What is meant by liberalism?
In every day language to be liberal means to be open minded and easy
going. In politics there is a link and
that link is not necessarily positive.
As G K Chesterton pointed out, one’s mind, like one’s mouth, should on
the whole be closed unless receiving something nutritious. To be open to everything is in a sense to be
willing to undergo disintegration. It is
to lose integrity.
The great proponent of open-ness, the French-Jewish
philosopher Derrida referred to the Old Testament story of Rahab the whore who
aided the Hebrew spies in the taking of Jericho with its supposedly impregnable
walls (as pointed out by Jonathan Pageau). Here we have two key symbols – the whore who
loses her integrity of her body for money and the walls, which, when they fall
end the integrity of the city. Derrida
promoted a radical open-ness, but for us we can see the fundamental attack upon
integrity of a radical open-ness.
The reactionary Russian thinker Konstantin Leontiev regarded
Western liberalism as something like a progressive disease that destroyed the
integrity of the body politick. His use
of “progressive” is interesting given its adoption by the most radical wing of
liberalism. If our concern and priority
is integrity rather than open-ness, then progressivism does seem to lead to disintegration.
Liberalism’s roots can be found in the disintegration of
metaphysics. With the Franciscan
thinkers Duns Scotus and William of Ockham we saw the development of two new
ideas that caused a schism with the classical world of thought. With Duns Scotus we find the development of
the “thisness” of things or their haecceity. What the essence of this new philosophical outlook
entailed was that the classical idea of participation in the metaphysical was lost. It meant this because Duns Scotus believed that
particular things are irreducible and individual (indivisible). On the face of it that might suggest support
for integrity, but the problem is that it works both ways. In reducing everything to the particular, the
integrity of universals is undermined.
By atomising everything it becomes impossible to participate meaningfully
in general identities or the transcendental; or at least as the centuries
unfolded such a problem was to be revealed.
When the Franciscan Duns Scotus is linked to the other
revolutionary Franciscan thinker, William of Ockham, the momentum towards
disintegration is further intensified. With his nominalism Ockham denied the
existence of universals. Forms were
merely names given to link disparate things (hence nominalism).
Such a philosophical paradigm can clearly be contrasted with
Platonism, with its mystical and otherworldly intellectual forms; but it also
breaches withAristotle with his empirically-derived forms and for our purposes,
most importantly Aristotle’s telos or the goal towards which all things that
exist are oriented (Man’s telos being virtue).
When this reductionist philosophy was applied to the world
of Man it eventually became impossible to sustain the idea of the telos – that Man
had an overarching purpose that he might fulfil or of which he might fall
short. We can see here the foundations
of liberalism, which denies some overarching purpose such as virtue as
oppressive and from which we are to be liberated.
Alasdair MacIntyre has identified this lack of telos as the
key reason why liberalism cannot give an account of virtue and why liberal societies
are falling apart. It is not surprising
that once Western theology and philosophy had taken such a reductionist turn,
the philosophy of John Locke became intellectually possible. The very hierarchy of the State no longer had
any claim to universals over the particular.
The anointed Monarch no longer could rely on his participation in the
transcendental, but must strike up a contract like a merchant to bring men out
of the Lockean ahistorical fiction of a state of nature.
Combined with this disintegration is the influence of
England’s religious internecine struggles.
The Protestants saw themselves as being liberated from Rome. A narrative of liberation fed into popular
consciousness and was very compatible with this new ontology of nominalism,
where the hierarchies could no longer appeal to universals.
Here we find the moralistic tone of liberalism’s project of
demolition. To destroy general identity
and any chance of participation in
higher meaning is narrated as “liberation”.
If we no longer participate in higher meaning or any collective identity
then we are free to be the reduced and directionless atoms we really are,
driven by our passions. That in essence
is the liberal project.
Contrast that with the more elevated vision of human nature –
one that sees us as having a telos and belonging to more general
categories. We are not simply atoms, but
are peoples, we participate in religious tradition, we are gendered.
It is no accident, however uncomfortable classical liberals
feel, that the activists at the extreme fringe of liberalism – wrongly termed
cultural Marxists – are pushing to dissolve the most fundamental aspects of
general human identity, including even gender.
This is simply the narrative of liberation from meaning and belonging
being followed through to its nihilistic goal.
What is attacked by liberalism is the integrity of
categories and the possibility of participating in higher meaning. That is not to say any collective identity or
means of achieving collective identity is right. There is a Royal Path between liberalism and
the worldly-focused totalitarian agendas (themselves bastard offspring of the
Enlightenment). A cultural and political
environment that fosters participation in higher meaning and collective
identities is that for which conservatives should strive.
The misleading rhetoric of liberalism suggests that it can
provide such an environment, where all can pursue meaning in their own
way. The reality is that liberalism like
all ideologies has its own totalising narrative. The narrative of liberation means that all
general and higher identities become categorised as oppressive and as a result
must be abolished. This means that in
practice liberalism cannot stop at a compromise between conflicting higher identities,
but must wage a campaign against them all.
This is exactly how the Western cultural journey of progressive decline
is being played out. First a collective
telos of society, usually religious, is undermined. In trade, barriers to influx of imports are torn
down. The integrity of the nation state (
once the liberal successor to the conservative empire) is undermined. Even normative sexuality and then gender are
overturned in the name of liberation. As
Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin has argued, the final stage of liberation
will be from human nature itself and it is likely that such a “liberation” will
be played out with technology, artificial intelligence and even, at the risk of
sounding melodramatic (which is difficult in a culture where gender is no
longer considered a real general category) – the cyborg.
No comments:
Post a Comment