Liberalism, Multiculturalism & Feminism

[Terxpahseyton]

What political ideology doesn't want humans to "flourish"?
And what in God's name is an "authentic will"?

I don't think I missed that much going by what you just said

I had to Google triadic relation

"x is/is not free from y to do/not to do or become/not become z"

Ehm isn't this just negative freedom?

This formula only establishes weather something imposes on me with regards to some action/becoming. But it doesn't establish what I can actually do/become.

 

[Tahuti]

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?

Heidegger was part of the Conservative Revolution. Indeed he was right to identify a sense of rootedness as a potential benefit of fascism. However, fascism went wrong because it was an ideology with fundamental enlightenment influence (namely nationalism) combined with authoritarianism, populism and militarism, it was capable of unimaginable carnage.

A major flaw of fascism is that is highly anti-universalist (which is something I am rather sympathetic to and also a major tenet of multiculturalism) yet also anti-particularist at the same time: It doesn't allow for exceptions yet is the exception itself, so justifying aggressive warfare and destroying individual creativity as well anything that is considered different.

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?

I think it is hard to explain - which is why conservatism lacks popularity among intellectual circles - though I understand it as the way society currently goes, however flawed, imbues life with a sort of meaning.

There is no benefit to give to humanity, fundamentally speaking, and conservatism rather seeks to preserve and restore society in general. This is because humanity - if it wishes to have benefits - must improve itself by changing its internal nature, rather than use government or technology. Whenever new institutions are invented, the goal should be defend what is good about a common way of life, something that imbues a meaning in life beyond mere economic incentives as in socialism and capitalism.

 

[Gori the Grey]

it seems to me that I can be respectful of Muslims and not discriminate against them and at the same time acknowledge also that women are often unfairly treated in some cases in Muslim culture.

But your definition of liberalism calls on you to do more than "acknowledge" that women are unfairly treated:

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.

It calls on you to try to "ensure" rights, dignity and moral worth for the women in that culture. Are you going to do that? Or are you going to be respectful of Muslim culture's "right" to be the kind of culture that they are.

Liberalism, I think largely correctly, feels it has found the best ways of ensuring human flourishing. Can it impose those on cultures that don't observe them?

In your later example of the tribe that practices slavery, take out the oil detail, just leave in the slavery. No, EVERYONE doesn't regard slavery as wrong; this hypothetical society doesn't. How do we honor it as a society (as multiculturalism calls on us to do) while ending its abhorrent practice (as liberalism calls on us to do)?

And is there any way of being sure that these ideas about the best conditions for human flourishing are really objectively best, and not just ours (in which chase it would be cultural imperialism to impose them on others)?

There are live questions here.

 

[Gary Childress]

Heidegger was part of the Conservative Revolution. Indeed he was right to identify a sense of rootedness as a potential benefit of fascism. However, fascism went wrong because it was an ideology with fundamental enlightenment influence (namely nationalism) combined with authoritarianism, populism and militarism, it was capable of unimaginable carnage.

Hmmm. This is a very interesting interpretation, that enlightenment influence was a key factor in the "failure" of fascism. I suppose that is a possibility. Perhaps too many cooks spoil the stew so to speak.

On an interesting side note; I took a class on German Idealism many years back at George Mason University under Thelma Levine who was at the time a reasonably somewhat noteworthy philosopher of the social sciences. Her argument was essentially that LACK of enlightenment influence was a key flaw in Fascism. That the Enlightenment was largely a British, Dutch, French etc phenomena and Germany was a relative outsider or latecomer to the Enlightenment.

@ Gori the Grey: I don't know if almost everyone doesn't regard slavery as a "wrong". Do majorities in cultures which practice slavery subscribe to the notion that they themselves ought to be slaves? It seems to me that slavery involves a universal evil which is being practiced upon some by others who would not themselves wish to be slaves. So for example suppose I beat my wife on a regular basis, that doesn't mean that I think beating my wife is a good thing. I know its a bad thing because I myself would not want to be treated the same way. I would think slavery is something similar. It is a universal wrong because most people (save for a relatively few masochistic types who for whatever reason want to beat themselves up) would not subscribe to the practice if they themselves had to endure this practice.

EDIT: Also to add to my response to Gori and address the first part of your reply; Yes. I think liberalism, like most value systems does call upon us to act on our values. However there are different ways to act. Acting to help those oppressed in a culture which practices slavery need not necessarily entail invading or colonizing that culture in order to "show them the light". In fact, as we all probably should know, that may often just exacerbate the problem. Again, taking values of multiculturalism into consideration it would be wrong to take advantage of another culture's moral shortcomings in order to promote our own culture so that we can use this power to subjugate or manipulate the minority culture. That is a clear and known wrong and very much at the heart of multiculturalism I would think.

EDIT2: Also I would think it depends upon the severity of the situation involving a culture that is oppressing another. For example if Culture X is practicing genocide against culture Y, then yes, I would think immediate and decisive intervention might be warranted regardless of any perceived "cultural imperialism" which this may entail. But the intent should never be to simply take advantage of the situation to further the interests of outsider cultures or nations.

 

[Tahuti]

Hmmm. This is a very interesting interpretation, that enlightenment influence was a key factor in the "failure" of fascism. I suppose that is a possibility. Perhaps too many cooks spoil the stew so to speak.

On an interesting side note; I took a class on German Idealism many years back at George Mason University under Thelma Levine who was at the time a reasonably somewhat noteworthy philosopher of the social sciences. Her argument was essentially that LACK of enlightenment influence was a key flaw in Fascism. That the Enlightenment was largely a British, Dutch, French etc phenomena and Germany was a relative outsider or latecomer to the Enlightenment.

Nationalism is an enlightenment concept. Before we associated nationalism with ethnic hatred and the like, it was actually promoted as vehicle to promote democracy and representative government in general, as opposed to the patchwork of aristocratically ruled mini-states which compromised Germany and Italy before the late 19th century and multicultural empires like Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire (before the Young Turk revolution).

The call for unification of Germany was fundamentally rooted in liberal circles. While is Fascism anti-capitalist, Marxists are generally right to point that Fascism constitutes a radicalisation of the Middle Class, in colusion with the military and the lower classes. What is however often forgotten that Fascism makes a pretense of being democratic, which is necessary outgrowth of nationalism, the most important component of Fascism.

Again, not all aspects of the Enlightenment are bad and Fascism is opposed to many aspects of the Enlightenment, yet its populist and nationalistic nature, as well as its adherence to modernism makes it very indebted to Enlightenment thought, though not to the same degree as liberalism or Marxism, which are far more obvious results of the Enlightenment.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Acting to help those oppressed in a culture which practices slavery need not necessarily entail invading or colonizing that culture in order to "show them the light".

Some things you say make me think you understand "cultural imperialism" as old-school imperialism, taking over a country and run it. I understand "cultural imperialism" as dominant (liberal) cultures of our world imposing their cultural values on "less developed" countries without physically taking them over.

Also, some things you say make me think that, when you think about what a liberal culture might want to do relative to an oppressive culture, you think only about the perpetrators of oppression in that culture, not the victims. Feminists find a conflict, to get back to your OP, between wanting to protect the oppressed in oppressive cultures and in imposing our values on that culture.

The conflicts you listed in your OP are real conflicts, between various impulses within liberalism. You can't just live-and-let-live, all-cultures-are-equally-valuable, if some of what those cultures do conflicts with what you regard as the conditions of human flourishing.

 

[Gary Childress]

Nationalism is an enlightenment concept. Before we associated nationalism with ethnic hatred and the like, it was actually promoted as vehicle to promote democracy and representative government in general, as opposed to the patchwork of aristocratically ruled mini-states which compromised Germany and Italy before the late 19th century and multicultural empires like Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire (before the Young Turk revolution).

The call for unification of Germany was fundamentally rooted in liberal circles. While is Fascism anti-capitalist, Marxists are generally right to point that Fascism constitutes a radicalisation of the Middle Class, in colusion with the military and the lower classes. What is however often forgotten that Fascism makes a pretense of being democratic, which is necessary outgrowth of nationalism, the most important component of Fascism.

Again, not all aspects of the Enlightenment are bad and Fascism is opposed to many aspects of the Enlightenment, yet its populist and nationalistic nature, as well as its adherence to modernism makes it very indebted to Enlightenment thought, though not to the same degree as liberalism or Marxism, which are far more obvious results of the Enlightenment.

In some senses what you say may be true. I'm no expert on the Enlightenment, however, I do think we need to be careful to avoid a genetic fallacy here. nationalism and things like liberty, tolerance, equality etc. are distinctly different ideas. They play out differently in the way we apply them to the world around us. Nationalism may well have been viewed as a means or tool by some for promoting liberty but that doesn't tie the two inextricably together. Also I don't really view nationalism as an ideal in the same way as I do liberty for example. I mean we may often ask ourselves does our society uphold the value of liberty. But do we equally ask ourselves does our society uphold the value of nationalism?

Hi Gori the Grey,

Perhaps you are right. If multiculturalism is the mere banal desire to preserve any and all ways of social interaction for no other reason than to make the world a kind of anthropological museum so tourists can visit exotic lands, then I think it has effectively made itself irrelevant. My personal take on multiculturalism is that it is a movement that seeks to prevent REAL oppression similar to what has occurred in the past between cultures coming into contact with one another. If I belong to a tribe of natives of some remote island who beat their wives and it is the desire of multiculturalists to preserve this "culture" of wife beating or it is "cultural imperialism" to point out the wrongness of this practice, then multiculturalism is pretty clearly pointless. Moral philosophers around the world may as well throw in the towel and give up on the human race.

 

[Tahuti]

In some senses what you say may be true. I'm no expert on the Enlightenment, however, I do think we need to be careful to avoid a genetic fallacy here.

Which is why I mentioned I am not wholly opposed to the Enlightenment. Rather, I am opposed to the view that the Enlightenment provides a Panacea for all our ills. It is fairly telling how Enlightenment fundamentalists today flirt with Right-Wing populists due to their common opposition towards multiculturalism.

nationalism and things like liberty, tolerance, equality etc. are distinctly different ideas. They play out differently in the way we apply them to the world around us. Nationalism may well have been viewed as a means or tool by some for promoting liberty but that doesn't tie the two inextricably together. Also I don't really view nationalism as an ideal in the same way as I do liberty for example. I mean we may often ask ourselves does our society uphold the value of liberty. But do we equally ask ourselves does our society uphold the value of nationalism?

Liberty is a good thing to have, though not necessarily a good thing to strive for: Simply because you will not know what self-proclaimed deference to the idea will bring. And I think democracy - if it is understood as naive rule by the majority - can actually be really conducive to reducing freedom. Both in the sense of increasing government power to the detriment of individuals as well as robbing individuals of a sense of purpose.

 

[aelf]

What political ideology doesn't want humans to "flourish"?

That implies a teleological school of thought. Not schools of thought are teleological.

And what in God's name is an "authentic will"?

It's just an English phrase that means what it seems to mean, I believe, and not actually jargon.

I don't think I missed that much going by what you just said

That's what an 90-year-old might say about the Internet after 2 minutes of looking at Youtube (which is actually really useful).

 

[Gary Childress]

Rather, I am opposed to the view that the Enlightenment provides a Panacea for all our ills. It is fairly telling how Enlightenment fundamentalists today flirt with Right-Wing populists due to their common opposition towards multiculturalism.

So maybe I should ask, what is your view of multiculturalism. What does it stand for? What should it stand for? What are its ideals? What does it seek to accomplish or else prevent?

 

[Tahuti]

So maybe I should ask, what is your view of multiculturalism. What does it stand for? What should it stand for? What are its ideals? What does it seek to accomplish or else prevent?

I am distrustful of right-wing populists as I support multiculturalism as something closely linked to decentralisation, which I also support. I am arguably supportive of multiculturalism from a right-wing perspective as well, as I link multiculturalism with a certain respect for tradition.

It isn't really an ideal. I do not support multiculturalism for its own sake as is the case in its politically correct variety - which is often an outflow from marxism. It is mostly a matter of fact: Even when people of similar or identical ethnicity settle in the same location, cultural differentiation is bound to occur. Trying to suppress it is innately a bad thing: I think culture is the highest achievement of men and multiculturalism doesn't corrode the main culture, but strengthens any society's uniqueness.

Finally, the overreliance to the principles of the enlightenment, so much present in enlightenment ideologies like communism, nationalism and libertarianism - with their focus on abstract principles and in the case of communism and libertarianism, economic welfare as main end - is destroying what it means to be human. Any society that doesn't view economic welfare or abstract principles as its main ends is - in my view - inherently bound to be multicultural even with a monolithic ethnic composition, as monocultural societies can only be sustained by strong governments by force.

 

[Traitorfish]

enlightenment ideologies like communism

Communism is really more post-enlightenment than enlightenment. Marx was very heavily influenced by the Romantics, remember.

 

[Tahuti]

Communism is really more post-enlightenment than enlightenment. Marx was very heavily influenced by the Romantics, remember.

Basically, more comparable to Fascism in that Communism is an admixture of romanticist and enlightenment thought?

 

[Gary Childress]

Basically, more comparable to Fascism in that Communism is an admixture of romanticist and enlightenment thought?

I guess it depends upon what is meant by "comparable". My understanding is that Fascism was largely a bourgeois reaction AGAINST Communism. In a sense you could also say that Conservatism and Fascism are "comparable" in that they both tend to value tradition and both tend to look to the past in an idyllic way. In short I don't think it is anymore fair to compare communism to fascism than it is to compare conservatism to fascism or even liberalism to fascism for that matter.

Anyway, to get back on track with the topic of liberalism, feminism and multiculturalism, how do others here at CFC view these things? What do these political tendencies or whatever stand for? What should they stand for? What are their ideals? What do/should they seek to accomplish or else prevent?

Thanks.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

That implies a teleological school of thought. Not schools of thought are teleological.

Say again?

It's just an English phrase that means what it seems to mean, I believe, and not actually jargon.

Well I don't understand its place in any case.

That's what an 90-year-old might say about the Internet after 2 minutes of looking at Youtube (which is actually really useful).

As I tried to illustrate in my reply to Kaiserguard about compulsion, I believe to have good reason to expect that some kind of general philosophy of liberty or freedom or absence of compulsion is bound to be intellectually corrupted and dishonest. weather it extends 150 years or a thousand years of thought.
I of course don't think that it had nothing to offer regardless. That just would make me an arrogant idiot. My reply was a bit tongue-in-cheek.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

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.

I'm for individuals rights, dignity and moral worth and I'm against oppression of women and of cultural minority groups. Does that make me a liberal, a feminist and a supporter of multiculturalism?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

You can also be a communist if you want

 

[Tee Kay]

I guess it depends upon what is meant by "comparable". My understanding is that Fascism was largely a bourgeois reaction AGAINST Communism.

Fascism was almost as much against bourgeois liberalism as against communism.

Fascism was never about returning to past traditions. If that was so then fascists would endeavour to decentralise the state rather than aggressively centralising power.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I don't think I'd be allowed in.. I'm probably pushing it with feminism already

 

[Gary Childress]

Fascism was never about returning to past traditions. If that was so then fascists would endeavour to decentralise the state rather than aggressively centralising power.

Again, my inexpert understanding is that there were many things going on at the time the so called "fascists" were in power and many different interpretations of fascism by many different fascist thinkers who, like any other ideology had differences of opinion. What was going on in Germany and Italy in the early half of the 20th century was a very complex interaction between many beliefs and ideologies. Overall we seem to generally call this amalgamation "fascism". I take the heart principle of fascism to be more or less a general affinity for one's own country, race, religion, creed or whatever or to primarily identify oneself with one's "own folk" whatever that may be. In this sense fascism is not incompatible with many other beliefs and tendencies which can run as undercurrents. Look at communism or anarchism. There are many different amalgamations of both, though they tend to hold relatively close to certain core principles. Communists tend to hold in common an affinity for workers and an opposition to private ownership of the means of production. Different anarchists overall seem to hold a distrust of authority or power in common.

EDIT: And of course there are always disagreements about who REALLY is or isn't a ____ (fill in the blank). For example some anarchists question those who call themselves "anarcho-capitalists" because they see capitalism as a concentration of authority or power in the hands of the capitalist who owns the means of production and therefore believe that capitalism is incompatible with the basic tenets of anarchism. It seems to me that lots of different values and ideals can get mixed up with each other to create new movements and belief systems, some of which of course may be bad and some of which may be good.

EDIT2:

I'm for individuals rights, dignity and moral worth and I'm against oppression of women and of cultural minority groups. Does that make me a liberal, a feminist and a supporter of multiculturalism?

Well I would say that regardless of whether you wish to call yourself "feminist", "multiculturalist" or "liberal", you seem to share a lot of common values with many of them. Why not join forces and help make the world a good place for all? Cooperate, participate and learn from each other.