A History of liberalism
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
Liberal philosophy is based on the assumption of the free, autonomous individual. Adam Smith helped give rise to the French ideal of Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite and developed an economic theory (liberalised capitalism) based around this youthful ideal as it was then. It was thought that by abolishing the enforced, legalised markers of class distinctions (like royalty, servants) that were present under feudalism that this would allow people to become free, to act as they want. It was as though this would suddenly bring about equality. Liberty was assumed to lead to equality. Equality was assumed to lead to a brotherhood of man (fraternity).
A few hundred years of capitalism has shown a quite different reality. Less than 1% of the population achieves any sort of social mobility (meaning “rising up” to a higher class). Removing an enforced hierarchy (one where you were officially born into a class in which you would stay) has done little to remove many other barriers to social mobility.
The capitalist system values certain very specific practices. You are rewarded for very specific abilities, skills and knowledge under the capitalist system. Changing from feudalism to capitalism did not change the society’s ideas of what sorts of jobs or knowledge were worth more. The concept of liberalism was not to value the work and knowledge of the lower classes much more highly. It was to allow the people born into the lower classes to take on the values of the upper classes and to adhere to them. This continues to this day. Although each generation marginally changes the values of the society, as has happened throughout history in every society, the basic concepts of high art and high literature are still dominant. We value more highly the ability to talk about certain topics than others (eg. Politics more than sport). This is an arbitrary decision made by the people who were in power several centuries ago.
This power also extends to language. Mass schooling has perpetuated standardised languages, where the ruling class’ grammar and dialect is promoted as the “correct” way to speak a language. In some countries this has meant the domination of one language over another (ie. In countries where one culture has colonised another), in other places it has meant the domination of one dialect over another. In Australia, we assume that it is “incorrect” to use the second person plural form “yous” (often spelt “youse”). There is no real reason for this arbitrary decision apart from it having been a form used by lower classes rather than upper classes. Many languages use a second person plural form, and indeed, from a pragmatic point of view it makes sense to denote a difference between second person plural and second person singular. However, one form is considered “incorrect” and will mark you as being a certain type of person. In many instances it may be even seen as a mark of intellect.
The practices and values of the lower classes are generally denigrated and dismissed as invalid. There is no objective reason why meat pies are worse than filet mignon. There is no objective reason why Britney Spears is worse than Frank Sinatra. Millions of people enjoy Britney. She reflects certain values. She sings about certain cultural practices that are very important and real to many people. The arbitrariness of such distinctions is never more obvious than in the changing of cultural norms over time. Once upon a time, jazz was the music of the devil. Rock and roll also took this label at one stage. Yet gradually, rock n roll permeated throughout mainstream society and now, civilised, elderly citizens can be seen rocking along to syncopated beats and unmelodic cacophony. Gradually, people got off their high horses and started enjoying the music they wanted to. The same doesn’t generally happen with food. Certain food practices are seen as markers of certain levels of class and distinction.
There is an ad at the moment where “yobbos” are seen in a car, eating a meat pie with ketchup, looking in at chardonnay sippers in a café. In Australia, the meat pie is seen as typical football yob, uncivilised food. The yobbos make a comment about being glad they don’t have to be in the café sipping chardonnay: the poor buggers. It’s a funny ad, but on the serious side, it highlights class values. The idea that the working class would take pride in their practices is seen as comical. The working class is not expected to see their own values as being better. Yet from their own subjective perspective, this may well be the case.
But to return the topic of liberalism, there has been a shift in the past century as to the concept of liberalism. People previously described as liberals are now described as conservatives (and in many cases, vice versa). The reason for this is that, as I said, time has shown that the idealism upon which our liberal capitalism was based has not proven to be the reality of the situation. As people have found that class remains fairly constant under liberalism, there have been widely varied attempts to come up with new theories to address this inequality. The most famous attempt was Marx’s model of communism. However, all attempts at communism to date have been marred by the same youthful idealism that was never realised in practice for liberal capitalism. Inequality was still strongly present in the models of Communism tried in parts of Eurasia and Central America. The flaw lay in the fact that it fell into the same trap as liberalism. Communism tried to be more liberal than the liberals. It recognised the inequality of capitalism and tried to remove this inequality by allowing everyone to do the same work. As The Simpsons put it, they pretended everyone was equal when they weren’t really. It supposedly made everyone equal. It didn’t work for similar reasons to why capitalism didn’t work. Marx’s notions of class were simplistic, and so this over-liberalisation allowed despotic leaders to take advantage of the lower classes.
Postmodernism has taken a more philosophical approach (although of course Smith himself was a philosopher who believed that by encouraging individual betterment, people would somehow accidentally help their society, a premise that has been attacked vehemently ever since it was published). Up to here, I’ve been sort of putting my understanding of some elements of Bourdieu into my own words. However, postmodernists have not generally suggested any remedies to the inequalities they identify. Postmodernists do not necessarily oppose capitalism. Although postmodernism is usually portrayed as an exclusively leftist set of theories, it can be used for as broad a set of perspectives as modernism has. Modernism, as advocated by Descartes (the “I think therefore I am” guy) was considered pretty leftist and controversial when Meditations came out. The church hated Descartes and his focus on reason. Smith’s liberal capitalism was later based on very similar ideasto the ones that Descartes advocated. By Smith’s time, modernism had become the social norm of Western society, having persisted and survived a moral panic. It then saw a wide variety of views being taken on, using the same philosophical framework. You can use logic philosophy to justify anything from Christian Right values to Republican/Liberal Party values to the Right’s Libertarian values to Labor Party/US Democrats values to the Greens. Equally, postmodernism at its extreme can be used to advocate anarchy or it can be used to advocate a Westernised, racially exclusive society.
For instance, although capitalism maintains inequality, it may not be possible, or even ideal for this to be avoided. Every single culture, be it based on liberal capitalism, communism, tribalism, socialism, or fascism etc. only values a limited set of practices. Postmodernists argue that we are forced to adhere to certain social constructions. We (postmodernists) argue that people are forced to perform certain limited norms which are socially constructed. Every culture is based on a wide range of norms, values and rules. There are certain advantages and disadvantages to this in that people know what they are supposed to do, and thus might suffer less confusion as long as they can feel comfortable enacting the norms available to them.
To advocate a complete abandonment of cultural values would have to be either extremely organised, or anarchic. So a postmodernist may acknowledge the inequality of capitalism, yet acknowledge that financial success is not the only marker of a good life.
I think we should acknowledge that capitalism is not nearly as liberal as it was thought it was going to be, but that this is not necessarily absolutely important. As I told in my story about the happy homeless people Link, there is more to life than overcoming financial inequality. What we should be focussed on is not a discourse of deficiency, where we are constantly trying to “help those less fortunate than us” to become more like us. We must stop so arrogantly assuming that our values are the best. We should acknowledge that many other people’s values are equally valid and we should try to value those differences. I don’t mean value them financially, but give validity to them. This is a much harder social change to achieve than the changes achieved by the Left in the 60s and 70s. We aren’t talking about convincing just the Government to change their ideas, but the entire population to change the way they talk about things during their everyday lives. We must stop denigrating each other’s values and practices. (To this end, Leftist “political correctness” has been a fairly populist bastardisation of postmodernism).
We have to learn to accept a certain level of inequality. Schools will continue to perpetuate the class distinctions that have been present for centuries. Our financial system will continue to value certain practices over others. This does not mean that other models of economic management will achieve a change. Nor should it be necessarily what we strive towards. The Australian Aborigines were quite happy before Europeans arrived, yet many on both sides of politics still want to “help” the Aborigines become more like us. It may be well-meaning, but it is often simplistic. I don’t mean we should accept the poverty of South Africa or the genocide of the Sudan. However, having a brick house with a bathroom mirror is not the only way to be happy.
A few hundred years of capitalism has shown a quite different reality. Less than 1% of the population achieves any sort of social mobility (meaning “rising up” to a higher class). Removing an enforced hierarchy (one where you were officially born into a class in which you would stay) has done little to remove many other barriers to social mobility.
The capitalist system values certain very specific practices. You are rewarded for very specific abilities, skills and knowledge under the capitalist system. Changing from feudalism to capitalism did not change the society’s ideas of what sorts of jobs or knowledge were worth more. The concept of liberalism was not to value the work and knowledge of the lower classes much more highly. It was to allow the people born into the lower classes to take on the values of the upper classes and to adhere to them. This continues to this day. Although each generation marginally changes the values of the society, as has happened throughout history in every society, the basic concepts of high art and high literature are still dominant. We value more highly the ability to talk about certain topics than others (eg. Politics more than sport). This is an arbitrary decision made by the people who were in power several centuries ago.
This power also extends to language. Mass schooling has perpetuated standardised languages, where the ruling class’ grammar and dialect is promoted as the “correct” way to speak a language. In some countries this has meant the domination of one language over another (ie. In countries where one culture has colonised another), in other places it has meant the domination of one dialect over another. In Australia, we assume that it is “incorrect” to use the second person plural form “yous” (often spelt “youse”). There is no real reason for this arbitrary decision apart from it having been a form used by lower classes rather than upper classes. Many languages use a second person plural form, and indeed, from a pragmatic point of view it makes sense to denote a difference between second person plural and second person singular. However, one form is considered “incorrect” and will mark you as being a certain type of person. In many instances it may be even seen as a mark of intellect.
The practices and values of the lower classes are generally denigrated and dismissed as invalid. There is no objective reason why meat pies are worse than filet mignon. There is no objective reason why Britney Spears is worse than Frank Sinatra. Millions of people enjoy Britney. She reflects certain values. She sings about certain cultural practices that are very important and real to many people. The arbitrariness of such distinctions is never more obvious than in the changing of cultural norms over time. Once upon a time, jazz was the music of the devil. Rock and roll also took this label at one stage. Yet gradually, rock n roll permeated throughout mainstream society and now, civilised, elderly citizens can be seen rocking along to syncopated beats and unmelodic cacophony. Gradually, people got off their high horses and started enjoying the music they wanted to. The same doesn’t generally happen with food. Certain food practices are seen as markers of certain levels of class and distinction.
There is an ad at the moment where “yobbos” are seen in a car, eating a meat pie with ketchup, looking in at chardonnay sippers in a café. In Australia, the meat pie is seen as typical football yob, uncivilised food. The yobbos make a comment about being glad they don’t have to be in the café sipping chardonnay: the poor buggers. It’s a funny ad, but on the serious side, it highlights class values. The idea that the working class would take pride in their practices is seen as comical. The working class is not expected to see their own values as being better. Yet from their own subjective perspective, this may well be the case.
But to return the topic of liberalism, there has been a shift in the past century as to the concept of liberalism. People previously described as liberals are now described as conservatives (and in many cases, vice versa). The reason for this is that, as I said, time has shown that the idealism upon which our liberal capitalism was based has not proven to be the reality of the situation. As people have found that class remains fairly constant under liberalism, there have been widely varied attempts to come up with new theories to address this inequality. The most famous attempt was Marx’s model of communism. However, all attempts at communism to date have been marred by the same youthful idealism that was never realised in practice for liberal capitalism. Inequality was still strongly present in the models of Communism tried in parts of Eurasia and Central America. The flaw lay in the fact that it fell into the same trap as liberalism. Communism tried to be more liberal than the liberals. It recognised the inequality of capitalism and tried to remove this inequality by allowing everyone to do the same work. As The Simpsons put it, they pretended everyone was equal when they weren’t really. It supposedly made everyone equal. It didn’t work for similar reasons to why capitalism didn’t work. Marx’s notions of class were simplistic, and so this over-liberalisation allowed despotic leaders to take advantage of the lower classes.
Postmodernism has taken a more philosophical approach (although of course Smith himself was a philosopher who believed that by encouraging individual betterment, people would somehow accidentally help their society, a premise that has been attacked vehemently ever since it was published). Up to here, I’ve been sort of putting my understanding of some elements of Bourdieu into my own words. However, postmodernists have not generally suggested any remedies to the inequalities they identify. Postmodernists do not necessarily oppose capitalism. Although postmodernism is usually portrayed as an exclusively leftist set of theories, it can be used for as broad a set of perspectives as modernism has. Modernism, as advocated by Descartes (the “I think therefore I am” guy) was considered pretty leftist and controversial when Meditations came out. The church hated Descartes and his focus on reason. Smith’s liberal capitalism was later based on very similar ideasto the ones that Descartes advocated. By Smith’s time, modernism had become the social norm of Western society, having persisted and survived a moral panic. It then saw a wide variety of views being taken on, using the same philosophical framework. You can use logic philosophy to justify anything from Christian Right values to Republican/Liberal Party values to the Right’s Libertarian values to Labor Party/US Democrats values to the Greens. Equally, postmodernism at its extreme can be used to advocate anarchy or it can be used to advocate a Westernised, racially exclusive society.
For instance, although capitalism maintains inequality, it may not be possible, or even ideal for this to be avoided. Every single culture, be it based on liberal capitalism, communism, tribalism, socialism, or fascism etc. only values a limited set of practices. Postmodernists argue that we are forced to adhere to certain social constructions. We (postmodernists) argue that people are forced to perform certain limited norms which are socially constructed. Every culture is based on a wide range of norms, values and rules. There are certain advantages and disadvantages to this in that people know what they are supposed to do, and thus might suffer less confusion as long as they can feel comfortable enacting the norms available to them.
To advocate a complete abandonment of cultural values would have to be either extremely organised, or anarchic. So a postmodernist may acknowledge the inequality of capitalism, yet acknowledge that financial success is not the only marker of a good life.
I think we should acknowledge that capitalism is not nearly as liberal as it was thought it was going to be, but that this is not necessarily absolutely important. As I told in my story about the happy homeless people Link, there is more to life than overcoming financial inequality. What we should be focussed on is not a discourse of deficiency, where we are constantly trying to “help those less fortunate than us” to become more like us. We must stop so arrogantly assuming that our values are the best. We should acknowledge that many other people’s values are equally valid and we should try to value those differences. I don’t mean value them financially, but give validity to them. This is a much harder social change to achieve than the changes achieved by the Left in the 60s and 70s. We aren’t talking about convincing just the Government to change their ideas, but the entire population to change the way they talk about things during their everyday lives. We must stop denigrating each other’s values and practices. (To this end, Leftist “political correctness” has been a fairly populist bastardisation of postmodernism).
We have to learn to accept a certain level of inequality. Schools will continue to perpetuate the class distinctions that have been present for centuries. Our financial system will continue to value certain practices over others. This does not mean that other models of economic management will achieve a change. Nor should it be necessarily what we strive towards. The Australian Aborigines were quite happy before Europeans arrived, yet many on both sides of politics still want to “help” the Aborigines become more like us. It may be well-meaning, but it is often simplistic. I don’t mean we should accept the poverty of South Africa or the genocide of the Sudan. However, having a brick house with a bathroom mirror is not the only way to be happy.
