Western Liberalism

Logan Laituri PHIL 1000 Prof. Lopresti Summer 2009 Western Liberalism First and foremost, Kant is right in assessing that a focus on the individual is advantageous to the freedom of the spirit of the people (p. 141). Ultimately, such freedom of spirit is perhaps even more valuable than absolute bodily freedom, in that it does not impinge on the liberty of others in geographical or relational proximity to such societal members. Kant is justified in his caution against “guardians,” those who insist upon drilling, paying, or believing whatsoever that which they promote. This “spiritual despotism” is the most oppressive atmosphere one may be subjugated by, for such a despotism devalues the individual intellect, only leads to physical despotism, restricting thought and therefore behavior. There is an infinite source of knowledge and wisdom that individuals offer a social order. It is for this reason that I believe, in true liberal form, that no individual has privileged access to the Truth. A realistic individualism grants that insight, and even guidance, may be garnered from a consensus of the collective whole of a society. Mill also has good points worthy of highlighting. Because “everyone who receives the protection of society owes a return for the benefit,” (p. 75) society may become like a co-op, with each contributing from their ability and receiving according to their need (actually a Marxist theory as well). Diversity such as this is the root of diversity and collaboration, the foundations of life and nature itself. Darwin felt similarly, knowing that weaknesses could be effectively discarded and strengths reinforced. Because of this societal give-and-take, it requires of us consideration and respect, as uncensored interactions with others will reinforce positive character traits and punish poor behavior. It is believed that in a liberal society ones feelings must be affected by the activities and language of others, so that such a diversified social economy (i.e. “pluralism”) would prosper. We are to mutually edify others by being accountable to one another in such a society, for if we “let any considerable number of [our] members grow up mere children… [we only have ourselves] to blame for the consequences (p. 82).” After all, it is the twin tragedies of social tyranny and moral intolerance that has repressed social evolution for centuries. Within societies in which these two ills are present, there is also a great lack of personal investment in the society. The aforementioned diversity acts as a type of ‘checks and balances,’ assuring longevity and sustainability; social ills are recognized and corrected more fluidly and transparently, there are multiple sources of wisdom (should one or more be found wanting), and there is a greater pool of talent and skill to draw from for public enjoyment and edification. ~ Both Kant and Mill have a healthy, realistic view of individuality, but, being at the forefront of liberal thought, they were not able to reflect comprehensively on balancing individuality with communality. Little of their writing leaves room for criticism, but there does seem to be a lack of understanding for the propensity of human self-centricity. The greatest criticism one may level at the authors is the lack of attention given to the danger of self-interest at the expense of collective well-being. For example, Mill has a positive outlook of how, in a morally diverse society, individual’s treatment of one another is to reflect consideration (p. 79), but offers no inherent structure by which a society would balance Self with Other. Mill seems to merely assume that diversity of opinion and perspective would naturally lend itself to such consideration. Left to ones selfish devices, it has proven not to be the case that pluralism would necessarily lead to tolerance. It is precisely because of our focus on self and our beliefs, formed in a vacuumous isolation from the concern and care of and from others, that we cannot conceive of such behavior described by Mill. Instead, we attribute it to social heros and unattainable personas such as Gandhi. Kant begins to open the door to a more balanced understanding of social regard, but the connection is a tenuous link, and one that I make with no shortage of intellectual effort. Priests, which may be rightly understood as being individuals, are considered not free, as they execute “someone else’s mandate (p. 138).” It stands to reason that should individuals within a society be enabled to view the larger whole of society as being that mandate to which priests are considered to be bound, perhaps our own society would be more palatable to both collectivists and individualists. Obsessive focus on the individual disables people from properly understanding their reliance upon others, in economic, natural, and literal terms. It is exactly this reality that enabled Adam Smith to postulate that such self-interest can and should guide our economy to health, though in reality it has lead to its repeated collapse. The reason for this is that competition (which is isolationist) ultimately pits individuals against one another. Collaboration, on the other hand (which is what Darwin actually proposed), relies upon and at the same time perpetuates diversity, and therefore strength and longevity. If individuals see themselves as not having any higher “mandate” than themselves, this actually goes against the spirit of liberalism that these essays advance, though the authors were ill-prepared to grasp its potential for isolationism. What obsessive individualism lacks is a call to societal cohesion, an investment if you will, into the social economy Mill describes in such hopeful terms on page 79. Fortunately, hindsight enables us (if we properly utilize it) to reflect on and learn from the intellectual neglect of such otherwise very talented and insightful individuals like Kant and Mill. ~ As I am being made aware through another class I am currently taking, a major social identifier in the Middle Ages was the power and authority of the state. From my reading of Islamic philosophy, this is not regarded as undesirable, but seems to be exactly that which is sought, a collective allegiance to the state, which would essentially be the collected umma. Islamic philosophy in this matter, if I understand it properly, seeks to align the religious and the political; members of this large umma would be making a simultaneously political and spiritual allegiance. This notion is dangerous in that it equates people with God; to question those in power is made equivalent to questioning the Divine itself. However, as we are seeing in the elections in Iran even as we study these very topics, the umma (at least as it seems to exist within Iran) is not always the most effective or sympathetic purveyor of justice and accountability. The people of Iran, in great number, have protested elections that have seemed flawed at best, corrupt at worst. The response of the caliphs amounted essentially to finger pointing back at the masses, claiming that the blood spilled was on their hands. While I commend Iran for their efforts at combining religious authority and state power, I cannot agree that expectations of unquestioning allegiance to the society honor the entire nation itself. In this, the state, or the umma, becomes the Guardians that Kant speaks of, In fact, it is quite clear that he would cite the concept of Sapere Aude, to “have the courage to use your own intelligence.” One may justifiably align the actions of the caliphate in Iran with that of Louis XIV, whose understanding of politics is contained within the (seemingly presumptive) assertion that Je suis l'etat, meaning “I am the State.” The leaders of Iran seem to be operating under the same assumption that the ultimate legitimacy of the nation-state rests with the individuals in power, which, interestingly, contradicts the very idea of submission to the umma (in this example, the people of Iran). Western Liberalism rightly places the true sovereignty upon those governed, those who actually make up the umma, the community. From a post-enlightenment perspective, Islamic politics would perhaps be more authentic to the umma if it were more representative of the society itself. I fully understand that the caliphate is precisely that because of their religious training and education, but again, the sacred refrain of Western Liberalism is one that celebrates the ingrained intellect of the individual; we are challenged to ‘dare to know,’ and dare we must.