Dimensions of Power: The Transformation of Liberalism and the Limits of 'Politics'.

• Author: Ryn, Claes G.

Every age has its dominant intellectual and imaginative mind-set and corresponding pattern of practical striving. Deeply rooted ideas, hopes and fears shape desire, and desire in turn influences thought and intuition. Human beings perceive existence and set priorities according to this interaction of will, imagination and reason. The political arrangements of a society are but one of the ways in which a certain dominant approach to life articulates itself and in which a particular sense of possibilities is acted out. Whether a people will prefer limited, constitutional government or a comprehensive welfare state depends on what kind of predispositions and expectations have formed in that society. Not even dictatorial rule can be sustained without the grudging acceptance of a populace whose anxieties and other propensities incline them to submit rather than to rebel.

Any more than superficial inquiry into the meaning and sources of political power must consider the prevalent fundamental outlook of the society and larger civilization in question. What is the sense of reality and what are the deeper aspirations that have made a particular people prefer certain political modalities to others? Narrowly political conceptions of power stand in the way of adequately understanding political arrangements. Conceptions of that kind distract attention from what most fundamentally shapes human conduct. They obscure the moral-intellectual-aesthetical dynamic behind social evolution. What follows is an argument for a more nuanced and subtle view of power.

The metamorphosis of liberalism

It has been the academic fashion in recent times to discuss central problems of society and human life as issues of "liberalism." It is assumed that liberalism lies at or near the end of humanity's search for enlightenment and well-being and that liberalism is the only possible context for discussing social and political problems. It only remains for intellectuals to identify the remaining weaknesses of liberalism and to indicate how to carry through on its promises. This way of thinking often reveals precisely the preoccupation with politics narrowly understood that was just alluded to, but it is never simply a political stance. Although a person may be only imperfectly aware of the assumptions that lie implicit in his political outlook, these constitute an entire view of human existence, however jerry-built or confused. Not least because the term "liberalism" is heavy with political connotations, it is important when exploring the meaning and influence of liberalism not to fall prey to the illusion that po litics is an autonomous, self-generating, self-subsisting force that shapes all other aspects of society. It is essential to understand that political beliefs and institutions are expressions of an underlying attitude toward human existence, that they are in a sense secondary phenomena, having antecedents and roots in the life of the mind and the imagination.

Liberalism's change reflects new attitude to life.

In the last century what is called liberalism underwent a profound change. To explain that change as merely or primarily a change in political beliefs and practices would be simplistic. It stemmed from a metamorphosis of the basic outlook of Western man, which included the broad retreat of Christianity and the abandonment of earlier notions of moral good. The transformation of liberalism was one of the manifestations of a new sensibility, a new way of approaching life; changes in the moral, intellectual and aesthetical climate of the West made new political arrangements seem desirable. The older kind of liberalism can be said to have had the initiative in the nineteenth century. The twentieth century saw the spread of a world-view that gave the initiative to socialism. Liberalism followed its lead, though sometimes reluctantly.

Liberalism split apart.

Thinkers familiar with the history of the West who are also not captive to current academic and journalistic prejudices have long known that what is typically called "liberalism" in the United States bears little resemblance to the body of ideas whose influence peeked in the nineteenth century. That older liberalism advocated limited government, the rule of law, constitutionalism, free markets and freedom for persons to cultivate their individuality and creativity On the more conservative side, this older liberalism often had a strong sense of liberty's dependence on historically evolved modes of life. It had such spokesmen as Edmund Burke, the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, and Alexis de Tocqueville. A strong attachment to a broad range of traditional beliefs and habits lay implicit in their political preferences. On the more radical side, liberalism's advocacy of freedom and scientific reasoning formed part of a desire to break with old Western ways, especially Christianity. John Stuart Mill was here a paradigmatic figure. His dictum is famous: "The despotism of custom is a standing hindrance to human advancement." Mill believed that unrestricted freedom of discussion and application of a Comtean, "positivist" methodology would eventually obliterate what he considered outdated, superstitious beliefs and behaviors. A new enlightened elite would usher in an era of rational consensus. A preference for social engineering, of which Mill is a pioneer in Anglo-American liberalism, eventually found a more serviceable outlet in social democracy.

As it severed connections with the classical and Christian heritage, liberalism was increasingly absorbed into socialism. Those of its original ideas that were not discarded outright were reinterpreted in the light of notions that had previously given momentum to socialism, such as Rousseau's view of human nature and society and his belief in the need for a radical reconstruction of society. Here liberalism found more ammunition for attacks on traditional Western civilization. In America as well as in Europe the new liberals were sometimes more radical in their attacks upon old moral and cultural norms than leading social democrats, for many of the latter retained some attachment to a particular national tradition and to grass-roots working class values.

In America, "liberals" have long been virtually indistinguishable from European social Democrats or "social liberals." The latter are dedicated to the Welfare State and moral-cultural radicalism but have a lingering preference for free, if regulated, markets as economically superior to a socialistic mode of production. In the United States socialist-leaning politicians and political intellectuals frequently hide their innermost beliefs because of the continuing presence of voters and competitors with decidedly more conservative opinions. The intellectual merging of liberalism and socialism was evident in academia throughout the twentieth century, a process that was facilitated by many socialists adopting more pragmatic economic views. That the initiative lay largely with socialism is suggested by liberalism's often heavy emphasis on "justice," a term that through most of recorded history had been understood as requiring inequalities of various kinds, but that now was interpreted as requiring egalitarian reco nstruction of society. In the 1970s, for example, the liberal-socialistic trend was represented by John Rawls, whose theory of justice made use of the egalitarian implications of John Locke and Immanuel Kant. Rawis was but one in a long line of theorists, including Americans like Herbert Croly and John Dewey, who envisioned a centrally planned and administered society governed for the well-being of all. Only with difficulty do thinkers like Rawls maintain a connection with the original liberalism.

New liberalism anti-traditional.

Theorizing of this kind justified continuing major expansion of government to ensure the enactment and refinement of a redefined New "justice." Such thinking would have appalled a nineteenth-century liberal, but soon, under the influence of postmodemism, feminism, the homosexual-rights movement, multiculturalism, etc., liberalism took unto itself additional assignments, becoming ever more intent on employing government to shape the conduct and thinking of individuals. The aspect of the new liberalism that may account for most of its appeal today is its commitment to liberating individuals from traditional moral and cultural restraints and letting them engage in previously disdained behaviors without fear of social disapproval and even without a bad conscience. One of the main attractions of up-to-date liberalism seems to be its portrayal of old notions of proper behavior as narrow-minded and inhumane and worthy of condemnation and punishment. Government is seen by many liberals as an instrument for rooting ou t traditional moral and cultural preferences and for installing new ones. In general, investing government with extensive responsibilities is an example of the practical enactment of a Weltanschaung.

Telling proof of liberalism's transformation and the influence of its new intellectual and political configuration can be found in the way it is catered to by writers who claim to represent religion or moral universality but who also do not want to be left outside of the new liberal consensus. Such intellectuals present themselves as friends of liberalism, suggesting that it can be strengthened and deepened by acknowledging its religious or moral underpinnings. As the reigning liberal mind-set would dismiss out of hand a return to traditional religion or any analogous idea of moral universality, no such possibility is mentioned. Rather, what is proposed is a spirituality said to be compatible with liberalism's predominant trend. Rousseauistic sentimental humanitarianism provided much of the moral justification and inspiration for socialism. What is now said to be capable of reinvigorating a spiritually and morally stale liberalism turns out to be very...