When I began to grow interested in political theory, back in the 1980s, the field was dominated by the liberal-communitarian debate. But it eventually died down precisely because, rightly understood, this was always a family quarrel within liberalism, a matter of where to place the emphasis, rather than a battle between competing and incompatible positions. I would make a somewhat stronger claim for there being a larger truth accessible to reason than Fukuyama quite asserts in the middle of the essay (where he retreats into a few too many rhetorical questions). But he's absolutely correct that we will not achieve agreement on that truth, and if we were all compelled to adopt a single viewpoint on "the good," I fear it would not be the one desired by conservative postliberals. (Or by a regular old conservative liberal, like me.) Toleration remains the alternative to conflict and oppression.
In 2012 in Concord, CA a group of us formed a nonprofit society called Neto Community Network, based on our common belief in and commitment to social and economic equity. Members have been from quite a range of social, economic, ethnic, religions backgrounds. We celebrate people who build our community in a range of ways and work together on community projects. We have seen what such a group of people connected by a common vision and civic beliefs can achieve.
Actually, that's what we have spent a lot of time talking --and indeed disagreeing--about. The common denominator and our mutual aspiration is to recognize everyone's human dignity (as Fukuyama puts it); to start with how we treat people personally; and at a policy level to ask the question, Is it fair, to whom?
Gee, the Golden Rule! What a novel concept! And the reason we don't use that concept everywhere is because...??? Prof. Fukuyama touches on the reason but still doesn't get to it. Maybe some day.
Have a look at his latest missive on Human Nature.
I think it's because it requires effort to apply the Golden Rule to people who are unrelated to you (or even then sometimes), and from whom you don't experience direct positive reciprocity. Also, common suspicion of "the other", anticipating they will be hostile to you so you'd better get them first. (See under "Trump" and "MAGA").
I'll reply with my comment on his Human Nature post:
From this (Human Nature) essay by Prof. Fukuyama:
In early modern Europe, autonomy was understood as the right to make choices within
pre-existing moral frameworks, frameworks established by various religious traditions.
I have previously mentioned to Prof. Fukuyama that it seems to me that, while Liberalism is "the water in which we swim" (or at least used to until the time of the Orange Menace), in our modernity who is teaching us how to swim? The pre-existing frameworks were "established by various religious traditions." The early liberals *assumed* that these frameworks would continue to be "established" and taught. They didn't even *consider* that such teaching might fade and so they couldn't, and didn't, make any framework whereby those values could be continued, as they *needed* to be. And those values are absolutely critical to dealing with the *emotional* side of human beings. Rationality and thought and "intellectual" are all great and absolutely necessary. But as we know from Haidt and Kahneman, sorry, but we ain't rational! How does the emotional/moral side of humans get shaped to allow civil harmony? It IS possible--visit Japan and you'll see. We've failed miserably to do that, and we're paying the ultimate price for our failure. I think there is a set of morals/values/goals that we can pretty much all agree on: the non-religious 6 of the Decalogue and The Golden Rule. Beyond that, communities should, can and do form around *other* issues. Belong if you want, join a different one if you want. But DO NOT forget the essentials that bind all such communities and all humans. This is our "educational foundation for a liberal democratic republic." How do we recover it? CAN we recover it, or are we doomed to more and more nastiness and thuggery?
I'd be wary of subjective terms like "dignity" (or for that matter, "equity") -- which take the discussion a precarious (and IMO, unfortunate) step beyond simply "live and let live."
Once you've moved into that territory (with the implicit exercise of [collective] power), it's no surprise that you'd spend a lot of time disagreeing -- with such disagreements unlikely to resolve unless you back off.
Empathy is an individual attribute, to be exercised among (and between) individuals: a serious (but worthy) challenge in itself. "Care" doesn't scale!
That's an especially gratifying response, given that I've been blackballed (as "disruptive") by various self-proclaimed (and self-serving) "anarchist" cliques (most notably in Berkeley, of course), merely for raising such questions.
(These folks especially hate old-fashioned liberals. It hasn't helped that I also drive a car and eat meat. Such so-called "anarchists" promulgate a more granular set of rules for everyday life [with more self-righteous zeal] than a country club full of Republicans -- all in the name of "addressing root causes" and promoting "behavioral health"!). ;-)
I wonder whether anyone in your group is familiar with the writings of Isaiah Berlin, particularly regarding "positive vs negative" notions of freedom, and the concept of "pluralism" as an arena for resolving collective disparities.
Humans are social animals; they do not need to be encouraged to be members of a group and to be mentally defined by group interactions, it’s part of their biological make-up. The real issue is how much authority groups have over their members and how much space they leave to individual flourishing. That is not to say that individuals should always be prioritised, but it is important to realise that individual rights are always fragile and under threat and will naturally disappear if they are not vigorously defended.
In a liberal society, "self-determination" is an individual right -- and the State exists to safeguard that right. Empathy is an individual attribute -- and it defines itself (and is exercised) among other individuals.
We are all exiles on Main Street -- but ironically, in that very recognition lies the basis for community.
These important issues translate directly into current debates over governance of social media, and the case for middleware that lets users control their own social media feeds (which Fukuyama has advocated for). I have argued that a major failure of social media is that the mediating role of communities has been neglected, and that middleware can enable not only individuals, but their communities, which can use middleware services to regain their mediating influence online. One small but notable step in this direction is the Blacksky feed for the Black community on Bluesky.
Twice now, posted before concluding. Dr. Fukuyama, would appreciate hearing your thoughts on MacIntyre and his relevance to our current moment. Thank you.
As it happens, currently reading Alasdair Macintyre’s “After Virtue.” He strongly rejects the communitarian label. “Something I have never been.” MacIntyre insists that his critique of liberalism does not come from that place, but from a virtue ethics in the Aristotelian sense.
When I began to grow interested in political theory, back in the 1980s, the field was dominated by the liberal-communitarian debate. But it eventually died down precisely because, rightly understood, this was always a family quarrel within liberalism, a matter of where to place the emphasis, rather than a battle between competing and incompatible positions. I would make a somewhat stronger claim for there being a larger truth accessible to reason than Fukuyama quite asserts in the middle of the essay (where he retreats into a few too many rhetorical questions). But he's absolutely correct that we will not achieve agreement on that truth, and if we were all compelled to adopt a single viewpoint on "the good," I fear it would not be the one desired by conservative postliberals. (Or by a regular old conservative liberal, like me.) Toleration remains the alternative to conflict and oppression.
In 2012 in Concord, CA a group of us formed a nonprofit society called Neto Community Network, based on our common belief in and commitment to social and economic equity. Members have been from quite a range of social, economic, ethnic, religions backgrounds. We celebrate people who build our community in a range of ways and work together on community projects. We have seen what such a group of people connected by a common vision and civic beliefs can achieve.
Who gets to determine the criteria for "equity" -- i.e., the very terms in which "equity" is to be defined? Is there room for dissenting values?
Actually, that's what we have spent a lot of time talking --and indeed disagreeing--about. The common denominator and our mutual aspiration is to recognize everyone's human dignity (as Fukuyama puts it); to start with how we treat people personally; and at a policy level to ask the question, Is it fair, to whom?
Gee, the Golden Rule! What a novel concept! And the reason we don't use that concept everywhere is because...??? Prof. Fukuyama touches on the reason but still doesn't get to it. Maybe some day.
Have a look at his latest missive on Human Nature.
I think it's because it requires effort to apply the Golden Rule to people who are unrelated to you (or even then sometimes), and from whom you don't experience direct positive reciprocity. Also, common suspicion of "the other", anticipating they will be hostile to you so you'd better get them first. (See under "Trump" and "MAGA").
Please check your Substack "messages" for a note from me about further communication.
I'll reply with my comment on his Human Nature post:
From this (Human Nature) essay by Prof. Fukuyama:
In early modern Europe, autonomy was understood as the right to make choices within
pre-existing moral frameworks, frameworks established by various religious traditions.
I have previously mentioned to Prof. Fukuyama that it seems to me that, while Liberalism is "the water in which we swim" (or at least used to until the time of the Orange Menace), in our modernity who is teaching us how to swim? The pre-existing frameworks were "established by various religious traditions." The early liberals *assumed* that these frameworks would continue to be "established" and taught. They didn't even *consider* that such teaching might fade and so they couldn't, and didn't, make any framework whereby those values could be continued, as they *needed* to be. And those values are absolutely critical to dealing with the *emotional* side of human beings. Rationality and thought and "intellectual" are all great and absolutely necessary. But as we know from Haidt and Kahneman, sorry, but we ain't rational! How does the emotional/moral side of humans get shaped to allow civil harmony? It IS possible--visit Japan and you'll see. We've failed miserably to do that, and we're paying the ultimate price for our failure. I think there is a set of morals/values/goals that we can pretty much all agree on: the non-religious 6 of the Decalogue and The Golden Rule. Beyond that, communities should, can and do form around *other* issues. Belong if you want, join a different one if you want. But DO NOT forget the essentials that bind all such communities and all humans. This is our "educational foundation for a liberal democratic republic." How do we recover it? CAN we recover it, or are we doomed to more and more nastiness and thuggery?
FWIW...
I'd be wary of subjective terms like "dignity" (or for that matter, "equity") -- which take the discussion a precarious (and IMO, unfortunate) step beyond simply "live and let live."
Once you've moved into that territory (with the implicit exercise of [collective] power), it's no surprise that you'd spend a lot of time disagreeing -- with such disagreements unlikely to resolve unless you back off.
Empathy is an individual attribute, to be exercised among (and between) individuals: a serious (but worthy) challenge in itself. "Care" doesn't scale!
You have interesting thoughts on the subject. It's a pity we no longer sponsor discussion forums. You'd be a great addition.
Thanks!
That's an especially gratifying response, given that I've been blackballed (as "disruptive") by various self-proclaimed (and self-serving) "anarchist" cliques (most notably in Berkeley, of course), merely for raising such questions.
(These folks especially hate old-fashioned liberals. It hasn't helped that I also drive a car and eat meat. Such so-called "anarchists" promulgate a more granular set of rules for everyday life [with more self-righteous zeal] than a country club full of Republicans -- all in the name of "addressing root causes" and promoting "behavioral health"!). ;-)
I wonder whether anyone in your group is familiar with the writings of Isaiah Berlin, particularly regarding "positive vs negative" notions of freedom, and the concept of "pluralism" as an arena for resolving collective disparities.
Humans are social animals; they do not need to be encouraged to be members of a group and to be mentally defined by group interactions, it’s part of their biological make-up. The real issue is how much authority groups have over their members and how much space they leave to individual flourishing. That is not to say that individuals should always be prioritised, but it is important to realise that individual rights are always fragile and under threat and will naturally disappear if they are not vigorously defended.
In a liberal society, "self-determination" is an individual right -- and the State exists to safeguard that right. Empathy is an individual attribute -- and it defines itself (and is exercised) among other individuals.
We are all exiles on Main Street -- but ironically, in that very recognition lies the basis for community.
These important issues translate directly into current debates over governance of social media, and the case for middleware that lets users control their own social media feeds (which Fukuyama has advocated for). I have argued that a major failure of social media is that the mediating role of communities has been neglected, and that middleware can enable not only individuals, but their communities, which can use middleware services to regain their mediating influence online. One small but notable step in this direction is the Blacksky feed for the Black community on Bluesky.
I explain the case for a greater community role in social media in some depth in this article (https://www.techpolicy.press/three-pillars-of-human-discourse-and-how-social-media-middleware-can-support-all-three/), and a more basic introduction to middleware is in this Persuasion guest post with Renee DiResta (https://www.persuasion.community/p/how-to-reclaim-social-media-from).
Twice now, posted before concluding. Dr. Fukuyama, would appreciate hearing your thoughts on MacIntyre and his relevance to our current moment. Thank you.
Intended to conclude my
As it happens, currently reading Alasdair Macintyre’s “After Virtue.” He strongly rejects the communitarian label. “Something I have never been.” MacIntyre insists that his critique of liberalism does not come from that place, but from a virtue ethics in the Aristotelian sense.