Liberalism, Multiculturalism & Feminism

[Terxpahseyton]

Liberalism is mostly about the absence of compulsion.

Socialism is mostly about the absence of compulsion.

 

[Tahuti]

Socialism is mostly about the absence of compulsion.

Some anarchocommunists such as Noam Chomsky also consider themselves Classical Liberals, so your - arguably non-literal - statement may actually be more true than you think.

 

[Gary Childress]

What if they feel cannibalism (or wife-beating, or whatever) is too big a part of their culture to be abandoned? Should we try to convince them they are wrong (cultural imperialism), throw them in jail (oppression), or just let them be?

Hi Luiz,

Yes, I think others should try to convince them they are wrong in that aspect of their culture (if they are beating wives or practicing cannibalism for example). As I say above I think you can point out an injustice or wrong without meaning to use it to belittle a culture or hold that culture as "inferior" to your own (especially for purposes of achieving power over those other cultures).

I think there are certainly individuals out there who will try to misuse "multiculturalism" to claim that some absolutely horrible behavior is justified. For example Some oppressive governments have said that things like liberty, tolerance, etc. are "western values" and that it is "cultural imperialism" for western nations to be concerned about such injustices that a culture commits on its own people. I think this is a very vulgar and misguided argument. Such claims are made on an immoral foundation and those who make such claims are really not concerned with moral behavior to begin with. All they want to do is justify their own oppression of others. What is the point of multiculturalism if it is to be used to justify oppression and injustice? I may as well say that it is part of MY cultural heritage to be a "cultural imperialist".

HOWEVER, I do think "cultural imperialism" in other senses is a legitimate concern of multiculturalism. So for example let's say oil is discovered on some remote islands. The islands are undeveloped and their people are not capable of exploiting the resource on their own. Also they happen to own slaves because it is part of their culture that certain individuals don't have the right to be free or something. An example of "cultural imperialism" would be invading the islands saying that we're there to help the people establish a better culture, when in fact it is not really our concern or desire to help them, rather just to take the oil.

I don't think it is "cultural imperialism" for an outsider to point out to this culture that slavery is morally wrong. I would think slavery (for example) is morally wrong in ANYONE'S book. I don't know to what extent armed intervention would be necessary to stop continued injustice. Perhaps other more diplomatic and less destructive means could be employed to help the plight of those who are being enslaved by that culture. Certainly steeling their resources is uncalled for and I think that is the real concern of "multiculturalism", trying to take unfair advantage of minority cultures for purposes of exploiting them. That is also wrong in pretty much anyone's book I would hope.

It is my current belief that things like feminism, multiculturalism and more widely speaking, liberalism were founded on good intentions and that at their core they are with good intent. However, like many ideals they can be misapplied and used toward immoral ends by morally depraved individuals. The key is to recognize and preserve the good intent of them and try to prevent their misappropriation.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@Kaiserguard

Interesting point.

But look at it this way: Can we really say that West Germany had a higher absence of compulsion than East Germany?
West Germany knew a lot less political compulsion.
East Germany knew a lot less private compulsion.
Now what is the greater compulsion?
I don't think we can even answer that.
What we can answer is what kind of compulsion we prefer.

Saying: I don't think "absence of compulsion" actually means anything. I don't think liberalism is about a quantity (of compulsion). But about a quality (of compulsion, if you insist).

 

[classical_hero]

But either way, the question is always about liberty, not about multiculturalism, not about feminism, not about social cohesion or anything else. (I) Does it increase or decrease liberty? (II) Is the effect on liberty of the kind and extent that all of society has an interest in it? Answering those questions will tell us how we should respond to areas where multiculturalism, feminism and liberalism apparently clash.

But what about social concerns? Where do you put the limits of individual liberty over the concerns of the society as a whole?

 

[Gary Childress]

But what about social concerns? Where do you put the limits of individual liberty over the concerns of the society as a whole?

This is an excellent point classical hero. It seems to me that there are necessarily limits to individual liberty. I don't think a liberal would say there isn't. For example, is it my right as a private citizen to carry a light machine gun into an elementary school? Is it imposing on my personal liberty to prevent me from doing so? In some vague sense perhaps it is but at the same times I don't think it amounts to "slavery" or "oppression" if I am prevented from doing this.

I don't think anyone believes in absolute freedom to do anything and everything. That would be complete chaos and cause a lot of societal dysfunction. On the other hand, there are such things as true slavery and oppression which liberals are (or at least should be) against. Again, there are certainly people out there who will make outlandish claims such that liberals are really for enslaving everyone. I don't think anyone worth the title "liberal" is in favor of enslaving everyone. But it's a good way to misrepresent the liberal position so that it can be easily undermined by less thoughtful discourse.

 

[classical_hero]

I think where the limits are of liberty is where the various groups differ each other. A libertarian will say there are none (which is an odd position since some liberties go against each other), whereas a liberal might say they stop at a certain point in one spot and not in others and a cconservative will have a different opinion and so on.

 

[Gary Childress]

Liberalism is mostly about the absence of compulsion. What constitutes the 'absence of compulsion' usually marks the divisions in liberalism (i.e. modern liberalism, classical liberalism).

My understanding of what liberalism is "about" is that it is about many somewhat related values and/or themes. For example, equality is a value that has played a prominent role in liberal theory. Many essays and books have been penned toward defining in what senses equality is important. Toleration also (Locke's Letter on Toleration is perhaps a good early example). A bit less controversial is perhaps liberty. There are many "liberal" values and liberalism is constantly refining itself as new ideas and needs arise. I suppose there may be some core values that are universal and unchanging. I suppose "absence of compulsion" is something that has been discussed as well but I don't think it defines what liberalism is "mostly" about. In fact, taking any single value to the extreme is probably going to result in moral conflicts and exceptions.

 

[BvBPL]

Pointing out the moral errors of another should not be done to elevate oneself over others, rather it should be to help the perpetrator of these wrongs become a better person and in practice make the world a better place.

Good luck with that on the internet.

Liberalism tries to ensure all individuals rights, dignity and moral worth.
Feminism tries to address oppression of women
Multiculturalism tries to address oppression of cultural minority groups.

At first glance I personally do not see where these things are in conflict with each other. But perhaps that is my uninformed view. So my question is what would represent some examples where these political tendencies truly conflict with one another? Perhaps others may be able to think of some good examples, where I am unable to?

You should examine third-wave feminism. Third-wave feminism arose because second-wave feminism was seen as focused in the rights of women as understood by the cultural majority in Western culture. However, many minority women (minority of ethnicity, minority of sexuality, all sorts of minorities) did not value the same goals and the same homogeny of interest that second-wave feminists were pursuing. In so doing, these minority voices developed third-wave feminism with an open tent towards minority ideas.

 

[Tahuti]

Saying: I don't think "absence of compulsion" actually means anything. I don't think liberalism is about a quantity (of compulsion). But about a quality (of compulsion, if you insist).

That's why I believe Liberalism as a political ideology doesn't work. Liberalism can be matter of fact (like multiculturalism), but it can't be an end in itself. It is highly impotent as a political cause and very corrosive to society because it looks to bang issues down our throats in a religious fervour, but without the benefits of religion.

Spoiler :

In case you were wondering, I'm largely conservative myself. I occassionally support what can best be described as progressive causes - like tolerance towards ethnic minorities - but I tend to view them as political tendencies that have my sympathy for their own sake, independent of ideology. I think abstract ideologies like Socialism, Libertarianism or Liberalism are doomed to failure because neither has a clearly defined end-game. I'm distrustful of ideology and I view Conservatism as the absence of it.

 

[Gary Childress]

Good luck with that on the internet.

Your point is?

You should examine third-wave feminism. Third-wave feminism arose because second-wave feminism was seen as focused in the rights of women as understood by the cultural majority in Western culture. However, many minority women (minority of ethnicity, minority of sexuality, all sorts of minorities) did not value the same goals and the same homogeny of interest that second-wave feminists were pursuing. In so doing, these minority voices developed third-wave feminism with an open tent towards minority ideas.

I did not realize feminism came in "waves"? I saw the word "postmodernism" in the litany of influences on Wikipedia which makes me a little worried.

That's why I believe Liberalism as a political ideology doesn't work. Liberalism can be matter of fact (like multiculturalism), but it can't be an end in itself. It is highly impotent as a political cause and very corrosive to society because it looks to bang issues down our throats in a religious fervour, but without the benefits of religion.

I don't think liberalism tries to be an end in itself. I also don't get the impression that liberalism tries to bang issues down people' throats with "religious fervor". Maybe there are individuals out there who do these things but I don't get the impression that they are representative of any "true" spirit of liberalism.

Spoiler :

In case you were wondering, I'm largely conservative myself. I occassionally support what can best be described as progressive causes - like tolerance towards ethnic minorities - but I tend to view them as political tendencies that have my sympathy for their own sake, independent of ideology. I think abstract ideologies like Socialism, Libertarianism or Liberalism are doomed to failure because neither has a clearly defined end-game. I'm distrustful of ideology and I view Conservatism as the absence of it.

I would think "conservatism" is pretty much as "abstract" as "liberalism". Or in what ways is it not?

 

[Gary Childress]

Sorry, double posted and didn't need to.

 

[Tahuti]

I don't think liberalism tries to be an end in itself. I also don't get the impression that liberalism tries to bang issues down people' throats with "religious fervor". Maybe there are individuals out there who do these things but I don't get the impression that they are representative of any "true" spirit of liberalism.

You may have not realised it yourself, yet you inadvertedly noted the inherent contradiction of liberalism: It tries not to be an end in itself, yet becomes the end in itself.

I would think "conservatism" is pretty much as "abstract" as "liberalism". Or in what ways is it not?

If you mean by 'conservatism' European 'Right-Wing' Populists who love the nation-state and hate other cultures, I don't think they are by any imagination conservative, due to their deference towards the nation state. Their desire to purge Europe of Muslims constitutes a revolutionary programme motivated by ideology that has origins in the Enlightenment.

Likewise, most US Conservatives buy the idea you can install American style democracy in other countries, as what happened during the Iraq War. That's comparable to the Worldwide Proletarian Revolution preached by Marxism-Leninism. I think the British Conservatives come closest to my preferred brand of Conservatism, despite I dislike their opposition to the EU.

 

[Gary Childress]

You may have not realised it yourself, yet you inadvertedly noted the inherent contradiction of liberalism: It tries not to be an end in itself, yet becomes the end in itself.

I have no idea how to appropriately respond to this. I mean I don't want to be disrespectful toward you but you really seem to have an axe to grind because I really don't get the same impression from what I have learned about liberalism. Maybe we're getting our information from different places. By "liberal" are you thinking of the pejorative American definition of the term?

If you mean by 'conservatism' European 'Right-Wing' Populists who love the nation-state and hate other cultures, I don't think they are by any imagination conservative, due to their deference towards the nation state. Their desire to purge Europe of Muslims constitutes a revolutionary programme motivated by ideology that has origins in the Enlightenment.

Likewise, most US Conservatives buy the idea you can install American style democracy in other countries, as what happened during the Iraq War. That's comparable to the Worldwide Proletarian Revolution preached by Marxism-Leninism. I think the British Conservatives come closest to my preferred brand of Conservatism, despite I dislike their opposition to the EU.

No I don't mean "right wing" I mean conservatism in the sense that one tries to conserve what are deemed worthy traditions and is generally suspicious of change. I mean it's a perfectly legitimate and reputable way to look at the world but I don't see where it is any more concrete or less "abstract" than liberalism. It seems to me that "conservatism" is a very difficult term to pin down precisely as is liberalism though I think there are some shared values between the two such as a desire to generally benefit human beings.

I think you're mistaken about the Enlightenment. Yes, there were figures of the enlightenment who weren't sure how to pick up values such as toleration and liberty and carry them to a successful end. Locke sort confines his musings on toleration a bit narrowly to religious toleration in his "Letter Concerning Toleration". But if you want to look at racism and bigotry, I think Hegel, Fichte and many of the German idealists who have been a kind of backbone in continental philosophy have a pretty good claim to a prize on that. Hegel made a few comments on the backward peoples of the world. I mean if you want to attack roots, pretty much everyone has roots in some sort of evil. But I think there are also some good ideas and ideals that developed out of all the muck which is human history. It seems to me that many of these ideals are pretty universally good. Liberty, toleration, equality, dignity, respect, etc. They've been applied in different ways over the course of history, some of those ways have really boiled down to nothing more than abuses and misuses of good ideas. Jesus has some very good ideas but the established church afterward went on to have the crusades and inquisitions etc etc. I don't think that negates the teachings of Jesus.

 

[Tahuti]

I have no idea how to appropriately respond to this. I mean I don't want to be disrespectful toward you but you really seem to have an axe to grind because I really don't get the same impression from what I have learned about liberalism. Maybe we're getting our information from different places. By "liberal" are you thinking of the pejorative American definition of the term?

Liberalism can both denote a matter-of-fact (having liberal drug laws) or a political movement describing to a vague notion of equality. I often support Liberalism as matter-of-fact, though you by now what I think of it as political current and ideology.

No I don't mean "right wing" I mean conservatism in the sense that one tries to conserve what are deemed worthy traditions and is generally suspicious of change. I mean it's a perfectly legitimate and reputable way to look at the world but I don't see where it is any more concrete or less "abstract" than liberalism. It seems to me that "conservatism" is a very difficult term to pin down precisely as is liberalism though I think there are some shared values between the two such as a desire to generally benefit human beings.

Conservatism doesn't necessarily seek to 'generally benefit human beings', since human beings may generally not deserve it. That is not to say I am a misanthrophe, yet many issues humans face could have addressed by humans collectively - and we fail to do it. We moan about bankers taking bonuses, yet most humans are unable to identify the flaws in the banking system and address them by building alternatives.

If things were brought about because people were too lazy to deal with it, those that were too lazy deserve to face the consequences for being responsible for it. Conservatism - as political current - opposes politics based on abstract principles because ethics and morality exist here and now: We just have to learn to live by it.

I think you're mistaken about the Enlightenment. Yes, there were figures of the enlightenment who weren't sure how to pick up values such as toleration and liberty and carry them to a successful end. Locke sort confines his musings on toleration a bit narrowly to religious toleration in his "Letter Concerning Toleration". But if you want to look at racism and bigotry, I think Hegel, Fichte and many of the German idealists who have been a kind of backbone in continental philosophy have a pretty good claim to a prize on that. Hegel made a few comments on the backward peoples of the world. I mean if you want to attack roots, pretty much everyone has roots in some sort of evil. But I think there are also some good ideas and ideals that developed out of all the muck which is human history. It seems to me that many of these ideals are pretty universally good. Liberty, toleration, equality, dignity, respect, etc. They've been applied in different ways over the course of history, some of those ways have really boiled down to nothing more than abuses and misuses of good ideas. Jesus has some very good ideas but the established church afterward went on to have the crusades and inquisitions etc etc. I don't think that negates the teachings of Jesus.

I'm not opposed to the Enlightenment wholesale. But I'm generally opposed to seeing the world in overly rationalist terms. The Enlightenment arguably has accomplished tolerance, though in its most extreme forms, it has - paradoxically - engendered intolerance. The thought of Christopher Hitchens, for instance, pretty much encapsulates everything where the Enlightenment went completely wrong.

 

[BvBPL]

Your point is?

Just a joke that telling people they are wrong on the internet is a fraught enterprise.

I did not realize feminism came in "waves"? I saw the word "postmodernism" in the litany of influences on Wikipedia which makes me a little worried.

The example of third-wave feminism demonstrates the problems of comparing three broad ideologies and saying that they are all in line with each. Each of these ideologies is far too broad to make general claims as to their relationship with the other ideologies. Under the umbrella of each of these ideologies ready examples can be cited that oppose one if not both of the other two of your triumvirate.

 

[Gary Childress]

The example of third-wave feminism demonstrates the problems of comparing three broad ideologies and saying that they are all in line with each. Each of these ideologies is far too broad to make general claims as to their relationship with the other ideologies. Under the umbrella of each of these ideologies ready examples can be cited that oppose one if not both of the other two of your triumvirate.

What would be some examples of where these ideologies seem to oppose one another, I mean without proposing ridiculous definitions of what these ideologies stand for or seek, such as multiculturalism should allow for the oppression of minorities within minority groups? I clearly don't think that should fly in anyone's book.

My take on things is that liberalism is generally concerned with the well being of all human beings. Feminism is perhaps more focused on a particular group which has historically suffered to a greater degree than it's opposite. And multiculturalism largely came into being out of the ashes of social imperialism, colonialism, genocide and barbarism of (hopefully) the past. I don't see where these concerns genuinely conflict with one another. I think some people will try to pit these political tendencies against each other because they simply want to justify some sort of injustice or easily discredit these ideologies by creating a straw man to hack away at. Perhaps I'm wrong but until someone enlightens my feeble mind I won't know otherwise.

@ Kaiserguard: I would think most (at least reputable and thinking) conservatives fundamentally would disagree with the assessment that conservatism doesn't fundamentally seek the general benefit of human beings. This sounds more like identifying conservatism with "right wing" groups than what I have come to understand as reputable conservatism. I mean it's pretty easy to discredit an ideology if it is represented as not seeking to benefit people. Who are conservatives then seeking to benefit? Fish? Insects? Themselves and no one else?

 

[Tee Kay]

I think most adherent of almost any ideology would say that they seek to benefit humanity. Ask a believer in fascism and they'll say they want to make the world a better place.

 

[Gary Childress]

I think most adherent of almost any ideology would say that they seek to benefit humanity. Ask a believer in fascism and they'll say they want to make the world a better place.

Good point. In some purist senses fascism tries to justify the idea that one should identify strongly with one's own race, nation etc. If one looks at least superficially at some of the more "philosophical" debate going on in Germany in the 1930s you can see some seemingly reasonable arguments being made, that modern culture is "uprooted" and without "identity", "alienated", that people will find more happiness in identifying themselves with their "own folk". Perhaps there is even some truth to this. Heidegger once commented that Germany was on the right track in the 20s and 30s but that Hitler, Mussolini and gang essentially derailed the whole movement, that fascism isn't truly about war and genocide. It was a complicated era. There was also a trend in Germany (in some literary circles at the time) after WW1 of identifying war as some sort of natural end toward which humans strive for or find their true meaning in life and what not.

So the question is do we define fascism by the ideas of Heidegger and others who thought about it or do we define it by what Hitler and Mussolini made of it? Hitler and Mussolini were certainly very morally depraved human beings. Perhaps even products of their time, who knows. Do we define fascism by what it was in theory or do we define it by some hideous actions which were done in its name by some people who never should have gotten into power?

I don't know. What happened in Germany before and during WW2 is pretty repugnant, so repugnant that it has effectively made fascism (perhaps justifiably) appear like the epitome of evil. Certainly fascism is an illiberal ideology. Liberalism has usually tried (at least in theory) to apply itself to all human beings, to come up with a set of values whereby all human beings can flourish irrespective of race, religion, etc and realize their true nature in a community of moral equals. Many of the values which many of us identify with today are embodied by liberalism. Feminism and multiculturalism seem very compatible with liberalism to me. In a sense fascism lost in WW2 and liberalism (among other ideas) maybe won?

 

[Mise]

I don't have time for a full reply right now, but Terxpahseyton, you seem to be unaware of any developments in liberal philosophy in 150 years or past. As someone who thinks that John Rawls was one of the most important thinkers of all time, that freedom is not either positive or negative, but a triadic relation, and that allowing people the freedom to live their lives according to their own authentic will, to fulfil their potential and to enable human flourishing is the ultimate goal of liberalism (an idea that originated with JS Mill, incidentally), I feel like you're missing out!

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk