Want of Sense: Self-Education as a Model for Personal Advancement during the Enlightenment

Introduction

During the course of the semester, we have read texts by many intellectual thinkers of the Enlightenment era. Some of them were bred well and instructed through the different systems of education appropriate for their social class and geography. Others were not as lucky, and were left to resort to their own means and inclinations to enhance their intellectual stock. The institutional method has proved for centuries to be at least adequate, but why do we see such an explosion of influential, self-educated people during the eighteenth century? In this paper I will assess the self-education of both Olaudah Equiano and Benjamin Franklin as described in their memoirs. Other intellectual texts concerning the educational process will serve as contrast to the self-inspired model in an effort to elucidate the differences and similarities between the two methodologies.

The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano

An orphan of the world, Olaudah Equiano had very little favor for education besides a healthy dollop of curiosity. However, with limited access and next to no resources, Equiano, amid constant travel, managed to largely educate himself. His fervor to understand the world manifests in a couple of areas. The first is through religion. Equiano continuously relies on religious teachings in order to reaffirm his faith in Christianity. In an era in which a large focus of education was for the clergy, this relationship is not unexpected. He frequently mentions receiving books from priests that strengthen his beliefs. Equiano actually becomes so comfortable in this setting that he tries to correct the “mock Christianity” taught to the son of a Musquito Indians Chief on the journey from England to Jamaica. When Equiano learns that the boy was baptized in England and stayed there for a year yet “had not frequented any churches since,” he becomes obsessed to “instruct the Indian prince in the doctrines of Christianity, of which he was entirely ignorant” (Equiano 219).  Luckily, he had brought along with him the primary tool for self-enlightenment: a book, namely the Book of Martyrs by John Foxe.  This woodcut-supplemented book, allows Equiano to share his intellectual stock with the chief’s son. It allows for the two gentlemen to better themselves through the practice of self-education; however, degradation and teasing from his traveling party eventually compelled the boy to stop. (It seems that Locke’s theory from his essay “Some Thoughts Concerning Education” that esteem and disgrace are “the most powerful incentives to the mind” (Kramnick 226) is correct, at least in this moment.)

In his recollection of the customs of his people, Equiano realizes that they bear many similarities with those of the Jews. As it happens, he reads two texts, one by Dr. John Gill, the other by Dr. John Clarke, which both describe and confirm Equiano’s belief in this relationship. In this instance, self-education has provided him with the tools to observe parallels between two cultures, make intelligent deductions about them, and logically back up his claims by referencing outside materials. This internal motivation allows him access to other’s thoughts on the same subjects in order to enhance his position.

Sometimes Equiano doesn’t have the words to describe his situation adequately, and resorts to quoting passages written by others to express his condition. These instances reveal Equiano’s cultural literacy. For instance, while he is still on the African continent and living in slavery, he escapes from one master only to hide in nearby bushes. Terrified and on the verge of capture, Equiano recalls this couplet from John Denham’s Cooper’s Hill to describe his situation: “Ev’ry leaf and ev’ry whip’ring breath / Convey’d a foe, and ev’ry foe a death” (Equiano 65). By quoting Denham, he affirms his self-education by expressing one of its tenant representations: cultural literacy.  

In a somewhat comic and ingenious way, Equiano channels his knowledge of Christopher Columbus’s experiences (which he had most likely read in William Robertson’s The History of America) with native peoples into action. In order to gain the favor and respect of Jamaican Indians, Columbus correctly predicted the moon’s disappearance using his prior knowledge that a lunar eclipse would occur on that day. Equiano adapts from this example to end a particularly heated argument saying, “I pointed up to the heavens. […] I told them God lived there, and that he was angry with them, and they must not quarrel so […] and if they did not leave off, and go away quietly, I would take the book (pointing to the bible), read, and tell God to make them dead” (224). Equiano remarks at the magic of this interaction, that he conceptualized it from his previous knowledge, and executed with remarkable efficiency. This moment of action is a perfect example of how the exercise of self-education affected Equiano’s thought process.

The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin

In his memoir, Franklin makes constant indication that his education was self-motivated. For example, he recalls a written debate through letters with his friend John Collins, which his father happened to read one day. Franklin relays his father’s comments discussion, that “I had the Advantage of my Antagonist in correct Spelling and pointing,” however “fell far short in elegance of Expression, in Method and in Perspicuity” (Franklin 61).  Keen to his father’s advice, and convinced by reviewing his own writing, Franklin resolved to improve his rhetorical style. He did so in a tried and true fashion: imitation.  Franklin purchased the third volume of The Spectator, a daily English publication that ran from 1711-1712. Impressed by the writing, specifically the rhetorical style, he developed a clever method of recreating the arguments in an effort to teach himself the “Method of arrangement of Thoughts” (Franklin 62).  He achieved this by first blindly drafting the bulk of the essays, then in want of expressing these ideas with greater variety of vocabulary, wrote original poetic verses about each. After sufficient familiarity of the original prose was lost, he reverted the poems back to prose again. This obsessive practice is the manifestation of the kind of internal drive necessary for one to maximize the benefits of self-education. 

In another effort to use knowledge to improve his condition, Franklin purchased Thomas Tryon’s The Way to Health, long Lofe and Happiness, or a Discourse of Tempers, which recommended vegetarianism. After reading it, Franklin says, “I made my self acquainted with Tryon’s Manner of preparing some of his Dishes […] and then propos’d to my Brother, that if he would give me Weekly half the Money he paid for my Board I would board my self. He instantly agreed to it, and I presently found that I could save half what he paid me. This was additional Fund for buying Books” (63). Here Franklin makes direct application of self-education. He purchases an instructional book with a goal in mind: to educate himself in the field of cooking for a “Vegetable Diet” and doing so to save his precious earnings. He accomplishes this at the green age of sixteen. With this position, he sees books as an investment—and in this case, they literally pay off as one.  As one would expect, he uses these gains as principal for more investments—namely, more books.

In the same manner in which Tryon’s book helped Franklin improve his dietary know-how and monetary situation, Franklin describes how another assisted in his recovery from an illness. “In the Evening I found my self very feverish, and went in to Bed.  But having read somewhere that cold Water drank plentifully was good for a Fever, I follow’d the Prescription, sweat plentifully most of the Night, [and] my fever left me” (Franklin 73).  This passage demonstrates another application of self-education—preserving ones well being with (very) basic knowledge of the human immune system.  The knowledge prevented the extension of a fever that, while had traveling on a ship in the eighteenth century, could have easily proved fatal. It seems that Franklin has developed a workable formula to follow: books = knowledge = life stock. And following this formula seems to lead him to good places.   

Self-Help Self-Education: The Encyclopædia Britannica, or a Dictionary of Arts and Sciences

In the preface to the first edition of Encyclopædia Britannica, the authors state its purpose is “To diffuse the knowledge of Science.” However, they recognize that some readers might approach this material with trepidation, and they immediately address this concern, “What methods, it may be asked, have the compilers employed to accomplish this design?” Equiano and Franklin tackle this crucial idea of the Enlightenment, the source of knowledge, by the numerous citations in their respective memoirs and the authors of the Encyclopædia Britannica make sure to abide by the same standard. They continue, “Not to mention original articles, [the authors] have had recourse to the best books upon almost every subject, extracted the useful parts, and rejected whatever appeared trifling or less interesting.” Acknowledging the source of knowledge is itself an acknowledgement of self-education. Tracing knowledge to its origin is a vital part of self-education, especially to verify its veracity. After the preface, the bulk Encyclopædia Britannica becomes a guide by the self-educated, for the self-educated, which is encapsulated by the their affirmation: “that any man of ordinary parts, may, if he [chooses], learn the principles of Agriculture, of Astronomy, of Botany, of Chemistry, &c. &c. from the Encyclopædia Britannica” (page v, preface).

Self-Uneducation: Society’s Resistance to Learning

While there are those who dedicate their professional lives to the advancement of education, some resist this progression. In his letter to Noah Webster, Franklin describes several common errors he has noticed in current periodicals. These include the spellings and uses of words, conventions of capitalization, and punctuation. Cary Corrigan, in his post “Franklin on Education” laments how the English language has deteriorated into slang and colloquialisms and how Franklin seemed to predict this trend in “improvements backwards.” Is this the natural progression of our relationship to language—a rejection of the formalization of language by previous thinkers? Or has a peculiarly oafish generation taken the helm? In a more contemporary conversation on the importance of clear and intelligent thought, Molly Jaffe, an English major and avid advocate of the exacting and economic expression of the written word, describes an ongoing educational debate she has with her brother, an Economics major who relies on his prediction of future communication to be digital video recording to compensate for his lack of compositional abilities.  Her post “Rethinking Education in a Changing World,” stresses the necessity of good communication skills when seeking an occupation after college. As Franklin posits that not all students need to study Latin, e.g. tradesmen, Jaffe comments that the current education system still isn’t producing the most productive citizens as it could. Is this a recurring trend noticed by scholars of different times, or a fault inherent in the system? I would argue that it’s the fault of the system, as it must be so large to accommodate the expanding population, it cannot work at the ideal level for each participant.

Franklin’s “Idea of the English School”

While the self-education track worked well for the above-mentioned individuals, it cannot be applied as a universal model.  For the general masses that either lack the initial provocation or are otherwise unable to provide for their own instruction, Franklin presents a model in his essay “Idea of the English School.”  While this model does not follow Franklin’s own experiences to the letter, it emulates many crucial aspects of self-education with the intention of instilling a passionate desire for learning in its students. It begins with instruction of English grammar rules and orthography, or spelling, in the first class.  Franklin even proposes incentive to achieve for the students by means of friendly competition, with the monthly winners receiving an interesting book to be used in future learning. In her post “Franklin’s Education,” Rachael Honigfort likens this to Franklin’s first two years of school and, more importantly, his apprenticeship in his brother’s printing house.  Rachael also identifies that the model for Franklin’s fifth class is based directly on his discourse with John Collins, which is discussed in greater detail in the section of this post labeled “The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin.” This model can be considered Franklin’s adaptation of his experiences in self-education amalgamated and conformed to the confines of a school setting, and though it inherently differs for a truly self-derived plan, it does a good job of reproducing one.

In his post “We Need More Teachers,” Jonathan Braun agrees with Franklin’s plan, but laments at the impossibility to implement it in today’s society due to lack of willing and able teachers—which itself is likely due to their underpaid occupation role. He argues that because teachers’ salaries are so low, and that “the majority of the American population with college degrees viewed college as the means by which a high-paying job could eventually be obtained,” we have arrived at a point in history with a sever lack of willing and able teachers; able enough to teach the material advocated by Franklin’s plan and willing enough to forgo an alternative occupation with a higher salary. His solution: implement Franklin’s plan and increase teachers’ wages, a thoughtful alternative to the “overcrowded, underfunded, and outdated” public school system in place now.   

Concluding Thoughts

After extensive comparison between the two methods of education, through ones own self-prescribed methods or the system’s, I would argue that those who possess the motivation to self-educate should do so.  Chase Kojaian adroitly points out in his post “Silence Dogood on Education,” that Franklin maintains, “people who go through learning institutions just because they can afford it will likely learn little more than how to get through the system if they lack self-motivation.”  As evidenced throughout Franklin’s memoir, motivation is an essential quality to those seeking an education of any kind. It would then follow that any good education is essentially self-education. It is impossible to coerce someone into learning something; at a fundamental level, internal motivation becomes the driving force for any educational ideology.  What separates the two is the rigid framework of academic studies at the institutional level. This framework seems too contrived and counterintuitive to instill a lifelong stimulus for education. For what happens to those who quickly reach the top of the frame—where do they go from there? In his work, The Pursuit of Knowledge Under Difficulties, Joseph Kett writes, “In the eighteenth century the ideal of liberal education was bound intimately to that of self-education, […] collegiate- and self-education were complementary ideals rather than competing alternatives” (Kett 15). This idea, that the two educational models exist as complements to each other, functions nicely after examination of Franklin’s “Idea of the English School.” Departure from the system can be catastrophic for motivation, whereas the self-educated seek always how to better themselves and their lives through knowledge. It seems to me that the union of these methodologies would leave humanity in the best station; that the goal of the system should be to instill fervor for learning, so that its pursuit is never halted.

Works Cited:

Cary Corrigan [Cary Corrigan]. “Franklin on Education.” English 274: Benjamin Franklin and the Enlightenment. Blogspot, 9 November 2011. Vanderbilt University. Web, 13 December 2011.

Encyclopædia Britannica; or, a dictionary of arts and sciences, Vol. 1. Edinburgh, 1771. Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Gale. Vanderbilt University. 14 Dec. 2011
<http://find.galegroup.com.proxy.library.vanderbilt.edu/ecco/infomark.do?&source=gale&prodId=ECCO&userGroupName=nash87800&tabID=T001&docId=CW3326041467&type=multipage&contentSet=ECCOArticles&version=1.0&docLevel=FASCIMILE>

Equiano, Olaudah. The Interesting Narrative of Olaudah Equiano, or Gustavus Vassa, the African. Written by himself. Ed. Angelo Costanzo. Ontario: Broadview, 2004. Print.

Franklin, Benjamin. The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. 2^nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. Print.

Freeheeler90 [Chase Kojaian]. “Silence Dogood on Education.” English 274: Benjamin Franklin and the Enlightenment. Blogspot, 12 September 2011. Vanderbilt University. Web, 13 December 2011.

Jonathan Braun [Jonathan Braun]. “We Need More Teachers.” English 274: Benjamin Franklin and the Enlightenment. Blogspot, 9 November 2011. Vanderbilt University. Web, 13 December 2011.

Kett, Joseph F. The Pursuit of Knowledge Under Difficulties: from self-improvement to adult education 1750-1990. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994. Google eBook.

Kramnick, Isaac, ed. The Portable Enlightenment Reader. New York: The Penguin Group, 1995. Print.  

molly jaffe [Molly Jaffe]. “Rethinking Education in a Changing World.” English 274: Benjamin Franklin and the Enlightenment. Blogspot, 7 November 2011. Vanderbilt University. Web, 13 December 2011.

Rachael H [Rachael Honigfort]. “Franklin’s Education.” English 274: Benjamin Franklin and the Enlightenment. Blogspot, 30 November 2011. Vanderbilt University. Web, 13 December 2011.

Works Referenced, but not Cited:

Franklin, Benjamin. “All These Improvements Backwards.” Letter, Philadelphia: 26 December 1789.

Franklin, Benjamin and Hall, D. “Idea of the English School.” Essay, Philadelphia: 1751. 

Concerning the Importance of Public Opinion

Introduction

Our identity as well as justification for a lot of our actions come from other people’s perceptions of us. Adam Smith articulated this very well in his 1759 piece “The Impartial Spectator” from the book The Theory of Moral Sentiments. In this piece, Smith argues that a large part of our identity – how we consider our actions as being right or wrong – come from other people’s perceptions of us. The way we think about ourselves has a lot to do with the way others think of us. [1] Molly Jaffe points out in her post “Were Mirrors Less Shiny in 1759?” the interesting implications of this way of thinking in today’s world of social media. [2] But more relevant to this class is how this way of thinking – of placing so much importance in defining oneself and ones position in society based on other people’s opinions – influenced many aspects of society in the eighteenth century. The careful maintenance of a public image may not have been as visible in the eighteenth century because the internet hadn’t been invented yet, but it was nevertheless very important both in terms of societal expectations and behaviors, and in the way that authors like Benjamin Franklin and Olaudah Equiano communicated ideas in their writing.

Societal Expectations and Behaviors

Two of Franklin’s works – “Advice to a Young Tradesman, Written by an Old One” and “Rules to be Observed in Trade” – show one way that public perception was important to society: credit. In these pieces, Franklin discusses the fairly new (at the time) concept of credit and explains some good methods to use credit without negative financial consequences. Of course, there is a lot of practical financial advice contained in these two articles, written in Franklin’s classic witty and memorable style: “Remember that CREDIT is money,” is one of the more memorable quotes towards the beginning of “Advice to a Young Tradesman”. [3] But Franklin goes on to describe something that he sees as even more important than the business side of credit. Scott singer sums it up very well in his post “Credit of Two Sorts”: “having good financial credit and having good credit as a man are inextricably linked.” [4] In addition to all the obvious advice relating to the technical workings of credit, Franklin advises that a good reputation is just as important as actually paying back your creditors. “Strive to maintain a fair character in the world: That will be the best means for advancing your credit.” [5] If your creditors think that you are lazy, they will be more likely to try to collect their payments before you are able to pay them, whereas if you keep up the appearance of an industrious worker your creditors will be more likely to give you more time because they will be confident that you will be able to pay them back eventually. This is a very important application of the necessity of constructing one’s public image carefully in order to function within the credit-driven society of the eighteenth century.

It was also very important for women to watch closely what other people thought of them in the eighteenth century, due to now-archaic gender roles which were common at the time. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a staunch advocate of these traditional roles, and describes an aspect of these roles that almost seems to place a woman’s reputation above her actual actions. In “Duties of Women,” Rousseau states: Worth alone will not suffice, a woman must be thought worthy; nor beauty, she must be admired; nor virtue, she must be respected. A woman’s honor does not depend on her conduct alone, but on her reputation, and no woman who permits herself to be considered vile is really virtuous.” [6] A man, on the other hand, “has no one but himself to consider, and so long as he does right he may defy public opinion.” [6] Vann Bentley touches on the double standards inherent in these gender standards as he discusses the flaws in Rousseau’s logic in his post “Rousseau’s Unenlightened Thought Process”. The reality of the eighteenth century for women, though, required them to be very careful in their public conduct so that their reputations stayed clean.

Benjamin Franklin

In addition to being important in social and economic interactions, the idea of a carefully constructed public reputation greatly influenced the writing styles of Benjamin Franklin, Olaudah Equiano, and probably many others.

Franklin clearly thought a lot about the face he showed to the world when he was writing, so much so that he often created personas to make his arguments more powerful. For example, the very first works that he ever published, the Silence Dogood letters, were published under the pseudonym of Silence Dogood. It is very significant that Franklin used this name rather than his own because he was only a teenager at the time, and his opinions would not be taken seriously if he were to publish the letters under his own name. Ben recognized that his own public image was insufficient because of his age and created a new public image for himself for the sake of the letters.

Franklin fleshed out his persona to be a middle-aged widow writing to The New England Courant about various social issues of the day. He went to great pains to give this made-up woman an entire life story: she was orphaned at a young age and raised by a “pious good-natured” country minister who made sure she was “instructed in all that Knowledge and Learning which is necessary for our Sex.” [8] With this description, Franklin is constructing a public image of Silence as a traditional woman (thus she is not threatening to any male readers) who is nevertheless well-educated (thus her opinions can be taken seriously).

The female persona Franklin constructed for himself worked especially well in Silence Dogood, No. 5, where he wrote about women’s rights. BF’sMainSqueeze discussed this letter in her post “Silence Dogood – Defender of the Fair Sex”. In this letter, Franklin/Dogood “valiantly defends women” [9] by pointing out that men have the same flaws as women (and often to a greater degree). He also talks about women’s education and blames men for any ignorance that women have: “I have … often thought of it as one of the most barbarous Customs in the World, considering us a civiliz’d and Christian Country, that we deny the Advantages of Learning to Women,” he writes. [10] Coming from a teenage boy, this letter would have been ridiculed, but coming from a well-educated middle-aged widow the piece is taken seriously and works very well as a social commentary. Thus Franklin created another public image for himself when his own wouldn’t do, and it was very successful.

In a less extreme way, Franklin also manipulated his public image in his autobiography. He did not create an entirely new persona for himself in this book; rather his manipulation lies in what he chose to write about his life. He could have shown all of the dirty details of his life, every flaw and every mistake he had ever made. Instead, Franklin portrayed himself as an industrious, honest, hard-working individual who pulled himself out of the lower class through perseverance and self-education. Rarely does Franklin let us see any weaknesses; instead the book is full of stories of how hard work pays off and how frugality can help advance the situation of anyone willing to make a few sacrifices.

This characterization of himself – this manipulation of the reader’s perception of him – is very deliberate, and the reason for the construction of his public character in the way that he did can be found in one of the letters included in this edition of the autobiography. Abel James is writing to Franklin telling him his thoughts on the manuscript for the first part of the autobiography, and says the following: I know of no Character living nor many of them put together, who has so much in his Power as Thyself to promote a greater Spirit of Industry and early Attention to Business, Frugality and Temperance with the American Youth.” [11] Franklin constructed this outward representation of himself in order to create an image that would be useful in teaching future generations to live virtuously and successfully.

Equiano

Olaudah Equiano similarly manipulates the public opinion of himself in his own autobiography, but for very different reasons and for a much different effect. In Equiano’s Interesting Narrative, he goes to great pains to develop an image for himself as like a European. One way that he does this is through his portrayal of his religion. As Molly Jaffe discusses in her post “Saint Equiano”, Equiano does not describe himself as ever being angry at his white masters, going so far as to blame himself when his master unfairly sells him instead of giving him his freedom, claiming that this turn of events was God punishing him for some insignificant wring he had done. “He seems to be building up the persona of a “noble savage” and only occasionally addresses the anger felt by the slaves towards the tyranny they are subjected to… His novel is not written to inflame his white readership with accusations, but rather to ignite feelings of sympathy and shame within their hearts.” [12] The image that Equiano crafts for himself throughout the narrative is carefully calculated to give his European readers an impression of him as a God-fearing, Europe-loving, peaceful man, because he wants his them to listen to his arguments against slavery as coming from a rational and non-threatening person.

Conclusion

Consciousness of public opinion was very important in the eighteenth century as it shaped aspects of society including gender roles and credit etiquette, and skillful manipulation of the public image was used as a successful writing technique by Franklin and Equiano.

Works Cited

[1] Smith, Adam. "The Impartial Spectator." The Portable Enlightenment Reader. Ed. Isaac Kramnick. New York: Penguin Group, 1995. 280-287. Print.

[2] Jaffe, Molly. "Were Mirrors Less Shiny in 1759?" English 274: Benjamin Franklin and the Age of Enlightenment. Vanderbilt University, 7 Sept. 2011. Web. 14 Dec. 2011.

[3] Franklin, Benjamin. “Advice to a Young Tradesman, Written by an Old One.” Philadelphia: 1748. PDF file.

[4] Singer, Scott. "Credit of Two Sorts" English 274: Benjamin Franklin and the Age of Enlightenment. Vanderbilt University, 22 Sept. 2011. Web. 14 Dec. 2011.

[5] Franklin, Benjamin. "Rules Proper to be Observed in Trade." Pennsylvania Gazette (Feb. 1749/50): PDF file.

[6] Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. “Duties of Women.” The Portable Enlightenment Reader. Ed. Isaac Kramnick. New York: Penguin Group, 1995. 568-579. Print. 575

[7] Bentley, Vann. "Rousseau’s Unenlightened Thought Process" English 274: Benjamin Franklin and the Age of Enlightenment. Vanderbilt University, 14 Sept. 2011. Web. 14 Dec. 2011.

[8] Franklin, Benjamin. "Silence Dogood, No. 1." The New England Courant (May 1722): PDF file.

[9] BF’sMainSqueeze. "Silence Dogood – Defender of the Fair Sex" English 274: Benjamin Franklin and the Age of Enlightenment. Vanderbilt University, 12 Sept. 2011. Web. 14 Dec. 2011.

[10] Franklin, Benjamin. "Silence Dogood, No. 5." The New England Courant (May 1722): PDF file.

[11] Franklin, Benjamin. The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin 2^nd ed. Edited by Edmund S Morgan. New Haven, Connecticut:, Yale University Press. New Haven Connecticut, 1964. 134

[12] Jaffe, Molly. "Saint Equiano." English 274: Benjamin Franklin and the Age of Enlightenment. Vanderbilt University, 1 Dec. 2011. Web. 14 Dec. 2011.

[13]Equiano, Olaudah. The Interesting Narrative and Other Writings. 1789. New York: Penguin, 2003. Print.

Self-Interest Makes the World Go 'Round

One of the most polarizing debates at the heart of Enlightenment philosophy dealt with whether there could be such thing as common good without the existence of private interest. Prominent philosophers such as David Hume, The Earl of Shaftesbury, Adam Smith, and Francis Hutcheson, belonged to the school of “moral sense,” and argued that virtuous acts are not always a byproduct of self-interest. On the other hand, philosophers such as Bernard Mandeville, Claude-Adrien Helvetius, and Jeremy Bentham, firmly believed that man was principally motivated in all facets of life by pure self-love. While Smith and Hutcheson both strove to prove that self-interest is not the sole motivator of man, they go about proving this theory in two quite different ways. Similarly, Mandeville and Helvetius argue that there is no public good without self-interest, but prove their cases upon dissimilar grounds. Regardless of argumentative strategies, the issue that drove these thinkers to their respective schools of thought is one that philosophers, psychologists, and academics alike still struggle with today. That issue is whether man is capable of action that benefits the greater good without any benefit to himself. After a close analysis of the work of these philosophers, as far as I am concerned, the answer to that question is an emphatic “no.”

Francis Hutcheson, a Scottish minister and professor of moral philosophy, argued that human beings are not fundamentally motivated by self-interest, but by some innate feeling of empathy or benevolence to others that he refers to in An Inquiry Concerning the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue as “moral sense,” (Hutcheson An Inquiry). In his quest to establish the existence of “moral sense,” Hutcheson breaks the term down into two distinct categories of “good”: natural good and moral good. In regards to natural good, Hutcheson states, “The pleasure in our sensible perceptions of any kind, gives us our first idea of natural good, or happiness; and then all objects which are apt to excite this pleasure are called immediately good,” (Hutcheson 70). As Elmer Sprague neatly explains, natural good is any action to which an individual’s reaction is happiness. That which incites happiness is classified as good, and as a result all objects or actions that spark happiness within an individual are also classified as good (Sprague 794). Hutcheson continues, “Those objects which may procure others immediately pleasant, are called advantageous: and we pursue both kinds from a view of interest, or from self-love,” (Hutcheson 70). It is here that Hutcheson makes the most important distinction between natural good and moral good, which is that natural good is pursued due to self-interest or self-love. Natural goods are able to please an individual in the immediate, and typically do not result in happiness or pleasure for anyone other than the individual that pursues it.

Hutcheson’s definition of moral good, however, is far more altruistic. He writes, “The word “moral goodness” in this treatise, denotes our idea of some quality apprehended in actions, which procures approbation, and love toward the actor, from those who receive no advantage by the action,” (Hutcheson 69). Moral good, then, is achieved through a perceivably selfless act that is met with the praise and appreciation of those who witness the action but do not actually benefit from that action. It is the benevolence of the action and perceived benevolence in the person, Hutcheson argues, that produces the love and admiration for the individual in whom this quality is observed (Sprague 795). The existence of the moral goodness of benevolence is predicated on the pleasure one gains from the contemplation of a benevolent act. Therefore, the level of morality of an act is dependent upon the observer’s judgment that the act is truly benevolent, and the degree of pleasure gained by the observer. The question that remains, however, is whether any act can be considered truly benevolent. How can an observer be confident that a benevolent action is not rooted in a deeper self-love that motivates the actor?

In A System of Moral Philosophy, Hutcheson makes his strongest case against the idea that self-interest is the sole motivator of man, and how it is “moral sense” that is ultimately superior to any amount of self-love, and thus the reason why common good can exist in the absence of self-interest. To prove his theory he asks, “are there not instances of men who have voluntarily sacrificed their lives, without thinking of any other state of existence, for the sake of their friends or their country? does not every heart approve this temper and conduct, and admire it the more, the less presumption there is of the love of glory and posthumous fame, or of any sublime private interest mixing itself with the generous affection?” (Kramnick 279). Hutcheson’s own answer to these questions is that while all of these notions are unquestionably true, they could not exist if self-interest is the sole motivator of man. Thus, Hutcheson explains, “There is therefore another ultimate determination which our souls are capable of, destined to be also an original spring of the calmest and most deliberate purposes of action; a desire of communicating happiness, an ultimate good-will, not referred to any private interest, and often operating without such reference,” (Kramnick 279). It is these types of actions, Hutcheson explains, that are only possible because of the individual’s innate moral obligation to the entirety of mankind. These examples of ultimate sacrifice go beyond the reaches of self-interest, and prove that all actions are ultimately determined by the “moral sense.”

Another member of the “moral sense” school, Adam Smith, employed a slightly different perspective in his argument against the supreme rule of self-interest in his work The Theory of Moral Sentiments. It is interesting to note, however, that in Smith’s previous work he claimed that self-interest is absolutely crucial to the advancement of society and public good (Suttle 459). While Hutcheson’s theory is dependent upon the existence of a moral obligation to the greater good absent of any personal gain, Smith utilizes the presence of an “impartial spectator” that controls the conduct of all men. In his post on Smith, Vann perfectly captures the essence and purpose of the “impartial spectator.” Vann writes, “…to determine whether your actions are acceptable, imagine someone else is watching you. Smith believed that this concern for the judgments of other people is what gives all of us incentive to be moral in the first place,” (Bentley “Adam Smith”). Smith states, “When we are always so much more deeply affected by whatever concerns ourselves than by whatever concerns other men, what is it which prompts the generous upon all occasions, and the mean upon many, to sacrifice their own interests to the greater interests of others?” (Kramnick 286). If posed with this question, Hutcheson’s answer would have involved the existence of “moral sense” and benevolence that could overcome the strength of self-interest, but Smith’s conclusion is quite different. He does not believe in some abstract power of humanity that binds every individual on a deeper, more spiritual level, nor does he believe that benevolence is strong enough to counteract the impulses of self-interest. Instead, Smith writes, “It is reason, principle, conscience, the inhabitant of the breast, the man within, the great judge, and arbiter of our conduct… we are but one of the multitude in no respect better than any other in it… the natural misrepresentations of self-love can be corrected only by the eye of this impartial spectator,” (Kramnick 286). This line, however, still leaves room for the presence of self-interest in an individual’s effort to behave as nothing more than another member of a society bigger than oneself. Molly touches upon this conflict in her post “Were Mirrors Less Shiny in 1759?” when she says that Smith’s argument made her think about Facebook (Molly “Were Mirrors”). If the “impartial spectator” is what allows one to judge oneself from the perspective of another, one’s behavior is then dictated by a desire to be accepted. Thus, if one’s actions are motivated by a desire to be accepted, one receives pleasure or benefit from that acceptance, and can be traced to self-interest.

On the opposite end of the spectrum from Hutcheson, Smith, and the school of “moral sense” was French philosopher Claude-Adrien Helvetius. In his work A Treatise on Man: His Intellectual Faculties and His Education, Helvetius vehemently opposes the concept of moral goodness and argues that public interest cannot exist without the foundation of self-interest because all interest is an effect of “corporeal sensibility,” (Kramnick 287). He writes, “Now that interest, necessarily founded on our love of happiness, cannot be anything else than the effect of bodily sensibility; because there all our pleasures, and all our pains have their source… I conclude that corporeal pains and pleasures are the unknown principles of all human actions,” (Kramnick 288). Unlike Hutcheson, who argued that a moral sense allowed one to derive happiness from the perceived morality of a benevolent action without actually realizing the benefits of that action, Helvetius firmly believed that the happiness that fuels interest is always the effect of bodily sensibility. Furthermore, while Hutcheson suggests that the result of this benevolence is an individual’s ability to act purely for the benefit of others, Helvetius’ theory dismantles the idea of benevolence and brings all actions back to their self-interested roots.

In his effort to prove that “corporeal sensibility” is the exclusive mover of man, Helvetius breaks his theory down into two types of pleasures and pains: present bodily pains and pleasures, and pains and pleasures of foresight or memory (Kramnick 288). It is these two variations of pleasure and pain that are the source of every decision, feeling, or emotion known to man. On the subject of remorse, for example, he explains, “Remorse is nothing more than a foresight of bodily pain, to which some crime has exposed us: and is consequently the effect of bodily sensibility… Remorse, therefore, owes its existence to the fear of punishment or of shame, which is always reducible, as I have already said to a bodily sensation,” (Kramnick 289). Whereas Hutcheson may have argued that remorse is a feeling dictated by one’s inability to act on behalf of another, Helvetius claims that remorse is simply born out of a fear of some punishment or scorn that an individual has previously experienced, and never wishes to experience again. Thus, self-interest is the sole motivator.

Helvetius’ pointed attack on Hutcheson and Shaftesbury’s theory of benevolence is a clear indication of how passionately Helvetius disagreed with the concept of “moral sense.” The greatest point of contention lies in the fact that while the English philosophers believed in the existence of benevolence, Helvetius vehemently opposed it. He writes, “What we call in man his goodness or moral sense, is his benevolence to others; and that benevolence is always proportionate to the utility they are of to him… Benevolence to others is therefore the effect of love for ourselves,” (Kramnick 294). With this statement of practicality, Helvetius is able to completely dissolve the concept that the root of a benevolent act lies in some greater moral obligation to humanity. Instead, Helvetius has reduced what the “moral sense” philosophers call benevolence to a simple act viewed as public good and still motivated purely by self-interest. When he asks, “What in fact is that original goodness or moral sense, so much boasted of by the English? What clear idea can we form of such a sense and on what fact do we found its existence?” he suddenly makes his audience realize that one must believe in benevolence if one wants to be convinced that public good can exist apart from self-interest. Once he has exposed “moral sense” as a belief rather than a theory predicated on fact or even reason, he is able to explain in more realistic terms why he feels certain emotions at certain times. He writes, “What do I feel at the presence of an unhappy person? A strong emotion. What produces it? The remembrance of pains to which men are subject, and to which I myself am exposed: such an idea troubles me, makes me uneasy… When I have assisted him, and see him no more, a calm takes place insensibly in my mind… when therefore I was afflicted at his presence, it was for myself I was afflicted… The love of others is therefore never anything else in man than an effect of the love of himself, and consequently of his corporeal sensibility,” (Kramnick 295-6). Though this act Helvetius describes can no longer be classified as benevolent, it still serves the common good.

Bernard Mandeville’s classic work The Fable of the Bees explores the necessity of both vice and virtue for societal advancement, and argues that if self-interest can influence public good, then perhaps other philosophers like Hutcheson and Smith are too critical of self-love. To demonstrate the positive relationship between vice and virtue, Mandeville employs the image of a beehive and describes the ways the bees interact with one another. The success of the hive, as Mandeville describes it, is dependent upon the corrupt and self-interested motives of the bees. He writes, “Vast Numbers thronged the fruitful Hive;/Yet those vast Numbers made ‘em thrive;/Millions endeavoring to supply/Each other’s Lust and Vanity,” (Kramnick 243). Mandeville affords several glimpses into the corrupt nature of the hive, such as, “Physicians valued Fame and Wealth/Above the drooping Patient’s Health,” or lawyers that “kept off Hearings willfully,/To finger the refreshing Fee,” (Kramnick 244). The point Mandeville aims to make with such descriptions is that despite the bees’ tendency to indulge their personal vices, they contribute to a fruitful and vibrant society through their indulgences. Once vice is eliminated from the equation, thus eliminating self-interest, production and advancement decrease and society as a whole must absorb the negative effects.

In his post on The Fable of the Bees, Malcolm’s reaction to Mandeville is certainly more in line with the school of “moral sense” than the school of “self-love.” Malcolm states that Mandeville’s claim that “Bare Virtue can’t make Nations live/In Splendor” suggests a lack of faith in the inherent decency of mankind. Malcolm writes, “Sure, the vice of vanity drives competition which in turn allows progress, but there are also those who help simply to help, who want progress not merely for their own gain, but for the benefit of others,” (Malcolm “The Fable”). It seems that, like Hutcheson, Malcolm believes in the existence of a human ability to act completely selflessly, purely because there is some inexplicable responsibility the individual possesses for the rest of humankind. In another one of his posts, however, Malcolm brings up a crucial question at the heart of Hutcheson’s argument that philosophers like Mandeville and Helvetius regarded as a weak link in Hutcheson’s case. Alex also touches on this subject in his reaction to Franklin’s definition of virtue (Alex “An Exercise”). In regards to Franklin’s “Self-Denial Not the Essence of Virtue,” Malcolm says that he agrees with Franklin “that any good act is worthy of praise,” (Malcolm “Appropriate Action”). If praise is a known byproduct of a selfless act, how can any observer claim with conviction that that act is in no way rooted in self-interest? Praise induces pleasure, pleasure results in happiness, and the pursuit of personal happiness is by its very nature motivated by self-interest. Hutcheson’s argument rests upon a fundamental belief that people like Franklin, Mandeville, and Helvetius could not take as truth.

The Enlightenment is commonly referred to as “The Age of Reason.” Human ability to reason was strongly emphasized by many philosophers of the time, and many believed that reason could unlock the most puzzling mysteries of the universe. Unfortunately for Hutcheson, Smith, and other members of the school of “moral sense,” reason tends to disprove theories that are built upon a belief rather than evidence. As a result, it is the theories presented by members of the school of “moral sense” that are most easily disproved through reason. Therefore, the only safe conclusion is that self-interest must be the sole motivator of man, but in no way is that a bad thing.

Works Cited:

Bentley, Vann. “Adam Smith and Internet Comment Sections.” Web blog post. ENGL 274: Benjamin Franklin and the Age of Enlightenment. Blogger, Web. 7 Sep. 2011.

Hutcheson, Francis. Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue. London, 1725. Electronic.

Jaffe, Molly. “Were Mirrors Less Shiny in 1759?” Web blog post. ENGL 274: Benjamin Franklin and the Age of Enlightenment. Blogger, Web. 7 Sep. 2011.

Kramnick, Isaac. The Portable Enlightenment Reader. New York: Penguin, 1995. Print.

Malcolm. “Appropriate Action.” Web blog post. ENGL 274: Benjamin Franklin and the Age of Enlightenment. Blogger, Web. 12 Sep. 2011.

Malcolm. “Vices and Virtues.” Web blog post. ENGL 274: Benjamin Franklin and the Age of Enlightenment. Blogger, Web. 7 Sep. 2011.

Sprague, Elmer. "Francis Hutcheson and the Moral Sense." The Journal of Philosophy 51.24 (1954): 794-800. JSTOR. Web. 9 Dec. 2011.

Suttle, Bruce. "The Passion of Self-Interest: The Development of the Idea and Its Changing Status." The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 46.4 (1987): 459-72. JSTOR. Web. 9 Dec. 2011. .

Tapper, Alex. “An Exercise in Virtue, and Persuasion!” Web blog post. ENGL 274: Benjamin Franklin and the Age of Enlightenment. Blogger, Web. 13 Sep. 2011.

Franklin's Economic Education of America

H. W. Brand’s designation of Benjamin Franklin as “The First American” derives from his personification of the ‘American Dream’. The notion that any child, no matter their background or circumstance, could progress through the social strata of society by hard work and perseverance has come to define American culture. Brett aptly described Franklin’s life as a model for the “true rags to riches example of how one can come from nothing to achieving so much in a land of freedom and opportunity” (Kaup). Franklin was hardly ignorant, and accepted that people and society were often cruel, prejudiced and innately fallible. More importantly though, both society and individuals were capable of improvement. Franklin held the “fundamental optimism concerning the malleability of human society” emblematic of the Enlightenment (Kelleter 79). Where he differentiated himself was in the process of achieving an improved state. Rather than orchestrating change through a top-down approach that dictated the systems and institutions governing society, Franklin sought to educate the public through communicative reason. Harnessing individual aspirations to the possibility of a better life through gradual self-improvement would more effectively improve the community. Franklin sought to impart his knowledge “to benefit the young reader, by showing him from my example, and my success in emerging from poverty” (Houston 34). He carefully structured his dictum in a way calibrated to influence the widest and most varied American audience (Forde 357). Franklin’s station as a publisher gave him access to a vast audience to whom he could broadcast his content. He structured his works to abide by the belief that “writing should primarily be judged by its practical effects and usefulness” (Isaacson 3). Through his subtle and logical methods, Franklin persuaded the citizens of America to improve themselves and affectively improve the institutional systems that govern society. Franklin sought to systematically improve the social quality of life by educating his contemporaries on three levels: personally, interpersonally, and as a cohesive community.

Individual Economic Theory

Franklin’s desire to educate his contemporaries stemmed from his conception of himself as a common man. His progression from humble beginnings to a self-made man of substance provided Franklin with profound insights into the minds of citizens of different classes. He accepted and understood the natural impulse for material advancement that pervaded his society, and systematically provided advice on the best methods for achieving economic success. “Man is a creature altogether selfish, and that all our Actions have at Bottom, a View to private Interest” (Franklin 200). Rather than condemn the egocentricity of the desire to accumulate wealth, Franklin demonstrates that the qualities necessary to do so paradoxically exist in frugality and moderation. Advice to a Young Tradesman, Written by and Old One contains Franklin’s educational intent in the title. “In short, the Way to Wealth, if you desire it, is as plain as the Way to Market. It depends chiefly on two words, Industry and Frugality” and the perils that the abuse of credit can produce (Franklin 321). In order to elicit a sense of camaraderie with his audience, Franklin created the persona of “Poor Richard” Saunders, whose axioms were short, easy to remember, and provocative. Most importantly, “Poor Richard” was a persona with whom readers could identify with more so than a ‘tradesman’ or printer. The proverbs that made Poor Richard’s Almanac a leading piece of literature among agricultural Americans “were all about getting money, or saving it” (Houston 24). By fictionalizing the story a destitute farmer who improves his status by promoting virtuous, frugal living, Franklin ‘reveals’ their worth. Then the Almanac itself, “[written] with no other View than that of the publick Good”, dually serves the to enhance public utility in weather forecasting as well as increasing moral, fiscally responsible behavior (Franklin 1185).

Just as important to living in a fiscally responsible manner was the quality of prudency. Economic success and moral behavior were far from mutually exclusive in Franklins mind. “Franklin leaves very much open the possibility of acquiring riches, learning, and power while at the same time meriting a good character of reputation.” (Forde 359) As Scott Singer noted,

“Franklin seems to claim that, while the actual borrowing and lending of credit are important parts of a young tradesman's financial repertoire, what is most important about credit is that having good financial credit and having good credit as a man are inextricably linked. As such, Franklin is advising his young friend to show as much care when dealing with his own reputation as he would when dealing with his actual line of credit.” (Singer)

Indeed, Franklin did devote large portions of Advice to a Young Tradesmen and Rules Proper to be Observed in Trade to emphasizing the importance of public perception. “Strive to maintain a fair character in the world: That will be the best means for advancing credit” (Franklin 346). In Franklin’s mind, it was not enough to produce a quality service, judiciously pay off creditors and generally operate a fair business. They must additionally portray courteous and respectable behavior to customers and maintain the appearance of hard work in order to prosper. Franklin’s Autobiography describes his personification of these qualities and the benefits they afforded him in various professions in to illustrate their universally applicable merits. “In order to secure my Credit and Character as a Tradesman, I took care not only to be in Reality Industrious and frugal, but to avoid all Appearances of the contrary…I went on swimmingly” (Franklin 125). This serves as a testament to commercial success’ reliance upon the reputation and trust of others built through habitual behavior. Franklin established a stratagem for economic success through his life that he reproduced in his literature to educate others. “As an incentive to follow this method, Franklin portrays the virtues as instrumental, as useful”(Forde 358). He had learned that to attain wealth and the satisfaction that accompanies prosperity, it is necessary to be, or at very least appear, virtuous. Thus virtuosity heightens personal utility. Individuals properly striving to satisfy their natural desire for wealth will maximize production, a process culminating in maximum communal utility.

Marriages Effect on Economy

In his desire to improve the social fabric of his community through virtuous economic behavior, Franklin was not satisfied with educating the individual. Since people did not live solitary lives, it was not enough for every citizen to maximize personal utility in their daily actions. Social order, Franklin believed, was grounded in the relationships established to satisfy each-others’ needs and interests. Therefore, Franklin sought to improve the functioning of personal relationships within the community, especially that of husband and wife. Social conventions such as marriage offered the stability requisite to live a virtuous life, and engender the proper action he valued so highly. According to his Advice to a Young Man on the Choice of a Mistress, “It is the Man and Woman united that make the compleat human Being” (Franklin). Together in matrimony the two individuals complement the other in a way mutually beneficial to both, making them more productive. “If you get a prudent healthy Wife, your Industry in your Profession, with her good Economy, will be a Fortune Sufficient” (Franklin). Both husband and wife’s unique characteristics combine to make them “more likely to succeed in the World” and individually increase their value to society (Franklin). The role of the woman was crucial to Franklin’s attitude. His description of the feminine role as ‘prudent’ and having ‘good Economy’ would help the man leverage his industrious nature into economic success. By becoming productive and thriving financially, society would benefit. Perhaps more importantly, the couple would maximize virtuous, personal utility. Franklin echoed this sentiment in Anthony Afterwit’s attitude toward his spendthrift spouse, stating, “If she can conform to this new Scheme of Living [frugality], we shall be the happiest couple perhaps in the Province” (Franklin 187). Frugality generated happiness, and as long as women controlled their appetites for luxury, the industriousness nature of their husbands would improve the community. Men were guilty of such vices as well, as Franklin asserted in Celia Single’s denunciation of idle, wasteful and unproductive men whom Franklin equally desired to criticize (Franklin 189). Living off one’s own industry and labor, not falling peril to the comforts of extravagance and idleness should be the attitude and aspiration of each individual within a society, and represents the most practical path to social progression. In order to resonate more effectually with average citizens, Franklin carefully constructed the Celia Single, Anthony Afterwit essay as a didactic allegory for the entire community. It was intended to cause the audience to question, and amongst themselves participate in a dialogue about the merits of efficient action as were posed in Advice to a Young Tradesman. The interaction between husband and wife serves to enhance the levels of utility that would have been achieved independent of the other.

Institutional Economic Influence

Franklin applied his analyses of the interactions of individuals and the relationships to their aggregate effect on the community as a whole. In the context of economic utility, “Commerce provided a model for cooperative social relations based on the power of needs and interests: humans join together because they are useful to eachother. (Houston 26). Just as man and wife unite in marriage, so too do they individually and jointly enter into a contract with society with the expectation that it would increase their utility. Franklin understood cooperation was based on utility and must be collectively nurtured with political and economic considerations paid to various groups. Franklin sought to establish new institutions that would enhance social utility by improving the quality of daily life.

In Silence Dogood no. 10, Franklin used his fictional widow narrator to recommend the institution of a voluntary social welfare system. “To be call’d An Office of Ensurance for Widows”, it would protect the families of deceased providers from destitution (Franklin 30). Hannah Fasick accurately infers that Franklin saw a major threat in an abundance of impoverished women, and the importance of preserving their ability to sustain even a basic level of subsistence. The subjugation of women in the educational system did not afford them skills necessary to earn an adequate income, and their membership in society required that their needs be satisfied (Fasick). By providing financial support for widows, the program would insure that the future of society, children, had the necessary means to develop into contributing citizens. Although the Office of Ensurance never came to fruition, Franklin’s attempt to evoke a sense of mutual interdependence among his audience availed itself in other endeavors. Franklin’s paper describing efficient systems for the protection of property rights revolutionized the process of combating fires. It “gave rise to a Project which soon followed it… The Utility of this Institution soon appear’d, and many more desiring to be admitted than we thought convenient for one Company, they were advised to form another” (Autobiography 174). The application of Franklins proposal was critical. Fire companies gained traction because they were useful in serving the communal economic interests. Under the guise of Richard Saunders he had written “Words may show a man’s Wit, but Actions his meaning” (Franklin 1187). Educing the sense of unity among his community held value, but only through action would a more desirable state be brought about.

Independence

Although Franklin did not realize it for most of his life, what his economically based educational teachings had been building towards far before the Stamp and Tea Acts was the unification of America. ‘Without union, improvement was not possible. Political institutions defined the conditions under which groups and regions interacted; individual character contributed to the proper functioning of those institutions” (Houston 222). The economic exploitation of the American colonies served as the impetus for revolution, violating the principals Franklin had advocated in the individuals and institutions.

Simply put, Great Britain’s rule over the colonies was intensely detrimental to the economic well being of American colonists. Franklin’s analysis of the criminal exportation policy in Rattle-Snakes for Felons could apply to many of the British transgressions, “That such Laws are against the Publick Utility, as they tend to prevent the IMPROVEMENT…of the Colonies” (Franklin 359). As the ‘mother-country’, Parliament had the duty of providing colonists, then members of British society, with just systems that were useful. However, the systems Britain imposed did not adequately protect the ability of Americans to pursue economic interests. The peopling of he colonies with criminals, taxation without representation, lack of defense, and limitations on trade requiring importation of all manufactured goods, were inefficient and violated the responsibilities a government is intended to afford its citizens. Molly Jaffe wrote, “Taxing everyone equally and refusing to exempt those associated with the crown serves as an unconcealed indicator of America’s impending revolution.”(Jaffe). Unequal treatment of British citizenry was an inefficiency that needed a remedy. Franklin felt a unified set of colonies with representation could resolve the problems Americans faced; “Join or Die”. His theory, “that an union of the colonies is absolutely necessary for their preservation” stemmed from his views on mutual interdependence of communities. Hannah’s characterization of Franklin’s message as a “political ultimatum” perfectly encapsulates his intent to reorganize the colonies to better suit economic interests (Fasick). Only when it became apparent that reform was not going to be undertaken by Britain, and that the impression of utility-detracting systems would persist, did Franklin resign to outright rebellion. The economic system inflicted upon the economies ultimately led to their unification against a common enemy.

Conclusion

“Franklin’s story is the story of a man… the story of the birth of America – an America this man discovered in himself, then helped create in the world at large” (Brands 8). Brand may have been referring to the more literal sense of ‘creating America’ as an internationally recognized nation, but I believe he is referring to Franklin’s creation of the American way of life. He discovered the infinite opportunity that America presented. Franklin’s works both directly and indirectly informed the public of the best way to achieve success economically. He had travelled the road to success, and strove to make it possible for every member of society to do the same. Improving the world around him may have been Franklin’s ultimate goal, but he understood the individual was the fundamental unit of the polity (Houston 222). Educating most basic constituents, the people, would most effectively reform the institutions of society. As influential as he may have been in designing the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, it is his role as an educator in shaping the American people that makes him ‘The First American”.

Works Cited

Brands, H.W.. The First American. New York, New York: Doubleday, 2000.

Fasick, Hannah. Slithering Franklin. Web blog post. ENGL 274: Benjamin Franklin and the Age of Enlightenment. Blogger, Web. 2 Nov. 2011.

-Silence Dogood- Defender of the Fair Sex. Web blog post. ENGL 274: Benjamin Franklin and the Age of Enlightenment. Blogger, Web. 12 Sep. 2011.

Franklin, Benjamin. The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin 2^nd ed. Edited by Edmund S Morgan. New Haven, Connecticut:, Yale University Press. New Haven Connecticut, 1964.

- Silence Dogood no 10. The New England Courant, 13 Aug, 1722.

- Poor Richards Almanac 1733

- Rattle-Snakes for Felons. The Pennsylvania Gazette, 9 May, 1751.

- Celia Single. The Pennsylvania Gazette 24, July 1732.

- Anthony Afterwit. The Pennsylvania Gazette 10, July 1732.

- Advice to a Young Man on the Choice of a Mistress.

- Advice to a Young Tradesman, Written by and Old One. Piladelphia, New Printing Office, 1748.

- Men are Naturally Benevolent as Well as Selfish. The Pennsylvania Gazette, 30 Nov, 1732.

Forde, Steven. Benjamin Franklin’s Autobiography and the Education of America. The American Political Science Review, Vol. 86, No. 2 (Jun., 1992), pp. 357-368

Houston, Alan. Benjamin Franklin & The Politics of Improvement. New Haven, Connectuct: Yale University Press, 2008.

Isaacson, Walter. A Benjamin Franklin Reader. New York, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2003.

Jaffe, Molly. A Little Background Research. Web blog post. ENGL 274: Benjamin Franklin and the Age of Enlightenment. Blogger, Web. 17 Nov. 2011.

Kaup, Brett. Proud to be an American. . Web blog post. ENGL 274: Benjamin Franklin and the Age of Enlightenment. Blogger, Web. 16 Nov. 2011.

Kramnick, Isaac, ed. Introduction. The Portable Enlightenment Reader. New York: Penguin, 1995.

Singer, Scott. Credit of Two Sorts. Web blog post. ENGL 274: Benjamin Franklin and the Age of Enlightenment. Blogger, Web. 14 Dec. 2011.