About the Author - Paul McLaughlin teaches in the Philosophy Institute, Pedagogical Academy of Zielona Gora, Poland.

Discuss this Article

Submit a Rebuttal

Recommend this site

 

Search The Web

Philosophy Humanities History Classics Science Math

Social Sciences Literature Art Education Linguistics Religion

Free! Examined Life Philosophy Resource Browser

Free! Philosophy Quotations Program

Worldwide Philosophy Events Database

Philosophy Resource Search Engine

 

Click here for Printer Friendly Format

Table of Contents

Part One: Basics

1. Introduction

2. Critical?

3. What is liberalism, and who are liberals?

4. Toward a definition

Part Two: Three Key Concepts

1. The concept of the individual

2. The concept of liberty

3. The concept of authority

Part Three: Provisional conclusions

1. Summary and objections

2. Consonance

---

 

PART ONE: BASICS.

1. Introduction.

Liberalism is an ideology with a history of more than three hundred years. However, it is arguable that at no time during this period has this ideology been as dominant as it is today. Thus the vast majority of contemporary political dispute, on the theoretical and practical fronts, takes place within the ideological framework of liberalism.

Theoretically, the liberalism-communitarianism dispute is a case in point. It is basically a dispute between liberals, and the fact that is regarded as something more illustrates how the bulk of political thought has narrowed its horizons. Communitarianism essentially consists of a critique of one (allegedly) excessively individualistic wing of liberalism by a less individualistic, but by no means communistic or collectivistic, wing – a wing which champions ‘inter-subjectivity’ and the like. This is the major sense in which communitarianism is not a form of socialism, even if some who might consider themselves communitarians also consider themselves social democrats and go so far as to declare their debt to Marx. Historically, social democracy itself simply represents the capitulation of certain moderate (and occasionally cowardly) socialists confronted by liberal dominance or power. Therefore, I see no contradiction when a liberal like Richard Rorty, for example, refers to himself as a social democrat.[1]

Communitarianism, in any event, is best defined, in my view, as social-liberalism. (A more ‘radical’ form of social-liberalism, given to activism within liberal democracies but by no means anti-liberal as such, is espoused by self-proclaimed ‘progressives’.) The opposing wing of liberalism is libertarianism. Both social-liberalism and libertarianism are firmly rooted within the liberal tradition, as our account of liberalism will suggest. What might better be labeled the libertarianism-communitarianism dispute, then, is best understood as a major contemporary dispute within liberalism.

Politically, the liberal-conservative dispute that supposedly animates political life further illustrates the almost mono-ideological aspect of contemporary political mass-culture. Liberalism, within this context, represents, in its most humane form, a relatively moderate social-liberal (or social-democratic - at this stage, the difference is negligible) politico-economic programme.[2] Conservatism, by contrast, represents, at bottom, the neo-liberal politico-economic programme of certain ‘libertarians’ or quasi-‘libertarians’. (From this perspective, revolutionary social-libertarians have expressed their revulsion at the equation of any concept of libertarianism with, say, Reaganite or Thatcherite policy). Murray Bookchin has suggested ‘proprietarianism’ as a more accurate term for their ideology.[3]) To the extent that there is a genuine ideological distinction between these liberals and conservatives, it is in fact ethical or even religious rather than politico-economic and therefore, within the realm of real-political and economic life, second order - though not, of course, without some bearing. Essentially, however, their dispute operates within the liberal framework, notwithstanding the presence of some motivated primarily by religious fanaticism, for example.

Inspired by the idea that domination - even the domination of what purports to be something akin to the gospel of freedom - ought to be challenged in every instance, as well as the idea that complacency - including complacency about the culmination of history in the guise of liberal democracy - should be met with passionate inquiry, I undertake below a fundamental and critical analysis of liberalism to the best of my limited abilities within the space allowed here. It is a preliminary effort, but hopefully it at least points toward some of the more salient issues.

 

---

 

[1] See ‘Thugs and Theorists’, Political Theory, XV (1987), pp. 564-80.

[2] Hence the neo-liberal complaint: ‘In the United States “liberal” means today [1962] a set of ideas and political postulates that in every regard are the opposite of all that liberalism meant to the preceding generations. The American self-styled liberal aims at government omnipotence, is a resolute foe of free enterprise, and advocates all-round planning by the authorities, i.e., socialism’ [Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism: The Classical Tradition, ‘Preface to the English-Language Edition’ [online at http://www.mises.org/liberal.asp]].

[3] The Modern Crisis (Philadelphia: New Society Publishers, 1986), p. 1.

Page [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Click here for Printer Friendly Format