Did Scottish thinkers really invent the modern world?

With the Scottish Diaspora on its way back to the mother country for this year’s Homecoming, it is fitting to ask the question – "who invented the modern world and everything in it?" The Scots, it would seem.

This bold and contentious idea was the subject of a recent debate at the University of Edinburgh. Scholars from the universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow and St Andrews gathered at the George Square lecture theatre last Tuesday to debate Arthur Herman’s 2002 publication The Scottish Enlightenment: The Scots’ Invention of the Modern World. A fresh and positive publication, it has invigorated Scottish studies abroad, and provides a thorough—though uncritical—review of the Scottish influence on modern democracy, capitalism and technology.

And therein lies the danger. Uncritical back-slapping has gained new impetus, and the reinvigorated "Burns supper school" of Scottish historiography has given Scottish history an ever expanding triumphalist canon.

In attendance were Edinburgh’s own Dr Thomas Ahnert and Professor Susan Manning, alongside Dr David Allan and Professor Alexander Broadie of St Andrews and Glasgow respectively, with Professor TC Smout chairing. The debate centred on whether Herman’s thesis is reliably based on a proper interpretation of the available evidence. Herman has tried to emphasise the global scale of the impact of the Scottish Enlightenment, and focusses particularly on its role in the development of the United States. He argues that Scottish political and educational models decisively impacted upon the American system and he placed the "Ulster-Scots" at the forefront of westward expansion. Reinforcing this widespread and coherent dissemination of Scottish ideas and institutions, to paraphrase Herman, was "a traditional moral discipline: the legacy of Presbyterianism".

The study of the Scottish Enlightenment is a recent phenomenon, stretching back a mere 40 years. From being a subject once absent from the university curriculum, it has now taken centre stage, and Herman has stimulated popular interest and awareness as never before. The panellists recognised that the book has great value as an introduction to the topic, and should be praised for opening public interest in the Scottish Enlightenment and the Scot abroad. Indeed, for visiting Americans, the Herman volume has become the first word on Scottish history. Each of the contributors emphasised the strong rhetorical force of the book and how enjoyable it is to read.

So far, so good – David Hume would indeed approve, as his first reason for reading history would be "for pleasure". But Herman falls short on Hume's second reason – to increase knowledge and understanding. Herman’s book is notable for number of factual inaccuracies, which is hardly surprising for a book in the genre of popular history. It was not peer reviewed and, as Professor Broadie pointed out, gives an unreliable account of the ideas of Francis Hutcheson. Herman also uses capitalism and "commercial society" as interchangeable terms. Commercial society, as eighteenth century thinkers saw it, was a division of labour between manufacturing and agriculture and was based on their commercial exchange, which is an important distinction.

Reading history, as Hume saw it, also has the potential to change the behaviour, values and world view of the reader. The traditionally morose focus of on the idea of the "Scot as victim", with an undue emphasis on Glencoe, Culloden and the Highland Clearances, has been diluted to an extent by the study of the Scottish Enlightenment and the Scots who carried its values abroad. It is a dynamic field, and its conclusions are live political issues; this year’s Homecoming is a vivid illustration of its appeal.

Indeed, the First Minister has referred to the assumptions of Herman’s work in speeches in Scotland and America. However, the most concerning aspect of Herman’s work is that it has stimulated an exaggerated ethnic conceit which gives the Scot the role as a harbinger of modernity. By overemphasising Scottish exceptionalism, the thesis ignores the impact of other nations. Common sense and empirical study were not the exclusive preserve of Scots thinkers, nor did they operate in a cultural vacuum. Smith and Hume spent time in France, and cultural, commercial and ideological links between Scotland and Europe were well lubricated in the 18th century.

No serious scholar would disagree that the Scots have had a profound global impact on economics, science, technology and politics. As the panellists highlighted, it has been of a breadth and depth that is disproportionate to the country’s small population. However, our national identity needs to find a balance between the idea of the Scot as victim and the Scot as the architect of modernity. When thinking of Adam Smith, David Hume, James Watt and Alexander Graham Bell we must also consider the important contributions of other nations. Only then will Scottish national identity, and Scottish politics thereby, reach a new level of maturity.