What made the Scottish Enlightenment possible?

Its a real puzzle - because if you look at the period before the Enlightenment, Scotland was a
poor country. They even executed witches a few decades before the Enlightenment - the
Ministers of the Church were not very tolerant. So how come a country like that produces one of
the greatest cultural developments in 18th century Europe?

There are two or three things I would draw attention to. The first is, for many centuries
Scotlands scholars had links with Europe - they had gone to European universities really from
the 13th century onwards and they were plugged into the ideas developing in those institutions.

Some of those ideas percolated through to the Scottish universities in this period. I will just give
you one example: the great Edinburgh University medical school which was world famous in the
18th century - it really started as a consequence of its founders having gone to university in
Holland which was previously the most advanced centre.

The second thing is that after the Reformation, the Reformers decided to establish a school in
every parish. They wanted in particular to allow people to read the Bible. In order for that to
happen, they had to develop certain skills - particularly reading skills. It didnt happen
immediately but by about a century, a century and a half after the Reformation which took place
in the 1560-1570s, most parishes, particularly in Lowlands Scotland, had a school and that
meant that there was a general respect for learning in this society.

We know that almost all children went to school in those areas for about three, four, five years.
The average was about between seven, nine, nine and a half, ten at least for part of the year and
youve got to remember this was not compulsory and it wasnt free. This eventually fed into a
society which was comfortable with matters of the mind, which in a sense what the
Enlightenment was all about.

During the period of the Enlightenment a lot of the old barriers to cultural development begin to
collapse. The Presbyterian Church of Scotland, which had previously been fanatically opposed to
new ideas, begins to become more tolerant. At the same time you have the Union of 1707 so
Scottish politics disappears south of the border with two parliaments becoming one - so by the
mid-18th century there really is little in the way of passion in Scottish politics, especially after
the defeat of the Jacobites at Culloden in 1746.

That meant that the Scottish thinkers, the scholars, the intellectuals, they didnt have to take
political sides - they were able to discuss freely and of course I emphasise the word freely
because in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen, where the Enlightenment was really centred, it
was a very social Enlightenment and it was lubricated by alcohol. The discussions took place in
taverns. There were literally dozens of clubs, so a lot of these things were shared over the dinner
table or over a glass of wine. It was a wonderfully civilised and sociable atmosphere. You could
have an argument between two of the major figures but afterwards they would still remain
friends. That is one of the things we need to re-learn!
The final thing I would draw attention to is the revolution which occurred in the same period in
the Scottish universities. There had been three universities before the Reformation; by the time of
the Enlightenment there were five: two in Aberdeen - Kings College and Marshall College - one
in Edinburgh, one in St Andrews and one in Glasgow. At the time England only had two. The
Scots used to boast about this - Aberdeen City had as many universities as the whole of England
combined!

They were probably, up to the end of the 17th century, competent institutions, but by no means
world class but in the 18th century they are revolutionised; they are changed fundamentally.
They start to lecture in English - previously it had been in Latin. They start to establish specialist
teaching. Its amazing to think that in the old Scottish universities, one man would take the
students through all parts of the curriculum, but when you get into the 18th century, its the
beginning of what we now call the Professor - somebody who is a specialist and has a research
interest in a particular area.

The other thing about these universities is that theyre incredibly open to ideas from all over the
world, particularly Europe and England and the university teachers in them associate with the
town. Adam Smiths great work, The Wealth of Nations is littered with references to the
conversations he had with Glasgow merchants. It comes back to this aspect of sociability again
and since the economy of Scotland was developing in the 18th century some of these urban
centres were thriving - Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh - and it is interesting that the one
university which made little impact on the Enlightenment was the university that was in a town
that was developing, St Andrews.

All these things come together in a mix that helps to produce the Scottish Enlightenment.

It was part of a general European flowering of the world of the mind but what marks it out the
Scottish Enlightenment was its range there is everything from history to geology, philosophy to
medicine, and architecture to poetry - this is also the age of Burns. The Scottish Enlightenment
would have a great impact - particularly on the empire across the Atlantic, as Scottish thought
was taken to America by Scottish immigrants.

Humes Criticism: We Dont Even Tacitly Agree to a Social Contract

Hobbes did not believe that there was an actual point in history when people got together and
signed a social contract. However, if the social contract isnt a specific historical agreement, then
serious questions are raised about what kind of agreement it actually is and how it forms the
basis of morality and governance. Hobbes himself tries to address this problem, noting that we
can agree to contracts in either of two ways. First, we may agree through a concrete verbal
expression, such as I hereby agree to abide by the terms of the contract. Second, we may
indicate agreement by inference, whereby, through either our silence or actions, others will
understand that weve agreed to something. Social contract theorists after Hobbes emphasized
this second method, which they dubbed tacit consent. Locke provided the definitive description
of what counts as tacit consent:
 Every man, that hath any possession, or enjoyment, of any part of the dominions of any
government, doth thereby give his tacit consent, and is as far forth obliged to obedience
to the laws of that government, during such enjoyment, as any one under it. . . [Two
Treatises of Government, 2.119]

Thus, according to Locke, if I obtain any possession or benefit from a government, then Ive
tacitly agreed to abide by the rules of that government. For example, if I rely on protection from
the local police or the U.S. military, then Im receiving a benefit from these government agencies
and thereby tacitly agree to their rules.

Scottish philosopher David Hume (17111776) wasnt satisfied with this notion of tacit
agreement. According to Hume, willful consent is the key element in any agreementincluding
tacit agreementsand virtually no one has willfully consented to the authority of their
governments:

A tacit promise is, where the will is signified by other more diffuse signs than those of
speech; but a will there must certainly be in the case, and that can never escape the
persons notice who exerted it, however silent or tacit. But were you to ask the far
greatest part of the nation, whether they had ever consented to the authority of their
rulers, or promised to obey them, they would be inclined to think very strangely of you:
and would certainly reply, that the affair depended not on their consent, but that they were
born to such an obedience. [Treatise of Human Nature, 3.2.8]

Hume argues that most people believe they were simply born into a condition of obedience. In
fact, according to Hume, based on the idea of a line of succession, politicians try hard to trick
people into believing that governments have natural authority over their citizens. Our current
rulers claim that many years ago an earlier generation of citizens tacitly consented to a specific
government, and governments today inherit that authority over us. Since we cannot go back in
time and interview that first generation of citizens, we accept the politicians story and see
ourselves as born into a condition of obedience. In short, we are tricked into accepting
governmental authority, and neither we nor earlier generations of citizens ever tacitly agreed to a
social contract. Ironically, Hume feels that this deception is actually a good thing. We need
governments for our own protection, and if governments are forced into tricking us into
accepting their authority, then so be it. The fact remains, though, that there neither is nor ever
was a valid social contract that people tacitly consented to.

Hume is correct that people dont willfully consent to the terms of a social contract
either explicitly or tacitly.