This blog introduced to its readers the work of
Adam Gopnik back in January 2020.[1] His book, A Thousand Small Sanities,[2]
gives, early in its text, a history lesson of how “liberalism,” as a political
form of thinking, got started. He traces
the roles that John Stuart Mill and his intimate partner, Harriet Taylor,
played. Skipping their adulterous
relationship, their interchange in terms of basic political discourse led to a
more formal construct about what political speech and behavior should be and
became known as liberalism.
More
specifically, along with a strong stand against slavery back in the 1860s, they
also advanced ideals such as claiming the equality between the sexes, i.e.,
that women were entitled to equal standing in society – including the right to
vote. While racial emancipation was a
more accepted ideal at that time, this couple were among the initial advocates
for women’s rights and for extending to them the franchise. And before one ascribes to them the title of extremists
or radicals of their time or of some ideology, Gopnik claims they were
centrists.
Gopnik
shares the following:
What they were was realists – radicals of the
real, determined to live in the world even as they altered it. Not reluctant realists, but romantic
realists. They were shocked and
delighted at how quickly women and men began to meet and organize on the theme
of women’s emancipation, but they accepted that progress would be slow and
uncertain and sometimes backward facing.
They did more than accept this necessity. They rejoiced in it because they understood
that without a process of public argument and debate, of social action moved
from below, the ground of women’s emancipation would never be fully owned by
women nor accepted, even grudgingly, by men.[3]
And how does this concern relate to federation
theory, the topic of this blog? It helps
explain how the national – in this case, the British – partnership truly
expanded as this newer stream of argument, liberalism, took hold among change agents
of those years.
Perhaps, as Gopnik suggests, their personal romance played a
functional role in their thinking over the issue of emancipation and extending
the franchise. They introduced, on a
more conscious level, the romantic element of how fellow citizens should,
according to their view, engender a more useful mode of thinking and
feeling.
And what one might at first blush consider
contradictory, if one’s views of others is based on some level of love, how one
views them “jives” with liberty. That
is, it simultaneously beckons people to be themselves but also to be concerned with
and to take care of how one is seen by others.
Moreover, this leads to a very essential dispositive stance in a
federated arrangement of a partnership; that is, to be disposed to compromise.
“Compromise is not a sign of the collapse of
one’s moral conscience. It is a sign of
its strength, for there is nothing more necessary to a moral conscience than a
recognition that other people have one, too.”[4] It’s a sense which ties legitimate
disagreements beyond the competing interests under debate. And in that, one can envision a sense of
liberty removed from the natural rights – “I can do what I want as long as I
don’t deprive others of the same right” – view.
For as with this more federated view, one is
removed from this unattached individualism that the natural rights view
promotes. How? It is tied to a view of liberty that acknowledges
the obligations and duties true love demands.
Yes, this sense of limitation is not mandated by law, but by emotional
ties, that loving relationships entail.
Gopnik leaves his readers with an analogy that
this blogger wants to share, for it is a bit unexpected. That is:
Most political visions are unicorns, perfect
imaginary creatures we chase and will never find. Liberalism is a rhinoceros. It’s hard to love. It’s funny to look at. It isn’t pretty but it’s a completely
successful animal. A rhino can overturn
an SUV and – go to YouTube – run it right over, horn out.[5]
And with that comparison, this posting sets up
the next one; it will look at some of the implications from Mill and Taylor’s
thoughts.
[1] Robert Gutierrez, “Turn Left,” a posting, Gravitas: A Voice for Civics, a blog, accessed
December 30, 2023, URL: https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2020_01_19_archive.html.
[2] Adam Gopnik, A Thousand Small Sanities: The Moral Adventures of Liberalism (New
York, NY: Basic, 2019).
[3] Ibid., 11.
[4] Ibid., 12.
[5] Ibid., 13.
No comments:
Post a Comment