What's the Matter with Liberalism?

What's The Matter With Liberalism?

Robert Beiner

During the 80's, liberalism was the popular ideal for political thought throughout Europe. The west won the cold war and Europe hailed the views of the market-oriented liberal west. It was considered to be the best idea of a society by many. Like all political views, there were and are many critics of this mindset of the superiority of liberalism. Robert Beiner, as one of these critics, elaborates his anti-liberal views by proving points through philosophical discourse. He references many recognized philosophers and mixes their theory with his own to describe why he considers liberalism to be a weightless argument.

Beiner begins by recognizing the great philosophers as literary masters. He appreciates the ability to highlight the weaknesses and strengths of society by telling a tale. The importance of truth seeking in both writing literature and philosophy seem to be a trait Beiner emphasizes. He correlates the purposes of each through their objectives in society. Philosophy "supplies clever arguments for favoring one set of policies rather than another" and writers "try to illuminate needs and desires of human life that the subjects themselves may have failed to acknowledge" (Beiner). I deduce from these definitions that a philosopher supplies his arguments by illuminating the needs and desires of humans. In other words, one may tell a great story in attempt to reveal needs and desires that justify ones support for specific policies. I find this to be the case with most great philosophers. I agree with Beiner that many great philosophers are literary artist such as Plato and his great work Republic. At the same time, Beiner reflects on some of the differences between the types of writings, literature and philosophy. He reflects upon the ability of literature to invoke the imagination while philosophy must be grounded in pure truth.

Beiner's critique of liberalism begins claiming the need for normative ethics. To draw such conclusions, he compares physical fitness to ethical fitness. He remarks that there are norms of physical fitness, such as "overweight, out of shape, or sluggish" (Beiner). He suggests that ethical fitness is very similar. One can make conscience decisions improving or worsening ones ethical fitness similarly to how one improves his physical status; and normative judgments should be imposed just as those of physical fitness. This is clearly implied with the exert: "Just as we can say that it is undesirable when someone is obese, unfit, and sufficiently out of shape that he or she cannot ascend a flight of stairs without panting, so we can say with no less legitimacy that it is undesirable when individuals become so ethically unfit that they are incapable of sustaining friendships, or when they corrupt their own moral ends in order to satisfy base impulses such as stinginess or greed" (Beiner). To support this argument, Beiner indicates that Aristotle based his teachings of the ethics on this principle of normative ethics by assuming that his students would already be equipped by upbringing and the ethos of their community to be receptive to his characterization of ethical well-being. I understand this viewpoint based on liberalism accepting all preferences as the prerogative of the individual thereby not having norms to what should and should not be acceptable or ethical. Aristotle based his teachings of ethics on a compilation of values that conduce to an excellent human life, which were normative as Beiner claims. Under this preface, Beiner implies that liberalisms loyalty to the individual is impossible. The impossibility lies in communal or societal set standards to respect the choice of everyone to be a prerogative without judgment, as Beiner interprets liberal philosophy.

A communitarian argument against liberalism requires a further look at communitarian theory. Communitarianism emphasizes, "that the self is embedded in the community, in the sense that each individual is a kind of embodiment of the society that has shaped his or her desires, values and purposes" (Heywood 35). This draws attention to the conceptual impossibility of separating an individual's experiences and beliefs from the social context that assigns them meaning. This is why Beiner refers to the liberal view of the self as "an incoherent theory of the self" (Beiner). He claims that liberalism requires one to override the communal citizenship and exist only as an individual, making one an incoherent member of the community.

Alasdair MacIntyre, with his essay After Virtue, gives another supporting communitarian argument against liberalism. MacIntyre uses Hegelian theory to criticize liberalisms understanding of the individual. He suggests that virtue and moral character are not simply contingent on individual choice but are based on historically evolved norms. He argues "Every moral theory presupposes a sociological and historical story that fills out the conditions of possibility of a given range of moral experiences, such as the virtues to which one aspires within a certain culture" (MacIntyre). He implies that one bases his/her preference of virtues based what the society holds to be virtuous and cannot escape the socialisms of the community. He goes as far as to argue that the desire to be autonomous evolves from participating in a society over the course of many centuries that puts a premium upon such aspirations. Beiner considers this to be something that libertarians overlook, the aspiration to be autonomous is "the expression of a debt to one's society, and in turn the source of social obligations" (Beiner). I interpret this argument to be petty. I cannot concede that the desire to be autonomous is completely socialized. I do agree some societies, specifically modern societies, have the ability to put greater emphasis on the individual, invoking a greater desire to be autonomous.

One of Aristotle's most powerful insights was that in "every society, moral life is based upon ethos, this, character formation according to socially bred customs and habit" (Beiner). Beiner conveys his view that in the "liberal dispensation," liberals pursue a lack of ethos. He argues this to be a great paradox of liberalism. He bases this on the characterization of liberalism's goal to enhance the prerogatives of the individual. He implies that under this goal, individuals are "habituated to being insufficiently habituated" (Beiner). Individuals become socialized to have their own ethos. He, without elaborating, links this to why he thinks liberalism has the tendency to turn all areas of human activity into matters of consumer

...