The Problem with Postliberalism
I consider myself broadly postliberal. Theologically, I have been influenced by the Yale school postliberals through some of my professors, and I’ve benefited greatly from Hans Frei and George Lindbeck (some Jensonian reservations notwithstanding!) When I speak of the ‘problem’ I see in postliberalism, I am speaking more in the political sense of the word. And the problem, it seems to me, is the ambiguity of the term.
To illustrate my point, just try to search for a general definition of the term. Google search it, and you find any number of different ideas, definitions, or proposals. Look on Twitter, and you find all kinds of people with all different ways of understanding ‘postliberalism.’ It’s a ghostly figure.
One of the main problems that I find with the political idea of ‘postliberalism’ is the tendency of some postliberals to drift into nationalism. Many people I see who are anxious about the postliberals seem to be concerned about certain nationalist elements, serving as dreaded preconditions for a type of fascism. I do not think this fear to be misplaced. Nationalism was a movement of the nineteenth century that led to the horrors of the twentieth, and any reaction to liberalism or neoliberalism cannot retreat back to nationalism. The path forward is not retreating behind liberalism to a blood-and-soil nationalism, something that is both naive and dangerous.
What then is the problem with postliberalism? I would argue, it is not because the concept is intrinsically related to nationalism. Part of the issue with postliberalism is the ambiguity of its definition. Postmodernity, to take another example, is a difficult word to define in some quarters, because it is defined specifically in relation to modernity. It lacks a strong independent meaning because it is defined in relation to its predecessor philosophy. And, because it is defined by way of negation, it can be interpreted in a variety of ways. The same goes, I would suggest, with postliberalism. Because it is defined by what it is not - it is not liberalism, but ‘something’ that comes after - it becomes a mirror, a mirror on which one can cast all of their own ideologies and assumptions. And if that happens to be a more nationalistic or colonial ideology, then postliberalism becomes just this.
Is there then any purpose of being a postliberal? I do not think the term to be entirely vacuous. Neo-liberalism took liberalism to an extreme (cf. Fukuyama, Liberalism and Its Discontents). It has weakened the social fabric that binds us together as a society and as a community. Its application to the economic sphere has caused enormous wealth inequality and environmental catastrophe. Postliberalism rightly challenges these extremes by emphasizing communitarianism over the self-assertion and absolute autonomy of the individual. As postliberalism, it does not deny that there were some positives to liberal thought. Human rights progress and greater overall tolerance of diversity is good and right. But liberalism as a stand-alone ideology cannot succeed.
Still, there is the persistent concern of mine that postliberalism in the political sphere can become a sort of vehicle of projection, causing us to fall prey to the worst impulses of our political imaginations. Postliberalism can be interpreted in a much more democratic socialist direction (my inclination), but it undoubtedly has been interpreted in nationalist directions. It makes me wonder whether politically, the term is of any practical use, especially if it can be taken in such contrary directions. At any rate, we ought to be clear what we mean by what we say, and to recognize the tendency for projection that is inherent in postliberalism.