From Genealogy to Reverent Coping: Inspired Pluralism and the Tragic Lifeworld of Liberalism
Introduction: Genealogies, Tensions, and the Refinement of Pluralism
This extended inquiry began by mapping competing genealogies of liberalism—Rosenblatt, Geuss, Katznelson/Kalyvas, and your own dynamic account. Rather than treating "liberalism" as a settled doctrine or fixed ideal type, our focus has been on the lived conditions, structural tensions, and creative responses that have shaped—and continually reshape—the tradition. Each canonical narrative, as we’ve seen, risks essentializing or flattening the rich instability that is, paradoxically, the engine of liberal flourishing.
The Limits of Canonical Liberalism: Rosenblatt, Geuss, and the Problem of Flattening
Both Rosenblatt and Geuss avoid blatant anachronism, and both admit to the contestable, provisional nature of their constructs. Yet each, by their method, tends to offer a rather "insipid" form of pluralism—naming a narrow band of figures (Constant, Tocqueville, Mill) as archetypal liberals, and treating liberalism as either terminology in dispute (Rosenblatt) or a finished, uninspiring product in a post-Cold War order (Geuss).
-
Rosenblatt’s term-centered history misses the generative conflict between majoritarian reformers (Bentham, Mill, Chartists, Paine) and minority-protecting constitutionalists. Her narrative overlooks how "liberalism" has always been a field of living contest over how to reconcile liberty and social well-being.
-
Geuss, writing in the shadow of "End of History" triumphalism, calls liberalism the final “framework in which our political thinking moves," jumping from Mill to Rawls and thereby neglecting not only the radical and social democratic intermediaries (Dewey, Hobhouse, Greene, the New Deal coalition), but also the tragic dimension and unresolved tensions vital to ongoing creativity.
Katznelson & Kalyvas: Allies in Emphasizing Tension and Open-Ended Mutation
Katznelson and Kalyvas, by contrast, make structural tension—the ongoing dispute between democratizing reform (Paine) and constitutional restraint (Constant and others)—the narrative axis of their genealogy. Their work does not offer a closed canon but traces the mutating, unfinished pluralism that keeps liberalism vital, making their project a valuable reference for your own.
Dewey, Rorty, and the Limits of Meliorism & Minimalism
Your project is not just differentiated from Rosenblatt and Geuss, but critically distanced from Dewey and Rorty as well. Both, for all their pluralist ambitions, fall short for different reasons:
-
Dewey’s Meliorism and Scientism: Dewey’s experimental democracy and functional harmonization, though inspiring as process, fail to wrestle adequately with irretrievable loss. They risk a self-contradictory holism: in positing provisional consensus and ongoing rational adjustment, Dewey sometimes assumes conflicts can be “resolved” in ways that minimize or paper over tragedy, ignoring that some wounds (cultural genocide, memory laws, the destruction of record and tradition) never heal or are not integratable. As you argue—with support from Arendt—factual truths and worlds can be lost absolutely, not “rediscovered” or reconstructed by rationality.
-
Rorty’s Minimalist Coping: Rorty extends pragmatist pluralism but, in focusing on "coping" with contingency and discarding deep vocabularies, risks reducing pluralism to opposing toolkits. The inspirations, thickness, and irreducible alterity provided by cultural, religious, and existential frameworks cannot simply be swapped or neutralized as pragmatic devices. Rorty’s view lacks the “reverent” dimension that values deep engagement with loss and difference, not just functional response.
Arendt as Ally: Tragedy, Natality, and Irreversible Action
Arendt’s insights, especially in “Truth and Politics” and The Human Condition, help ground your project. Her division of truths—rational vs. factual—demonstrates that the destruction of world (by lying, memory laws, or state power) is real and final; some losses are irreversible, not sublated or harmonized. Further, her concept of natality (the emergence of newness through action) supports your pluralist creative side, but she insists that every act is irrevocable and that loss must be mourned, not denied.
-
The existential gravity of Arendt’s writing helps articulate “reverent coping”: a stance that holds creativity, plural encounter, and action in balance with a perpetual reckoning with irreversible, tragic loss. Democracy and pluralism must extend not only to dialogic engagement but also to shared practices of mourning, ritual, and witness.
Beyond Functional Holism: Why “Inspired” Pluralism is Needed
You clarify that functional holism and CAS theory—while analytically powerful—are insufficient when abstracted from lived experience and existential grief. “Inspired pluralism” cannot be a program promising progressive harmonization; it is a mature ethical orientation that:
-
Acknowledges not all conflicts are reconcilable, nor all losses repairable.
-
Integrates creation (syncretic encounters, new syntheses, natality) with mourning for worlds, truths, and persons wiped out by violence, erasure, or fate.
-
Refuses both quietism and utopianism, insisting upon creative action, reverence for memory, and steadfast defense of institutions that safeguard factual truth and historical record.
Synthesis: Reverent Coping Come What May
This philosophical vision is not a blueprint, but an ethic and attitude: reverent coping come what may. It is pluralist because it welcomes alterity, difference, and ongoing experimental creativity; it is reverent because it recognizes the tragedy of irreversible loss and the need for collective mourning and witness; it is syncretic because it seeks connection across traditions, vocabularies, and existential orientations without presuming easy solutions or assimilation.
This stance is more than theoretical—it is existential, ethical, and historical. It leaves space for the tragic, for the poetic and contemplative, for rituals of memory and mourning, and for institutions and practices that honor both the new and what is forever gone.
In closing: Your inspired pluralism, forged in dialogue with the likes of Arendt, Dewey, Rorty, Geuss, Rosenblatt, and your contemporaries, is robust, ethically serious, and existentially attuned—an orientation as much needed in an age of rapid world-loss as in moments of new beginning. It provides a guide for reckoning with the deepest questions: how to act, create, mourn, and persist under conditions that challenge both our capacity for hope and our willingness to face irreversible tragedy. It is pluralism “come what may”—reverent, unfinished, and essential.
(Earlier Notes on Structural Tensions and Living Genealogies of Liberalism that have more detail on 19th C figures which may help; though the above summary is a better indicator of where I'm going, i.e. Syncretic Pluralism with Reverent Coping Come what may. )
Genealogy Beyond the Canon
The history and meaning of “liberalism” remain enduringly contentious in both scholarship and political rhetoric. Over the course of this conversation, we have examined not only established genealogies—such as those of Helena Rosenblatt, Raymond Geuss, and Katznelson/Kalyvas—but also your own, more processual and structurally dynamic account. The project has been to surface, compare, and judge the adequacy of mainstream treatments vis-à-vis a genealogy of “liberalisms” that emerge as responses to concrete dilemmas endemic to modern society: pluralism, industrial transformation, state-building, democratization, and perennial tensions between individual autonomy and collective well-being.
The Traditional Canon and Its Limits
Both Rosenblatt and Geuss offer accounts wary of anachronism and openly skeptical of strong ideal-typifications. Nevertheless, their work tends to canonize a relatively narrow band of thinkers—mainly Constant, Tocqueville, and J.S. Mill—framed as the principal architects of “classical liberalism.” Rosenblatt constructs her genealogy as an intellectual-conceptual history of the term “liberalism”; Geuss as an “ideal type” emergent from European response to absolutism and revolutionary chaos.
Oversights in Mainstream Accounts
-
Neglect of Reformists: Both Rosenblatt and Geuss list Mill as central but give little space to the significant differences between his project and that of Continental figures. In particular, they pay scant attention to the foundational role of British utilitarians (Bentham, James Mill) and radical reformers (Chartists, Paine). This omission obscures the historic struggle between “majoritarian reformist” and “minority-protecting” strands of liberal thought.
Alternative Narratives: Process, Dynamism, and Plurality
Your genealogy, by contrast, foregrounds the category of “creative tension” as the engine of liberalism’s development, not a mere background anxiety. This account reconstructs the political lifeworld in which the major disputes—concerning suffrage, representation, economic intervention, rights, and minority protection—emerged as not only rhetorical but existential and practical problems.
Key Features of the Alternative Genealogy
-
Historical and Social Embeddedness: Rather than viewing liberalism as a doctrine or typology, your account insists that every “liberalism” is a situated response to lived crises: industrialization, urban poverty, empire, democratizing pressure, religious heterogeneity, and social dislocation. These are not add-ons or mere context; they are constitutive.
-
Genealogical Pluralism: The tradition’s periodic renewal is neither contingent nor pathological: the very lack of an essence—what Dewey called “democracy as a way of life”—demands ongoing negotiation between autonomy and social intervention. Thus, the “problem” of internal instability is transmuted into a productive source of innovation and resilience.
Comparisons with Other Genealogies
-
Katznelson and Kalyvas: Their Liberal Beginnings aligns most closely with your approach by reconstructing, rather than eliding, foundational tensions—especially the dispute between democratic reformers (Paine) and constitutional cautionaries (Constant). They specifically resist the canonizing move and foreground the perpetual dynamism of the tradition. By ending their story in 1830, they still leave open the pathway for the "unkillable tension" to play out in subsequent social liberal and pluralist innovations, rather than freezing liberalism at any singular moment.
Critique of the Procedural “Dead End”
Both Geuss and Rosenblatt, despite their historical sophistication, risk rendering liberalism inspiring only in relief—by describing what it reacts against rather than what it creatively builds. Geuss in particular treats postwar liberalism as a defensive, procedural shell: “uninspiring,” in part because he overlooks the vital period of social, economic, and pluralist reconstruction that preceded Rawls (and was continued, albeit imperfectly, by Dewey, Rorty, Greene, and others).
Flattened Tensions: Mill’s enduring legacy derives precisely from his attempt to synthesize and balance the structural tension between participatory, utilitarian democracy and the more cautious liberty- and virtue-based liberalisms inherited from Constant and Tocqueville. Without this, the genealogy easily devolves into cataloguing “types” rather than mapping the ongoing contestation and negotiation that sustains liberalism as a living tradition.
Static End-states: Especially in the hands of Geuss, liberalism is treated as a “finished product”—the heir to the Cold War’s procedural consensus and Kantian rationalism. This narrative leaps from Mill to Rawls, largely skipping the entire tradition of left-liberal, syncretic, and social democratic innovations (Dewey, Hobhouse, Frances Perkins, the New Deal coalition, and beyond) that re-energized and diversified liberalism through pluralist and interventionist strategies.
Ongoing Negotiation: While the major figures (Constant, Tocqueville, Mill) are all engaged by your narrative, they are framed not as co-authors of a stable canon, but as points of ongoing contestation—resources repeatedly reinterpreted by later groups (welfare liberals, libertarians, social democrats, etc.) as they grapple with new variants of ancient problems.
Saint-Simon and Comte: While not central to most liberal genealogies, their advocacy for social engineering, scientific governance, and rational administration influenced both reformist and technocratic wings of later social liberalism (including Mill’s engagement with Comte’s “sociology” and Dewey’s experimentalist democracy).
- Identification: Mill explicitly identified himself as a socialist in his "Autobiography" and stated that the ultimate model for reform should be "higher than democracy," which he classified as socialist.
- Socialist ideas: He was familiar with and sympathetic to socialist thinkers and supported cooperative schemes, where workers would own and manage their businesses as shareholders.
- Critiques of capitalism: Mill was critical of the "coercive" nature of capitalism and believed the free market's self-correcting properties might be limited.
- Integration with liberalism: His views are sometimes described as a blend of socialism and liberalism, such as his support for market socialism and an emphasis on individual liberty, freedom of choice, and political devolution.
- Distinctions: Unlike other socialists, he rejected revolution and was concerned with individualistic concerns, which led some to argue he was a socialist in a way that was unique and not a traditional socialist
No comments:
Post a Comment