Machan's Musings - Another Modern Liberal Confusion
by Tibor R. Machan
It has long been a central criticism of classical liberal social philosophy that it is too individualistic. Critics have coined the term "atomism" for their complaint -- philosophers such as Charles Taylor, sociologists such as Amitai Etzioni, and others have followed in the footsteps of the nineteenth century German political economist, Karl Marx, by claiming that the classical liberal, libertarian outlook mistakenly construes human beings as essentially individuals. These radicals have held that our individuality is central to what we are. Marx’s famous charge against capitalism, that it is alienating people in all kinds of ways, arises from lamenting this idea.
The gist of the criticism is that classical liberals or libertarians understand people to be self-directed, self-motivated to enhance and develop their own lives by taking charge of it, and not by depending primarily, at least in adulthood, on others, on society, and on various groups. As Marx put the idea, "The human essence is the true collectivity of man," arguing that people really are parts of a larger whole -- society, humanity, family, you name it.
Yet, it is interesting that one of the major beefs of those (mainly on the Left today) who have sympathy with this outlook -- and, accordingly, criticize individualism -- is that the U.S. Supreme Court does not recognize privacy as a fundamental individual right. Be it in connection with the abortion debate, homosexuality, or various civil liberties issues, the critics of the conservative wing of the court -- who are sympathetic with the political Left -- constantly stress the importance of the right to privacy.
Now if there is anything in the American political tradition that encourages individual independence, the right to privacy -- founded, in fact, on that famous capitalist institution, the right to private property -- is certainly at the top of the list. If one is free to withdraw to one’s own sphere -- free to associate only with those one chooses as friends and keep to oneself and be private, rather than to open oneself to various groups and be public -- that certainly would tend to make atomism a possibility. (Classical liberals and libertarians, however, maintain that this charge of atomism is bogus -- the only thing they oppose is forced membership in groups, not a great variety of voluntary associations among individuals.)
This current championing of the right to privacy by the Left is by all appearances quite disingenuous. It smells much like the Left's earlier championing of freedom of speech, which in time metamorphosed into championing political correctness, the very opposite of freedom of speech. These principles often paraded about by the likes of the ACLU and other Left or near-Left political groups tend, in the main, to amount to temporary tools for advancing nothing but left-wing power throughout the country. How could all these socialists or near-socialists truly endorse the right to privacy when, in fact, their social and political philosophy does not even recognize people as individuals with a private life, let alone a private dominion? It is as close to a ruse as anything can get in the realm of politics.
Sadly, these paradoxes are not often pointed out in mainstream political discussions, in part because both sides that dominate them -- modern liberals and social conservatives -- are hostile to any type of bona fide individualism. Indeed, socialists and conservatives are both against it. Just revisit the quote from Marx and then consider the words of the most famous conservative thinker, Edmund Burke, who said, most forthrightly, that "[E]ach man's private capital of intelligence is petty; it is only when a man draws upon the bank and capital of the ages, the wisdom of our ancestors, that he can act wisely," and that "We are afraid to put men to live and trade each on his own private stock of reason, because we suspect that this stock in each man is small, and that the individuals would do better to avail themselves of the general bank of nations and of ages."
Of course, the radicalism of individualism is undeniable, but is it true? Yes, it is -- and everyone can experience its truth by observing himself or herself navigating the world: Although we all draw on what we learn from others, we ourselves are the ones who put what we have learned together and make it work for us.
Discuss this Article (11 messages)
|
