Webinar: “A Morphology of Political Liberalism” by Aref Ebadi

Aref Ebadi, who holds a PhD in political theory from the University of Nottingham and a postdoctorate from the University of Cambridge, speaks in this session on political liberalism, with an emphasis on English liberalism.

It seems that the seven components of the ideology of liberalism are: liberty, rationality, individuality, progress, sociability, public interests, and limited and accountable government. These components can be seen in the ideology of liberalism over these several centuries, though they are not, of course, the ideal type of liberalism; rather, in each period, according to social and intellectual conditions, certain elements and components are added or subtracted. Although these changes are gradual, they may ultimately result in a concept completely different from its original meaning; likewise, the elements emphasized by each thinker may differ. Moreover, it should be noted that these elements themselves can have different meanings. All of this shows us that we are not faced with a liberalism possessing a fixed meaning, but with liberalisms (in the plural) that have evolved over time.

To demonstrate this evolution and fluidity, the layers of liberalism in each period can be shown: Seventeenth century: Limited government Eighteenth century: Free economic interaction Nineteenth century: Liberalism as a theory of progress Late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries: Liberalism and the welfare state Twentieth century: Liberal pluralism

A) In the Seventeenth Century: Limited Government

One of the important events of the sixteenth century was the Reformation movement, or religious reform, during which the church's monopoly on religious rites was weakened and the relationship of the individual with the church and God underwent changes. One of the consequences of this theological dispute, which manifested in other spheres, was questioning the nature of truth and the criteria for acquiring and justifying it. Another event that occurs is the growth of the natural sciences, through which a secular reading of the universe replaces the religious reading. And parallel to these, states also grow, seeking to replace the church.

It is with such conditions in mind that one must turn to John Locke. Locke first challenges the theory of the divine right of kings, which had been proposed by Sir Robert Filmer. He claims that, based on an analysis of the texts of the Old and New Testaments, it cannot be shown that Adam and his successors have a divine right to rule over the world. Also, with reference to those same religious sources and the famous phrase that God created man in His own image, he attempts to demonstrate the equality of men and women. John Locke considers the right to life, liberty, and the right to property as the natural rights of human beings. In fact, by emphasizing the "natural" character of these rights, he seeks to show that all human beings, regardless of their gender, class, or race, have basic and natural rights, which are the right to life, liberty, and the right to property. In Locke's view, these rights constitute the individual's human nature, and every human being possesses them just as they possess hands and feet, and does not owe their existence to government or civil society. Therefore, these are the nature and essence of the human being, and anyone who takes these away from a person has, in effect, stripped that individual of their status as a human being. However, Locke believes that in the state of nature, these rights are fragile, and so individuals enter into a compact that justifies the existence of government to preserve and guarantee these rights. According to this compact, if a government violates these rights, the people can legitimately challenge that government and revolt against it. Locke also distinguishes between liberty and license. Liberty means that individuals, under the banner of law and within certain limits, can pursue their own lives, whereas license means absolute freedom and the absence of laws and customs. Locke opposes the latter and recognizes liberty under rules. With all these descriptions, it can be said that in the seventeenth century, liberalism seeks to limit the power of the state and expand the private sphere. So, among the seven elements of liberalism, in the seventeenth century, liberty is in the first layer, individuality and limited government are in the second layer, rationality and progress are in the third layer, and finally, public interests and sociability are placed in the subsequent layers.

B) The Eighteenth Century: Free Economic Interaction

The eighteenth century is known for the Enlightenment movement, which had far-reaching effects and placed rationality at the center of its focus, asserting that individuals, solely through the correct use of their own reason and without recourse to any authority, are capable of attaining a universal and correct understanding of the world. Immanuel Kant's famous motto, "Dare to use your own understanding," should be understood in this context. Thus, in this era, individual rationality gains priority. The thinkers of this period were deeply influenced by the success of Newtonian physics and imagined that if Newton could explain the natural world with a few simple laws, how could similar laws be found in the world of the social sciences? It was through this modeling and imitation of Newton that understanding the individual and society gained importance. The aim of this understanding was to discover the laws of "social physics" and, based on these laws, to change society in their desired direction. Such reasoning necessitates an understanding of human beings and the laws governing their behavior in society. The thinkers of this era wanted to know what force causes individuals to undertake an action or to refrain from doing something. Some thinkers of this period believed that this factor is the pursuit of profit or pleasure and the avoidance of loss and harm. It is in this period that freedom gradually takes on the meaning of laissez-faire, meaning individuals should be free from state intervention so they can use their own rationality and pursue their own interests, and it is through the pursuit of these interests that their individuality finds meaning.

Furthermore, ethical systems emerge that seek to calculate the profit and benefit of every action. Jeremy Bentham's utilitarianism is one of the prominent examples of this way of thinking. Bentham sought to create a precise table to determine how much pleasure or pain each action produces. On this basis, he advised politicians to pursue "the greatest good for the greatest number."

c) The Nineteenth Century: Emphasis on the Progress of Individuals

John Stuart Mill is considered one of the most important representatives of nineteenth-century liberalism. Unlike Bentham, he believes that utility is not solely summarized in the acquisition of pleasure. What is important for Mill is that the individual in life can freely choose among alternative options and determine the ends of their own life, as well as the means to achieve them, for themselves. It is for this reason that in his book "On Liberty," the relationship between the individual and society and the "tyranny of the majority" is at the center of his argument, rather than the relationship between the individual and the government. He says that society should not impose a specific way of life or set of beliefs on the individual and disregard alternative modes of life. Thus, Mill's goal is to protect the individual from society. Mill believes that progress is possible when individuals in society pursue diverse and sometimes conflicting ends. Individuals are free to pursue whatever goal they wish in life, provided that the pursuit of that goal does not harm other members of society. Mill is concerned about the imposition of a single way of life on individuals' lives and desires the existence of a diversity of life ends. For this reason, he repeatedly reminds us that even if a particular end becomes dominant in society, individuals must, even if artificially, propose other ends so that truth may emerge from the exchange of viewpoints. In Mill's view, a uniform society imposes tyranny on the individual and deprives individuals of creativity and new initiatives. To prevent the tyranny of society, one must first be able to freely choose the end they want in life, and secondly, choose the path to that end for themselves. So, in this period, it can be said that progress and freedom are in the first layer.

d) The Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries: Liberalism and the Welfare State

In this era, when a vast gap had opened between rich and poor, some Social Darwinists advanced the claim of the “survival of the fittest,” by which they meant the “wealthy.” On this basis, the state and society should not worry about the elimination of the poor, because in their view the “laws of nature” dictated that these individuals step aside in the process of “evolution” and make way for the “stronger.” It should be noted, of course, that this interpretation of evolution was a misuse of Darwin’s theory and its improper application in another domain. In this period, thinkers such as Green, Hobhouse, and Hobson (known as the New Liberals) believed that freedom should not be understood as the absence of state intervention, because someone who works eighteen hours a day cannot enjoy freedom to the same extent as the factory owner. Therefore, the state is obliged to intervene in certain cases and provide the conditions for a minimum of freedom for all members of society. In the view of these thinkers, in this era freedom existed only for a small minority, and the vast multitude could not make use of freedom. Society is like a cohesive whole; one cannot focus solely on the growth and progress of a small part of it while leaving other strata in poverty. Hence, for the first time, the idea of the welfare state was proposed, which must attend to the condition of individuals in the lower economic classes of society, and this intervention in fact means liberating them. Thus, in this period, the public interest takes the foremost place.

e) The Twentieth Century: Liberal Pluralism

New Liberalism (not to be confused with neoliberalism) or social democracy, from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, gradually reaches the mid-twentieth century. Having lived through the experience of two world wars, it encounters new problems in the mid-twentieth century. From the period after the Second World War onward, segments of society that had received less attention (such as women) gradually placed their issues at the center of the liberal perspective. Moreover, with the expansion of migration by individuals from different countries and cultures to liberal countries, the views and concerns of ethnic and religious minorities—who had now become an inseparable part of liberal democracies—found their place in discussions concerning freedom and justice. A host of these minorities hold beliefs that are not entirely compatible with the ideals of liberalism. The question of this era is: what should be done about these conflicts? Should the liberal state set aside minorities and impose its own conception of the purpose of life? On the other hand, if minorities are allowed to live freely, but conflicts ultimately arise among their ideals, does the liberal state have the right to intervene? Two important thinkers in this era are Isaiah Berlin and John Rawls, who, of course, held entirely different views from one another. In this section, we will only address Isaiah Berlin. Berlin believed that the concepts we call values are fundamentally in conflict with one another. For example, a value such as freedom stands opposed to another value, namely equality. One cannot have a society in which both freedom and equality exist at their highest levels. If we leave individuals free, equality among them diminishes, and if we try to make individuals equal, we have restricted their freedom. Berlin held that this conflict between values arises from human nature. Human beings want things that cannot be combined. In Berlin’s view, this is not a weakness of humanity but the beauty of human life, and it has fostered the diversity of groups and cultures. He did not believe that these conflicts could be resolved once and for all, because, as stated, these conflicts are inherent in human nature, and eliminating them would mean eliminating humanity. Berlin quoted Kant as saying, “Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.” The sole duty of the state in this context is to provide, as far as possible, conditions in which different and sometimes conflicting values can coexist in society and continue their existence.

.

---

.

References:

Freeden M. (1978/2011) The New Liberalism: An Ideology of Social Reform: Oxford University Press.

Freeden M. (1996) Ideologies and Political Theory: A Conceptual Approach: Oxford University Press.

Freeden M. (2013) The Political Theory of Political Thinking: The Anatomy of a Practice, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gaus GF. (2005) The Place of Autonomy within Liberalism. In Autonomy and the Challenges to Liberalism: New Essays. Christman J & Anderson J (eds). Cambridge University Press. pp. 272-306 .

Siedentop L. (2014) Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism. Harvard University Press.

Fawcett F. (2014) Liberalism: The Life of An Idea. Princeton University Press.

Bellamy R. (1999); Liberalism and Pluralism: Towards a Politics of Compromise. London: Routledge.

Backhouse R, et al (2017) Liberalism and the Welfare State in Britain,1890–1945. In Bateman B & et al (eds); Liberalism and the Welfare State: Economists and Arguments for the Welfare State. Oxford University Press, pp. 25-38

Barry N (1986) On Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism. London: Macmillan Ltd.

Griffiths S (2011) Pluralism, Neo-Liberalism and the ‘All-Knowing’ State, Journal of Political Ideologies, 16:3, 295-311 .

Weinstock D (2015) Liberalism and Multiculturalism. In Wall S (ed); The Cambridge Companion to Liberalism. Cambridge University Press, pp. 305-328

Rosenblatt H (2018) The Lost History of Liberalism: From Ancient Rome to the Twenty-First Century. Princeton University Press.

Ryan A (2012) The Making of Modern Liberalism. Princeton University Press.

Skinner Q (1965) History and Ideology in the English Revolution, The Historical Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, 151-178 .

Weinstein D (2007) Utilitarianism and the New Liberalism. Cambridge University Press.

Alexander J (2015) The Major Ideologies of Liberalism, Socialism and Conservatism, Political Studies, 63(5), 980–994 .

Leach R (2002) Political Ideology in Britain. London: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.

.

---

.

Watch the webinar on YouTube

Watch the webinar on Aparat

Download the webinar audio

.

---

.