Summary
Kant suggests that his present time is not yet an “enlightened age” but rather an “age of enlightenment.” Enlightenment, in which members of society are as a rule fully capable of independent thought, has not yet been fully realized. Most people are yet to be able to think about religious matters, for instance, without external influence. However, progress is taking place. The barriers to enlightenment are weakening. People are slowly breaking free from self-imposed immaturity, showing more courage to think on their own. All of this indicates a move towards a truly and fully enlightened society. Kant champions the ruler Frederick the Great of Prussia, who doesn't impose religious beliefs on his subjects. Kant believes that he represents the spirit of enlightenment. Therefore, the Age of Enlightenment is the age of Fredrick.
Kant goes on to discuss what an enlightened ruler looks like. A prince, for example, shouldn’t impose any specific religion on his subjects. Moreover, if he doesn’t merely tolerate different religions, but instead grants citizens complete religious freedom, then such a ruler is considered enlightened. Such a ruler will be praised by future generations for liberating his countrymen from immaturity. Under such governance, religious leaders can share their scholarly views without fear, even if they diverge from existing doctrines. Furthermore, this liberty is not confined to professionals, but is even more applicable to those who are not bound by professional obligations.
Such liberty even expands beyond Prussia, to repressive regimes where governments use their power in a misguided way. Kant uses Prussia under Fredrick’s rule as an example demonstrating that freedom doesn’t impair public order. In fact, without the constraints that confine people to ignorance and immaturity, people will naturally bring themselves out of barbarism, as they are propelled by their natural tendency towards enlightenment.
Kant then emphasizes that enlightenment is most urgent in religious matters. This is because guardians are less interested in controlling their subjects in areas such as the arts and sciences. Restricting religious freedom is not only an extremely harmful practice, but is also shameful. A truly enlightened ruler encourages freedom in all areas, and especially values the role that freedom plays in the arts and sciences. Such a ruler is aware that there is no threat in allowing free expression and thoughts in their subjects, or even criticisms of laws. Fredrick the Great is a living exemplar of such leadership, one to whom no other monarchs can compare.
In order for complete freedom to be guaranteed in a society, the leader must not only be enlightened, but also have the means to maintain public peace (namely a strong army). Only then can the leader say, “Argue as much as you like, and about what you like, but obey!" This statement presents a possible paradox: Unlimited civic freedom might promote intellectual freedom at first, but it will eventually create barriers to it such as social chaos. A limitation on civic freedom, however, can actually allow intellectual freedom to reach its full potential.
In the end, Kant expresses his belief that humans have an intrinsic urge to think freely, which is given by nature. This freedom in thought will eventually be reflected in people’s actions, and they will come to act more freely. Eventually, the influence of free thinking will extend to the government itself, reshaping social systems. The state will begin to understand the value of treating its citizens not as mere machines but as individuals worthy of respect and freedom.
Analysis
Kant draws a picture of enlightenment coexisting with a monarchic government. This coexistence is exemplified by Fredrick the Great as well as the formula, “Argue as much as you like, and about what you like, but obey!” The idea behind this coexistence is known as “enlightened absolutism,” which was embodied in governments that appeared during the 18th and early 19th centuries. The monarchs would adhere to enlightenment principles while retaining absolute power. Kant’s support of enlightened absolutism has been controversial. Some scholars like Michael Clarke argue that it runs the risk of making freedom of speech politically irrelevant. Free speech does not go beyond the realm of discourse and thus does not lead to meaningful political reform. Kant’s stance, however, might still be defended. A monarch can maintain social peace and public order: both of which are essential for the development of enlightenment. Moreover, a civil authority might replace religious ones. It is important to note that religious enlightenment is of primary concern to Kant, as it is the most harmful to be immature in these matters. Furthermore, Kant recognizes the challenge of freeing people from their deep-rooted immaturity, and a powerful and enlightened monarch can further this process.
Kant’s support for enlightened absolutism, as Clarke notes, also implies his position on the limits of reason in politics: he isn't suggesting that we should replace political authority with pure reason. Instead, Kant underscores the importance of the public’s ability to guide and criticize authorities. This means that while collective reasoning should continue to inform the political leadership, it shouldn’t entirely replace it.
The philosopher Michel Foucault wrote a well-known article that comments on the essay’s way of viewing its contemporary time. In his article, Foucault suggests that the way Kant questions the present time is very innovative. He writes that in Kant’s essay, we see “the outline of what one might call the attitude of modernity.” This modern perspective that Foucault mentions is defined by a critique of one’s historical position and an awareness of the potential to move beyond a historical limitation. Foucault argues that with Kant, there appears for the very first time a modern approach that critically engages with the historical confines of the present time and contemplates the potential for breaking out of them.
