That humankind are not infallible; that their truths, for the most part, are only half-truths; that unity of opinion, unless resulting from the fullest and freest comparison of opposite opinions, is not desirable, and diversity not an evil, but a good, until mankind are much more capable than at present of recognizing all sides of the truth, are principles applicable to men’s modes of action, not less than to their opinions. As it is useful that while mankind are imperfect there should be different opinions, so is it that there should be different experiments of living; that free scope should be given to varieties of character, short of injury to others; and that the worth of different modes of life should be proved practically, when any one thinks fit to try them. It is desirable, in short, that in things which do not primarily concern others, individuality should assert itself. Where, not the person’s own character, but the traditions of customs of other people are the rule of conduct, there is wanting one of the principal ingredients of human happiness, and quite the chief ingredient of individual and social progress.
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, Ch. 3
It is now widely suggested that liberalism is in crisis. The political philosophy that came to dominate the post-war era, heralding a massive rise in democratic states and a newfound respect for individual rights, now appears unfit to guide us. Increasing polarization has stymied political action and resulted in a general feeling that “the other side” is completely ignorant and/or evil. Gone are the days (if they ever existed) where we recognized the opposition as “the loyal opposition”, where we recognized those who disagree with us as similarly aiming to get it right and contribute to society, but simply disagreeing about the best means of accomplishing that.
Where do we go from here? Should liberalism be supplanted by a new political philosophy better fit to our modern conditions? Or can liberalism be saved? And if it can be saved, what must change?
I believe liberalism can be saved and is worth saving. Liberalism has always been a radical political ideal, an ideal never fully realized. But it has also always been an ideal that aimed to respond to the issues of the day. Most centrally, liberalism arose in a Europe plagued by religious wars by offering an alternative to the common view of the day. Rather than seeing the State has necessarily involved in promoting the good of the people, for instance by forcing compliance with a particular religious outlook, the State was to protect individual rights so as to permit people to pursue their own good. In place of a dire need to exterminate religious disagreement arose the notion of religious toleration. Over time this idea of toleration spread beyond religion, further expanding individual liberty and finding a means of harmonizing disparate interests.
The very notion of religious toleration was both radical and necessary at the time. Without it, it is likely that European nations would have ripped themselves and each other apart. Moreover, in light of the dominant political philosophy prior to liberalism – a political philosophy that emphasized the role of the State in promoting the (“true”) human good – toleration was radical, novel, and yet also an understandable response.
But toleration is no longer radical and it can no longer serve its function of establishing a shared, diverse society. To save liberalism, we must move beyond toleration. For toleration is, at its root, a negative attitude. We tolerate what we otherwise find distasteful or wrong. Toleration, then, is an attitude that necessarily encourages what John Rawls called a modus vivendi – a temporary political peace between conflicting worldviews that all parties have reason to break if they become powerful enough to succeed. A modus vivendi may be the best we can hope for out of a civil war but it need not be all we can hope for in the long run. But if we are to move beyond a fracturing modus vivendi we must find a new liberal ethos to guide us.
The new liberal ethos I am advocating is not, really, new at all. Many of the great liberal thinkers of the past, most notably John Stuart Mill, embraced a liberal perspective that did not see diversity simply as something to be tolerated. Instead, diversity was to be celebrated and embraced. Experiments in living, as Mill suggests, contribute to the greater social welfare by providing us with knowledge of what does and does not promote the human good. In this way, we should not merely tolerate someone engaging in the world in a way very different from us; we should encourage, celebrate, and embrace it.
Whereas toleration provides an unsettled peace, a peace which everyone has designs to upset when they think they will be successful, the celebration of diversity can provide a stable, positive peace. If we embrace the idea that diverse worldviews, diverse cultures, diverse experiments in living, are, in the end, good for us all then when things turn sour, we will be substantially less likely to seek to blame those different from us. The negative underbelly of toleration is that individuals still see those who are different as the enemy, albeit an enemy they must live with. When we celebrate diversity, on the other hand, we see those who are different as friends, teachers, and students; we see them as fellows on a shared journey to find happiness and to flourish. In the face of crisis, then, we would not turn inward and become more entrenched in our personal way of doing things; we would turn outward, seeking solutions among the variety of experiments in living being carried out both in our society and outside of it.
I am not sure what it will take to spread this ethos, nor am I sure what systemic changes this would involve (if any). Since I am suggesting a change in ethos, it is possible that no real policy changes need occur, although a change in ethos may, eventually, lead to changes in policy. But, at its root, a change in ethos is a change in peoples’ mindsets, a change in the way we talk about difference. Perhaps what I am suggesting is that the solution to the crisis in liberal political philosophy is simply more liberal political philosophy – that we emphasize not just what our system is, or how it is supposed to function, but why it is designed in the way it is. And the why here is not historical but philosophical – what are the best grounds for supporting (for instance) freedom of assembly, birthright citizenship, and civil rights? It seems that the answer is not “because we should tolerate difference” but rather something like “because difference is to be celebrated, for its existence makes us all stronger and more resilient”.