Dear Glenn, I have sympathy for your argument that the strive for freedom in liberalism will, in the end, distroy cohesion.
But I don't agree with the cause and effect relation you seem to suggest.
I see society becoming less and less cohesive just like you do. And is has in part to do with the striving of liberalism. But this emancipatory strive is for good reason.
In the pre-modern morality there are unfair power relations that come with it. Based on gender, race and financial or religous power.
You can’t adress this problem in full without addressing this unfair power relations that are enshrined in pre modern morality.
The problem is, as you mention, that the strive for freedom kills the moral foundation that society needs to keep it together. The problem is then that the disappearing “unfair” morality is not replaced with an other unifying alternative moral that is more fair.
That is because capital is determining wich way the world is turning.
Consumption is the aim. Tradition, different cultures, different nations are only obstacles for making al citizens of the world like the same consumer wanting the same things to buy.
So in my opinion it is not the strive for freedom in itself that is the problem. The problem is that the void that comes as result of that striving is replaced by just one value: “buying the same things as anyone else” and the unequality that goes with it.
Why couldn’t we create more emancipatory values around the well being of common people instead of creating profit for a select elite group of superrich, dividing wealth around the world instead of the rich part of the world exploiting the more poor part and preserving our ecological systems that also form a foundation of our societies.
Ofcourse we don't agree about what values everybody needs to strive for. But we could have a consersation about it. A conversation around the ideas of Jason Hickel and his de-growth would be a good start as far as it depends on me.
Hi Glenn, decent essay, was pleasantly and agreeably reading along until this far, then I hope you have the time to spare on a few thoughts on the rest. I love your work on the Duran, btw! :)
[quote]"The contemporary divorce of liberalism from the nation-state represents the individual’s rejection of all imposition by external authority. Objective morality is replaced by moral relativism, the secular state transitions to radical secularism as Christianity is increasingly purged from society, unifying culture is replaced by multiculturalism, the family as the most important institution disintegrates, and the individual now even seeks to liberate itself from biological realities with the current gender ideology. As the individual increasingly identifies solely by itself, it produces a toxic combination of narcissism and nihilism that plagues social cohesion."
"The balance between the citizens’ rights and duties collapses with unpredictable consequences as morality and meaning largely derive from the sense of duty to the group. Political liberalism was born in the French Revolution under the slogan of “liberty, equality, fraternity”, yet the communitarian ethos of fraternity is rarely acknowledged anymore as a condition for liberal ideals to survive. The French Revolution introduced both nationalism and democracy as the nation became a sturdy vessel to advance the rights of the individual. Can and should liberalism increasingly divorce itself from the external influences of the nation?[/quote]
You haven't 'proven' your claim that Liberalism was rooted in the nation state, and that is a very dubious claim to begin with. If the right is hierarchy, and the left fraternite, then liberalism is marketplace. These are human 'instincts' that far predate new 'nation states'. Liberalism as an ideology also extends back at least millenia. In the same vein, so do the two Golden Rules; Do not treat others as you would not wish to be treated; treat others as you would wish to be treated. And therein follows your next possible error - assuming that "Christianity" is the source of morality in Western culture. Actually, nearly everyone would accept the Golden Rules properly appled as a moral code - wouldn't you? Good and bad behaviour are easily discerned. Whereas to any observer, Christianity is a lesson for BAD morality and behaviour in comparison. In ideology, actions, history, institutions.
That is not to diminish the role of existing culture and religions and institutions, and history. They ARE very important, and liberalism wll overextend into them, this much - your main points so far - I agree with. Just not that your personal favourites in the matter are actually essentials. :)
[quote]"The counterargument is that secularism results in moral relativism. Religion provides permanent truths and divine authority as the foundation for a unifying morality. When Friedrich Nietzsche referred to the rise of secularism as the “death of God”, and cautioned it would result in the collapse of traditional moral values as moral truths would lose their grounding. As a result, moral relativism would emerge as the would be devoid of absolute moral truths. This was also a popular theme by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, most famously expressed in Crime and Punishment in which the excesses of reason convinced the protagonist Rodion Raskolnikov that even murder could be considered moral if the wealth of a wicked old woman could be used for charity to make the world better."[/quote]
Again, a very tortuous route to a predestination. However, once again, return to the Golden Rules. Would Dostoyevsky's Raskolnikov have considered that to an even poorer person in society than he, his meagre possessions and life could also be stolen and used for charity - and would this upset him? Immediately, he would see why his actions were immoral and bad. And why.
Religions present as 'absolute truths' things that are often not. And often things that are known to be untruths, but that the resultant stupidity is useful for social control. Let's not kid ourselves that organised religion is a bunch of hippy flower-children.
Myopic worship of a fantasised past when "Everything was harmonious" tend to be glossing over many things.
[quote]"Our laws and humanitarian principles were built on the foundation of religious truths that are eternal and universal. By uprooting the religious roots, can humanism exist independently?"[/quote]
Same error. Replacing a temporal, "Made-up" religious institution with an actual set of eternal truths in the golden rules, would actually make humanism stronger. Liberal values predate "Christianity" by at least 10,000 years, and considerably longer in the archeological record.
Your mind has been colonised by rome. Lolsob.
"For example, the moral opposition to abortion was based on the value of the unborn child, which has since been successfully challenged by the rights of the woman to terminate a pregnancy."
In fact the moral opposition to abortion came from the paternal ownership of the woman and child. It was the norm throughout all prehistory that the pregnancy belonged to the woman, who could choose the gift or decide she wasn't ready. You are looking through a Roman lens darkly. It was Rome's fascistic control of women, unnatural to Europe and unknown to it in any recorded history, that changed this normal scheme of things, turning women into male property by birth.
The value of the unborn, and the potential burden of guilt, were always taken into consideration by tribal midwives. But not used for outright male control.
You have it back to front.
[quote]"Protection of the child is similarly diminished, as for example, sterilisation of children is permitted to accommodate the rights or sensibilities of gender ideology. Where is the eternal and unifying truth and authority? Furthermore, as these issues are framed as morality there is very little tolerance for dissent, which is deeply problematic as tolerance is the key condition for liberalism."[/quote]
I have been earnestly informed previously that all such claims were "Anti-trans propaganda", and so I'm sure such people won't mind the UK's recent ban on underage transitioning. As it wasn't happening anyway.
Liberalism = tolerance - Liberalism more than the other two branches of psycho-political differentation tries not to control the wild forces, unfortunately organised wild forces can take control, even while using 'liberal' language to mask who they are.
[quote]"What are the most sacred values of liberal democracies: Our societies are largely defined by the secular morality of humanism, defined by human rights, free speech, democracy, and peace. However, how solid and durable are the sacred values under moral relativism?"[/quote]
The sheer IRONY of a European, let alone a European Professor of History, asking about the durability of those "European values" after 300 years of Colonialism and Imperialism, inter-Christian wars, genocidal wars against minority religions (Like pagan witches), racial genocides on every continents, TWO globe-spanning major wars in the past century alone. As Gandhiji said.. "European civilsaton...? I think it would be a grand idea!".
What we have experienced with your "Eternal truths" insttutons is this precisely mish-mash gibberish you mention later, BECAUSE we are NOT "Built upon eternal truths" - we're getting there - but fanciful notions everyone had to be brainwashed in childhood to manage to believe.
[quote]"In Germany, protesters are now beaten by the police for protesting against genocide ...Humanitarianism no longer constrains the use of force, but is instead used to legitimise the use of force and exempt the West from abiding by international law."[/quote]
Is this a crisis for Humanism, or is its language being warped for more malevolent ends?
[quote]"It is evident that the moral arguments made in society and by our political leaders do not have any solid grounding and are not linked to anything permanent. As our most sacred values are now contested under the new moral relativism, should we question the durability of secular morality in terms of the ability to provide the foundation for a cohesive society?"[quote]
Their morality can be succinctly described as "Grab everything, and keep it for as long as possible". Seen this way, 'Western' elites are acting very morally. The "Pope" was rarely a poor person.
If your "Most sacred values" feel contested by the application of the golden rules, maybe they're not actually that sacred? Just saying.
The cohesiveness of a society depends more on the economic opportunities within it, along with social advancement for those who desire that, and a small wealth gap.
If the West truly lived up to the proclaimed values, the high-fallutin claims of the rightwingers mght make sense, but as so often with the left and right wings, it's more based upon fantasy and ahistorical mythologising.
But again, despite these niggles, a decent essay, and if I didn't mention I probably agreed with the point. :)
I agree with several of your arguments. Particularly those against religion. I am an atheist and a Marxist. Thanks for your comment. It brings up important things to ponder. I love Glenn, but any defense of religion makes my hair stand on end and makes me want to scream. I suppose that's a "cry from the heart", too.
It seems to me Norway is a pretty cohesive society, with extremely humane attitudes towards human frailty,to judge by their impressive penal system, which does not seem to require submission to supernatural myths. I imagine a UN implementing democratically determined international law might put a check on bloated power blocs masquerading as libertarian humanitarian, and i wonder if anything could be imagined as providing greater social unity than the eradication of crime and chronic insecurity by real economic well being for everyone. It seems to me liberal democracy in the mouth of ruling class westerners is merely a bludgeon for maintaining the rule of the "opulent minority", hence their inchoate gibbering about " populism"....are Xi and Putin not "populist leaders", to go by the polls?
The ANC in my country, perhaps before being overwhelmed by the neolibera privatel property fetishists, had a slogan of " well being for all." Had they actually achieved that I imagine the CIA would quickly have arrived to train NED bought mobs of " democratic" dissidents on the grounds that their popular support was an obstacle to the "real " democracy of the property fetishists and their "human", corporate rights. Who said " its the economy, stupid?"
You've lost me when advocating for belief in religion of any kind. Christianity was the absolute worst. It was a terrorist movement that sought to obliterate all classical -- Greek and Roman -- culture. Christians destroyed books, defaced art and murdered philosophers and other learned people. Karl Marx was right when he defined religion as "a cry from the heart in a heartless world; it is the opium of the people". In order for people to stop living in the primitive world of superstition, religion must be identified as a once-useful result of attempting to answer questions about life, the universe, and everything. Once we had the Enlightenment, and science, those old explanations had to go. The cult of individualism is not due to a lack of religion. It is fostered by the capitalist system which dictates that profit is all, and that one's own personal profit rules. This is the sickness that has come to overtake reason, not an extension of reason. Capitalism is another control mechanism that, along with religion, works to keep the majority of the population credulous and manipulable by the ruling factions wherever they may be.
Thank you Glenn very interesting indeed for me to see all these ideas put down into one article so I can see them together and connect them myself. Thank you. A question arises: what do you imagine the trajectory of the next phase of such a self-inflicted fatal societal cancer would look like for the West? What’s next? Also, based on your article it seems that the whole thing was always going to end up this way, as you say it’s the very nature of liberalism to self immolate?
Like Patrick Deneen, you posit an incoherent construct you call 'liberalism' and inveigh against it.
And like Patrick Deneen again, you do not tell us where you are coming from. What are you for?
I should like to know because I want to see what place what you are for gives to "allowing every man to pursue his own interest his own way, under the liberal plan of liberty, equality and justice" (Smith, WN).
Here you protest assaults on "the freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom to protest". Sounds like you'd give significant place to allowing every man to pursue his own interest his own way upon the liberal plan.
Are you a Smithian consevative liberal? Curious minds would like to know.
You suggest that a political meaning of the term 'liberal' "was born in the French Revolution."
That old falsehood has been decisively refuted. Leading scholars, like Eric Schliesser, now accept that it happened, rather, in 1770s, with Smith and his associates. Even Helena Rosenblatt now admits that we are right about that. Please learn this. Johan Norberg has recently written something good on the topic, too.
What are you for? Does it give much place to liberty, as Smith used the term in WN?
If it does, does that not make you politically liberal in the orignal sense of the term?
If yes, you might say: "Oh, but I have a better word for that..." But what word would you suggest?
And don't you see that any word you suggest will be abused and stolen by the vicious?
We who fight servitude have no good option but to hold on to 'liberal.'
Dear Glenn, I have sympathy for your argument that the strive for freedom in liberalism will, in the end, distroy cohesion.
But I don't agree with the cause and effect relation you seem to suggest.
I see society becoming less and less cohesive just like you do. And is has in part to do with the striving of liberalism. But this emancipatory strive is for good reason.
In the pre-modern morality there are unfair power relations that come with it. Based on gender, race and financial or religous power.
You can’t adress this problem in full without addressing this unfair power relations that are enshrined in pre modern morality.
The problem is, as you mention, that the strive for freedom kills the moral foundation that society needs to keep it together. The problem is then that the disappearing “unfair” morality is not replaced with an other unifying alternative moral that is more fair.
That is because capital is determining wich way the world is turning.
Consumption is the aim. Tradition, different cultures, different nations are only obstacles for making al citizens of the world like the same consumer wanting the same things to buy.
So in my opinion it is not the strive for freedom in itself that is the problem. The problem is that the void that comes as result of that striving is replaced by just one value: “buying the same things as anyone else” and the unequality that goes with it.
Why couldn’t we create more emancipatory values around the well being of common people instead of creating profit for a select elite group of superrich, dividing wealth around the world instead of the rich part of the world exploiting the more poor part and preserving our ecological systems that also form a foundation of our societies.
Ofcourse we don't agree about what values everybody needs to strive for. But we could have a consersation about it. A conversation around the ideas of Jason Hickel and his de-growth would be a good start as far as it depends on me.
Hi Glenn, decent essay, was pleasantly and agreeably reading along until this far, then I hope you have the time to spare on a few thoughts on the rest. I love your work on the Duran, btw! :)
[quote]"The contemporary divorce of liberalism from the nation-state represents the individual’s rejection of all imposition by external authority. Objective morality is replaced by moral relativism, the secular state transitions to radical secularism as Christianity is increasingly purged from society, unifying culture is replaced by multiculturalism, the family as the most important institution disintegrates, and the individual now even seeks to liberate itself from biological realities with the current gender ideology. As the individual increasingly identifies solely by itself, it produces a toxic combination of narcissism and nihilism that plagues social cohesion."
"The balance between the citizens’ rights and duties collapses with unpredictable consequences as morality and meaning largely derive from the sense of duty to the group. Political liberalism was born in the French Revolution under the slogan of “liberty, equality, fraternity”, yet the communitarian ethos of fraternity is rarely acknowledged anymore as a condition for liberal ideals to survive. The French Revolution introduced both nationalism and democracy as the nation became a sturdy vessel to advance the rights of the individual. Can and should liberalism increasingly divorce itself from the external influences of the nation?[/quote]
You haven't 'proven' your claim that Liberalism was rooted in the nation state, and that is a very dubious claim to begin with. If the right is hierarchy, and the left fraternite, then liberalism is marketplace. These are human 'instincts' that far predate new 'nation states'. Liberalism as an ideology also extends back at least millenia. In the same vein, so do the two Golden Rules; Do not treat others as you would not wish to be treated; treat others as you would wish to be treated. And therein follows your next possible error - assuming that "Christianity" is the source of morality in Western culture. Actually, nearly everyone would accept the Golden Rules properly appled as a moral code - wouldn't you? Good and bad behaviour are easily discerned. Whereas to any observer, Christianity is a lesson for BAD morality and behaviour in comparison. In ideology, actions, history, institutions.
That is not to diminish the role of existing culture and religions and institutions, and history. They ARE very important, and liberalism wll overextend into them, this much - your main points so far - I agree with. Just not that your personal favourites in the matter are actually essentials. :)
*If you have 5mins to spare for a thought-provoking sideline topic clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GxODmgjCNw - ps, I don't share his religious beliefs.
[quote]"The counterargument is that secularism results in moral relativism. Religion provides permanent truths and divine authority as the foundation for a unifying morality. When Friedrich Nietzsche referred to the rise of secularism as the “death of God”, and cautioned it would result in the collapse of traditional moral values as moral truths would lose their grounding. As a result, moral relativism would emerge as the would be devoid of absolute moral truths. This was also a popular theme by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, most famously expressed in Crime and Punishment in which the excesses of reason convinced the protagonist Rodion Raskolnikov that even murder could be considered moral if the wealth of a wicked old woman could be used for charity to make the world better."[/quote]
Again, a very tortuous route to a predestination. However, once again, return to the Golden Rules. Would Dostoyevsky's Raskolnikov have considered that to an even poorer person in society than he, his meagre possessions and life could also be stolen and used for charity - and would this upset him? Immediately, he would see why his actions were immoral and bad. And why.
Religions present as 'absolute truths' things that are often not. And often things that are known to be untruths, but that the resultant stupidity is useful for social control. Let's not kid ourselves that organised religion is a bunch of hippy flower-children.
Myopic worship of a fantasised past when "Everything was harmonious" tend to be glossing over many things.
[quote]"Our laws and humanitarian principles were built on the foundation of religious truths that are eternal and universal. By uprooting the religious roots, can humanism exist independently?"[/quote]
Same error. Replacing a temporal, "Made-up" religious institution with an actual set of eternal truths in the golden rules, would actually make humanism stronger. Liberal values predate "Christianity" by at least 10,000 years, and considerably longer in the archeological record.
Your mind has been colonised by rome. Lolsob.
"For example, the moral opposition to abortion was based on the value of the unborn child, which has since been successfully challenged by the rights of the woman to terminate a pregnancy."
In fact the moral opposition to abortion came from the paternal ownership of the woman and child. It was the norm throughout all prehistory that the pregnancy belonged to the woman, who could choose the gift or decide she wasn't ready. You are looking through a Roman lens darkly. It was Rome's fascistic control of women, unnatural to Europe and unknown to it in any recorded history, that changed this normal scheme of things, turning women into male property by birth.
The value of the unborn, and the potential burden of guilt, were always taken into consideration by tribal midwives. But not used for outright male control.
You have it back to front.
[quote]"Protection of the child is similarly diminished, as for example, sterilisation of children is permitted to accommodate the rights or sensibilities of gender ideology. Where is the eternal and unifying truth and authority? Furthermore, as these issues are framed as morality there is very little tolerance for dissent, which is deeply problematic as tolerance is the key condition for liberalism."[/quote]
I have been earnestly informed previously that all such claims were "Anti-trans propaganda", and so I'm sure such people won't mind the UK's recent ban on underage transitioning. As it wasn't happening anyway.
Liberalism = tolerance - Liberalism more than the other two branches of psycho-political differentation tries not to control the wild forces, unfortunately organised wild forces can take control, even while using 'liberal' language to mask who they are.
[quote]"What are the most sacred values of liberal democracies: Our societies are largely defined by the secular morality of humanism, defined by human rights, free speech, democracy, and peace. However, how solid and durable are the sacred values under moral relativism?"[/quote]
The sheer IRONY of a European, let alone a European Professor of History, asking about the durability of those "European values" after 300 years of Colonialism and Imperialism, inter-Christian wars, genocidal wars against minority religions (Like pagan witches), racial genocides on every continents, TWO globe-spanning major wars in the past century alone. As Gandhiji said.. "European civilsaton...? I think it would be a grand idea!".
What we have experienced with your "Eternal truths" insttutons is this precisely mish-mash gibberish you mention later, BECAUSE we are NOT "Built upon eternal truths" - we're getting there - but fanciful notions everyone had to be brainwashed in childhood to manage to believe.
[quote]"In Germany, protesters are now beaten by the police for protesting against genocide ...Humanitarianism no longer constrains the use of force, but is instead used to legitimise the use of force and exempt the West from abiding by international law."[/quote]
Is this a crisis for Humanism, or is its language being warped for more malevolent ends?
[quote]"It is evident that the moral arguments made in society and by our political leaders do not have any solid grounding and are not linked to anything permanent. As our most sacred values are now contested under the new moral relativism, should we question the durability of secular morality in terms of the ability to provide the foundation for a cohesive society?"[quote]
Their morality can be succinctly described as "Grab everything, and keep it for as long as possible". Seen this way, 'Western' elites are acting very morally. The "Pope" was rarely a poor person.
If your "Most sacred values" feel contested by the application of the golden rules, maybe they're not actually that sacred? Just saying.
The cohesiveness of a society depends more on the economic opportunities within it, along with social advancement for those who desire that, and a small wealth gap.
If the West truly lived up to the proclaimed values, the high-fallutin claims of the rightwingers mght make sense, but as so often with the left and right wings, it's more based upon fantasy and ahistorical mythologising.
But again, despite these niggles, a decent essay, and if I didn't mention I probably agreed with the point. :)
Thanks for your hard work, Glenn!
I agree with several of your arguments. Particularly those against religion. I am an atheist and a Marxist. Thanks for your comment. It brings up important things to ponder. I love Glenn, but any defense of religion makes my hair stand on end and makes me want to scream. I suppose that's a "cry from the heart", too.
It seems to me Norway is a pretty cohesive society, with extremely humane attitudes towards human frailty,to judge by their impressive penal system, which does not seem to require submission to supernatural myths. I imagine a UN implementing democratically determined international law might put a check on bloated power blocs masquerading as libertarian humanitarian, and i wonder if anything could be imagined as providing greater social unity than the eradication of crime and chronic insecurity by real economic well being for everyone. It seems to me liberal democracy in the mouth of ruling class westerners is merely a bludgeon for maintaining the rule of the "opulent minority", hence their inchoate gibbering about " populism"....are Xi and Putin not "populist leaders", to go by the polls?
The ANC in my country, perhaps before being overwhelmed by the neolibera privatel property fetishists, had a slogan of " well being for all." Had they actually achieved that I imagine the CIA would quickly have arrived to train NED bought mobs of " democratic" dissidents on the grounds that their popular support was an obstacle to the "real " democracy of the property fetishists and their "human", corporate rights. Who said " its the economy, stupid?"
You've lost me when advocating for belief in religion of any kind. Christianity was the absolute worst. It was a terrorist movement that sought to obliterate all classical -- Greek and Roman -- culture. Christians destroyed books, defaced art and murdered philosophers and other learned people. Karl Marx was right when he defined religion as "a cry from the heart in a heartless world; it is the opium of the people". In order for people to stop living in the primitive world of superstition, religion must be identified as a once-useful result of attempting to answer questions about life, the universe, and everything. Once we had the Enlightenment, and science, those old explanations had to go. The cult of individualism is not due to a lack of religion. It is fostered by the capitalist system which dictates that profit is all, and that one's own personal profit rules. This is the sickness that has come to overtake reason, not an extension of reason. Capitalism is another control mechanism that, along with religion, works to keep the majority of the population credulous and manipulable by the ruling factions wherever they may be.
Thank you Glenn very interesting indeed for me to see all these ideas put down into one article so I can see them together and connect them myself. Thank you. A question arises: what do you imagine the trajectory of the next phase of such a self-inflicted fatal societal cancer would look like for the West? What’s next? Also, based on your article it seems that the whole thing was always going to end up this way, as you say it’s the very nature of liberalism to self immolate?
Dear Professor Diesen,
Like Patrick Deneen, you posit an incoherent construct you call 'liberalism' and inveigh against it.
And like Patrick Deneen again, you do not tell us where you are coming from. What are you for?
I should like to know because I want to see what place what you are for gives to "allowing every man to pursue his own interest his own way, under the liberal plan of liberty, equality and justice" (Smith, WN).
Here you protest assaults on "the freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom to protest". Sounds like you'd give significant place to allowing every man to pursue his own interest his own way upon the liberal plan.
Are you a Smithian consevative liberal? Curious minds would like to know.
You suggest that a political meaning of the term 'liberal' "was born in the French Revolution."
That old falsehood has been decisively refuted. Leading scholars, like Eric Schliesser, now accept that it happened, rather, in 1770s, with Smith and his associates. Even Helena Rosenblatt now admits that we are right about that. Please learn this. Johan Norberg has recently written something good on the topic, too.
What are you for? Does it give much place to liberty, as Smith used the term in WN?
If it does, does that not make you politically liberal in the orignal sense of the term?
If yes, you might say: "Oh, but I have a better word for that..." But what word would you suggest?
And don't you see that any word you suggest will be abused and stolen by the vicious?
We who fight servitude have no good option but to hold on to 'liberal.'