What are the key differences between old & new liberalism?
Liberalism, or the ideology to end all ideologies as it is sometimes known, is a term which almost anyone with any political education has heard of. However, were the question to be changed to 'what is liberalism', the number of those that would provide a satisfactory answer would fall dramatically. So why this confusion? Neither of the other mainstream ideologies, conservatism and Marxism, seem to trigger this same sense of confusion and polarisation. This essay will look to explore Liberalism by defining two of its component parts and discussing the differences between them. The first of these components is classical liberalism, which can be described as the ideology 'advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade' (Raico, 2010). The other component to be discussed is new or modern liberalism. This can be described as 'the modification of liberal ideology from a vehicle of a mid-Victorian ideal of laissez-faire to a philosophy based on state action and social reform to cope with industrial policy' (Nicholls, 1996). The focus in this essay will be on establishing the differences between these sub-ideologies by looking at them through the lenses of individualism, freedom, justice and equality.
In broad terms Liberalism can be viewed as the organisation of society in a way that 'allows for and promotes individual freedom and development.' (Axford, 1997). Historically Liberalism arose from the demise of the feudal system and the traditional authority of the Catholic church. The reformation that followed this period was accompanied by a growing belief in the liberalisation of markets and society as a whole (Axford, 1997). Liberalism is also inextricably linked to the rise of capitalism, as Anthony Arblaster put it 'as long as capitalism survives, so will liberalism in its various alternative forms (Arblaster, 1984). This idea underlies classical and new liberalism's common belief in the free market. They also share their belief in the value of the individual and the minimal state- although to varying extents. Finally both classical and new liberalism are based on the equal valuation of all individuals and the idea of a basic general equality in front of the law. In essence despite the many differences between these sub-ideologies they do share a common fundamental belief in the free market and the value and equality of individuals.
As we previously discussed an emphasis on individualism and individual freedom is at the core of both the classical and new liberal models. Despite this there are major differences in their respective conceptions of individualism and freedom. Before we go further into this analysis we must first establish a basic definition of individualism for us to then build on further. Individualism at its essence is a 'moral and political doctrine that extols the value of the individual' (Vincent, 1992). With this in mind we will now move on to consider the classical view, although it would be errant of us to assume that this can simply be boiled to just one uniform view. Instead we will look to incorporate different classical theories and look to establish a common theme in order for us to gain a comprehensive understanding of classical liberal individualism.
At a general level, classical liberalism pledges to 'uphold liberty and the equal right of all individuals to equal freedom' (Vincent, 1992). Here it is important to note that classical liberals maintain a 'negative view of freedom'. This is to say that they understand freedom in the Hobbesian sense, as the 'absence of external impediments' (Hobbes, 1651). They believe that individuals are most free when there is minimal interference which is the belief that underpins their advocacy for limited government. Classical liberals view the individual as a 'single, self-enclosed being shut up in his own subjectivity and whose only limits are his own physical limits of the body.' (Vincent, 1992). They subscribe to the 'possessive individualist theory' which dictates that a person is the 'proprietor of his own body and capacities and owes nothing to society.' (Macpherson & Cunningham, 2011). Classical liberals also believe that the desires and interests of a person are sovereign, and that a rational individual is best placed to understand and identify their own interests. In this view it is inefficient for institutions to try to enforce a collective interest as they are unable to judge what that interest should be for everyone, it is inevitable that what counts as one person's interest may not be in another individual's interest. Furthermore classical liberals believe that the individual does not hold any collective or institutional responsibilities, his only responsibility is toward his own personal interests and desires. To conclude, classical liberals believe the individual's freedom to be the source of all value. As a result they believe that this should be maximised, and that a rational individual will use this freedom to pursue his interests which will lead to the maximum utility and efficiency in society.
Much like classical liberalism, new liberalism also holds individualism at its core; although for new liberals the term is understood quite differently. New liberals subscribe to social liberalism, which is the idea that the 'good of the individual is tied to the good of the community.' (Vincent, 1992). They believe that the atomisation of society, defined as viewing social institutions as arising solely from the actions of individuals who constitute the only true subject of analysis (Mastin, 2008), which classical liberals believe in, is morally and sociologically naive. This is because of their belief that negative societal issues are more effectively dealt with by institutions at a broader level, rather than being left to individuals. Problems such as poverty, unemployment, ill-health etc. are seen as societal issues that transcend individual capacities and so should be dealt with as such. This comes from the new liberal conception of freedom which, unlike the classical liberal conception, is a positive view. They believe that true freedom means having the 'economic, cultural and political means to partake of worthwhile lives' (Vincent, 1992). In other words the absence of external impediments is not always sufficient for an individual to be free, some individuals require some sort of help from society in order for them to be truly free.
As T.H. Green put it, 'society is a means for individual self-actualisation and character development, the possibility for this development depends on the existence of social institutions.' (Simhony & Weinstein, 2001). As a result new liberals believe that civic institutions can be justified by the contribution they make to the moral development of individuals. All this culminates in a sub-ideology that believes, unlike classical liberalism, that the communal good is not divorced from the individual good; the individual finds his own interests in the common good. It also means that individuals must have certain rights and duties as members of society which enable equal opportunities for development. These responsibilities contribute to a greater aggregate 'positive' freedom as each individual is provided with the basic tools to develop and contribute to society, thereby advancing the overall communal and individual good. For new liberals 'all minds have the same fullness of scope' but this is only obtained if 'fundamental conditions of mutual intercourse are maintained by organised effort.' (Hobhouse, 1918).
The new liberal view of individualism can be summed up by the term 'civic individualism' which interprets the 'assumption of communal responsibility for defined areas of human activity as itself conducive to the development and perfection of individual freedom.' (Freeden, 1987). New liberals see the value of institutional interference despite the notional loss of freedom in the classical liberal sense.
In conclusion, both classical and new liberals value individualism. However, due to classical liberals' belief in negative freedom; they believe that minimum interference, external impediments, from the state is conducive to a freer and thus a happier society. On the other hand for new liberals, who believe in positive freedom, some societal interference is encouraged to ensure that all members of society are able to be free. Freedom in this sense is seen as the having the appropriate conditions to develop and this, it is argued, is more efficiently provided through some form of societal or state interference.
A further important point of comparison between classical and new liberals is their distinctive views of justice and equality. Justice can be defined as the maintenance of a general body of formal rules and procedures (Vincent, 1992). Classical libertarians recognise that for individuals to be fully free to pursue their interests, there must exist and overarching structure which maintains the rule of law so as to protect people. It is important to classical libertarians, however, that these laws do not unduly interfere with individuals' activities and choices. These laws do not seek to ensure a certain outcome, but rather that the conditions are appropriate for people to exercise their freedoms without worry, generally these laws are limited to policing and protection from external threat.
The classical libertarian view is well summarised in Hayek's conception of 'commutative justice'. This portrays justice as being concerned with facilitating the maximum freedom to pursue interests by maintaining procedural rules. Justice is not, however, concerned with fair outcomes and as such issues such as poverty and unemployment are not issues of justice. These are simply market outcomes which are neither just, nor unjust as they are unintentional and justice is limited to outcomes that are intentional (Hayek, 1982). Most classical liberals also view any attempt at achieving distributive justice, advocating equality of outcome, as being 'unworkable in a free market society' (Hayek, 1982). This is because any decision made with regards to reallocation or redistribution, will inevitably be against one party's interests. This leads to action which is based on arbitrary judgements which is not conducive to freedom in the classical view.
In essence, classical libertarians do not value any attempt at redistribution, as being just or efficient for society. They do, however, place substantive value on equality before the law, which they see as being imperative for freedom. Some classical liberals also argue, that in cases of extreme hardship, limited state intervention is justified in order to aid individuals, however this must remain limited and not be expanded so as to encourage state dependence.
In contrast to classical liberals, new liberals are very much concerned with the growing disparity in wealth and they believe that this is unjust and requires action. Much like classical liberals they believe that all individuals have the equal right to freedom, however unlike classical liberals, they see freedom as the power to do something worthwhile. This means that redistribution is necessary for genuine freedom, equality and justice. New liberals believe that a certain standard of living is necessary for someone to be considered truly free, and as a result they believe that it is worthwhile to provide this through interventionist strategies as it guarantees true equality of opportunity which is essential for a just society.
In conclusion classical libertarians believe that for a society to be just, all individuals should be equal in front of the law and that they should all have the equality of opportunity. However, they also recognise that people will have different skills and capabilities and so equality of outcome is something which they do not see as essential. As a result they see a just society as one which safeguard individual and property rights to ensure that people are able to express their freedoms and pursue their interests. State intervention should, however, stop at that point and not seek to redistribute or limit people's freedoms excessively. New libertarians on the other hand believe in a universal basic standard of living at which all individuals feel able to contribute something worthwhile to society which is the true definition of freedom. Therefore for new liberals a larger level of intervention is permissible in order to ensure true equality and justice.
Both the classical and the new models of liberalism have garnered strong support from reputable philosophers,politicians and economists alike. It is important to note that despite the attempts in this essay to distinguish between them, it is difficult to pinpoint hard and fast points of difference. Liberalism is an extremely flexible ideology and so even among those supposed classical libertarians it is not uncommon to see certain new liberal ideas. In recent history, particularly european history, the new liberal modern has flourished with expansions of the welfare state seen in Britain, France and even the USA to some extent. Classical liberalism does however live on, although it is possible to make the argument that it has morphed into what is now known as neoliberalism. With all these distinctions in mind it is important to note that at their core, all strains of liberalism are very similar with their focus on individualism and the free market. As has been highlighted throughout this essay however the main differences between the various conceptions of liberalism lie in their differing views on individualism, freedom, equality and justice.
Works Cited
Arblaster, Anthony. "The Rise And Decline Of Western Liberalism". Reason Papers. N.p., 1984. Web. 17 Feb. 2017.
Freeden, Michael. "Liberalism Divided: A Study In British Political Thought, 1914-1939". The American Historical Review 92.3 (1987): 670. Web.
Hayek, F. A. Law, Legislation And Liberty, Volume 2. 1st ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1982. Print.
Hobbes, Thomas and Kenneth R Minogue. Leviathan. 1st ed. London: J.M. Dent, 1914. Print.
Hobhouse, L. T. Metaphysical Theory Of The State. 1st ed. [Place of publication not identified]: Nabu Press, 1918. Print.
Hobhouse, L. T. "The Value And Limitations Of Eugenics". The Sociological Review a4.4 (1911): 281-302. Web.
Macpherson, C. B and Frank Cunningham. The Political Theory Of Possessive Individualism. 1st ed. Don Mills, Ont.: Oxford University Press, 2011. Print.
Mastin, Luke. "Atomism – By Branch / Doctrine – The Basics Of Philosophy". Philosophybasics.com. N.p., 2008. Web. 18 Feb. 2017.
Nicholls, David. "The New Liberalism: After Chartism?". Jstor.org. N.p., 1996. Web. 17 Feb. 2017.
Raico, Ralph. "What Is Classical Liberalism?". Mises Institute. N.p., 2010. Web. 17 Feb. 2017.
Simhony, Avital and D Weinstein. The New Liberalism. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Print.
Vincent, Andrew. Modern Political Ideologies. 3rd ed. Wiley & Blackwell, 1992. Print.