federal judiciary, leaving the responsibility of defining its role to the new government.

The framers also faced the dilemma of how to address the institution of slavery. Delegates from the Deep South threatened to walk out of the convention if a new constitution endangered it. As a result, the convention’s treatment of slavery was ambiguous. The Constitution never mentions “slaves” or “slavery.” Even so, practical considerations made it impossible to ignore. Whereas delegates from the North did not think slaves should count toward the population totals establishing representation in Congress but should count for taxation, southern delegates disagreed, arguing the opposite. The “Three-Fifths Compromise” resolved that, although free people would be counted in full, only three-fifths of the number of “all other Persons” would be applied to state population totals for purposes of congressional apportionment and taxation. A precedent set by the Articles of Confederation also guided the compromise. In addition, after the convention voted down a southern proposal to prevent congressional interference with the international slave trade, the national government gained the power, after 1808, to choose to prohibit the “Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit.” (See the Is the Constitution a Proslavery Document? Point-Counterpoint.)

After most of the debates were finished, the convention’s ideas were put into words by a Committee of Style, including Gouverneur Morris of New York. By September 1787, the proposed constitution was ready to be sent to the Confederation Congress and then to the state legislatures to be submitted to popular ratifying conventions consisting of the people’s representatives. One of the most important provisions at this point stated that only nine of thirteen states had to ratify the document for it to go into effect in the states where it had been approved.

Watch this BRI Homework Help video on the Constitution for a comprehensive review of the philosophies behind the Constitution.

With the Constitution now public, citizens across the country could make it a topic of scrutiny and debate. This was one of the convention’s goals: The Preamble was rooted in popular sovereignty when it claimed to express the will of “We, the People of the United States.” The Constitution was to be considered at special state conventions and not by state legislatures, for instance, because the framers anticipated state politicians would resist the Constitution’s diminishing of the power of the states. In these conventions, nationalists who supported the Constitution seized the name “Federalists,” alluding to federalism or the sharing of powers between the nation’s and states’ governments. Already well organized, Federalists coordinated their efforts in the various states. They could call on many polished writers for support. John Dickinson, for instance, wrote a series of essays called The Letters of Fabius. Even more famously, Hamilton, Jay, and Madison united to write the Federalist Papers, signing their collected efforts with the Latin pseudonym “Publius.”

The Federalist Papers made practical and theoretical arguments in favor of strengthening the nation’s government through the proposed constitution. Although many other voices also supported the Constitution at that time, people still look to The Federalist Papers for important insights into the thoughts of the framers of the Constitution. The people labeled “Anti-Federalists,” however, were suspicious of the Constitution and its grant of power to a national government. Considering themselves defenders of the Articles of Confederation and its own federal system, they worried that, like the British government in the 1760s and 1770s, the distant new authority proposed by the Constitution would usurp the powers of their states and violate citizens’ individual rights. Many of them also wrote pseudonymously, taking names like Brutus—the Roman assassin of power-grasping Caesar—or Federal Farmer. Many also had Revolutionary credentials, such as Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams. They worried Americans would relinquish the liberty they had just fought so hard to attain. As their name suggests, the Anti-Federalists came to be identified as an opposition voice, warning about the growth of a strong national government with great powers over taxation and the ability to raise standing armies that would endanger citizens’ rights.

(See the Federalist/Anti-Federalist Debate on Congress’s Powers of Taxation DBQ Lesson.)

As debates raged in newspapers and public houses, state conventions took up the Constitution. On December 7, 1787, Delaware became the first state to ratify it. The next four states—Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut—followed quickly. Pennsylvania’s Federalists so accelerated approval that Anti-Federalists had little chance to mount a real opposition. The others were small states that believed the Constitution would help them. Massachusetts came next, and there, because of Shays’ Rebellion, opinion was more divided. Still, Federalists rallied important Revolutionary leaders like Revere, Hancock, and Samuel Adams to achieve ratification. Maryland and South Carolina followed. (See The Ratification Debate on the Constitution Narrative.)

When New Hampshire voted “yes” in June 1788, Federalists rejoiced that nine states had ratified. However, two of the most populous states, Virginia and New York, still had to consider the Constitution. Federalists feared that failing to gain the support of either would threaten the legitimacy of the Constitution and the viability of the nine-state union already established. Madison and other Federalists battled Patrick Henry in an epic debate in Virginia, narrowly winning ratification. Hamilton and Jay similarly faced a powerful contingent of Anti-Federalists in New York, but this state also ratified the Constitution in the end. In both states, as had been the case in Massachusetts, Anti-Federalists gained Madison’s promise that the new government would quickly draft a Bill of Rights for the Constitution. The new government under the Constitution could move forward (temporarily without North Carolina and Rhode Island, which remained outside the new union for more than a year.)

The final result was that American citizens and their representatives, through a public debate, had agreed on a new form of government. They had passed the test Hamilton had set for them in Federalist Paper No. 1, determining that self-government was possible and that citizens could establish a government through “reflection and choice” rather than having it imposed by “accident and force.” Madison kept his word, and in the new Congress, he authored the ten amendments of the Bill of Rights and shepherded them to approval. The Anti-Federalists stayed engaged in politics and kept a wary eye on the new national government. The process, although often improvisational and hinging on the contingency, had been orderly and deliberative. In the American Revolution, statesmen and citizens had avoided military dictatorship and mass civilian bloodshed, creating a lasting system of government in which power was organized for the protection and promotion of liberty.

In the relatively short span of time between 1763 and 1789 the thirteen colonies went from loyal subjects of the British crown to open rebellion to an independent republic guided by the U.S. Constitution.

Additional Chapter Resources

• Mercy Otis Warren Narrative
• George Washington at Newburgh Decision Point
• Loyalist vs. Patriot Decision Point
• Were the Anti-Federalists Unduly Suspicious or Insightful Political Thinkers? Point-Counterpoint
• Quaker Anti-Slavery Petition 1783 Primary Source
• Belinda Sutton Petition to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 1783 Primary Source
• Junípero Serra’s Baja California Diary Primary Source
• State Constitution Comparison Lesson
• Argumentation: Self-Interest or Republicanism? Lesson

Review Questions

1. Which of the following best describes the fiscal consequences of the French and Indian War?

• The French and Indian War caused the Northwest Territories to be absorbed into the British colonial government leading to an increase in British resources.
• The French and Indian War exploded the British national debt and tax burden leading to Parliament’s decision to tax the colonies to pay the war’s cost.
• The French and Indian War caused the colonies to realize their economic self-sufficiency and allowed colonial governments to impose taxes upon their citizens.
• The French and Indian War resulted in a British loss which left the British economically indebted to France and forced them to use the colonies to pay this debt.

2. Which act marked the first serious constitutional dispute over Parliament’s taxing the colonists without their consent?

• Declaratory Act
• Boston Port Act

3. At the conclusion of the French and Indian War what was the political status of the territory west of the Appalachian Mountains?

• Colonial settlers were forbidden to cross the Appalachian Mountains.
• The British government acquired this territory and governed it under the Northwest Ordinance.
• Colonial rebels were banished to these territories which were held by the British but very loosely governed.
• The French governed this territory as a colony until it was purchased by Jefferson in 1803.

4. What was the main purpose of the Stamp Act Congress?

• To declare independence from the British government
• To develop a new Constitution to govern the colonies
• To establish the Stamp Act and other tax legislation
• To formalize the colonial complaints against Parliament

5. What legislation was imposed on Massachusetts as a punishment for rebellious behavior during the “Tea Party” in December 1773?

• Coercive Acts
• Townshend Acts

6. How did the British use the institution of slavery as a tool against the colonists in the Revolutionary War?

• Southern slaveholders forced slaves to fight on their behalf.
• By promising freedom, in exchange for slaves’ support, the British encouraged Patriots’ slaves to rebel against their owners.
• Slaves were captured and forced to haul goods and supplies for the British army.
• The British saw slavery as evil and motivated slaves to fight to abolish the institution in the colonies.

7. Which of the following best describes the role of American Indian tribes in the Revolutionary War?

• American Indians mostly moved into the Northwest Territories to escape the conflict.
• American Indians often sided with the British although some fought alongside the colonists.
• American Indians unanimously supported the British cause in return for protection.
• American Indians generally supported the colonists believing that the colonists’ commitment to freedom and independence would make it more likely that Indians’ property rights would be protected.

8. Which of the following best describes the motives of the French military during the Revolutionary War?

• The French military supported the British because the French feared for the security of their own colonial holdings.
• The French military supported the American patriots against France’s rival the British to raise France’s own global political and economic standing.
• The French military was hired by Congress to fight on behalf of the rebels because the colonial population was much too small to successfully overthrow the British.
• The French military provided financial support to the Americans but remained physically uninvolved in the conflict.

9. What purpose did the Articles of Confederation serve?

• The Articles of Confederation served as the structure for the first government of the new United States.
• The Articles of Confederation listed Americans’ grievances against King George III.
• The Articles of Confederation were the first ten amendments to the Constitution which limited the federal government’s power.
• The Articles of Confederation created a new united nation with an effective national government.

10. Which of the following best describes the evolution of American colonists desiring independence?

• Immediately after the French and Indian War American colonists realized they would be better served economically and politically by full independence and advocated for it.
• After the British government passed the first direct tax American colonists created a delegation to discuss and legislate independence.
• After the Declaration of Independence was agreed upon by committee members all American colonists thoroughly supported the War for Independence.
• Incremental shifts toward independence were not complete even during the Revolution because tens of thousands of American colonists remained loyal to Britain.

11. Which of the following did not contribute to the call for a Second Continental Congress in 1776?

• The British attacks on Lexington and Concord and the violence at Bunker Hill
• The popularity of a pro-independence pamphlet written by Thomas Paine
• The need for a central entity to wage the resistance effort
• The successful alliance between American colonists and France to wage war against the British

12. Which of the following best describes George Washington’s leadership of the Continental Army?

• Fierce fighter who had an iron grip on the infantry units and who would use his war experience to influence the colonial legislature
• Long-term strategist willing to use new tactics to gain victories and boost morale
• Lackluster commander unable to successfully achieve the task of independence
• Extremely competitive personality who betrayed the revolutionary cause by siding with the British

13. Which battle is significant because it resulted in the creation of a successful alliance with the French?

• Battle of Lexington and Concord
• Battle of Trenton
• Battle of Saratoga
• Battle of Yorktown

14. A change in perception about American white women was the idea of Republican Motherhood which

• articulated that a woman’s ideal role was a mother with as many children as possible
• emphasized the importance of raising patriotic children to participate in the newly formed republic
• implemented a public education program that taught children how to be Republican
• identified women as equal to their male counterparts and entitled to access to the finances of the household

15. The Articles of Confederation were designed to

• maintain state sovereignty preventing the usurpation of power by a central government while allowing the states to function as a unit in military and diplomatic matters
• create a strong federal government that could unify the states as a nation
• mimic the powers of the British Crown without the ability to tax
• give a voice to each citizen of the United States regardless of race and gender

16. Which of the following constitutional issues most definitively highlighted the divide between Northern and Southern delegates at the Constitutional Convention?

• The Great Compromise
• The Electoral College
• The Three-Fifths Compromise
• An independent judiciary

17. Shays’ Rebellion is most similar to which earlier event in American history?

• Bacon’s Rebellion
• Pueblo Revolt of 1680
• Passage of the Proclamation of 1763
• Stono Rebellion

18. Which political faction was suspicious of the new Constitution and wary of the stronger authority of the federal government?

• Anti-Federalist

19. After ratification of the Constitution the Bill of Rights was designed to

• calm Anti-Federalist fears and protect individual freedoms from a stronger federal government
• promote the Federalist idea that the Constitution was an effective defense for inalienable rights
• establish the process for western territories to enter the union as states
• list the grievances perceived by Americans and share them with the world as a justification for rebellion

Free Response Questions

• Explain how a debate over liberty and self-government influenced the Continental Congress’s decision to declare independence in 1776.
• Describe the role of women during the American Revolution.
• Explain how the debates over individual rights and liberties continued to shape political debates after the American Revolution.
• Describe the changes and continuities in North American attitudes toward executive power between 1763 and 1789.

AP Practice Questions

“Their jurisprudence was marked with wisdom and dignity and their simplicity and piety were displayed equally in the regulation of their police the nature of their contracts and the punctuality of observance. The old Plymouth colony remained for some time a distinct government. They chose their own magistrates independent of all foreign control; but a few years involved them with the Massachusetts [colony] of which Boston more recently settled than Plymouth was the capital. From the local situation of a country separated by an ocean of a thousand leagues from the parent state and surrounded by a world of savages an immediate compact with the King of Great Britain was thought necessary. Thus a charter was early granted stipulating on the part of the crown that the Massachusetts [colony] should have a legislative body within itself composed of three branches and subject to no control except his majesty’s negative within a limited term to any laws formed by their assembly that might be thought to militate with the general interest of the realm of England. The governor was appointed by the crown the representative body annually chosen by the people and the council elected by the representatives from the people at large.”

Mercy Otis Warren History of the Rise Progress and Termination of the American Revolution 1805

1. This passage from Mercy Otis Warren’s history of the American Revolution alludes to which factor leading to colonists’ discontent after the French and Indian War?

• The relative independence the British granted the North American colonies before the 1760s
• The unjust appointment of governors by the king of Great Britain
• The right of the British to tax colonists
• The population pressures caused by mass migration to cities

2. Which of the following statements best describes how colonists justified their opinion that taxation by Parliament was unfair?

• They argued that they had no direct representation in Parliament and thus Parliament had no power to enforce taxes.
• They argued that as self-sufficient colonies they wielded more economic power than Parliament.
• They argued that they were loyal only to the British Crown not to the British Parliament.
• They argued that the monarch traditionally taxed the colonies and was the only one who could issue a tax.

“After an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country by their conduct and example to decide the important question whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.”

Publius Federalist Paper: No. 1 1787

3. On the basis of the information in the excerpt provided the author would agree with all the following statements except

• The debate over ratification is a referendum on whether republican self-government is possible.
• This new federal constitution was written after considerable careful thought and debate.
• The question of ratification is central to the survival of the United States.
• The survival of the Union is of secondary concern compared with the safety and welfare of the people.

4. Which of the following best describes the author’s approach to the challenge facing the states after the Constitutional Convention?

• George Washington assumed the role of de facto executive and thus changes needed to be made to the Articles of Confederation.
• Many political leaders believed the governing structure established by the Articles of Confederation was not strong enough and more structure was needed.
• The Revolutionary War had just ended and a document was needed to establish the newly founded government.
• British troops had accidentally fired on rebel militia thus forcing the colonies to sever their relationship with the British government.

“I was eleven years of age and my sisters Rachel and Susannah were older. We all heard the alarm and were up and ready to help fit out father and brother who made an early start for Concord. We were set to work making cartridges and assisting mother in cooking for the army. We sent off a large quantity of food for the soldiers who had left home so early that they had but little breakfast. We were frightened by hearing the noise of guns at Concord; our home was near the river and the sound was conducted by the water. I suppose it was a dreadful day in our home and sad indeed; for our brother so dearly loved never came home.”

Alice Stearns Abbott Citizen of Bedford Massachusetts on the Beginning of Fighting Concord 1775

5. In the excerpt provided the violent conflict described in 1775 most directly contributed to which of the following events?

• Colonial governments writing a petition for peace with a diplomatic solution to conclude the bloodshed
• Immediate Colonial call to arms and declaration of war against the British
• Calls for military and political action which resulted in the meeting of the Second Continental Congress
• An alliance with the French who would provide needed financial and military support

6. The context surrounding the event in the excerpt provided may best be described as

• intercolonial unity in the face of British attack
• strategically planned offensive in the wake of British hostilities
• incremental buildup of tension throughout Massachusetts over British occupation and legislation
• defiance of the Proclamation Line of 1763 and the subsequent conflict over land between American Indians British and colonists

7. Which of the following ideas would be best supported by historians using the excerpt provided as evidence?

• That children wrote unbiased accounts during wartime
• That women and families supported the troops during the Revolution
• That new and advanced technology allowed for more accurate gunfire
• That most New England families felt loyalty and support for the British Crown

“To defeat such treasonable purposes and that all such traitors and their abetters may be brought to justice and that the peace and good order of this colony may be again restored which the ordinary course of the civil law is unable to effect I have thought fit to issue this my proclamation hereby declaring that until the aforesaid good purposes can be obtained I do in virtue of the power and authority to me given by his Majesty determine to execute martial law and cause the same to be executed throughout this colony; and to the end that peace and good order may the sooner be restored I do require every person capable of bearing arms to resort to his Majesty’s STANDARD or be looked upon as traitors to his Majesty’s crown and government and thereby become liable to the penalty the law inflicts upon such offences such as forfeiture of life confiscation of lands &c. &c. And I do hereby farther declare all indented servants Negroes or others (appertaining to rebels) free that are able and willing to bear arms they joining his Majesty’s troops as soon as may be for the more speedily reducing this colony to a proper sense of their duty to his Majesty’s crown and dignity.”

Lord Dunmore’s Proclamation 1775

8. Lord Dunmore’s intent as indicated in the excerpt provided is best described as

• a genuine feeling that the abolition of slavery must be accomplished in the empire
• a desire to undermine the colonial revolt against the crown and acquire more loyalists to fight in the colonies
• a need to prevent imperial rivals from becoming involved in the conflict
• the desire to demonstrate a positive alliance with American Indians to ensure their assistance

9. The excerpt from Dunmore’s Proclamation highlights which of the following about the early years of the American Revolution?

• The variety of reasons people chose to identify as a loyalist or patriot
• The pivotal role of slaves in the winning of most early battles
• The early decision of most colonists about which side to take during the revolution
• The dynamic actions taken by women to support the troops at war

Primary Sources

Adams John. “Letter to Hezekiah Niles.” February 13 1818. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/letter-to-hezekiah-niles-on-the-american-revolution/

Declaratory Act. http://www.constitution.org/bcp/decl_act.htm

Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History. Paul Revere’s engraving of the Boston Massacre 1770.” https://gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/road-revolution/resources/paul-revere%E2%80%99s-engraving-boston-massacre-1770

Hamilton Alexander John Jay and James Madison. The Federalist Papers . https://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/fed.as

Hamilton Alexander. The Federalist Papers : No. 1. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed01.asp

Longfellow Henry Wadsworth. “Paul Revere’s Ride.” https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/paul-reveres-ride

United States Constitution. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

Suggested Resources

Bailyn Bernard. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution . Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press 1992.

Beeman Richard. Plain Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution . New York: Random House 2009.

Berkin Carol . A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution . New York: Mariner Books 2002.

Berkin Carol. Revolutionary Mothers: Women in the Struggle for America’s Independence . New York: Vintage 2005.

Brookhiser Richard . Alexander Hamilton: American . New York: Simon and Schuster 2000.

Calloway Colin. The American Revolution in Indian Country: Crisis and Diversity in Native American Communities . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1995.

Chernow Ron. Alexander Hamilton . New York: Penguin 2004.

Dowd Gregory Evans. A Spirited Resistance: The North American Indian Struggle for Unity 1745-1815 . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press 1992.

Ellis Joseph. His Excellency: George Washington . New York: Alfred A. Knopf 2004.

Emerson Ralph Waldo. “Concord Hymn.” 1837. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detail/45870

Fischer David Hackett. Paul Revere’s Ride . New York: Oxford University Press 1994.

Fischer David Hackett. Washington’s Crossing . New York: Oxford University Press 2004.

Kerber Linda. Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America . Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 1980.

Kidd Thomas. God of Liberty: A Religious History of the American Revolution . NY: Basic Books 2010.

Maier Pauline. American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence . New York: Alfred A. Knopf 1997.

Maier Pauline. From Resistance to Revolution: Colonial Radicals and the Development of American Opposition to Britain 1765-1776 . New York: Alfred A. Knopf 1972.

Maier Pauline. Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution 1787-1788 . New York: Simon & Schuster 2010.

McCullough David. John Adams . NY: Simon & Schuster 2001.

McDonald Forrest. Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution . Lawrence: University of Kansas Press 1985.

Middlekauff Robert. The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution 1763-1789 revised ed. New York: Oxford University Press 2005.

Morgan Edmund and Helen Morgan. The Stamp Act Crisis: Prologue to Revolution . Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 1953.

Morgan Edmund. Inventing the People: The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America . New York: W.W. Norton 1989.

Morgan Edmund. The Birth of the Republic 1763-1789 4th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 2013.

Morris Richard. The Peacemakers: The Great Powers and American Independence . New York: Harper & Row 1965.

Norton Mary Beth. Founding Mothers and Fathers: Gendered Power and the Forming of American Society . New York: Alfred A. Knopf 1996.

Norton Mary Beth. Liberty’s Daughters: The Revolutionary Experience of American Women 1750-1800 . Boston: Little Brown 1980.

Norton Mary Beth. Liberty’s Daughters: The Revolutionary Experience of American Women 1750-1800 . Ithaca: Cornell University Press 1996.

Paine Thomas. Common Sense in Common Sense and Related Writings ed. Thomas Slaughter. Boston: Bedford St. Martins 2001.

Rakove Jack. James Madison and the Creation of the American Republic . New York: Pearson/Longman 2007.

Saillant John. Black Puritan Black Republican: The Life and Thought of Lemuel Haynes 1753-1833 . New York: Oxford University Press 2003.

Storing Herbert ed. The Anti-Federalist: Writings by the Opponents of the Constitution . Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1985.

Storing Herbert. What the Anti-Federalists Were For: The Political Thought of the Opponents of the Constitution . Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1981.

Taylor Alan. American Revolutions: A Continental History 1750-1804 . New York: W.W. Norton 2016.

Wood Gordon. The Creation of the American Republic 1776-1787 . Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 1998.

Related Content

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

In our resource history is presented through a series of narratives, primary sources, and point-counterpoint debates that invites students to participate in the ongoing conversation about the American experiment.

Get Real Post

We beg to differ.

Intellectual Revolution: The Necessity of the Thinkers and the Revolutionary Minds

Posted on July 25, 2013 Author Jose Mario de Vega 7 Comments

This humble paper is an affirmative response to the lucid and scholarly essay of Ms. Natalie Shobana Ambrose’s “Empowering our thinkers”, The Sun Daily, July 12 th .

Indeed, “throughout history, the most dangerous people to any regime have not been the thugs, thieves or murderers but rather the thinkers and the intellectuals. For centuries governments have crafted laws limiting the opinions and vetoing findings of studies from being publicised or rubbishing theories that do not fit with their agenda. So much so modern academics find that they constantly self-censor or thread far away from what is deemed sensitive or controversial subjects as a form of self-preservation and survival.”

Said dangerous people, namely the thinkers, the intellectuals, the iconoclasts, the mavericks and independent observer has always been the irritating thorn to any regime, especially a state that is perceived to be unjust, unfair and perverted.

More often than not, said regime’s program to neutralize these individuals is to either eliminate them or silence them by sending them to the dungeon or by banishing them altogether from the territory of the said country.

Another vicious method being resorted into by these kinds of regimes is to enact laws that stifle, delimit, impede and denounce the unorthodox opinions of the said intellectuals.

Added to this is the Macheviallian act of the said regimes of harassing, questioning and denying the very position of these intellectuals whose radical views do not subscribe or follows the “official” program of the state.

These evil regimes also forced the thinkers and the independent observers to conform to the state-sanctioned policy.

Some, gave in due to pressure, hence instead of pursuing their research and project up to its conclusion; they engage in an internal conflicting act of censoring themselves, editing their work, doctoring their data, altering their findings and worst, some even decides not to proceed with their endeavor at all.

The reason is plain and simple: they have to engage in all these preposterous and ridiculous means for purposes of self-preservation and survival.

This is a shame!

As the writer contended:

“This missing voice is a great tell-tale of how authoritarian a government is and how much or little such talent is valued in the society. We see this throughout the world – talented academics who would rather bypass the red tape of taking on local issues as study topics instead embark on ground-breaking research in other lands so as to not rock the boat back home.

“Malaysia has not been spared in this respect. Not only have we lost bright stars to other lands by limiting the very essence of their work, we have also inevitably dumbed down our thinkers through fear, bureaucracy and threatening their livelihoods.

“Malaysia is going through fascinating transformation both socially and politically. In the last 10 years, the change has been profound. Yet so little study has been done amid all the political cacophony, and the Malaysian academic voice has been rather quiet. We have to ask the question why.”

By reason of fear and reprisal, persecution and state violence, some scholars, instead of embarking on ground-breaking enterprise and earth-shaking endeavor would rather avoid the great possibility of offending the powers that be and instead leave their country of origin and hesitantly exile themselves to other lands that is more tolerant and appreciative of their talents, potentialities and bright ideas.

This is a tremendous lose to the native land of the said researcher and a big goldmine to the adopted country.

This is a clear case of brain drain to the country of origin and as already noted; a gold mine to the new country or sanctuary.

The one that will benefit from the product of the intellectual labor and academic insights of the said scholar will not be his/her own native country but the nation that is presently adopting the said researcher.

This is not a new phenomenon, when Socrates was condemned to death unjustly by the stupid mob, his student Plato cannot bear the thought to stay in the city that killed his teacher so he decided to leave Greece for a while.

The same is true of Aristotle, when his student Alexander the Great dies, he also decided to leave Athens, saying thus that his act of leaving is his way of “saving the Athenians from sinning twice against Philosophy.”

The writer’s question is totally in point: why is it that despite the fact that Malaysia is going through a fascinating transformation both socially and politically in the last 10 years wherein the changes has been so rapid and utterly profound; ironically so little study has been done amid all the political cacophony and why the Malaysian academic voice has been rather quiet?

This is irony of all ironies, indeed!

It is beyond dispute that it is the author herself that squarely answered her own query.

Undeniably, the local bright stars are leaving the country due to the lack of equal opportunity, unfair policy, unjust government selection program, social injustice and the stupid conception of the state of affirmative action.

Added to these list of grievances and complaints is the irrefutable fact that “we have also inevitably dumbed down our thinkers through fear, bureaucracy and threatening their livelihoods.”

Again, we return to the perennial social evils of the problem, namely: the act of the state in belittling, mocking, irritating, questioning, and harassing the thinkers through fear, bureaucratic brouhaha and economic blackmail.

Not added to this is the state’s act of political persecution such as dismissing the academic from the university or college, suing the said lecturer, teachers or professor and engaging in a character assassination of the said intellectual by using the vast powers of the government to disrepute the integrity of the thinker and put into doubt the product of his/her labor and scholarly work, when the only fault of the said academic is that his or her work is critical of the government or run counter to “the official line” being promoted by the state.

For those who decided to stay and confront bravely the perverted system of corruption, they must also face the full wrath of whole state machinery.

This is precisely the reasons why the thinkers and intellectuals had not taken advantage of this hotbed of potential study topics and areas of possible research.

Imagine an academic that will write a thesis which title is: How could the BN form the government when they are only voted 49% of the population?

Will the government accept that kind of research?

And what do you think will happen to those intellectuals who had undertaken the said studies? How are they going to be treated?

The answer is: either they are dismissed from their posts, or their contract will not be renewed or perhaps they will see themselves at the dock appearing before a court answering some silly and flimsy charges or their books will be ordered to be banned or they may die accidentally or they may disappear mysteriously or they may struggle economically to find some sponsor or funding that will going to support their work.

I concur with the writer that the problem I feel lies in space. The exact term being use in political science is the so-called “democratic space”.

Again, the bold questions posited by the writer are highly in point:

Is there a space where people are empowered to provide evidence-based critique?

Yes, there is a certain degree of “space”, but here’s the caveat: be ready and be willing to face the repercussions and consequences of your intellectual actions.

A true thinker and a genuine intellectual that proceeded to present an unorthodox work to the public must be ready and utterly prepare to hear the following idiotic and preposterous charges:

• “if you don’t like it here, leave!”
• “go back to where you came from”
• “what more do you want, ingrate?”

All of these are the price that an intellectual and a scholar have to pay and confront bravely in order to his or her quest of pursuing the truth and consequently spreading his or her ideas and thoughts to the public and the world!

“It seems far easier for a foreigner to write a book, article, thesis on Malaysian issues than it would be for a local. If we don’t agree with their findings – we can rubbish it as not correctly understanding Malaysia since they are an outsider. Of course the other argument is that Malaysians are too emotionally embroiled to carry out such studies. Perhaps there is some truth to it but that is not a good enough reason to leave a gaping hole in research work by local thinkers.”

On the Question of Empowering the Intelligentsia?

The great Russian novelist, Maxim Gorky said that the existence of the intellectuals is necessary in any form of society.

In my view, an intellectual has no nationality, because genius is universal. Nonetheless, I concur with the author that a community must produce its own thinkers and intellectuals before the world claim him or her.

Therefore, the Malaysian academic must rise above their “emotional embroidery” and carry out their studies — against all odds and regardless of the adverse consequences — whatever they may be.

To quote the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson:

“I am ashamed to think how easily we capitulate to badges and names, to large societies and dead institutions.”

The Role of the Intellectuals

Professor Noam Chomsky said that “it is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and to expose lies.”

To quote from my article:

What is an intellectual?

According to Wikipedia, an intellectual is: a person who uses thought and reason, intelligence and critical or analytical reasoning, in either a professional or a personal capacity and is:

1. a person involved in, and with, abstract, erudite ideas and theories;

2. a person whose profession (e.g. philosophy, literary criticism, sociology, law, political analysis, theoretical science, etc.) solely involves the production and dissemination of ideas, and

3. a person of notable cultural and artistic expertise whose knowledge grants him or her intellectual authority in public discourse.

Based these definition, an intellectual is a person or an individual who is involved or is engaged in creating erudite ideas (whether abstract or not) and making some theories.

The primordial duty of the intellectual is to disseminate ideas. He or she is of notable culture and held some artistic expertise which standing gives him/her a sense of intellectual authority in public discourse.

Who are the intellectuals?

There is no iota of doubt that the intellectuals are the philosophers, the teachers, the writers, the poets, the artists and the like!

The French existentialist philosopher and Marxist revolutionary, Jean Paul Sartre pronounced that the intellectuals are the moral conscience of their age. He passionately believed as he himself lived his life the way he wrote and taught that: the task of the intellectuals is not limited by merely observing the political and social situation of the moment, but undeniably to be involved and engaged actively in all of society’s issues and concerns. Finally, he also maintained that part and parcel of the duty of an intellectual is to serve as a voice of the marginalized, the oppressed, the idiots, the exploited, the lowest members of the society and indeed to speak out—freely—in accordance with their consciences.

Professor Noam Chomsky, like Sartre also subscribes to the belief that a true intellectual must not be silenced nor cowed. They must always stand for the truth and condemn all the injustices and inequalities in the world.

Hence, on this ground, an intellectual is not only a member of his/her community, but a citizen of the world. This is in conformity with Professor Foucault’s concept of the universal intellectual!

Are they necessary for one society?

Yes, indeed! The intellectuals are truly necessary and indeed important in one society or political community. Their ultimate function is to serve as the critic of their society’s malaise. It is not an exaggeration to state that the intellectuals are precisely the eyes and soul of the community. (“The Significance of Social Sciences in Education, the University and the making of the Intellectuals”, Etniko Bandido Infoshop, May 5, 2012; “Creating students of substance and character”, February 3, 2013, The Star)

I completely concur with the author that “for a Malaysian though, embarking on potential research topics within the range of race relations, governance, electoral process, human rights, security, migration history and the likes is best left untouched. The retribution is not worth the contribution to the academic discourse – and this happens in a country where we enjoy “democratic comforts”.

The writer then listed her suggestions and what she perceived is the antidote the pressing problem that she saw in the Malaysian society and its academe.

“Malaysian intelligentsia needs to be empowered – both from the inside and out. How though?

“First, our universities, research institutes and think-tanks should be given the mandate to be neutral – not just on paper but also in accepting and engaging in research and study findings that are pertinent to today’s Malaysia, even if it makes the politicians uncomfortable. Of course this should be done within the confines of the analysis being transparent and evidence-based.”

Indeed, universities, research institutes and various think-tank academic groups must be given mandate, not simply for purposes of neutrality, but most importantly for objectivity.

Our duty is to let the university as free as possible to discharge its social function of creating intellectuals who are critical thinkers that will lead to their being civic-minded and responsible citizens.

The quest to unravel the varied and complicated truths of the social dynamics of one’s society demands that said institution are not shackled by bureaucratic intervention and governmental reprisal.

The universities must be given their independence and autonomy to conduct their own independent research and academic undertaking without thinking of whether the result of their project will please the powers that be or not.

Definitely, the said venture must be done “within the confines of the analysis being transparent and evidence-based”. Besides being transparent and evidence-based, said endeavor must also be daring and courageous to make public the product of the said work — whatever its findings are.

“Information should be readily available and funding provided with no swaying strings of political positioning attached. This of course is the ideal, perhaps then we should first, start with undoing the politicisation of administrative posts if genuine change is to happen. Also there needs to be a paradigm shift that thinkers are not traitors but rather people who can contribute knowledge to informed decision making. It is also important for thinkers to be actively engaged with decision makers without bias, reducing the gap between the different levels of society.”

Let me highlight the various problems listed by the author, namely:

• the inaccessibility of the information;
• said information is inaccessible because of lack or deficient funding;
• lack or deficient funding due to political machinations and attachment of political positioning;
• the politicization of administrative posts;
• the tendency for the thinkers to be tagged or called or be accused of being traitors; and,
• the necessity for the thinkers to be actively engaged with decision makers without bias.

In fairness to Malaysia, these problems or dilemmas or imbroglios and conflicts are not exclusive to them! Universally, intellectuals have face and confronted all or some of these issues, yet they are not a reason and they are not an excuse for the intellectuals to abandon their duty and betray the people’s trust!

The author is correct for demanding a paradigm shift to the powers that be for them to change their view of thinkers.

However, despite the existence of all these problems and challenges that a thinker and/or an intellectual must confront, he or she must resigned to the fact and be prepared that he or she may be tagged or called or be accused of being a traitor, radical, a danger, a menace, etc.

That is the price one has to pay for being an intellectual.

“Second, the public should demand for such high standards in academics and thinkers, only then will our intellectual movement be reliable and powerful enough to support reforms in a peaceful manner. Such public support is important for an intellectual revolution to take place.”

I agree that the public should demand for a high standard in academics and thinkers, yet the process should not end there. The intellectuals, the academics and the thinkers themselves must also demand recognition, support and solidarity from the public.

The duty of the intellectual is to study his or her society and everything about it, then craft it into a public discourse for the public’s consumption for their eventual acquisition of higher knowledge, which the thinker hope will lead to the development of the political consciousness and maturity of the people as a whole and all these in the end, if we combine will make the people and the general public responsible citizens, not only of their community, but of the whole world.

The obligation of the public is to listen to the intellectuals and the thinkers with regard to the latter’s view of their society. Besides listening, the people must also act upon the suggestions, studies and programs laid down by the intellectuals.

The intellectuals are researching and studying for their society and the people must study and act accordingly on the said social research to further enhance the validity, accuracy and veracity of these social realities.

The creation of a just society is not only the function of the thinkers; the people themselves must also contribute to attain the said goal.

The intellectual and the masses must forge a dialectical and symbiotic relationship! Undeniably the former serves as the social vital element, while the latter acts as the instrument of the social nucleus!

Why? The intellectual or thinker is nothing without the people and the people will not develop maturity and consciousness that would utterly be necessary in order for them to cultivate their civic-mindedness, sense of community and responsible citizenship (both locally and globally) and corollary to this, the people themselves will be powerless without the helping hand and enlightened guidance of their thinkers, academics and intellectuals!

In theoretical terms, the intellectuals and the masses are theory and practice. They must unite to form a single collective whole! It is only on this way that an intellectual revolution shall ensue!

“Third, the intelligentsia themselves need to restore the confidence that the academic world is untouched by political rhetoric and not governed by fear. Start by reinstating critical discourse and continue by measuring your worth not in local currency but of international standards. Allow students to be involved in substantive debate and empower the younger generation with academic freedom – start within the confines of your own classroom.”

One way to restore the confidence of the intelligentsia to the academe is for the government to allow more universities to be independent and autonomous.

The court’s ruling on the Universities Act is a welcome development, but still a lot more is needed to be done.

As I’ve stated then in my article:

I APPLAUD the ramifications of the decision by the Court of Appeal in upholding freedom of expression.

Section 15(5)(a) of the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 restricts students from “expressing support or opposing any political party”.

The court said this provision was in direct contravention of the Federal Constitution, by virtue of the fact that it violates the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression.

Justice Hishamuddin Yunus said he “failed to see how a student who expressed support for or against a political party could bring about an adverse effect on public order or morality”.

I think he said it well.

If we were to limit the sociopolitical exposure of our young to prevailing conditions and social milieu, we would be doing them a disservice.

Instead of creating critical-minded and civic-oriented citizens, who are responsible, bold, dynamic and proactive, we are moulding apathetic, lazy and passive people, who by virtue of their inadequacy and being puerile, cannot contribute to society.

Universities should be the breeding grounds for reformers and thinkers, and not an institution to produce students trained as robots.

A true democratic society is not afraid to allow its citizens to enjoy and exercise their rights to the maximum, so long as the citizens themselves use those said rights intelligently and responsibly.

Universities gear students to become independent and critical-thinkers so that they can become responsible members of society and cosmopolitan citizens of the world. (“Universities and University Colleges Act: Breeding grounds for reformers”, The New Straits Times, November 9, 2011)

It is my firm and ardent view that a great way to reinstate critical discourse in the university is to offer compulsory the subject of Philosophy and other Humanities subjects to all our college and university students nation-wide.

My core suggestion to the Malaysian educators and policy makers is for them to support and encourage the Liberal Arts programme.

Why? What is the importance of this subject/programme for the advancement of critical public discourse?

As I said then in one article:

THERE is no doubt that the subjects of Liberal Arts education, such as Philosophy, Ethics, Logic, Sociology, Anthropology, etc, – the Humanities as a whole – is the branch of knowledge that specifically deals with the study of what makes us human.

Hence, the value and importance of a Liberal Arts education.

In the words of Michael Roth, President of Wesleyan University: “Liberal learning introduces them to books and music, the science and philosophy that form disciplined yet creative habits of mind that are not reducible to the material circumstances of one’s life (though they may depend on those circumstances)… The habits of mind developed in a liberal arts context often result in combinations of focus and flexibility that make for intelligent, and sometimes courageous risk-taking for critical assessment for those risks.” A Liberal Arts’ education is the source of critical thinking. Critical thinking is the capacity to think independently beyond the ordinary conception of prevailing reality.

Its mind is reason; while its heart is humanism. The precise utilisation of critical thinking will undeniably lead our students to the joys of critical analysis which in turn will certainly give them the philosophical tools necessary and pertinent for the conscious and bold exercise of complex insights.

In the words of Chris Hedges, “The capacity to think is the only bulwark against any centralised authority that seeks to impose mindless obedience.

There is a huge difference, as Socrates understood, between teaching people what to think and teaching them how to think.”

It is in this exact sense that I overwhelmingly subscribe to the contention advanced by Professor Azhari-Karim of Universiti Sains Malaysia Penang (“Arts on the losing end” – NST, May 9).

He said, “One way is to teach Philosophy once again. This subject has been long absent from the curriculum for undergraduates. The idea is to refocus attention on the Arts and Sciences as being in the very rubric of knowledge and re-emphasise the philosophy of knowledge as a starting point for all academic pursuits.” This is in conformity with the argument of Ganesan Odayappen (“Education is beyond race and politics” – NST, May 2,) of Kuala Lumpur who said in his letter: “When we talk about educating a nation, we must understand clearly what it means, how it is going to be achieved and its objectives.

A nation which is striving to be a developed one needs tremendous human intellect and knowledge.” A Liberal Arts education is absolutely necessary for the continuous progression and development of a country. There is no shadow of doubt that this type of education, which centres on humanism and universal reason, is truly beyond race, politics, religion, sex, gender, cultural background and other discriminatory categories.

Humanism is the study of being a good man in the truest sense of the word; while the central aim of a Liberal Arts education is to further cultivate and harness the humanity of Man’s humanism. (“Nurturing Critical Thinking”, The New Straits Times, May 11, 2011)

“Most importantly, do not hide behind the protection of the Chatham House Rule (When a meeting, or par thereof, is held under the rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.) – use it sparingly so that your work is exposed for the betterment of the country.”

I would like just to add that a true academic and intellectual is a brave soul. He or she must not be afraid to pursue the ultimate conclusion of his or her studies and projects and he or she must be prepared to be mock, ridicule, antagonize and even ostracize.

The same thing happened to Einstein, Galileo, Tesla, etc. they were isolated, persecuted, hounded, mocked, etc., but where are they now? Hence, just be brave and carry on with your studies.

The intellectual is like the individual which Friedrich Nietzsche said “has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.”

“It’s a long road ahead yet one that is vital and necessary in our democratic process. Malaysia in this instance pales in comparison with the vocal scholarly voices in Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines. It’s time we studied ourselves, our communities, our societies, our politics, our beliefs, our history and our democracy without fear – who better than someone with local knowledge, who better than a Malaysian?”

Commentaries:

Yes, it may be a long road ahead for the Malaysian academia, yet to paraphrase a Chinese saying: the first great step on a long journey begun with the first step itself.

The March of Reason must continue at all cost…

The writer has a Master’s degree in Philosophy, a law degree and a degree in AB Political Science. He was previously teaching Philosophy, Ethics and Anthropology at an institution of higher education in the Nilai University College at Nilai, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia. He is currently a lecturer at the College of Arts, Department of Philosophy at the Polytechnic University of the Philippines.

As of the moment, he is preparing to publish his first book entitled “Dissidente”. It is a collection of his articles, commentaries and op-ed published by various newspapers in Southeast Asia.

7 Replies to “Intellectual Revolution: The Necessity of the Thinkers and the Revolutionary Minds”

I am guilty of suppressing my desire to go against the mainstream. But what can I do in a place where revolutionary thinking is being confused for a revolt?

I believe this “Intellectual Revolution” can thrive only in a perfect democratic republic and we are far from that in practice.

My point is not to imply that it is a lost cause, no more so than it is to solicit alternative ideas on how to be heard more effectively in our current society.

We have to consider that to be an influential modern day ilustrado is harder simply because the people are more occupied with their own mundane problems that you actually need them to empathize with you first before they act out of their own accord unlike before where there was already mass negative public opinion regarding their “foreign” oppressors. Now it’s a matter of keeping the peace or fight another kapwa filipino.

Now there is an article here that I could finally agree on without rebuttal.

Universities and schools are indeed becoming brainwashing mechanisms that reinforce ideas that keep the status-quo or corporate capitalism and never the pursuit for truth, knowledge, wisdom, critical thinking and better ideas.

Wikipedia as a source in an ‘intelectual’ essay? LOL!

So, what EXACTLY are the problems being ‘ignored’ in Malaysia? if they are in this essay AFTER the ‘WIKIPEDIA’ reference, I missed them as I stopped reading.

The real revolution in Filipino education for me is when the masses stop watching teledramas, soaps and so-called variety shows, and start engaging in other knowledge-building activities. Like reading sci-fi.

‘Frankenstein’ is a good place to start. the whole Man as creator argument can be discussed. LOL!!!

Chris , when it comes to giving out awards , no one does it more boorishly and more stupidly than here in the US. I believe that if these accolades were voted on , by a players’ peers past and present, rather than a bunch of self-serving a$s wipes (journalists) , then these accolades would have more merit !

As an entertainment ‘toy’, however, the magic of the 3D and Nintendo’s usual fabulous build quality and playful software mark it out as something special. The premise was simple: motorcycle racing with the aid of baseball bats and chains to knock your opponents off their crotch rockets. It almost felt like playing a Nintendo console (the fact an NES emulator can be found in the marketplace made it feel even more so).

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .