 |
| Image credit. |
Waning Relevance of Freedom?
Recently I felt a loss of thrust in my work on liberty.
On reading Passions and Constraint. On the Theory of Liberal Democracy by Stephen Holmes, I have come up with a number of thoughts that may help me re-establish the relevance and urgency of freedom in the public debate.
Contemporary self-proclaiming liberals (of pre-revionist persuasion, i.e pre-Mill) strike me as dogmatic and consequently oblivious to the real history of freedom, including her present manifestations.
Losing Sight of Liberty
In drawing up or implying ideal descriptions of freedom, they tend to ignore the lived experience, the resorption, transformation and resultant present form, the ongoing discourse and modern feel of freedom - thereby neglecting the continuity of primordial liberal ambitions throughout the growth of liberalism that leads to its contemporary forms.
We emphasise the divisions concerning the implications of freedom, rather than the continuity and significant presence of her multicore base in which our political sensitivities are rooted. By fixing our attention on an ideological battlefield, we lose liberty from our vision. We see only pro-market and contra-market, failing to recognise that it is the inter-meshing of liberal values which shapes the reality of market economies, with one party tending to specialise on idealisation, the other on denunciation.
Unrecorded - The Real Unfolding of Freedom
In the main, I encounter classical liberal thinkers through the secondary literature, where freedom is portrayed as being vitally dependent on a consciousness of a certain theoretical representation of her. Freedom is treated as if her secret, the key to her, was contained in the history of ideas, when the latter is just one aspect to consult in one's efforts to appreciate freedom as a hall mark of our civilisation. Characteristically, I know of no history of freedom that is not basically an exercise in the history of ideas. This is astounding, since liberty is perhaps the most fundamental achievement of the modern age. Therefore, one would expect an ample literature recording the real unfolding of liberty in modern societies.
Freedom - An Ideological Sideshow
It seems as if the modern classical liberals do not know freedom when they see her. While the (in many important ways unconsciously liberal) progressives do not care much for liberty because she has become so well established and so splendidly adapted to modern needs that we can operate her like a driver who is largely unaware of conducting the vehicle by her manifold interventions from A to B.
People are interpreting liberty in different ways; and while they are referring to and moulding and remoulding the same basic values of liberalism, liberty is not the theme associated with policy shaping debates but with the obstinate feud of ideological camps that agree on and insist on the broken continuity of freedom.
The Paradox of Freedom
Recently, I was stuck with the paradox of freedom. Freedom has grown and spread comprehensively so as to form the base frame of our society. However, this state of affairs has been brought about and is maintained without the support of powerful, explicitly pro-freedom forces. That is the core of what I refer to as the paradox of freedom.
Anger, Debunking, Disorientation, and Loss of Purpose
In gradually changing my ideological mooring, my energy was first devoted to
Anger, Debunking, Disorientation, and Loss of Purpose
In gradually changing my ideological mooring, my energy was first devoted to
- indignation triggered by the dogmatic rigidity of my fellow libertarians, then
- an ambition to debunk the dogmatic abridgement of freedom, and finally, on a waning course now,
- the increasing realisation that (a) freedom is on the best terms with the status quo, and (b) that I have little to teach my contemporaries with respect to freedom despite many years of dedicated research into the subject. Freedom is trivial, she happens everyday.
Neither are the modern classically liberal onslaughts against our supposedly wildly anti-liberal society convincing, nor are the ideological boundaries from within which the attacks are launched. ItThe idea creeps up on me that "my" robust conditions of freedom are elastic to such an extent that they hardly suffice to distinguish between rivalrous policy recommendations. Freedom seems not be of great relevance in deciding modern policy controversies.
See also The Age of Liberalism.
Disguised Liberty
But there are new aspects of the contemporary status of liberty. Freedom is strangely disguised today, either because she is intrinsically hard to perceive, which has a parallel in the perception of happiness, as the latter is frequently present when its conditions and presence in one's attunement are imperceptible.
But there are new aspects of the contemporary status of liberty. Freedom is strangely disguised today, either because she is intrinsically hard to perceive, which has a parallel in the perception of happiness, as the latter is frequently present when its conditions and presence in one's attunement are imperceptible.
There is at least one more momentous habit of obfuscating obfuscation liberty that seems to have become part of our political culture.
We have become used to stereotypes of liberal conceptions of freedom and a corresponding array of anti-liberal criticisms and denigrations of these. Effectively, we have divided freedom into a liberal interpretation and an anti-liberal denunciation of classical liberalism.
Denial of Continuity
It is hard to say, who is to blame for the split. Perhaps the liberal dogmatists deserve a somewhat larger share of the blame. The reason why is nicely brought out in Holmes' studies of liberalism, whose core insight is that many of the social desiderata and attainments favoured by anti-liberals and denied and rejected by liberals are in truth perfectly compatible with the basic convictions of classical liberals, not only viewed with hindsight, but often also in so far as they are incorporated in the arguments for freedom of the classic authors (Locke, Hume, Smith, Kant etc).
Denial of Continuity
It is hard to say, who is to blame for the split. Perhaps the liberal dogmatists deserve a somewhat larger share of the blame. The reason why is nicely brought out in Holmes' studies of liberalism, whose core insight is that many of the social desiderata and attainments favoured by anti-liberals and denied and rejected by liberals are in truth perfectly compatible with the basic convictions of classical liberals, not only viewed with hindsight, but often also in so far as they are incorporated in the arguments for freedom of the classic authors (Locke, Hume, Smith, Kant etc).
An Exclusive Style of Moral Communication
In discussing modern policy issues we are often using aspects of classical liberalism as points of reference, without being aware of it. That is, there is more classical liberalism included in our most vivid and topical debates. The discussion is still strongly committed to liberal views and values. But we fail to acknowledge the paradigmatic unity that is overarching the deliberations.
In discussing modern policy issues we are often using aspects of classical liberalism as points of reference, without being aware of it. That is, there is more classical liberalism included in our most vivid and topical debates. The discussion is still strongly committed to liberal views and values. But we fail to acknowledge the paradigmatic unity that is overarching the deliberations.
Instead, we overemphasis the revisionist demarcation line, declaring
The way we address freedom in public discourse seems to represent a style of defective or at least one-sided, truncated and in this respect misleading moral communication.
Overambitious Theory
Finally, I see a correspondence between the problems of a self-contained ethical theory and the decline of classical liberalism. Theoretical ideals - such as consistency or ubiquitous applicability - are given undue precedence over the organic interaction between the conjectures and refutations that we may distil both from theory and practice.
- this to be classical liberal (and incompatible with progressivism), and
- that to be progressive (and incompatible with classic liberalism).
The way we address freedom in public discourse seems to represent a style of defective or at least one-sided, truncated and in this respect misleading moral communication.
Overambitious Theory
Finally, I see a correspondence between the problems of a self-contained ethical theory and the decline of classical liberalism. Theoretical ideals - such as consistency or ubiquitous applicability - are given undue precedence over the organic interaction between the conjectures and refutations that we may distil both from theory and practice.
No comments:
Post a Comment