I always find some interesting nuggets in your posts (not to denigrate the entirety!) which, along with other writers and long form interviews with current thinkers, passes for my rather late education in these realms. I very much appreciated the De Tocqueville definition of Liberalism, a term that has attracted vitriolic criticism from some quarters while I general held it as a positive concept.
The brief 'general will' discussion also drew my attention and particularly in relation to citizens assemblies which have become part of my general Liberal outlook in recent years. These two 'nuggets' are clearly not unrelated and lead me to thinking about how these higher aims become a natural expression of a society and the frameworks that might nurture this process.
I also appreciated the nuanced appraisal of someone you clearly admired and the questions, rather than answers, that arise from this appraisal. Many thanks!
Thanks a lot Richard for taking the time to read it and respond. It took about three days to write it so I’m glad it meant something to you. The thing about the nuggets is that they only really appear when you try to express the whole thing, but they are no less valuable for that.
Timely piece, to back off to take the broad perspective, especially after the political win by Ayn Randian libertarian oligarchs here in the States. The contrast of French and British liberalisms makes sense. Where "liberalism" becomes harder, at least for me, to pin meaning to is the current American context, where the Trumpists conflate it with their bizarre concept of "woke," and are proudly "anti-woke" and honor Orban's "illiberalism" as a model.
American "liberalism" looks different from both the French and British models, at least viewed from here in New England, where civic involvement continues to be widely practiced, even by our Republicans, who are predominantly non-Trumpist and focused on community good. It's claimed Virginian Thomas Jefferson, and his New England peers, were most influenced by Francis Hutcheson's moral philosophy. Jefferson substituted "pursuit of happiness" for "property" (as the original draft had it) due to Hutcheson's insistence that property is only justified to the point of supporting happiness (a predecessor perhaps of Maslow's "heirarchy of needs). While Adam Smith followed Hutcheson in his chair, Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments is more communitarian that libertarian, following in Hutcheson's wake.
In the current American perspective (or at least the New England variant) "liberalism" looks more like Dewey's pragmatism, or FDR's New Dealism, whose failure to meet the present moment follows more from it's having lost significant ground, especially from the later 60s onward, due in some large part to Chicago school economic theorists who -- at least from a New England liberal's point of view -- are hardly liberal at all (and who badly distorted Smith).
So blaming liberalism, when it hasn't even been in power, may be appropriate only if one is to blame it for not being in power. On the other hand, the label "liberalism" is given to so many, such different, things....
I absolutely agree that Inventing and Dominion are very different books but they were used by the same people for the same purpose. I will check out your article and video and respond.
I read “Inventing the Individual” back in 2018 because a version of its ideas became fashionable among conservatives trying to create a narrative around Christianity and Liberal Democracy. Its role has since been replaced by Tom Holland’s Dominion.
I thought the early chapters on the Greek and Roman social orders and the contrast to Christianity were very good. The narrative gets considerably messier and more confusing when he reaches the Middle Ages and he constantly seemed to be straining to marshal the evidence to fully support his argument.
Thanks Matt. On Larry, I hear what you say about Dominion but they are very different books.
I really enjoyed your satire of the three-way conversation. Our space needs more of that kind of levity.
As for the metacrisis itself, if you’re interested I wrote a piece called Prefixing the World that might be of interest and there’s a relatively short video, featuring only one beard (and it’s a goatee) here: https://youtu.be/IjOQB608ylQ?si=B3x0MP7ej-Qh4i3W
I always find some interesting nuggets in your posts (not to denigrate the entirety!) which, along with other writers and long form interviews with current thinkers, passes for my rather late education in these realms. I very much appreciated the De Tocqueville definition of Liberalism, a term that has attracted vitriolic criticism from some quarters while I general held it as a positive concept.
The brief 'general will' discussion also drew my attention and particularly in relation to citizens assemblies which have become part of my general Liberal outlook in recent years. These two 'nuggets' are clearly not unrelated and lead me to thinking about how these higher aims become a natural expression of a society and the frameworks that might nurture this process.
I also appreciated the nuanced appraisal of someone you clearly admired and the questions, rather than answers, that arise from this appraisal. Many thanks!
Thanks a lot Richard for taking the time to read it and respond. It took about three days to write it so I’m glad it meant something to you. The thing about the nuggets is that they only really appear when you try to express the whole thing, but they are no less valuable for that.
Timely piece, to back off to take the broad perspective, especially after the political win by Ayn Randian libertarian oligarchs here in the States. The contrast of French and British liberalisms makes sense. Where "liberalism" becomes harder, at least for me, to pin meaning to is the current American context, where the Trumpists conflate it with their bizarre concept of "woke," and are proudly "anti-woke" and honor Orban's "illiberalism" as a model.
American "liberalism" looks different from both the French and British models, at least viewed from here in New England, where civic involvement continues to be widely practiced, even by our Republicans, who are predominantly non-Trumpist and focused on community good. It's claimed Virginian Thomas Jefferson, and his New England peers, were most influenced by Francis Hutcheson's moral philosophy. Jefferson substituted "pursuit of happiness" for "property" (as the original draft had it) due to Hutcheson's insistence that property is only justified to the point of supporting happiness (a predecessor perhaps of Maslow's "heirarchy of needs). While Adam Smith followed Hutcheson in his chair, Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments is more communitarian that libertarian, following in Hutcheson's wake.
In the current American perspective (or at least the New England variant) "liberalism" looks more like Dewey's pragmatism, or FDR's New Dealism, whose failure to meet the present moment follows more from it's having lost significant ground, especially from the later 60s onward, due in some large part to Chicago school economic theorists who -- at least from a New England liberal's point of view -- are hardly liberal at all (and who badly distorted Smith).
So blaming liberalism, when it hasn't even been in power, may be appropriate only if one is to blame it for not being in power. On the other hand, the label "liberalism" is given to so many, such different, things....
Apreciated this. "Much crisper" made me laugh.
I absolutely agree that Inventing and Dominion are very different books but they were used by the same people for the same purpose. I will check out your article and video and respond.
I read “Inventing the Individual” back in 2018 because a version of its ideas became fashionable among conservatives trying to create a narrative around Christianity and Liberal Democracy. Its role has since been replaced by Tom Holland’s Dominion.
I thought the early chapters on the Greek and Roman social orders and the contrast to Christianity were very good. The narrative gets considerably messier and more confusing when he reaches the Middle Ages and he constantly seemed to be straining to marshal the evidence to fully support his argument.
I get very shirty with some Metacrisis people here: https://tempo.substack.com/p/metacrisis-what-metacrisis
Thanks Matt. On Larry, I hear what you say about Dominion but they are very different books.
I really enjoyed your satire of the three-way conversation. Our space needs more of that kind of levity.
As for the metacrisis itself, if you’re interested I wrote a piece called Prefixing the World that might be of interest and there’s a relatively short video, featuring only one beard (and it’s a goatee) here: https://youtu.be/IjOQB608ylQ?si=B3x0MP7ej-Qh4i3W