Mark Lilla

1. Introduction

Mark Lilla (b. 1956) is an American political theorist and intellectual historian whose work bridges academic political philosophy and wide‑audience public commentary. Writing primarily in English and based for much of his career in the United States, he has become a prominent interpreter of modern European thought, liberalism, and the changing relationship between religion and politics.

Lilla is widely associated with three interconnected research agendas. First, he has traced the evolution of political theology in the West and the attempt—what he calls the Great Separation—to disentangle questions of salvation from the justification of political authority. Second, he has examined the role of intellectuals in politics, especially the attraction of 20th‑century philosophers and writers to totalitarian or illiberal regimes. Third, he has intervened in contemporary debates about liberalism, identity politics, and citizenship, arguing that democratic solidarity depends on shared civic narratives rather than fragmented group identities.

His books, such as The Reckless Mind (2001), The Stillborn God (2007), The Shipwrecked Mind (2016) and The Once and Future Liberal (2017), are frequently used in political theory, history, and religious studies courses. At the same time, essays in venues like The New York Review of Books and major newspapers have positioned him as a recognizable public intellectual.

Reception of Lilla’s work has been sharply divided. Supporters highlight his historically informed defense of liberal democracy and his warnings about ideological zeal. Critics challenge his accounts of secularization, his portrayals of intellectuals, and his characterization of identity‑based movements. Despite these disagreements, he is commonly regarded as a significant late‑20th‑ and early‑21st‑century voice in debates over the fate and self‑understanding of liberal societies.

2. Life and Historical Context

2.1 Biographical Sketch

Mark Irving Lilla was born on 22 September 1956 in Detroit, Michigan, into the post–Second World War American milieu that would form the background for much of his later reflection on liberal democracy. He studied at the University of Michigan and then at Harvard University, where he completed a PhD in Political Science in 1985 under the supervision of figures including Judith Shklar. His career has included positions at the University of Chicago and Columbia University, along with visiting posts in Europe.

Lilla’s academic training combined political theory, the history of ideas, and European intellectual history, giving him facility with both philosophical texts and contextualist historical methods. Over time he developed a dual profile as a university professor and a public essayist.

2.2 Historical Milieu

Lilla’s intellectual trajectory unfolded against several large‑scale historical developments:

He wrote during ongoing debates about secularization theory, the legacies of fascism and communism, multiculturalism, and the culture wars in the United States. Commentators often situate him among a group of late‑20th‑century liberal and neo‑republican thinkers concerned with democratic stability after the ideological battles of the 20th century.

3. Intellectual Development

3.1 Formation and Early Influences

Lilla’s intellectual formation in the 1970s and early 1980s was shaped by exposure to European political thought, classical philosophy, and the skeptical liberalism of his teacher Judith Shklar. Proponents of this lineage see in his work Shklar’s emphasis on the dangers of cruelty and political utopianism, combined with a historically minded approach that resists abstract system‑building. His graduate research consolidated his interest in early modern critics of rationalism, especially Giambattista Vico.

3.2 Phases of Development

Commentators commonly divide Lilla’s development into several phases:

During the critique of modernity phase, he refined a method of reading canonical authors as responses to historical crises rather than as timeless theorists. The intellectuals and politics phase extended this to 20th‑century figures like Heidegger and Foucault, emphasizing psychological and moral vulnerabilities of theorists.

The political theology phase reoriented his work toward the long history of Christian and post‑Christian political thought, culminating in The Stillborn God. Subsequently, as a public intellectual, he addressed contemporary American and European politics more directly, using his historical narratives to comment on current disputes over liberalism, religious pluralism, and identity‑based movements.

3.3 Continuities

Despite these shifts, scholars note consistent preoccupations: skepticism toward utopian projects; concern with the fragility of liberal institutions; attention to theological and psychological underpinnings of political doctrines; and an interest in how stories about the past shape political imagination.

4. Major Works

4.1 Overview Table

4.2 Early Scholarly Monograph

In G.B. Vico: The Making of an Anti‑Modern, Lilla reconstructs Vico’s intellectual development and presents him as a critic of Cartesian rationalism and Enlightenment universalism. Proponents of this reading credit Lilla with showing how Vico’s historicism offers an alternative to progressivist narratives. Others argue that describing Vico as simply “anti‑modern” oversimplifies his complex engagement with modern science and law.

4.3 Mid‑Career Works on Intellectuals and Theology

The Reckless Mind collects case studies of figures such as Martin Heidegger, Carl Schmitt, Walter Benjamin, and Michel Foucault. The book examines how philosophical brilliance can coexist with political misjudgment. Supporters see it as a warning about the moral hazards of theoretical radicalism; critics contend that it sometimes neglects contextual pressures or the diversity within each thinker’s oeuvre.

The Stillborn God proposes a long narrative of Western political thought centered on the emergence and fragility of a secular, theologically neutral politics. It has been praised for its synthetic ambition and readability, while specialists in political theology and religious history have challenged elements of its periodization and scope.

4.4 Later Works on Reaction and Liberalism

The Shipwrecked Mind analyzes reactionary thought as driven by a sense of civilizational catastrophe and lost order. Commentators highlight its combination of intellectual portraits and psychological insight, though some argue that it gives insufficient weight to economic or institutional explanations.

The Once and Future Liberal criticizes what Lilla calls identity‑centered liberalism in the United States and advocates a return to citizenship‑focused politics. The book has been welcomed by some as a bracing restatement of civic liberalism and rejected by others as caricaturing social movements and neglecting structural injustice.

5. Core Ideas and Themes

5.1 Fragility of Liberal Democracy

A central theme in Lilla’s work is the fragility of liberal democratic achievements. He treats liberalism not as a natural default, but as a historically unusual arrangement that must be actively sustained. Proponents of this reading emphasize his focus on institutional maintenance, civic education, and the perils of ideological extremism. Some critics suggest that this preoccupation can lead him to understate emancipatory possibilities of more transformative politics.

5.2 Political Theology and the “Great Separation”

Lilla’s notion of the Great Separation refers to the early modern effort to remove questions of salvation and divine sovereignty from political theory, making civil peace and security the primary ends of government. He argues that this separation enabled a distinctive liberal politics while remaining historically precarious. Supporters see this as a useful reframing of secularization; detractors argue that it marginalizes ongoing theological contributions to democratic thought and simplifies non‑Western experiences.

5.3 Intellectuals, Utopianism, and Moral Responsibility

Another recurrent idea is the moral responsibility of intellectuals. In works on Heidegger, Schmitt, and others, Lilla explores how fascination with radical rupture, historical destiny, or transgressive critique can induce political “recklessness.” This has been influential in debates about theory and engagement. Critics maintain that his treatment can appear moralistic or insufficiently attentive to structural constraints on intellectuals under authoritarian regimes.

5.4 Reaction, Nostalgia, and Political Imagination

Lilla distinguishes reactionary thought from traditional conservatism. He portrays reactionaries as animated by visions of a lost, often idealized order and a sense of civilizational shipwreck. This leads him to emphasize the role of political imagination—myths of decline, golden ages, and catastrophic present—in shaping right‑wing movements. Some scholars adopt this framework to analyze contemporary populism; others argue it underplays material grievances.

5.5 Civic Liberalism versus Identity Politics

Across his later writings, Lilla promotes a form of civic liberalism that prioritizes shared citizenship and common institutions over group‑based or purely individualist frameworks. In his critique of identity politics, he contends that emphasizing particular identities can fragment solidarity and weaken majoritarian democratic projects. Admirers see this as recovering a neglected civic dimension of liberalism; opponents respond that his account minimizes the need for recognition and redress of systemic inequalities.

6. Methodology and Use of Intellectual History

6.1 Historical‑Hermeneutic Approach

Lilla employs an intellectual‑historical method that combines close textual interpretation with reconstruction of the political and theological contexts in which ideas emerged. He generally resists purely “internalist” readings of philosophers, instead situating them within crises such as religious wars, totalitarianism, or post‑1960s cultural conflicts. Scholars often group him with contextualist historians of political thought, though he is less programmatic than, for example, Quentin Skinner.

6.2 Normative Use of History

Unlike historians who seek strict neutrality, Lilla uses history to illuminate present political predicaments. He frequently draws cautionary lessons from past episodes, such as intellectuals’ attraction to totalitarianism or the erosion of the Great Separation. Supporters regard this as a fruitful integration of history and normative theory. Critics argue that his historical narratives occasionally reflect presentist concerns, potentially oversimplifying complex past debates to serve contemporary warnings.

6.3 Narrative Construction and “Grand Stories”

Lilla is known for crafting broad narratives—of political theology, liberalism, or reaction. His method emphasizes storytelling: selecting emblematic thinkers, arranging them in a sequence, and deriving patterns. Some readers value this synthetic approach for revealing long‑term continuities; others, particularly specialist historians, dispute the selection and framing of key episodes, claiming that it can marginalize alternative traditions, including non‑Western and non‑Christian experiences.

6.4 Engagement with Primary Texts

Across his works, Lilla makes extensive use of primary texts in philosophy, theology, and political theory. He often foregrounds canonical European figures, from Hobbes and Locke to Heidegger and Schmitt, sometimes at the expense of lesser‑known or non‑European authors. This canon‑centered focus has been praised for depth and criticized for limited diversity of perspectives.

6.5 Relationship to Political Theory

Methodologically, Lilla straddles intellectual history and political theory. He generally avoids building formal normative systems, preferring historically grounded reflection. Some political theorists interpret him as advancing an implicit liberal‑republican orientation; others view him as a critic of theory‑driven approaches, emphasizing prudence, memory, and psychological insight instead of abstract principles.

7. Political Theology and Secularization

7.1 The Great Separation

In The Stillborn God, Lilla introduces the Great Separation as a pivotal development in Western thought: the attempt, beginning with early modern thinkers such as Hobbes and Locke, to separate theological doctrines of salvation from the justification of political authority. He portrays this as a fragile intellectual and institutional achievement that allowed political disputes to be conducted without invoking competing claims about divine will.

Proponents of this account argue that it captures an important shift from medieval Christendom to modern constitutional states and helps explain the relative pacification of religious conflict in parts of Europe. They see Lilla’s stress on fragility as a reminder that political orders can relapse into theological absolutism.

7.2 Narrative of Political Theology in the West

Lilla’s narrative traces a trajectory from biblical monotheism, through Augustine and the medieval synthesis of church and empire, to early modern efforts to neutralize eschatological expectations in politics. He presents modern liberalism as emerging from attempts to confine religion to the private sphere or civil society.

Supporters regard this as a lucid synthesis connecting theology and political thought. Critics in theology and religious studies contend that the story is incomplete or overly linear, arguing that Christian traditions have also fostered democratic and egalitarian politics, and that religion has never been fully privatized.

7.3 Secularization as Contested and Incomplete

Lilla treats secularization not as a simple decline of religion, but as a contested process of shifting boundaries between religious and political authority. He emphasizes that theological ideas continue to inform political rhetoric and that religiously inspired movements persist in modern democracies and non‑Western societies alike.

Some scholars appreciate this emphasis on incompleteness, aligning it with post‑secular critiques of classic secularization theory. Others argue that Lilla still relies on implicitly Eurocentric benchmarks, taking Western Christian trajectories as normative and giving less attention to Islamic, Hindu, or East Asian political theologies.

7.4 Contemporary Implications

Lilla’s work on political theology is frequently cited in discussions of political Islam, American religious conservatism, and global post‑secularism. Advocates use his framework to highlight dangers of re‑sacralizing politics. Detractors counter that his concern with “theological politics” can appear suspicious of robust religious engagement in democratic life, potentially neglecting constructive forms of public theology.

8. Critique of Intellectuals and Totalitarianism

8.1 Focus of The Reckless Mind

In The Reckless Mind: Intellectuals in Politics, Lilla examines several 20th‑century European thinkers—including Martin Heidegger, Carl Schmitt, Walter Benjamin, Alexandre Kojève, Michel Foucault, and Jacques Derrida—who, in different ways, became entangled with fascist, communist, or otherwise illiberal projects. He explores how philosophical styles of thought can dispose intellectuals toward political extremism or ambiguity.

8.2 Themes: Seduction, Aestheticization, and Responsibility

Lilla emphasizes three recurring dynamics:

1. Seduction by grand narratives of history, destiny, or revolution.
2. Aestheticization of politics, where the beauty or conceptual elegance of an idea eclipses moral scrutiny of regimes.
3. Evasion of responsibility, when intellectuals downplay or rationalize the consequences of the movements they inspire.

Supporters argue that highlighting these mechanisms enriches understanding of how theory interacts with power and why highly educated individuals may support oppressive systems.

8.3 Reception and Controversies

The book and related essays generated significant debate. Admirers see Lilla as continuing a tradition of critical reflection on the “treason of the intellectuals,” warning against political romanticism and theoretical radicalism detached from institutional realities.

Critics have raised several objections:

8.4 Continuing Influence

Despite disputes, Lilla’s framework is often used in discussions of the public role of intellectuals, especially concerning radical theory, academic engagement with authoritarian regimes, and the responsibilities of scholars in polarized democracies. His analysis has influenced debates about the relationship between deconstruction, post‑structuralism, and politics, though interpretations diverge on how decisive he considers philosophical methods for political outcomes.

9. Liberalism, Identity Politics, and Citizenship

9.1 Diagnosis of Contemporary Liberalism

In The Once and Future Liberal and numerous essays, Lilla argues that late‑20th‑ and early‑21st‑century American liberalism has shifted from a citizenship‑centered project toward a rights‑ and identity‑centered one. He associates this transformation with cultural and academic developments since the 1960s, including movements emphasizing personal authenticity, group recognition, and symbolic representation.

Supporters claim this diagnosis illuminates the difficulties liberals face in building broad electoral coalitions and sustaining shared public purposes. Critics argue that it oversimplifies liberal traditions and conflates diverse movements under the single label of “identity politics.”

9.2 Civic Liberalism

Lilla advocates a form of civic liberalism grounded in common institutions, national narratives, and duties of citizenship. He emphasizes:

• The importance of civic education and teaching the mechanics of government.
• Appeals to “we the citizens” rather than to discrete demographic groups.
• A rhetoric of shared fate across lines of race, class, and gender.

Proponents see this as a useful reminder that liberal democracy depends on collective self‑government, not just individual rights. Opponents worry that such emphasis on unity can obscure persistent structural inequalities and silence particular experiences of injustice.

9.3 Critique of Identity Politics

Lilla’s critique of identity politics focuses on its potential to fragment the electorate and narrow political vision to expressive or symbolic gains. He contends that campaigns organized primarily around specific identities may struggle to articulate cross‑group material agendas.

Responses are sharply divided:

Some theorists suggest a middle position, arguing that identity claims and civic solidarity can be combined, but they dispute Lilla’s portrayal of current movements as necessarily anti‑civic.

9.4 Relation to Broader Liberal Thought

Lilla’s work on this topic is often situated alongside debates among Rawlsian liberals, communitarians, and theorists of recognition. He is read by some as reviving a republican strand of liberalism that stresses common institutions; others place him among critics of multiculturalism. His arguments continue to be invoked in discussions about party strategy, civic education, and the future of democratic solidarity in diverse societies.

10. Impact on Political Theory and Public Debate

10.1 Academic Influence

In academic political theory and intellectual history, Lilla’s work has contributed to renewed interest in political theology, reactionary thought, and the ethics of intellectual engagement. His narrative of the Great Separation has been widely cited—both by scholars who build upon it and by those who contest its scope—as a reference point in discussions of secularism and post‑secularism.

Courses in political science, philosophy, religious studies, and history often assign his books as examples of historically grounded political reflection. Some theorists credit him with helping to re‑embed liberal theory in concrete histories of religion, ideology, and intellectual responsibility. Others argue that his influence has sometimes encouraged “grand narratives” at the expense of local or marginalized perspectives.

10.2 Role as Public Intellectual

Beyond academia, Lilla has had a visible role in Anglo‑American public debate through essays in The New York Review of Books, major newspapers, and interviews. His interventions following events like the 2016 U.S. presidential election, debates over campus politics, and controversies about religious extremism have sparked widespread discussion.

Supporters view him as an example of the public philosopher, translating complex historical insights into accessible commentary on contemporary politics. Critics contend that some of his journalistic pieces, especially on identity politics, adopt a more polemical tone and lack the nuance of his scholarly work.

10.3 Debates Sparked by His Work

His writings have generated organized responses in symposia, edited volumes, and special journal issues. Three clusters of debate are especially notable:

In each area, Lilla’s positions function as reference points against which alternative theories define themselves, even when they reject his conclusions.

10.4 Cross‑National Reception

While most prominent in the United States, Lilla’s works have been translated into several European languages and engaged by scholars and commentators in France, Germany, Italy, and elsewhere. European readers often situate him within transatlantic conversations about populism, immigration, and the crisis of the center‑left. Some non‑Western scholars, however, criticize the limited attention his frameworks give to experiences outside the Christian West.

11. Legacy and Historical Significance

11.1 Place in Late‑20th‑ and Early‑21st‑Century Thought

Commentators commonly situate Lilla among a generation of liberal and neo‑republican thinkers concerned with the vulnerabilities of democratic regimes after the ideological conflicts of the 20th century. His combination of intellectual history, political theory, and public commentary positions him as a bridge figure between academic research and wider civic discourse.

11.2 Contributions to Key Debates

Lilla’s historical narrative of political theology has become a staple reference in discussions of secularism and the post‑secular condition, even among scholars who dispute it. His portraits of intellectuals’ entanglements with totalitarianism contribute to an ongoing reassessment of 20th‑century European philosophy. His analyses of reactionary thought and identity politics have influenced both scholarly and journalistic treatments of contemporary populism and liberal fragmentation.

Supporters see his legacy in the insistence that liberalism must understand its own history—religious, psychological, and ideological—if it is to survive. Critics argue that his accounts can be Eurocentric, inattentive to structural inequalities, or overly skeptical of radical democratic energies. Nonetheless, both sides generally acknowledge that his work has shaped key questions about liberalism’s self‑understanding.

11.3 Methodological Significance

Methodologically, Lilla is cited as an exemplar of narrative‑driven intellectual history that maintains normative aspirations without constructing formal philosophical systems. Some historians regard his success with broader audiences as evidence that synthetic, essayistic scholarship can still command attention in a specialized academic environment. Others caution that this style risks simplifying complex traditions.

11.4 Prospects for Future Reassessment

As debates over secularization, populism, and identity continue, scholars anticipate further reassessment of Lilla’s work. Potential lines of future inquiry include:

• Comparing his Great Separation thesis with non‑Western experiences of religion and state.
• Revisiting his judgments on 20th‑century intellectuals in light of new archival research.
• Evaluating his civic liberalism in the context of evolving theories of recognition and structural injustice.

In this sense, Lilla’s significance may lie less in any single doctrine than in the questions he poses about how liberal democracies remember their pasts, educate citizens, and manage the temptations of both theological and secular absolutism.