The question of whether there was a true “American Enlightenment” in the eighteenth century becomes more intriguing when viewed through the lenses of Carl Becker and Daniel Boorstin. Becker, writing in 1932, was skeptical of the originality of the European Enlightenment itself. In The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth-Century Philosophers, he argued that thinkers like Voltaire and Rousseau were not radical secular innovators but rather heirs to Christian theology who merely translated religious eschatology into secular notions of progress. If the European Enlightenment was already a kind of disguised continuation of older traditions, then the American version could hardly claim to be a wholly new intellectual movement. It would appear instead as a local adaptation of European ideas, filtered through the colonial experience and shaped by practical needs rather than philosophical breakthroughs.

Boorstin, writing two decades later in The Genius of American Politics, took a different but complementary stance. He insisted that Americans have always distrusted ideology, preferring pragmatic solutions rooted in inherited institutions. For him, American politics was not born of abstract Enlightenment theory but of the practical challenges of governing in a new environment. Where Becker saw Enlightenment philosophy as a secularized theology, Boorstin saw American politics as a tradition-bound pragmatism. Both perspectives converge in their skepticism about the power of abstract theory to explain lived political culture.

Yet historians who defend the idea of an American Enlightenment point to figures like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine. Franklin embodied the Enlightenment spirit through his devotion to science, reason, and civic virtue. Jefferson infused the Declaration of Independence with Locke’s philosophy of natural rights, while Paine’s Common Sense and The Age of Reason carried radical Enlightenment ideas into popular discourse. Scientific societies, colleges, and religious movements like Deism and Unitarianism also reflected the spread of rational inquiry and secular thought in the colonies. These examples suggest that Enlightenment ideals did take root in America, though often among elites and in ways tailored to local circumstances.

At the same time, the limits of this Enlightenment are clear. Much of the intellectual content was imported from Europe, and colonial society remained deeply religious and traditional. Enlightenment ideas were not universally shared but concentrated among a small circle of thinkers. Boorstin’s emphasis on “givenness” reminds us that Americans often treated their institutions as inherited truths rather than as products of abstract theorizing. Becker’s critique of Enlightenment originality reinforces the sense that even in America, the so-called Enlightenment was less a revolution of ideas than a reworking of older traditions.

Taken together, these perspectives suggest that there was indeed an American Enlightenment, but it was distinctive in form. It was pragmatic, selective, and institution-focused rather than deeply philosophical. It existed as a hybrid of European intellectual currents and American practical needs, more visible in political institutions and civic culture than in abstract theory. In this sense, the American Enlightenment was real, but it was not the sweeping intellectual revolution that its European counterpart claimed to be. It was instead a pragmatic adaptation, a blending of inherited traditions with the demands of a new society, and its genius lay precisely in that balance.

____________________________________

For more depth in the subject.

Carl Becker’s 1932 study refers to his book The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth-Century Philosophers (1932). In it, Becker argued provocatively that Enlightenment thinkers—Voltaire, Rousseau, Kant, and others—were not truly secular revolutionaries but instead remained deeply shaped by Christian thought. He claimed they simply transposed Christian eschatology into secular progress, making their “rational” philosophies less original than commonly believed.

What Becker Argued

• Continuity with Christianity

○ Becker suggested that Enlightenment philosophers carried forward the Christian vision of history, only replacing salvation with progress.

○ For example, the idea of humanity moving toward perfection mirrored Christian teleology.

• Critique of Enlightenment Originality

○ He challenged the prevailing view that the Enlightenment marked a radical break from religion.

○ Instead, he saw Enlightenment rationalism as a “secularized theology”, still dependent on inherited Christian frameworks.

• The “Heavenly City” Metaphor

○ Becker’s title implied that Enlightenment thinkers built a new “city of reason” but on the foundations of the old “city of God.”

○ Their utopian visions were, in his view, not purely rational but quasi-religious.

Why It Was Considered Questionable

• Revisionist Shock

○ In 1932, many scholars celebrated the Enlightenment as the triumph of reason over faith. Becker’s claim that it was not truly secular was controversial.

• Criticism from Historians

○ Some accused Becker of oversimplifying, ignoring the genuine anti-clericalism and radicalism of Enlightenment thought.

○ Others argued he underestimated the philosophical originality of figures like Kant or Diderot.

• Influence on Later Debates

○ Despite criticism, Becker’s thesis influenced later intellectual historians who explored the continuities between religion and secular modernity.

Legacy

• Becker’s Heavenly City remains a classic in intellectual history, precisely because it was “questionable.”

• It forced scholars to reconsider whether modern secular ideologies are truly independent of religious traditions—or whether they are repackaged theological ideas.

• His work is often paired with critiques of Enlightenment optimism during the interwar period, reflecting broader doubts about progress amid the Great Depression and rising totalitarianism.

In essence: Becker’s 1932 study questioned the originality of Enlightenment philosophy, arguing it was a secularized continuation of Christian theology. It was “questionable” because it challenged the dominant narrative of the Enlightenment as a clean break from religion.

Compare

Now let’s connect Carl Becker’s The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth-Century Philosophers (1932) with Daniel Boorstin’s The Genius of American Politics (1953). They’re often read together because both challenge the idea that politics or philosophy can be understood purely in terms of abstract theory.

Becker vs. Boorstin: Key Parallels

• Suspicion of Abstract Systems

○ Becker argued Enlightenment philosophers weren’t truly secular innovators; they simply repackaged Christian eschatology as “progress.”

○ Boorstin argued Americans distrust ideology altogether, preferring pragmatic traditions over abstract systems.

○ Both works highlight the limits of theory in shaping lived politics.

• Tradition as Hidden Foundation

○ Becker: Enlightenment rationalism was secretly built on Christian theological foundations.

○ Boorstin: American politics rests on inherited institutions and historical “givenness.”

○ Each suggests that what looks like innovation is actually continuity with tradition.

• Critique of Modern Optimism

○ Becker wrote in 1932, amid the Great Depression, questioning Enlightenment faith in progress.

○ Boorstin wrote in 1953, early Cold War, questioning the exportability of American democracy.

○ Both reflect interwar and postwar skepticism about universal theories of progress or politics.

Why They’re Linked

• Both works became touchstones in intellectual history because they challenged dominant narratives: Becker questioned Enlightenment secularism, Boorstin questioned American ideological originality.

• Together, they frame a broader critique: modern politics and philosophy are less about radical new ideas than about inherited traditions disguised as innovation.

In essence: Becker showed how Enlightenment rationalism was a disguised continuation of Christian theology, while Boorstin showed how American politics thrives by rejecting ideology and clinging to tradition. Both highlight the hidden role of inheritance in shaping supposedly “modern” systems.

Considering both Becker and Boorsrin, was there a real "American Enlightenment" in the 18th Century?

Great question — and one that historians have wrestled with for decades. Let’s weigh Becker’s skepticism about Enlightenment originality against Boorstin’s skepticism about American ideology to see whether there really was an “American Enlightenment.”

Becker’s Lens (1932)

• Becker argued that the European Enlightenment was not a radical break but a secularized continuation of Christian theology.

• If Enlightenment thought itself was “questionable” in originality, then any American version would be even more derivative.

• From this perspective, the “American Enlightenment” might look less like a new intellectual movement and more like a local adaptation of European ideas (Locke, Montesquieu, Voltaire) filtered through colonial experience.

Boorstin’s Lens (1953)

• Boorstin claimed Americans distrust ideology and prefer pragmatic traditions.

• He suggested that American politics was not born of abstract Enlightenment theory but of practical problem-solving in a new environment.

• From this angle, the “American Enlightenment” was less about philosophy and more about institutional innovation (constitutions, assemblies, checks and balances).

Evidence for an “American Enlightenment”

Historians who defend the idea point to:

• Benjamin Franklin: champion of reason, science, and secular civic virtue.

• Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence infused with Locke’s natural rights philosophy.

• Thomas Paine: Common Sense and The Age of Reason as radical Enlightenment texts.

• Scientific Societies & Colleges: growth of institutions promoting rational inquiry.

• Religious Rationalism: Deism and Unitarianism as distinctly American adaptations of Enlightenment religion.

Evidence Against

• Much of the intellectual content was imported from Europe, not uniquely American.

• Colonial society was still deeply religious and traditional; Enlightenment ideas reached only elites.

• As Boorstin argued, Americans often treated inherited institutions as “givens” rather than theorizing new ones.

• Becker’s critique implies that even the European Enlightenment was not as original as claimed, so the American version may have been even less so.

Synthesis

• There was an American Enlightenment, but it was practical, selective, and institution-focused rather than deeply philosophical.

• Becker helps us see that its intellectual roots were not wholly original, but adaptations of older traditions.

• Boorstin reminds us that Americans preferred pragmatic application over ideological theorizing.

• So the “American Enlightenment” existed — but as a hybrid of European ideas and American pragmatism, more visible in political institutions and civic culture than in abstract philosophy.