Deneen says that the philosophy of liberalism was developed some 500 years ago, and implemented most notably in the United States in the last 250 years. The essential features of liberalism according to Deneen are the individual as a rights-bearer, capitalism is the means to acquire goods and markers of personal identity, and periodic democratic elections, which allegedly ratify the decisions of the set of rights-bearing individuals. Deneen is going to claim that the individual as the fundamental unit of society is a crucial departure from the classical understanding of people and their relations to one another, with their interlocking obligations, many chosen, but some not chosen. Indeed, the biggest promise of liberalism according to Deneen was to liberate individuals from these involuntary obligations, and any identities imposed externally from those obligations.
He goes on to argue that in four areas, liberalism faces a crisis of its own self-contradiction. Politics and government, economics, education, and science and technology. One crucial factor for evaluating Deneen's central thesis is whether the heart of liberalism must be the maximization of personal autonomy. Many interlocutors of Deneen are people who would argue that a Christian or other traditional worldview does not preclude the political philosophy of liberalism, because there is no need to assume that license--the total lack of external constraint on one's desires--is the central core of liberalism. The many Catholic luminaries of the American project of fusionism--the marriage of convenience between libertarians, national security conservatives, and religious conservatives--stand as a sort of counterpoint, at least potentially, to the idea that liberalism as a political philosophy is incompatible with Catholicism, or a similarly traditional religious meta-philosophy. On the other hand, Deneen stands in a long line of Christian critics of capitalism (and the other elements of the liberal project) who argue that the essence of liberalism properly understood destroys the soil so to speak, in which the values and traditions common to Christianity (or other traditional religions) take root and grow.
I can at least agree at this moment that the political soup in which we find ourselves is conducive to a radical individualism of the sort which Deneen decries. He goes to great length, both in articulating his claims, and in examples purporting to prove those claims, to highlight the present dissatisfaction with the political system, and the citizens' general pessimism regarding the future of the country, and the sort of lives that their descendents will be able to live. In economics, the principal driver of the problem as Deneen sees it is the radical disparity in wealth between the rich and the poor. He goes on to say that only the wealthy are able to secure the political rights which are supposed to be the hallmark of the free individual in a liberal society. On a personal editorial note, I will be curious to see if Deneen can reconcile his antipathy for the wealth gap with his apparent antipathy for what he describes as "statism." I might make a start in defining that term in Deneen's mental toolbox as the ever-encroaching liberal state into every area of human endeavor. As harmful as that surely is--especially in the abstract, and at a particular extreme--it is unclear who or what will redress the problem of wealth inequality if it is not the government, or to put it in the terms of the Catholic social doctrine, the "political authority". Deneen may well be at his best in arguing that a radically individualist philosophy is incompatible with the Catholic worldview, but it is difficult to imagine a political philosophy or its apparatus practically speaking, which does not in some sense resemble some features of liberalism. Deneen concedes that some form of democracy, individual rights, and bodily autonomy should and could coexist with a better political philosophy, so he is not arguing against those concepts themselves. Yet a reader could be forgiven for having a difficult time defining what liberalism is, or imagining a better alternative, if we mutually agree that a collectivist tyranny is not desirable.
One point of criticism: it is natural for commentators to mark the collapse of the Soviet Union as the death of communism as a competing ideology for classical liberalism. However, communism still exists in this hemisphere, in name and in fact, as well as being obviously represented in China, and North Korea. The West so-called may have been persuaded of the folly of communism, or even other forms of state directed socialism, but it is far from dead. We should not mistake the unrivaled power of the United States as proof that liberalism stands alone as an ideology in the world. Deneen also names Fascism as a competing ideology which failed, but since authoritarian tendencies never fully go away, it seems presumptuous to say that Fascism is no longer a threat to some notion of freedom.
I want to highlight and mention Deneen's claims about liberalism's deleterious effect on education, and specifically, the liberal arts. In the past, in the West, it was understood that money making was secondary to learning and proclaiming the features of a good life. In summary and substance, the liberal arts represent the pursuit of virtue for its own sake, and for the sake of man's highest end, which is union with God. Deneen says in effect that a utilitarian reductionism has taken place, and that lesser goods which were self-consciously inferior to the pursuit of the liberal arts have now supplanted the liberal arts, reducing them to their value in economic terms, and thus leaving them seemingly without a reason to exist. Many outmoded expressions and examples of paternalism--especially on university campuses--represented the widespread belief in the primacy of the liberal arts. Deneen joins many fundamentally conservative people in lamenting the loss of a moral consensus which constituted the earlier basis for responsible citizenship. The seemingly irreconcilable conflict present in our political system, and in systems around the world, is due to a lack in moral consensus concerning the purpose of life. If it could be shown that the individualism represented by Anthony Kennedy's famous statement concerning the right of self-definition is synonymous with liberalism, then it is a straight line from the political philosophy to the frustration and open conflict which characterize the political system. That case remains to be proven. I will only say for now that Deneen's central contention in this chapter--that liberalism has not failed, but succeeded--is not only intriguing, but worthy of consideration. I have more thoughts, and at a length that is too much for this one post, so I'll call the next post an addendum to the introduction.
He goes on to argue that in four areas, liberalism faces a crisis of its own self-contradiction. Politics and government, economics, education, and science and technology. One crucial factor for evaluating Deneen's central thesis is whether the heart of liberalism must be the maximization of personal autonomy. Many interlocutors of Deneen are people who would argue that a Christian or other traditional worldview does not preclude the political philosophy of liberalism, because there is no need to assume that license--the total lack of external constraint on one's desires--is the central core of liberalism. The many Catholic luminaries of the American project of fusionism--the marriage of convenience between libertarians, national security conservatives, and religious conservatives--stand as a sort of counterpoint, at least potentially, to the idea that liberalism as a political philosophy is incompatible with Catholicism, or a similarly traditional religious meta-philosophy. On the other hand, Deneen stands in a long line of Christian critics of capitalism (and the other elements of the liberal project) who argue that the essence of liberalism properly understood destroys the soil so to speak, in which the values and traditions common to Christianity (or other traditional religions) take root and grow.
I can at least agree at this moment that the political soup in which we find ourselves is conducive to a radical individualism of the sort which Deneen decries. He goes to great length, both in articulating his claims, and in examples purporting to prove those claims, to highlight the present dissatisfaction with the political system, and the citizens' general pessimism regarding the future of the country, and the sort of lives that their descendents will be able to live. In economics, the principal driver of the problem as Deneen sees it is the radical disparity in wealth between the rich and the poor. He goes on to say that only the wealthy are able to secure the political rights which are supposed to be the hallmark of the free individual in a liberal society. On a personal editorial note, I will be curious to see if Deneen can reconcile his antipathy for the wealth gap with his apparent antipathy for what he describes as "statism." I might make a start in defining that term in Deneen's mental toolbox as the ever-encroaching liberal state into every area of human endeavor. As harmful as that surely is--especially in the abstract, and at a particular extreme--it is unclear who or what will redress the problem of wealth inequality if it is not the government, or to put it in the terms of the Catholic social doctrine, the "political authority". Deneen may well be at his best in arguing that a radically individualist philosophy is incompatible with the Catholic worldview, but it is difficult to imagine a political philosophy or its apparatus practically speaking, which does not in some sense resemble some features of liberalism. Deneen concedes that some form of democracy, individual rights, and bodily autonomy should and could coexist with a better political philosophy, so he is not arguing against those concepts themselves. Yet a reader could be forgiven for having a difficult time defining what liberalism is, or imagining a better alternative, if we mutually agree that a collectivist tyranny is not desirable.
One point of criticism: it is natural for commentators to mark the collapse of the Soviet Union as the death of communism as a competing ideology for classical liberalism. However, communism still exists in this hemisphere, in name and in fact, as well as being obviously represented in China, and North Korea. The West so-called may have been persuaded of the folly of communism, or even other forms of state directed socialism, but it is far from dead. We should not mistake the unrivaled power of the United States as proof that liberalism stands alone as an ideology in the world. Deneen also names Fascism as a competing ideology which failed, but since authoritarian tendencies never fully go away, it seems presumptuous to say that Fascism is no longer a threat to some notion of freedom.
I want to highlight and mention Deneen's claims about liberalism's deleterious effect on education, and specifically, the liberal arts. In the past, in the West, it was understood that money making was secondary to learning and proclaiming the features of a good life. In summary and substance, the liberal arts represent the pursuit of virtue for its own sake, and for the sake of man's highest end, which is union with God. Deneen says in effect that a utilitarian reductionism has taken place, and that lesser goods which were self-consciously inferior to the pursuit of the liberal arts have now supplanted the liberal arts, reducing them to their value in economic terms, and thus leaving them seemingly without a reason to exist. Many outmoded expressions and examples of paternalism--especially on university campuses--represented the widespread belief in the primacy of the liberal arts. Deneen joins many fundamentally conservative people in lamenting the loss of a moral consensus which constituted the earlier basis for responsible citizenship. The seemingly irreconcilable conflict present in our political system, and in systems around the world, is due to a lack in moral consensus concerning the purpose of life. If it could be shown that the individualism represented by Anthony Kennedy's famous statement concerning the right of self-definition is synonymous with liberalism, then it is a straight line from the political philosophy to the frustration and open conflict which characterize the political system. That case remains to be proven. I will only say for now that Deneen's central contention in this chapter--that liberalism has not failed, but succeeded--is not only intriguing, but worthy of consideration. I have more thoughts, and at a length that is too much for this one post, so I'll call the next post an addendum to the introduction.
Comments