Patrick Deneen’s Why Liberalism Failed is an eloquent but frustrating book that purports to define “liberalism,” provide an account of “liberalism’s” origins, and explain why “liberalism” is failing. The strength of the book is its pugnaciously gripping prose and simple story line. Basically, “liberalism” in Deneen’s lexicon is self-interested individualism. Somehow a handful of mostly British seventeenth century philosophers (Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, Renee Descartes, John Locke) were able to persuade their contemporaries that humans ought to be regarded as “non-relational creatures, separate and autonomous” who ought to make decisions purely on the basis of their “calculations of individual self-interest… without broader considerations of the impact of one’s choices upon the community, one’s obligations to the created order, and ultimately to God.” (Page 32). Deneen eloquently describes the alienation produced by such rootlessness in the universities, politics, and the economy in four chapters (chapters 4 through 7): environmental degradation, indifference to one’s cultural inheritance, a trivial politics of consumerism, and an elite’s indifference to their national and local communities as they embark on a globe-trotting life of “deracinated vagabondage” (page 131). Basically, individualism devoured itself by destroying the social foundations — strong families, strong communities, strong churches — necessary for individual striving to produce good social outcomes. It is easy to see the appeal of such a simple yet sweeping storyline written in sizzlingly readable prose would become a sensation in venues like the New York Times.
There is, however, a frustrating mystery at the heart of Deneen’s argument: Why would a handful of seventeenth century secular philosophers of materialism and scientific method be able to persuade an entire civilization to adopt a self-evidently self-destructive individualism? What was the psychological appeal of seeing oneself as a “non-relational creature, separate and autonomous” to seventeenth century Englishmen?
My answer: Deneen has misdiagnosed the origins of liberalism along the familiar lines of Michael Sandel’s complaint about “atomized, dislocated, frustrated selves” without considering an alternative story rooted in Calvinist theology. Those Christians whom opponents derided as “puritans” but who called themselves “the saints” believed that any Christian could be as holy as any saint just by accepting the “double covenant” offered by Jesus Christ — grace in exchange for authentic, personal belief in their salvation. The individualistic catch was that one’s outward conformity to collective ceremonies would accomplish nothing without an inward change of heart. Each believer, therefore, confronted the anxiety about whether they were truly saved.
Our modern liberals are cut from the same anxious cloth as the seventeenth century Saints. As I will argue after the jump, modern liberals, like their Calvinist forebearers, are driven to quarrelsome behavior by their anxiety about their personal salvation. This is spiritual individualism of a certain stripe: It drives believers to abandon their birth home, family, and traditions in a restless pilgrimage for spiritual purity — to Geneva, the Netherlands, Plymouth, or (nowadays) some Intersectionally Feminist Vegan Food Co-op. Contrary to Deneen’s claim, however, this neo-Calvinist brand of individualism has nothing whatsoever to do with selfish individualism of a Hobbesian variety. If my diagnosis is correct, then Deneen’s antidote of having more tradition-minded people form their own communities that reject “liberal individualism” will do nothing to address our current malaise.
1. How does Deneen neglect the seventeenth century puritan roots of modern liberalism?
In construing seventeenth century English writers, Deneen completely ignores the Protestant Reformation, the English Civil War, and the Commonwealth. He refers to puritans exactly once (in a two-page paean to the New England township). Yet these were the titanic events and religious movements that defined the context in which (for instance) John Locke wrote. Explaining (for instance) Locke’s Second Treatise while ignoring the great Puritan civil war is like explaining Winston Churchill’s speeches while ignoring World Wars I and II.
Consider how Deneen’s neglect of Locke’s religious context could distort Deneen’s reading of Locke’s Second Treatise, turning a book rooted in Christian equality into a sort of early modern Fountainhead of selfish individualism. On the Christian reading, Locke is less “Hobbes’ philosophical successor” (page 32) than the successor of Reform Protestants who believed that Christians have a duty actively to all civil authority just as they must actively consent to God’s promise of salvation. Deneen quotes Locke’s famous statement
Comments
Definitely a big difference between liberals and progressives is the relationship between morality and law.
Conservatives say–if it’s wrong it must be outlawed (like abortion). Progressives say–if it’s outlawed, it must be immoral (like owning assault weapons). Liberals say–if it’s immoral, I won’t do it myself, but it can still be legal to prevent the rise of omni-government, like during prohibition. Liberals don’t require everything immoral to be illegal (like conservatives) and don’t have to think everything illegal is immoral (like progressives).
Posted by: praiser1 | Mar 6, 2018 1:36:11 PM
Perhaps some examples would help, for when liberals and progressives disagree.
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Weber, 1979—the liberals believe in non-discrimination, the progressives believe in affirmative action (racial quotas)
Washington v. Davis, 1976—liberals believe discrimination requires intent not just statistics, progressives believe disparate impact proves intent
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 2007—liberals believe in not taking race into account, progressives believe in assigning students to school based on race
Rice v. Cayetano, 2000–liberals believe voting is a universal right, progressives believe white people don’t have to be allowed to vote
Easley v. Cromartie, 2001—liberals believe political and racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional, progressives believe racial gerrymandering (black voting districts) is OK
Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 1978—liberals believe the bill of rights applies on all land within the united states, progressives believe that requiring native americans to respect the bill of rights infringes on their sovereignty
Posted by: why Rubin left the left | Mar 5, 2018 3:10:04 AM
Rick G., your comment suggests that I should write more plainly. I intended to agree 100% that our modern Liberals (or Progressives — I care not which word is used) want to re-make the world in their image, and their war on “discrimination” (meaning any classifications that they do not like) is part of that effort in re-making. That’s the Puritan/Saintly way! (Increase Mather also tried to outlaw any towns’ selecting non-Congergationalist ministers!)
I just object to the theory that Saintly morality has something to do with scientific materialism of Hobbes or with some sort other sort of amoral individualism. Our modern Saints are not individualistic, and they are not pro-Enlightenment Science: They are intensely communitarian and sectarian, and their sect is more geared towards displays of high human capital (“Look how well-read I am, and how non-superstitious!”) and low discount rate (“look at how little carbon I use!”) as ways of displaying personal purity and thereby reassuring themselves that they are part of the Elect. As Vermeule notes, this is a religious position — a very old religious position — but IMHO Vermeule gets the religion wrong.
I repeat: It is not Scientific Amoralism or Value-Free Individualism. It is instead Calvinist yearning for personal purity. Vermeule/Deneen think that they are squaring off against Hobbes or maybe Nietzche (“Die fröhliche Wissenschaft” Nietzche). They are not: They are squaring off against John Calvin — a much more formidable opponent in some ways, given that value-free science is never a crowd-pleaser.
Posted by: Rick Hills | Mar 4, 2018 6:02:25 PM
Thoughtful, as always, Rick, but I think you are too sunny and sanguine in brushing off the Deneen/ Vermeule concern that, regardless of whether today’s Park Slope association-joining-progressives are actually, in their own lives, busily enmeshed in intermediate institutions, they (and their candidates) are increasingly committed to an understanding of egalitarianism that is fine with meritocracy-driven wealth and class divides but not with non-state associations that “discriminate” in their teachings, membership criteria, hiring, etc.
Posted by: Rick Garnettt | Mar 4, 2018 12:26:51 PM
One of the main differences between liberals and progressives is that liberals believe the assault weapons ban has to apply to cops to prevent a police aristocracy from forming and destroying our democracy (where all civilians–police and non-police–have equal rights), whereas progressives think only police should have guns at all.
Posted by: Franken-feinstein | Mar 4, 2018 3:40:09 AM
“One might ask whether, to the extent that one sees modern “progressives” as different in some sense or set of positions from “liberals,” rather than merely having adopted a re-labeling strategy, this definition applies to them as well.”
Liberals believe that free speech includes criticizing islam, mocking islam, drawing Mohammad, nazi marches, sexist rap music, violent video games, etc.
Progressives believe all of this is “hate speech” and requires harsh punishments and re-education.
Posted by: Alternative platforms | Mar 3, 2018 7:54:35 PM
“One might ask whether, to the extent that one sees modern “progressives” as different in some sense or set of positions from “liberals,” rather than merely having adopted a re-labeling strategy, this definition applies to them as well.”
Liberals believe in non-discrimination. You don’t take people’s race into account. You worry about the way individuals are treated, not the way races are treated.
Progressives believe in affirmative-action in schools, racial quotas in the workplace, black-voting districts in the old south, sovereignty on Native-American reservations (they don’t have to obey the bill of rights–Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 1978), etc.
That is, progressives believe first-and-foremost in identity politics, i.e. making sure people are eternally aware of race/ethnicity and are always treated as a member of a racial group, rather than just as an individual.
They believe that justice isn’t just non-discrimination, but is proportional representation. If there are 20% blacks in a country, then 20% of the people at Harvard better be black, 20% of people at Google better be black, 20% of people in congress better be black, and 20% of Oscar winners better be black.
Posted by: the racial politics of progressivim | Mar 3, 2018 7:37:15 PM
It is important to remember that some liberals are democrats and some are republicans. And some democrats are progressives and some are liberals. That is, not all liberals are democrats or progressives.
A person can hold the liberal value of meritocracy instead of nepotism, without holding the progressive value of lowering standards for racial minorities (affirmative action).
A person can hold the liberal value of civilian firearm-ownership while not holding the progressive value of mandatory military service (or community service) like in South Korea and Israel.
All progressives may be liberals, but all liberals need not be progressives to remain liberals.
Posted by: hashtag: not all liberals are progressives | Mar 3, 2018 1:00:17 AM
Liberalism is defined as not jailing atheists, potsmokers, gunowners, homeschoolers, flagburners, doctors who perform abortions, etc.
Nothing about this sounds selfish. If anything, it sounds charitable to allow people to be and do things that we do not do.
Posted by: the charity of individualism | Mar 3, 2018 12:46:52 AM
Asher, both points are well-taken: Thanks for making them. Three responses:
1) I think that neither Deneen nor myself take his remedies as seriously as his diagnosis. The action items in the book in the final chapter seem like an afterthought secondary to the preceding chapters, which focus on diagnosing the problem. And diagnosis is my major interest as well.
2) That said, here’s a reason, perhaps, to think that Deneen’s remedy works better for Hobbesian liberalism than saintly liberalism. Deneen’s remedy makes most sense if “liberalism” has what Gramsci would call a “culturally hegemonic” position — that is, a position so dominant that its adherents do not even see it as a position but merely as unquestionable common sense. Deneen says that his version of liberalism has that sort of cultural dominance: Basically, every educated person adheres to this sort of individualistic self-interest as the basis for all of their ethical and political reasoning, as a matter of course. The only way to keep a different view alive, therefore, is to set up little “monasteries” or Amish-like communities where total eccentricity is tolerated by the larger culture.
I do not think that Deneen is right about the hegemonic position of his version of “liberalism,” so I do not see the need for these little monasteries. To me, the class bias of academics and other college-educated people of a certain stripe is more of a funny personality disorder than a substantive position about individualism and self-interest: What distinguishes “liberals” is not the content of their beliefs (about which more below) but rather their compulsive need to preach about them to their neighbors who do not share them. Liberals are simply bossy nudzhes.
We do not need to protect the rest of the culture from such bossiness, because liberal bossiness is just not that culturally dominant: It is prevalent in college towns and coastal cities but not elsewhere. In particular, it is not “hegemonic”: Everyone is aware of these “liberal” predilections to be meddling and nosy. That’s why “Portlandia” is a funny TV show: We laugh at the various attitudes on display precisely because they are NOT hegemonic. (No one laughs at the exaggeration of hegemonic ideas, because hegemonic ideas are by hypothesis so dominant that no one can recognize when they are being spoofed).
3) Does “liberalism” contribute to, or at least correlate with, a low discount rate regarding sex, food, educational investments, etc? I think so. IMHO “liberalism” that is Deneen’s target consists of (a) a certain fear of the past (that is, their dislike of “superstition”) and (b) a desire to display a certain kind of self-control in their consumption. Those were the basic traits of the 17th century puritans, and I maintain that they live on today among highly educated people.
The self-consciousness about personal consumption ((b) above) will tend to correlate with a high discount rate. The same impulse that leads liberals to compost and driving a Prius will also make them anxious about doing well on exams and exercising three times a week. So liberals tend to score better on tests and have less obesity than the rest of us. It is not strategic that liberals’ kids study hard for exams: It is part of the same unconscious impulse that makes them watch their diet and avoid “frivolous” entertainments. For the same reason, seventeenth century saints called for Bible study rather than feasting on holy days — and did well in the marketplace, Max Weber style. (I read somewhere that Weber’s Protestant Work Ethic theory is back in fashion BTW)
Anyway, those are my best shots at answering your objections.
Posted by: Rick Hills | Mar 2, 2018 10:23:00 PM
This is a characteristically deep and insightful post, but it also has a characteristic quickness at the conclusion, such that I couldn’t quite follow why Deneen’s misunderstanding of modern liberals bore on the correctness of his prescriptions (which I take it was supposed to be the upshot of your argument), at least not in the way you say. Whether liberals are selfish individualists or acrimonious lowercase puritans, retreating into anti-culture enclaves seems equally flawed either way. Your criticism of anti-culture enclaves, in its entirety, is that they won’t help the non-liberals outside of them, and that some non-liberals might not care to retreat to such enclaves. The former does indeed seem like an impossibility, and the latter is an obvious truism, but both are correct even if liberals are as Deneen describes them.
Perhaps that’s a persnickety bit of housekeeping–if so I apologize–but on a possibly more substantive note, it does seem possible that liberals might both have the kind of secular religiosity that you describe, *and* that their abstemiousness is just a matter of selfish self-preservation, as Deneen claims. What *does* explain educated liberals’ relatively low rates of out-of-wedlock childbirth, of single parenthood, of substance abuse? Calvinist saintliness? I don’t think so, because the ethics that, as you say, they fervently subscribe to don’t really motivate these traits.
That
Posted by: Asher Steinberg | Mar 2, 2018 8:10:50 PM
Anonymous, it is hard to be read by someone who does not regard “New Atlantis” as 17th century philosophy. http://www.fcsh.unl.pt/docentes/rmonteiro/pdf/The_New_Atlantis.pdf But I persevere nonetheless.
Posted by: Rick Hills | Mar 2, 2018 3:23:51 PM
It’s hard to keep reading after someone describes Francis Bacon as being a seventeenth-century philosopher. Sorry!
Posted by: Anonymous | Mar 2, 2018 1:14:39 PM
You can be an individualist (a person who follows the moral rules they personally believe are correct) while still being part of a family, church, community, etc., so long as that family, church, community doesn’t prevent you from following your own personal moral code.
The problem is that communities tend to ask their members to adopt the communities morals instead of their own, and communities tend to ask their members to repress their individuality for social cohesion, even though most self-expression doesn’t lessen social cohesion–if anything people tend to like to see people be unique and not mindless conformists afraid to disagree or standout in a crowd.
Posted by: Emerson’s wrath of sadiq khan | Mar 2, 2018 10:18:56 AM