In defense of Romanticism

Critics claim that Romanticism is unrealistic, even utopian, but it was more complicated, dynamic and pessimistic about human nature than that.

Written by Simon Maass.

Conservatives often disparage romanticism for its allegedly unrealistic optimism about human nature and argue that the classical heritage offers a more enduring and grounded intellectual foundation. Even the later Goethe, having abandoned the romanticism of his youth, remarked: “The classical I call healthy, and the romantic sickly.”

However, romanticism has frequently been mischaracterized, its intellectual contributions to philosophy, literature, and aesthetics underappreciated. Romanticism should not be confused with blank slatism or excessive optimism about human potential and ultimately aligns with human nature—an essential reason for its enduring utility.

Tim Blanning’s The Romantic Revolution offers an insightful exploration of the Romantic movement.

In his introduction, Blanning quotes Alfred Tennyson’s words:

I sometimes hold it half a sin
To put in words the grief I feel:
For words, like Nature, half reveal
And half conceal the Soul within.

He observes: “It was this ‘Soul within’ that formed the core of the romantics’ concerns.” Terms like “soul” or “spirit” were central to Romanticism, signifying not only the ineffable depths of individual experience but also the subterranean forces shaping the external world—unexamined impulses, unconscious drives, and the deeper realities beneath surface appearances.

Romanticism exalted the imagination, sacralized nature, and embraced organic, dynamic growth. It rejected the mechanistic worldview of Descartes and the overreliance, derived from the Enlightenment, on abstract theoretical frameworks and quantifiable variables to the exclusion of human beliefs and values. It argued that reality was deeper and more subtle than natural philosophers and philosophes had assumed.