Rethinking Classical Liberalism in "Progressive" Times
Robert Adcock2009
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Abstract
AI
AI
The paper explores the evolution of classical liberalism in the context of social changes brought about by industrialization and democratization during the 19th century. It highlights the tension between traditional liberal values and the demands for a more active government response to societal transformations. Key thinkers like Tocqueville and Mill are examined for their attempts to reconcile liberalism with emerging democratic ideals, while also addressing the disillusionment among classical liberals who resisted these changes. Ultimately, the work emphasizes the fragmentation of liberal thought during this period and the divergence of different liberal traditions.
Key takeaways
- This paper explores classical liberal disillusionment via two figures: Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner.
- To put the contrast simply, probably too simply, Sumner was a conservative classical liberal while Spencer was a radical one.
- But we are misled if we approach Sumner as a disciple of Spencer.
- Sumner, moreover, drew from Spencer concepts with which he gave sociological expression to this disillusionment.
- While Spencer was a radical whose classical liberalism was translated into a future utopia available to all societies, Sumner inherited classical liberalism as a tradition cherishing account of the historically exceptional "civil liberty" of America.
Related papers
The Classical Liberal Ideas, Predicaments, and Potentials
Palgrave Studies in Classical Liberalism, 2023
In this chapter classical liberalism, and different liberal predicaments and potentials to fight back against populism, are explored. Liberals cannot resort to the same methods as the populists without abandoning liberalism itself. But the three dimensions of classical liberalism, about institutions, economics and society, and the liberal spirit reinforce each other and provide the potential for fighting back against populist threats. Keyword Classical liberalism • Liberal predicaments • Liberal potentials • Liberal institutions • Liberal economy and society • the liberal spirit
Traditions in Political Theory : Liberalism 2 Discipline Courses-I
Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi
In the late twentieth and twenty first century challenges to Liberalism came from various quarters that make the history of Liberal politics complicated and conflictual. Moreover the central themes of Liberalism were questioned and debate started between Liberals and various others. However the debate enriched Liberalism in a number of ways because in the process of responding to various challenges Liberalism undertook the task of incorporating those challenges, and broadening the conceptual parameters of Liberalism .
The Liberal Predicament: Historical and Logical
Politics, 1995
There are two distinct accounts of the inner weakness of contemporary liberalism: a historical account, which emphasizes the extent to which liberal societies have changed, making liberal arguments seem less and less relevant; and a logical account, which emphasizes the extent to which liberal arguments themselves have changed, abandoning their original conceptual foundations. This article summarizes these two accounts, and then argues that liberalism might be more defensible if these two accounts can work in combination rather than antagonistically. The strength of such a combination is briefly illustrated by sketching its possible implications for two important liberal debates: markets and multiculturalism.
Liberalism: Political Doctrine and Impact on Social Science
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2015
A doctrine with roots in eighteenth century thought, liberalism emerged in the nineteenth century as the prevailing ideology of Western capitalist societies and democracies. Philosophically, liberalism consists of a commitment to the ideals of equality, liberty, individuality, and rationality. However, liberals have divided over their social and political implications. Some liberals have believed these values to be inscribed within the very fabric of modern societies, reflecting the innovative technologies, social differentiation and free movement of labor, goods, and capital characteristic of the commercial and industrial age and its aftermath. Others have thought the links between the two are fortuitous and contingent, and that these and other related social changes, such as the growth of bureaucracy, potentially threaten liberalism. Politically united against traditional and hierarchical societies, liberals have differed, therefore, over whether liberalism requires various kinds of political support, such as the state regulation of markets, or merely the absence of any interference by either the state or others to the spontaneous and autonomous social activities of individuals. Meanwhile, critics of liberalism have either blamed it for all contemporary social ills or regarded it as a transitory phase to be replaced by superior forms of social organisation. However, contemporary liberals seem increasingly critics themselves of the inequality and abuse of rights found in modern societies, although how far their proposals can be made a reality remains uncertain.
Introduction: the vicissitudes of liberalism
The Research Handbook on Liberalism, 2024
An introduction to my edited collection, 'A Research Handbook on Liberalism' (Elgar, 2024). The demise of liberalism has been predicted almost since it was born. In this comprehensive review of the current state of the literature on the history and future of liberalism, I identify five types of liberalism in play today and three overarching concerns about its future viability that chapters in the book engage with from different philosophical, methodological, and historical perspectives. (This chapter has been made available as Open Access on the Elgar website here: https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollbook/book/9781839109034/9781839109034.xml)
The Crisis of Liberalism
Journal of Democracy, 2018
as well as visiting professor at the College of Europe in Bruges. This article is an edited and updated version of his essay "La crise du liberalisme en Europe Centrale," published in Commentaire (Winter 2017, No. 160). It was translated from the French by Philip J. Costopoulos. In his essay Reflections on the Revolution in Europe, written in the heat of the moment, sociologist Ralf Dahrendorf tried, in the manner of Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France, to define the meaning of 1989 and the stakes of the transitions that were then beginning in the eastern part of the continent. 1 For Dahrendorf, it was not a question of the "end of history" (the lack of any alternative to "market-based democracy"), nor even the victory of the "capitalist system" over the "socialist system," but rather the victory of the "open" over the "closed" society. For Dahrendorf, as for sociologist Ernest Gellner, this was the deep meaning of 1989, which presented an opportunity for liberal democracy in Central and Eastern Europe. The fading away of totalizing visions made it possible to envisage diverse postcommunist trajectories, whose outcome would depend on the ability of new political elites to carry to completion a simultaneous triple transition with distinct, interdependent, and asynchronic dimensions: There would be free elections and the founding of law-based rule (the work of six months), followed by a market economy (the work of six years), and then a civil society (the work of sixty years). The year 1989 stood for a "bourgeois revolution" without a bourgeoisie, a democratic revolution that would have to construct the conditions of its own existence-the "conditions of liberty," to borrow Gellner's words. 2 Yet 1989 was also experienced by its protagonists (and not only by a few exiled or dissident writers) as the "return of Central Europe" and of nations recovering their liberty by leaving the Soviet empire. The cul
The Progressive revolution in politics and political science: transforming the American regime
Choice Reviews Online
"What is Liberalism?" Political Theory, Vol. 42, no. 6 (2014)
Liberalism is a term employed in a dizzying variety of ways across the humanities and social sciences. This essay seeks to reframe how the liberal tradition is understood. I start by delineating different types of response – prescriptive, comprehensive, explanatory – that are frequently conflated in answering the question “what is liberalism?” I then discuss assorted methodological strategies employed in the existing literature: after rejecting “stipulative” and “canonical” approaches, I outline a contextualist alternative. On this (comprehensive) account, liberalism is best characterised as the sum of the arguments that have been classified as liberal, and recognised as such by other self-proclaimed liberals, over time. In the remainder of the article I present an historical analysis of shifts in the meaning of liberalism in Anglo-American political thought between 1850 and 1950, focusing in particular on how John Locke came to be seen as a liberal. I also explore the emergence of the category of "liberal democracy". I argue that the scope of the liberal tradition was massively expanded during the middle decades of the twentieth century, such that it came to be seen by many as the constitutive ideology of the West. This capacious (and deeply confusing) understanding of liberalism was produced by a conjunction of the ideological wars fought against “totalitarianism” and assorted developments in the social sciences. Today we both inherit and inhabit it.
Liberal Theory in the XXI Century: Identity, Tendencies and Perspectives
2023
On October 7th, 2023, during the traditional annual conference of the School of Philosophy and Cultural Studies, this year named "Future World/ Worlds," a section dedicated to liberalism both as a theory and a political approach was held at the Higher School of Economics. Graduate and Undergraduate researches who took part in this section, titled "Liberal Theory in the XXI century: Identity, Tendencies and Perspectives," covered a wide range of topics, from the history of political thought to the current decline of liberal principles in actual politics, as well as the benefits and disadvantages of different attempts to reformulate liberalism or combine it with other theoretical frameworks. Although it lacked renowned experts in the field as guests, the event still managed to attract the attention of both the specialists who presented the results of their research and an interested audience, who stayed for the discussion that ended the section. All six presentations raised intense debates among the participants and guests, and this, along with the complex and rich contents of the addresses themselves, points to the fact that liberalism, although often considered a theory of the past, is still relevant and perspective.
Related papers
Liberalism in dark times: The liberal ethos in the twentieth century
Contemporary Political Theory
Liberalism Against the Nation: A False Hypothesis of Historical Analysis
Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, 2010
Numerous researches of political science and contemporary historiography -which one may consider as being within the overarching framework of a scientific trend -have formulated and consolidated the theory that the nation, as it is encapsulated within the concept of the 'nation state', was and still is a political idea which finds itself far from the liberal ideology (e.g. Holmes 1999; McMahan and McKim 1997). Moreover, such research has created the impression that there is a historical opposition between the liberal and the national political positions and, in other words, between liberalism and nationalism. 1 In this essay I will try to sketch some general arguments in order to invalidate the thesis of the conceptual incompatibility between liberal and national principles and in order to demonstrate that the theory according to which national liberalism was and still is possible is sustainable by at least as many arguments as the theory of the opposition between the nation and liberalism. The usefulness of such a demonstration is considerable, not only for researchers concerned with conceptual clarifications, but also for those who are interested in studying the relations between the ideological dimensions and the practice of politics. The main objective of this essay is to offer an answer to the following question: Is there a scientific ground for the theory of the historical opposition between liberalism and the nation? In order to answer this question, this essay is organised in three parts. The first part identifies the position of the nation within the classical liberal discourse; the second identifies the crucial moment of the 1950's as the precise period in which a major change in the relation between liberalism and the nation took place; the third one identifies the moment of the nation's restoration within the contemporary liberal discourse. The main conclusion of this essay is that, except for a brief though noteworthy period (which explains the actual apparent consensus concerning the opposition between the liberal and the national theories), the nation was a fundamental component of the liberal discourse and of the liberal political practices rather than a result of an opposing political vision.
What Was Liberalism, and Who Was Its Subject?; Or, Will the Real Liberal Subject Please Stand Up?
Victorian Studies, 2011
The Political Philosophy and Politics of Liberalism: A Basic Bibliography
I would like to thank L.D. Burnett of the U.S. Intellectual History Blog for prompting me to put this particular list together for a guest-post at the USIH blog (part of the Society for U.S. Intellectual History) back in 2015. I have expanded the original list although I trust it remains manageable (at least it is far shorter than most of my bibliographies). Liberalism is attractive on both principled and strategic grounds. You're completely right, of course, about the failures of actual historical liberalism, which are manifest, indeed ubiquitous, all around us. But what is the source of these failures? If liberalism has never lived up to its ostensible principles and values, that goes no way in proving that the principles and values are themselves unattractive ones. The illuminating way to understand these violations of (ideal) liberal norms, I suggest in the book, is not as the consequence of an intrinsically self-undermining 'illiberalizing' dynamic within liberalism but rather as a manifestation of the corrupting results of group power, whether of the privileged classes, men, or the dominant race, for liberal theory and practice. Hence the creation of a bourgeois, patriarchal, or racial liberalism (usually all three combined, of course). But we can appeal to the idealized, non-group-restricted versions of liberal principles and values to critique the exclusionary versions-indeed, that is precisely what most American progressive social
Précis of "Renewing Liberalism"
1. The Book in Brief a. The Purpose of the Book The purpose of the book is to develop, articulate, and defend an original and comprehensive philosophical theory of the nature and justification of modern political liberalism. Modern political liberalism can be understood negatively, by contrast with the essential tenets of modern political conservatism, or positively, as a set of affirmative theses. The purpose of the book is best explained in the former way, the approach of the book in the latter. The essential tenets of modern political conservatism, which can be traced back to the work of Edmund Burke, are as follows: a preference for liberty over equality; an attitude of suspicion toward the power of the State; elitism; and respect for tradition and established institutions, coupled with a cautious skepticism of the idea of progress. The point of departure for the theory of liberalism developed in the book is the first of these, and in particular the interpretation of the concept of individual liberty which is assumed, often implicitly or unconsciously, by the modern conservative
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.