Theoria

I’ve adopted the term “aristocratic political theory” to describe eighteenth century French thought that opposed itself to both the king and the bourgeoisie. Montesquieu, of course, is the most famous example, but there are a number of other people we’d want to include in this list: Fenelon, Saint-Simon, Boulainvilliers, and Mably, at the very least, plus a slightly larger number of more minor figures. The term is mostly one of convenience – it is the first that came to me.

But, I’m rather unsatisfied with it. Regarding the first term, these people were understood to have advanced and developed a body of thought called the these nobiliaire – which is to say, I think, they identified with ‘nobility’ more than ‘aristocracy.’ The question here turns on the difference between ‘noble’ and ‘best.’ Further, the these nobiliare designate a particular aspect of their thought and not that thought in its entirety. Regarding the second term, the degree to which their thought is ‘political’ in our understanding of the term is somewhat questionable. Operating at the tail-end of the Old Regime, the political structure of France had not yet made a clean break with the theologico-political and was still under absolutist rule. The political as an autonomous domain of thought (if not action) had not yet developed. To this extent it would be just as correct – and just as wrong – to use the word ‘social,’ which was also in the process of taking on new conceptual significations. And, regarding the third term, it isn’t clear exactly what sort of intellectual production they were involved in: was it philosophical? theoretical? or merely thought? At different points different terms are correct – or, at least, adequate.

Althusser’s comment notwithstanding, I’m tempted to locate ‘class struggle in thought’ at the theoretical rather than the philosophical level, if only because there is a sense of ‘eternity’ and ‘truth’ in philosophy that is lacking in theory, which is more ‘historical.’ Theory, unlike philosophy, seems more related to historicism. If I’m committed to the word ‘theory,’ I’m still left uncertain with respect to the designation of the field: the political or the social? While I’m certain we see the emergence of separate domains that could be called ‘the social’ and ‘the political’ in our present sense of the terms, the concepts weren’t elaborated by them as such. For instance, they distinguish themselves as ‘race’ against the ‘society’ (more like ‘association’ in our sense) and ‘nation’ (but not yet designating “the French”) of the other Estates.

For what it is worth, the historians – and their the only ones really interested in these people – seem to use the term ‘political thought’ without ‘noble’ or ‘aristocratic’ prepended to it. But, that could merely be a consequence of the average historian’s aversion to theory and philosophy.