Misunderstanding Liberalism (3) — Division of Labour, Individualism, and Politics

Image credit.

Continued from here.

In the below quote, Ernest Gellner reminds us of an iconoclastic argument advanced by one of the founders of sociology, Émile Durkheim (1858–1917), in his classic De la division du travail social.

In a daring, perhaps wildly unfaithful interpretation, what I take away from Durkheim is that liberalism—the attempt to think through and take advantage of the logic of an individualistic society—much rather envisions a form of 'benign collectivism' than a playing field for hard-nosed lone fighters.

Its theme is the puzzling dream of social cohesion and solidarity in a world that has recently turned us into agents in the social game far more autonomous than our ancestors have ever been. Whether you hate or welcome the new self-reliance, individualism is a condition that we cannot get rid of; it is a given of our era that we can only strive to adapt to, hopefully making it a new source of gain and comfort.   

Liberalism is trying to facilitate relationships between human beings that improve their lot by instituting better forms of interdependence and mutual considerateness compared to

• the oppressive past, when the individual was crammed into pre-established patterns, and likewise compared to 

• the ideal of the standalone autonomous self-made man attaining high status in a subsequent self-distortion of liberalism.

Writes Gellner:

What Durkheim has done was to try to take away the appeal of human interdependence and cooperation, of social integration, from the romantics and reactionaries who attributed it to earlier societies, and who deplored its decline in modern societies.

He did so by pointing out that it was primitive man who was standardised, and that it was modern man who attained, through a more highly developed division of labour, a far greater complementarity and interdependence with his fellows.

This it seemed, togetherness was the coming thing, rather than something which we were losing.

This approach also meant the theft of the idea of division of labour from the economists: its real function was not to produce more and better pins , but make us depend on each other,  in a manner more effective an d altogether superior to the one which had prevailed before.

When we were alike we had little to offer one another. Now e have come to differ, we need each other. 

Gellner, E. (1987), Culture, Identity, and Politics, Cambridge, CUP,  p.30 — emphasis in the original.

Disapproval of Self-Interest - Atavistic and Regressive

If one adopts this perspective, the habitual revulsion in certain political quarters directed at a society based on tolerance for self-interest appears atavistic, and outright regressive. It misses the new quality of solidarity made possible under a regime of freedom.

Tolerance for Self-Interest Encourages Political Activity

What I take away from and, by an aspect or two, add to Durkheim with respect to my own thinking concerning freedom and politics is that for mutually enhancing and mutually considerate relationships between autonomous self-interested individuals to unfold we rely on the expansion and intensification of political activity among human beings to the point of complete popularisation.

I refer to politics as exerting influence on one another both in the private and the public sphere. In a vein of open-ended questioning that bars no iconoclasm and provokes innovation and change.

The Scaffolding of Change - Division of Labour Encourages Individualism, and Individualism Popularises Political Behaviour

If man is to take full advantage of the growing division of labour—in fact, if the division of labour is to continue to ramify fruitfully—he, that is: anyone who cares to, must be able to participate in its creation and be free to challenge old branches of it and add new ones. Everyone is the agent of creative destruction—not only in the field of economic competition, but—in almost all dimensions of the social universe. We are still left with functional inequalities—though not vested in the superiority of a person or her station as such, but justified by defeasible effectiveness—however, these inequalities are generally considered admissible only on the basis of total equality of all citizens in their capacity as political participants and co-shapers of the community.

Division of Labour — Driving Force of Individualism

Individualism is a self-enforcing, self-perpetuating, self-expanding historic trend at this stage in the development of human society. What its successor will look like I have no idea. Its driving force is the division of labour, the ability of society to generate means of sustenance sufficient to let increasing numbers of the community depart from the formerly common task of ensuring alimentation and increasingly occupy themselves with entirely new specialised skills.

The all-purpose human becomes an asset of growing value once the division of labour gains self-sustaining, self-widening momentum. The new tolerance for, in fact, the new need for all-purpose humans appreciates and leverages the individualistic qualities enclosed in human nature since time immemorial. It has become useful to society to let the individual out of the cages of custom and ordained status. So much so that societies that suffocate and disprize individualism sooner or later lose out vis-à-vis their more individualistic competitors. Epochal individualism is one of the most powerful attractors in "the corridor of success" which ensures—by oscillation around and reversion to the mean, i.e. the line-up of strong attractors—that societies reasonably advanced on the way to freedom do not stray too far from her.

Summary

Seeking political influence is a natural desire and indispensable prerequisite in a society with a division of labour so highly developed as to bring forth and continually enforce individualism.

This is why a free society is not the answer to a politicised society—a hope ardently entertained by liberals. A free society is by its very nature the most politicised kind of society ever to have prevailed among human beings.

Continued here.