Regular readers know (recall) that I believe the second wave of liberalism+ has ended and that it may not survive the present darkness. (In brief: first long wave: 1776-1914; second wave: 1945-2009. Some readers will say, good riddance, and to you I say, I hope you do better.) The present crisis is much visible in our daily politics (and headlines), shifting public norms, and the rising confidence of regimes and thinkers who, again, openly espouse hierarchical, ethnic, zero-sum, eugenic, and violent solutions to present conflicts.* While there is much urgent, practical work to be done to salvage institutions that may be at the core of a renewal, some reflection away from daily politics is also required. This also requires attention not just because we need polities that make minimal decency possible,** but also because we need (or so I assume today) properly functioning liberal institutions to meet humanity's great challenges -- environmental disaster, genetic engineering, ethnic conflict, -- ahead. To reflect on our shortcomings is a means of being liberal as well as a path toward its possible renewal. This is the third post (recall here and here) in an open-ended series (see also here, here, here, and here).
What follows, then is the start of an attempt to display the existential challenges to liberalism that arise from within. I do not offer solutions to these challenges and so invite readers to chime in. In earlier posts, I discussed three self-inflicted wounds such as (i) For profit media; and (ii) the financialization of the economy; (iii) the Embrace of Revealed Preferences/The Rejection of a Philosophy of Life. Today, by contrast, I want to focus on the ways in which liberal commitments have proven to be Trojan horses for those who go on to subvert core liberal values (e.g., the harm principle, the avoidance of cruelty, individual autonomy, non-dogmatism, freedom, justice, etc.) from within. Each of the values/institutions I describe below draw on long-standing liberal commitments in order to to establish potentially illiberal outcomes. While there are non-trivial and important differences in the cases I shall mention, what makes these cases so difficult is that initially they can all be viewed, generously, as experiments in living or transition phenomena,
Markets. One of the most troubling phenomena of the last few decades is the ability of dictatorships to harnas the power, wealth-production, and creativity of market economies while maintaining, even reinforcing oppressive regimes that routinely violate even minimal human rights over many decades. While it once would have seemed natural to expect that market societies promote the rise of liberal values, experience suggests that this need not translate in more liberal political orders. That this occurs is not a bug, but a feature of modern market economies, which tend to presuppose political orders with strong state capacity capable of generating robust expectations.* One need not be only cynical about this: dictatorial market economies improve standards of living and provide realms of freedom worth having. But that's compatible with significant forms of political repression. This situation may well prove durable: new technologies have provided means for cost-effective surveillance, monitoring, and (as we have learned) foreign digital interference. Before long we should expect robotic means of crowd-control and security apparatuses. Open societies have plenty of advantages against illiberal market economies, but we ought not expect that the latter will simply crumble or melt away.
Homo-nationalism. One interesting example of the rise of liberal values, especially those associated with sexual freedoms, translating into political breakthroughs are the successes of gay rights/marriage movements. This has led to the fascinating modern spectacle (especially in some European countries) of the embrace of gay rights as a key element of national identity (recall this post). This had the positive effect of making such states somewhat more willing to provide asylum for persecuted gays and lesbians; in addition, and perhaps, more importantly, it turned law-enforcement away from being a tool of oppression of gays and lesbians to a possible (undoubtedly imperfect) source of protection. Even so, the embrace of gay rights as constitutive of national identity has turned into a means of generating social cleavages within society such that those minority communities (generally poorer and already discriminated against) with more conservative sexual mores are treated, often with relentless public vitriol, as backward and, when also Islamic, as barbarian. (This has also had an effect on willingness to provide asylum to those fleeing Islamic societies.)
When liberal values themselves become the means and justification for oppression something has gone wrong+--for example, a violation of the harm principle or the expectation that one is treated with minimal dignity. The solution here is not to give up on the new gay and lesbian rights/protections. But there is no reason why these rights in particular need to be elevated to a key part of national self-identity (without, say, an equally robust commitment to pluralism) if the predictable consequence is to create other forms of social oppression.**
The Power of Public Opinion. The use of liberal values to promote illiberal ends is not uncommon. For example, there are now many instances of apparently expansive embraces of freedom of speech, which (recall) becomes the cover for (sometimes well-funded) vituperative intimidation and silencing and, so, are de-facto self-undermining. Something similar happens with new forms of public opinion to hold others accountable. That this is possible is a key liberal commitment. Marshaling public opinion is one of the most treasured means for the powerless to impact the behavior of the powerful. Modern social media have revolutionized this potential. Yet, social media campaigns to raise public awareness about some form of chronic injustice can, when genuine political breakthroughs fail, transform into illiberal, cultures of idiosyncratic punishment by public shaming. (I leave aside here the very real possibility that with the rise of social media we may see the development of human beings who lack the capacity for shame. ) For example, #MeToo is a vital cultural moment along many important dimensions; but if it is not translated into changed mores and (via the political process) improved juridical practices, it's quite possible that over time it becomes an illiberal means of social control that leaves intact, even reinforces, patriarchy.*** That's no argument against #MeToo now, but the future risk is also real.+++
I honestly don't know what the answers are to the (potential) problems I have diagnosed here. (And I am not claiming to be original!) But we need to honestly face the possibility that a liberal advance along some dimensions may sometimes entail the undermining of (other) liberal practices worth having. Given human imperfection that's not so surprising.
*If Foucault is correct, then modern market economies also presuppose considerable forms of self-domestication of populations.
+Something similar has happened with animal rights (which I don't treat as a liberal value). I have discussed before how in many European countries animal rights are promoted selectively at the expense of minority populations (Muslims and Jews). In the very same countries were grotesque animal farming and machinated mass killing of animals take place, animal rights activists have mobilized quite selective outrage against ritual slaughter of animals by members of politically weak groups, whose lives are made more marginal (and costly).
**It's quite notable that the right to an abortion is not so elevated nor is protection of minority rights.
***While the risk of exposure can be a deterrent, if there are no predictable and commensurable state action, then it also becomes a means to reinforce hierarchies within an illiberal society (with authorities being able to blackmail, selectively disclose information, etc.).
+++Go gets to decide when the risks outweigh the benefits? Not me, of course. Who might? Ahh...Public opinion?
Comments