Good essay, and not just because the Scottish Enlightenment is in fact the best Enlightenment.
I am curious to hear about your sense of the transition between classical liberalism and modern liberalism. Particularly because all of the people I first heard refer to themselves as "classical liberals" were followers of the Scottish Enlightenment, and did so to differentiate themselves from the modern (1870-present) American liberals, while trying to retain the word. Reading this it seems like you are making perhaps a third distinction in the groups? No classical liberals I know would put "progressivism" as you describe it here in their list of principle beliefs, for example.
I did try to briefly explain how I thought classical liberalism became managerial liberalism. I certainly include "progressives" under the umbrella of managerial liberalism. But, maybe I'm not understanding your comment?
1: Classical Liberalism (the "liberal plan" of Adam Smith.)
2: American Liberalism (the left liberalism that took the name in the US ~1870 that looks little like classical liberalism, and included at least the seeds of progressivism as per Thomas C. Leonard)
3: Managerial liberalism: The modern, very much not liberal plan that is so far left even American liberals say "Woah... what happened?"
My sense between 2 and 3 is that the progressivism got put a bit by the wayside after the mess of the early 20th century with WWI and WWII when people realized what it implied, then came back in the very late 20th century (1990-2000's) when people forgot that it leads to e.g. forced sterilization and genocide. Utopianism again raises its hubristic head and starts biting everything.
My sense between 1 and 2 is that the momentum of Smith's liberal system was dying down in the US after the Civil War, but people still generally liked the words of freedom and all, so the rhetoric and words were taken to cloth an entirely different beast. Kind of like how when a country has "Democratic People's Republic" in the name, it is probably not because its government is democratic, a republic, or even gives a damn about the people's preferences. To my mind that tracks the way language and propaganda were being used in novel ways. You like freedom? Let me tell you about the freedom you can experience in slavery!
However, I get the feeling that your definition of 1, of what Classical Liberal means, is different than mine. If it is the same as mine, I don't see the smooth transition between 1 and 2 you imply, as opposed to a the naming your ideology its opposite I roughly sketch above. If it is different than mine, I would love to hear what it is you have in mind.
Okay, there’s a lot there. I’m not going to be able to do it justice in the comments section. First, for what it’s worth, I don’t think it’s accurate to characterize Adam Smith as classically liberal. Such characterization is usually a function of privileging The Wealth of Nations over The Theory of Moral Sentiments, which Smith considered his great life work. I’m pretty sure he even said that the former should only be read in the context of the latter. In any event, The Theory of Moral Sentiments certainly provides a much more complex and nuanced picture of human nature and social relations than the kind of monadic individualism that classical liberals tend to read into The Wealth of Nations.
I’m aware of the slippery nomenclature in American political discourse. That after all is the calling card of the verbally dexterous managerial class. In terms of trying to do an objective analysis, I’m not so interested in the self-identity of such people. Beyond, of course, that being just another example of how the ruling faction of the managerial class manipulates language to disguise and advance their interests. There are several earlier posts that address this topic, but unfortunately, I can’t link in the comments section. The posts titled “Revolution Within the Form" and "Introspective Marxism,” would be a couple places to start if you were interested in those arguments. But there are many other posts here on this topic.
Finally, I will disagree that managerial liberalism isn’t real liberalism. To the degree that liberalism has been based upon natural law or Kantian transcendent principles, it has had a universalizing, imperialist Schmittian motorization from the very start. Whether in the form of military campaigns to “liberate” people around the world and enforce a universalist regime of global “human rights,” or as a colonization of community and family, through social engineering and bureaucratic paternalism, to root out regressive, bigoted, antiquated (and otherwise problematic) institutions and traditions, this universalizing imperialism is intrinsic to much of historical liberalism. Now, that doesn’t mean it isn’t possible to have a liberalism which is conceded to be nothing more than one’s phenotypic preference. Indeed, this would seem to be the logic of consequentialist defenses of liberalism (though, weirdly, they too often feel a need to appeal to universalism). But historically an honest acknowledge of phenotypic preference has not been the go-to philosophical and moral grounding of liberalism.
I appreciate that this probably isn’t a sufficient response to your thoughtful questions, but as I said, that would be a bigger job than this space provides. Hopefully, these comments at least help clarify where we might differ.
Thanks for your contribution to the comments section. It’s always appreciated.
Thanks for your reply. I am still confused then by what exactly you are referring to when you say "classical liberal". What, or who, does that represent?
What? Probably roughly something like an emphasis upon deracinated individualism, rationalism, universalism. With some ingredient of progressivism tied in either explicitly or implicitly. Most likely anti-traditionalism. As mentioned, usually defended with either an appeal to natural law or a transcendent conception of consequentialism -- which would include though not be exhausted by utilitarianism. That would at least seem to me to be a good first pass at "what"?
At the risk of using it too much, I'm inclined to apply the McGilchrist hemisphere dominance paradigm to this issue. It would appear that these Scottish folks had an appropriately "right hemisphere brain" dominant conception of the individual, being able to appreciate the bidirectional relationship between individual and community. Using this same paradigm, the type of thinking that would necessarily lead to a deracinated individualism would be a "left hemisphere brain" dominant perspective that fails to appreciate how, even as individuals, human beings are intensely social animals and cannot be understood outside the context of community.
Thank you for this article, I don't know that I would have ever appreciated the sinister conflation of liberalism and the enlightenment that has apparently resulted in so much confusion. I also appreciate the recognition that a religious revival may have merits, but with unequivocal rejection of the idea than an abandonment of science is acceptable. I've been thinking of how populism can build the widest tent possible, but see in, say, flat earthers an aggressive rejection of science that implies that they may very well stone the like of you and me to death for questioning the firmament if they had the political power to do so. I could support that kind of thing in a particularized community you are allowed to leave, but those sets of norms applied broadly would bring civilization to its knees every bit as much as managerial liberalism.
You get the feeling Ferguson had a significant impact on the thinking of Mises? Maybe I'm honing in on his use of the term "human action" too much, but it seems like his methodological dualism was a recognition that science hadn't reached the point where it could fully explain what people like Ferguson were able to recognize, so side stepped the issue in an effort to better understand economics while science worked out the answers to these other questions.
I certainly agree that there's nothing magical about the value of organic community. It can go very badly. I see the world as a shifting balance between variables. When things shift too far in one direction, social stability requires pushing them back in the other direction. And, if that doesn't work, social collapse will. It's just that social reform is less painful and deadly than social collapse. I can easily imagine an alternate world in which organic community was leading to stultifying stagnation, in which case I'd be arguing for more space for individual creativity and expression. That's just not the world we're living in.
Don't know about Ferguson and Mises. He certainly had a big impact on Hayek. Could Hayek's Ferugusonian influence have influenced Mises? Perhaps. But I do think there's something to the idea that in Human Action Mises made a deliberate decision to narrow the analytic focus.
Sep 15, 2022·edited Sep 15, 2022Liked by The Evolved Psyche
No wonder Hume hated Rousseau's guts...
--------------
None among the rejecting the Enlightenment people I read also rejects science. This might be a selection bias, though - I'd never take anybody who rejects science wholesale seriously.
I find your elucidation cogent and compelling. "What they did dispute was the idea that human society was, or could be, constructed out of rational will and planning". Or that the rational mind is the only source of truth and knowledge.
Even worse, Hume didn't! Hume spent his own money to put up Rousseau in the UK when R. was finding the continent a little hot. However, R was apparently paranoid and thought his Scotts hosts were plotting against him. That isn't to say Hume loved the guy dearly, but he was willing to help him out quite a bit.
Good essay, and not just because the Scottish Enlightenment is in fact the best Enlightenment.
I am curious to hear about your sense of the transition between classical liberalism and modern liberalism. Particularly because all of the people I first heard refer to themselves as "classical liberals" were followers of the Scottish Enlightenment, and did so to differentiate themselves from the modern (1870-present) American liberals, while trying to retain the word. Reading this it seems like you are making perhaps a third distinction in the groups? No classical liberals I know would put "progressivism" as you describe it here in their list of principle beliefs, for example.
I did try to briefly explain how I thought classical liberalism became managerial liberalism. I certainly include "progressives" under the umbrella of managerial liberalism. But, maybe I'm not understanding your comment?
Sorry, I probably wasn't clear.
I see three steps:
1: Classical Liberalism (the "liberal plan" of Adam Smith.)
2: American Liberalism (the left liberalism that took the name in the US ~1870 that looks little like classical liberalism, and included at least the seeds of progressivism as per Thomas C. Leonard)
3: Managerial liberalism: The modern, very much not liberal plan that is so far left even American liberals say "Woah... what happened?"
My sense between 2 and 3 is that the progressivism got put a bit by the wayside after the mess of the early 20th century with WWI and WWII when people realized what it implied, then came back in the very late 20th century (1990-2000's) when people forgot that it leads to e.g. forced sterilization and genocide. Utopianism again raises its hubristic head and starts biting everything.
My sense between 1 and 2 is that the momentum of Smith's liberal system was dying down in the US after the Civil War, but people still generally liked the words of freedom and all, so the rhetoric and words were taken to cloth an entirely different beast. Kind of like how when a country has "Democratic People's Republic" in the name, it is probably not because its government is democratic, a republic, or even gives a damn about the people's preferences. To my mind that tracks the way language and propaganda were being used in novel ways. You like freedom? Let me tell you about the freedom you can experience in slavery!
However, I get the feeling that your definition of 1, of what Classical Liberal means, is different than mine. If it is the same as mine, I don't see the smooth transition between 1 and 2 you imply, as opposed to a the naming your ideology its opposite I roughly sketch above. If it is different than mine, I would love to hear what it is you have in mind.
Okay, there’s a lot there. I’m not going to be able to do it justice in the comments section. First, for what it’s worth, I don’t think it’s accurate to characterize Adam Smith as classically liberal. Such characterization is usually a function of privileging The Wealth of Nations over The Theory of Moral Sentiments, which Smith considered his great life work. I’m pretty sure he even said that the former should only be read in the context of the latter. In any event, The Theory of Moral Sentiments certainly provides a much more complex and nuanced picture of human nature and social relations than the kind of monadic individualism that classical liberals tend to read into The Wealth of Nations.
I’m aware of the slippery nomenclature in American political discourse. That after all is the calling card of the verbally dexterous managerial class. In terms of trying to do an objective analysis, I’m not so interested in the self-identity of such people. Beyond, of course, that being just another example of how the ruling faction of the managerial class manipulates language to disguise and advance their interests. There are several earlier posts that address this topic, but unfortunately, I can’t link in the comments section. The posts titled “Revolution Within the Form" and "Introspective Marxism,” would be a couple places to start if you were interested in those arguments. But there are many other posts here on this topic.
Finally, I will disagree that managerial liberalism isn’t real liberalism. To the degree that liberalism has been based upon natural law or Kantian transcendent principles, it has had a universalizing, imperialist Schmittian motorization from the very start. Whether in the form of military campaigns to “liberate” people around the world and enforce a universalist regime of global “human rights,” or as a colonization of community and family, through social engineering and bureaucratic paternalism, to root out regressive, bigoted, antiquated (and otherwise problematic) institutions and traditions, this universalizing imperialism is intrinsic to much of historical liberalism. Now, that doesn’t mean it isn’t possible to have a liberalism which is conceded to be nothing more than one’s phenotypic preference. Indeed, this would seem to be the logic of consequentialist defenses of liberalism (though, weirdly, they too often feel a need to appeal to universalism). But historically an honest acknowledge of phenotypic preference has not been the go-to philosophical and moral grounding of liberalism.
I appreciate that this probably isn’t a sufficient response to your thoughtful questions, but as I said, that would be a bigger job than this space provides. Hopefully, these comments at least help clarify where we might differ.
Thanks for your contribution to the comments section. It’s always appreciated.
Thanks for your reply. I am still confused then by what exactly you are referring to when you say "classical liberal". What, or who, does that represent?
What? Probably roughly something like an emphasis upon deracinated individualism, rationalism, universalism. With some ingredient of progressivism tied in either explicitly or implicitly. Most likely anti-traditionalism. As mentioned, usually defended with either an appeal to natural law or a transcendent conception of consequentialism -- which would include though not be exhausted by utilitarianism. That would at least seem to me to be a good first pass at "what"?
Oh I changed terms, sorry. American Liberalism = Modern liberalism = what Americans called "liberals" after 1870 and before say 2000.
At the risk of using it too much, I'm inclined to apply the McGilchrist hemisphere dominance paradigm to this issue. It would appear that these Scottish folks had an appropriately "right hemisphere brain" dominant conception of the individual, being able to appreciate the bidirectional relationship between individual and community. Using this same paradigm, the type of thinking that would necessarily lead to a deracinated individualism would be a "left hemisphere brain" dominant perspective that fails to appreciate how, even as individuals, human beings are intensely social animals and cannot be understood outside the context of community.
Thank you for this article, I don't know that I would have ever appreciated the sinister conflation of liberalism and the enlightenment that has apparently resulted in so much confusion. I also appreciate the recognition that a religious revival may have merits, but with unequivocal rejection of the idea than an abandonment of science is acceptable. I've been thinking of how populism can build the widest tent possible, but see in, say, flat earthers an aggressive rejection of science that implies that they may very well stone the like of you and me to death for questioning the firmament if they had the political power to do so. I could support that kind of thing in a particularized community you are allowed to leave, but those sets of norms applied broadly would bring civilization to its knees every bit as much as managerial liberalism.
You get the feeling Ferguson had a significant impact on the thinking of Mises? Maybe I'm honing in on his use of the term "human action" too much, but it seems like his methodological dualism was a recognition that science hadn't reached the point where it could fully explain what people like Ferguson were able to recognize, so side stepped the issue in an effort to better understand economics while science worked out the answers to these other questions.
I certainly agree that there's nothing magical about the value of organic community. It can go very badly. I see the world as a shifting balance between variables. When things shift too far in one direction, social stability requires pushing them back in the other direction. And, if that doesn't work, social collapse will. It's just that social reform is less painful and deadly than social collapse. I can easily imagine an alternate world in which organic community was leading to stultifying stagnation, in which case I'd be arguing for more space for individual creativity and expression. That's just not the world we're living in.
Don't know about Ferguson and Mises. He certainly had a big impact on Hayek. Could Hayek's Ferugusonian influence have influenced Mises? Perhaps. But I do think there's something to the idea that in Human Action Mises made a deliberate decision to narrow the analytic focus.
All you wise men don't know what it fee e e e e e ells to be- thick as a brick.
Great song, though. ;-)
No wonder Hume hated Rousseau's guts...
--------------
None among the rejecting the Enlightenment people I read also rejects science. This might be a selection bias, though - I'd never take anybody who rejects science wholesale seriously.
I find your elucidation cogent and compelling. "What they did dispute was the idea that human society was, or could be, constructed out of rational will and planning". Or that the rational mind is the only source of truth and knowledge.
Even worse, Hume didn't! Hume spent his own money to put up Rousseau in the UK when R. was finding the continent a little hot. However, R was apparently paranoid and thought his Scotts hosts were plotting against him. That isn't to say Hume loved the guy dearly, but he was willing to help him out quite a bit.