"Captured by capitalism (and for some critics, racism and patriarchy too), utopian possibilities no longer seem to inhere in [Liberalism]."
But was Liberalism ever about "utopian possibilities"? Liberalism, as best I understand it, promises people opportunity to freely chart their own course through life. That in itself is fairly revoluti…
"Captured by capitalism (and for some critics, racism and patriarchy too), utopian possibilities no longer seem to inhere in [Liberalism]."
But was Liberalism ever about "utopian possibilities"? Liberalism, as best I understand it, promises people opportunity to freely chart their own course through life. That in itself is fairly revolutionary (with the long view of history in mind), but little if anything about it promises utopia as an outcome.
Utopianism, rather, appears to be a far Left, or Leftist, aspiration: one in which societies basically mandate proportional economic and/or racial outcomes in all spheres of society. And, more or less by definition, the only way to achieve those ends is through illiberal means. Liberalism and Utopia, therefore, may be inherently opposed to one another; but, seeing as how any expectation of a Utopia on Earth is clearly childish, that's probably a good thing.
"How would you feel if someone more powerful told you to keep quiet? How about if they told a stranger the same?"
I think these are good questions, and I'd add some more. How would we feel if our elders told us that they would decide on our marriage for us (and, if we refused, that we would face threats of banishment from the family and/or physical violence)? How would we feel if we were told that our profession in life was predetermined by our birth, and that not only was there nothing we could do about that but in fact that we might place ourselves and our family in danger by questioning the established order of things? How would we feel if we were told there was only one spiritual/religious understanding of the world and that if we questioned it, we would face excommunication or death?
The fact that Liberal societies have largely evolved beyond these issues is, in my experience, largely taken for granted even by the most vociferous critics of Liberal societies. And that just goes to show: the main threat faced by Liberalism may be a loss of perspective on just how much it has accomplished and just how important it remains.
Well said. This whole talk of liberalism is so devoid of historical context that it's impossible to grasp its meaning, let alone its soul. The economist Dani Rodrik showed real humility when he said in a podcast a couple of weeks ago that his profession is more successful in generating models than knowing when/how to apply these models. Perhaps the same is true with political scientists. All these doomsday forecasts are just as absurb as the utopia of permanent world peace or end of history when the Soviets imploded several decades ago.
"Captured by capitalism (and for some critics, racism and patriarchy too), utopian possibilities no longer seem to inhere in [Liberalism]."
But was Liberalism ever about "utopian possibilities"? Liberalism, as best I understand it, promises people opportunity to freely chart their own course through life. That in itself is fairly revolutionary (with the long view of history in mind), but little if anything about it promises utopia as an outcome.
Utopianism, rather, appears to be a far Left, or Leftist, aspiration: one in which societies basically mandate proportional economic and/or racial outcomes in all spheres of society. And, more or less by definition, the only way to achieve those ends is through illiberal means. Liberalism and Utopia, therefore, may be inherently opposed to one another; but, seeing as how any expectation of a Utopia on Earth is clearly childish, that's probably a good thing.
"How would you feel if someone more powerful told you to keep quiet? How about if they told a stranger the same?"
I think these are good questions, and I'd add some more. How would we feel if our elders told us that they would decide on our marriage for us (and, if we refused, that we would face threats of banishment from the family and/or physical violence)? How would we feel if we were told that our profession in life was predetermined by our birth, and that not only was there nothing we could do about that but in fact that we might place ourselves and our family in danger by questioning the established order of things? How would we feel if we were told there was only one spiritual/religious understanding of the world and that if we questioned it, we would face excommunication or death?
The fact that Liberal societies have largely evolved beyond these issues is, in my experience, largely taken for granted even by the most vociferous critics of Liberal societies. And that just goes to show: the main threat faced by Liberalism may be a loss of perspective on just how much it has accomplished and just how important it remains.
Well said. This whole talk of liberalism is so devoid of historical context that it's impossible to grasp its meaning, let alone its soul. The economist Dani Rodrik showed real humility when he said in a podcast a couple of weeks ago that his profession is more successful in generating models than knowing when/how to apply these models. Perhaps the same is true with political scientists. All these doomsday forecasts are just as absurb as the utopia of permanent world peace or end of history when the Soviets imploded several decades ago.