4 - The Subpolitical Variables

Summary

The politics of place holds that, in order to establish and maintain a good society, it is necessary to examine the geographical, economic, and moral makeup of a society. Montesquieu demonstrates in parts III, IV, and V of EL that these are central aspects of any society; as such, it is necessary to consider how these factors function in a particular society in order to promote the ends Montesquieu identifies. I call these variables “subpolitical” because they are not necessarily directly political; but they impact politics and are critical components of any society. Physical factors such as climate and terrain inevitably influence the lifestyle of the inhabitants of a given place. Economic activity in the form of commerce has wide-ranging effects including the promotion of peace among nations. The religion(s) or beliefs of a people play a large part in determining how political actors can and must maneuver. Studying only the political issues will leave a political actor woefully unequipped to establish or maintain a good political order.

Legislators must consider the effects of the physical environment on the inhabitants of a place. Montesquieu argues that climate and terrain do more than simply impact a people's way of life; they change people biologically. Admittedly, some of his biological claims warrant skepticism. Turning next to commerce, Montesquieu sees it as a mechanism for effecting positive change in societies. Commerce helps make societies more secure, free, and prosperous. However, Montesquieu's approach to commerce remains particularistic insofar as he did not think that all states should engage in the same amount or type of commerce. Moreover, Montesquieu saw a darker side of commerce that some commentators tend to overlook. The case of Holland is illustrative, and so I examine the Dutch republic's commerce extensively. In the final part of the chapter I investigate Montesquieu's particularistic treatment of moral beliefs, or what he calls “religions.” He was an advocate of what I call “selective religious intolerance.” He thinks that there are instances when it is appropriate for a state to find nonviolent ways to marginalize, weaken, or remove a religion from a society. Montesquieu bases his judgments about the effects of a religion, and how the state ought to relate to it, on a deep consideration of how a particular religion fits into a particular place.