While the term “liberal” had long been used in English to denote assorted aristocratic dispositions, mores, and pursuits, it only assumed a specifically political meaning in the early nineteenth century. Borrowed from the Spanish Liberales of the 1812 Constitution, the term was first employed in a derogatory manner by Tories to malign their Whig opponents. During the 1820s it was reclaimed by some radical Whigs, in a classical example of rhetorical redescription, to characterise individuals and policies dedicated to non-revolutionary reform, although it also became associated with the small but vocal group of “philosophic radicals,” including the young John Stuart Mill. “Liberal” was increasingly utilised to describe the politico-economic demands of the emergent middle classes. Yet it was still an obscure and marginal category: during the 1820s and 1830s ‘“liberals’ were not a firmly defined group and ‘liberalism’ did not securely mark out a single intellectual phenomenon.” It was only during the second half of the century that usage proliferated, though it remained closely tied to the creed of the newly named Liberal Party.--Duncan Bell (2014) "What Is Liberalism?" Political Theory, 2014, Vol. 42(6) 6 693
Throughout these Digressions I have been making passing references to Bell's important article since I read it last Summer. But it might be useful to state my disagreement with it in a more forthright manner. But before I get to that it is worth stating that for anyone interested in the construction(s) of (a) liberal tradition(s) it is full of sober and sobering analysis. And, in particular, it is very interesting on the utilitarian attitude toward Locke and also has a very plausible story to tell how Locke became a kind of canonical ur-Liberal. (Along the way it also makes some very useful historiographical distinctions that I will return to some day.)
A natural reading of Bell's piece is that 'liberal' in a political sense originates in the start of the nineteenth century in a Spanish political context and then later -- not unlike some other phenomena -- used in a derogatory matter before it became a kind of self-description. Unfortunately, Bell does not explain what he means by 'a specifically political meaning.' And that might mean that what follows attacks a straw man in some sense. But even so, the intended contrast is with the (somehow unpolitical?) attitude associated with liberality as an aristocratic disposition. Fair enough.
Now consider the following passage published in 1776:
Mr. Colbert, the famous minister of Louis XIV, was a man of probity, of great industry and knowledge of detail, of great experience and acuteness in the examination of public accounts, and of abilities, in short, every way fitted for introducing method and good order into the collection and expenditure of the public revenue. That minister had unfortunately embraced all the prejudices of the mercantile system, in its nature and essence a system of restraint and regulation, and such as could scarce fail to be agreeable to a laborious and plodding man of business, who had been accustomed to regulate the different departments of public offices, and to establish the necessary checks and controls for confining each to its proper sphere. The industry and commerce of a great country he endeavoured to regulate upon the same model as the departments of a public office; and instead of allowing every man to pursue his own interest in his own way, upon the liberal plan of equality, liberty, and justice, he bestowed upon certain branches of industry extraordinary privileges, while he laid others under as extraordinary restraints. He was not only disposed, like other European ministers, to encourage more the industry of the towns than that of the country; but, in order to support the industry of the towns, he was willing even to depress and keep down that of the country.--Wealth of Nations, 4.9.3 (emphasis added)
I have quoted context because in it Smith is criticizing mercantilism severely. (Recall my post from yesterday in which I suggest this is an important stream for the development of liberalism.) And mercantilism is not merely criticized economically it is criticized politically--it's a system of 'restraint and regulation.' In fact, mercantilism is here presented as an ordering of the economy on the model of political bureaucracy and political functions ("different departments of public office.") that creates a kind of system of checks and balances within the economy by using incentives and prohibitions. In fact, Smith is explicit that it's a system biased in favor of the town and against the country.
Now, a lot can be said about Smith's analysis of mercantilism (as a kind of ideology--Enzo Rossi and Paul Raekstad have some neat ideas on this). But what matters here is his motive to do so: and that is to draw a contrast with his own system: the "liberal plan of equality, liberty, and justice." Now, undoubtedly Smith is relying on the positive valence of 'liberal' as in 'generous' (associated with liberality)--I will discuss this below. But the terms he uses -- equality, liberty, and justice -- suggests that we're not in the realm of an aristocratic disposition, but in a political characterization of a system of political economy: the liberal plan.
To be sure, in Wealth of Nations, Smith most frequently uses 'liberal' to mean something like 'abundant' (as in 'liberal wages' or 'the liberal reward of labour.') And in a note added to the fourth addition he starts the book while thanking Henry Hope for his "liberal information" on the Bank of Amsterdam, where the information is not just abundant but clearly given in a generous spirit (of liberality) by Mr. Hope. And Smith also sometimes uses liberal in the still somewhat familiar sense of 'liberal professions' (which are, in fact, liberally rewarded and draw in most liberal spirits) and the 'liberal arts' (less rewarded). And in this abundant sense, landlords, governments, princes, and even banks are described as 'liberal' (although according to Smith such liberality was the undoing of a might yScottish bank (the Ayr bank)). In general 'liberal' in this sense is contrasted with 'moderate' or 'scanty.' When used like this, 'liberal' and 'liberality' are generally descriptive terms.
Near the end of Wealth of Nations, Smith draws a distinction -- one important in The Theory of Moral Sentiments -- between two kinds mores/ethical systems: one austere, the other "the liberal, or, if you will, the loose system." (WN 5.1.g.10) And this is indeed the system apt for higher ranks. So, I do not want to deny that Smith also uses the non-political sense of 'liberal.'
The first time that Smith uses 'liberal' to refer to something like his own system, occurs also in Book IV: "Were all nations to follow the liberal system of free exportation and free importation, the different states into which a great continent was divided would so far resemble the different provinces of a great empire." (WN 4.5.b.39) What's notable about this instance is that it looks like the liberal system merely denotes free trade. Although Smith is quick to point out (anticipating an idea that Kant runs with) that the political effect of such a system is to turn a free trade zone into a kind of empire. Again, while there is no doubt that Smith wants to evoke his system as the generous one, the meaning of 'liberal' here is if not outright political at least clearly economic. Later in the same paragraph (the second use of 'liberal' in the sense that interests me), Smith writes "But very few countries
have entirely adopted this liberal system." What's nice, for my purposes, is that the adoption of the liberal system is clearly presented as subject to political decision. And these passages set up the material I quoted from WN 4.9.3
In fact, there are instances of Smith's use of 'liberal' that are ambiguous. Smith describes free trade with colonies, as a liberal policy (WN 4.7.b.24). But here he is not quite describing his own system, and I think it's natural to understand him as suggesting it is a generous policy. (Something similar occurs when he speaks of "The liberality of England, however, towards the trade of her colonies has been confined chiefly to what concerns the market for their produce..." (WN 4.7.b.40) And he also describes the mercantile trade policy of "Great Britain" as "illiberal" (WN 4.7.b.50) So, the coupling of free trade with 'liberal' as generous occurs throughout book IV in Wealth of Nations, even though it's not always 'the liberal plan.' Smith, a professor of rhetoric, clearly is using liberal for rhetorical effect when describing his own system: "According to this liberal and generous system, therefore, the most advantageous method in which a landed nation can raise up artificers, manufacturers and merchants of its own, is to grant the most perfect freedom of trade to the artificers, manufacturers and merchants of all other nations." (WN 4.9.24)
So, my claim is the following: Smith clearly appropriated the term 'liberal' to apply to his own system and also used it as a name of his system (which he also sometimes called 'the system of natural liberty.') This system is a proper ancestor of nineteenth century liberalism (which often explicitly referred to Smith or evoked him). I actually believe this is also what happened in Spain. Smith's Wealth of Nations was translated into Spanish and very important to the debates surrounding the Spanish 1812 constitution (see this piece by Javier Usoz). I leave it to others to decide and figure out to what degree by adopting themselves as liberales this political group intended to evoke Smith's liberalism.
I am happy to learn from Duncan Bell that 'liberalism' was still fairly obscure in the 1820s and that to be a 'liberal' meant little to most (despite the non-obscurity of Smith's works throughout this period--his followers were not known as liberals). But by ignoring Smith's role in the genesis of liberalism, and his use in describing his own theory as 'liberal', Bell ends up obscuring a very important episode in the history of liberalism as an intellectual and political tradition. Many of the most important liberals of the nineteenth century -- Cobden, Bright, etc. even Mill to some degree -- were Smithians in non-trivial sense. And I worry that by suggesting that 'liberal' is merely an early nineteenth century Spanish import, something important to liberal self-understanding today gets lost.
Comments