LIBERALISM 4 page

Date: 2015-10-07; view: 371.

Postmodernism has been criticised from two angles. In the first place it has been accused of relativism, in that it holds that different modes of knowing are equally valid and thus rejects the idea that even science is able reliably to distinguish between truth and falsehood. Secondly it has been charged with *conservatism, on the grounds that a non-foundationalist political stance offers no perspective from which the existing order may be criticised and no basis for the construction of an alternative social order. Nevertheless, the attraction of postmodern theory is its remorseless questioning of apparent solid realities and accepted beliefs. Its general emphasis upon *discourse, debate and *democracy reflects the fact that to reject hierarchies of ideas is also to reject any political or social hierarchies.

RATIONAL CHOICE

Rational choice is a broad theoretical approach to the study of politics whose principal subdivisions include public choice theory,

-102-

social choice theory and game theory. Sometimes called formal political theory, it draws heavily upon the example of economic theory in building up models based upon procedural rules, usually about the rationally self-interested behaviour of individuals. Rational choice theorists use a method that dates back to Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) and is employed in *utilitarianism, in assuming that political actors consistently choose the most efficient means to achieve their various ends. In the form of public choice theory it is concerned with the provision of so-called public goods, goods that are delivered by government rather than the market, because, as with clean air, their benefit cannot be withheld from individuals who choose not to contribute to their provision. In the form of social choice theory it examines the relationship between individuals' preferences and social choices such as voting. In the form of game theory it has developed more from the field of mathematics than from the assumptions of neo-classical economics, and entails the use of first principles to analyse puzzles about individual behaviour. The best-known example of game theory is the ‘prisoner's dilemma', which demonstrates that rationally self-interested behaviour can be generally less beneficial than cooperation.

Significance

Rational choice theory emerged as a tool of political analysis in the 1950s and gained greater prominence from the 1970s onwards. Most firmly established in the USA, and associated in particular with the so-called Virginia School, it has been used to provide insights into the actions of voters, lobbyists, bureaucrats and politicians. It has had its broadest impact upon political analysis in the form of what is called institutional public choice theory. Supporters of rational choice theory argue that it has introduced greater rigour into the discussion of political phenomena, by allowing political analysts to develop explanatory models in the manner of economic theory. The rational choice approach to political analysis, however, has by no means been universally accepted.

It has been criticised for overestimating human rationality, in that it ignores the fact that people seldom possess clear sets of preferred goals and rarely make decisions in the light of full and accurate knowledge. Furthermore, in proceeding from an abstract model of the individual, rational choice theory pays insufficient attention to

-103-

social and historical factors, failing to recognise, amongst other things, that human self-interestedness may be socially conditioned, and not innate. Finally, rational choice theory is sometimes seen to have a conservative value bias, stemming from its initial assumptions about human behaviour, and reflected in its use by theorists such as Buchanan and Tulloch (1962) to defend the free market and support a minimal state.

RATIONALISM

Rationalism is the belief that the world has a rational structure, and that this can be disclosed through the exercise of human reason and critical enquiry. As a philosophical theory, rationalism is the belief that knowledge flows from reason rather than experience, and thus it contrasts with *empiricism. As a general principle, however, rationalism places a heavy emphasis on the capacity of human beings to understand and explain their world, and to find solutions to problems. While rationalism does not dictate the ends of human conduct, it certainly dictates how these ends should be pursued. It is associated with an emphasis upon principle and reason-governed behaviour, as opposed to a reliance upon custom or tradition, or non-rational drives and impulses.

Significance

Rationalism was one of the core features of the Enlightenment, the intellectual movement that reached its height in the eighteenth century and challenged traditional beliefs in religion, politics and learning generally in the name of reason. Enlightenment rationalism provided the basis for both *liberalism and *socialism and established the intellectual framework within which conventional political and social analysis developed. Rationalist approaches to understanding have a number of characteristics. First, they tend to place a heavy emphasis upon progress and reform. Reason not only enables people to understand and explain their world, but it also helps them re-shape the world for the better. Rationalism thus promises to emancipate humankind from the grip of the past and the weight of custom and *tradition. Each generation is able to advance beyond the last as the stock of human knowledge and

-104-

understanding progressively increases. Second, rationalism is associated with the attempt to uncover values and structures that are universally applicable to humankind. Reason, in this sense, constitutes a higher reference point for human conduct than do the inherited values and norms of a particular society. Third, rationalism highlights the importance of debate and discussion over the use of force or aggression, and implies a broad faith in *democracy. If people are reason-guided creatures they have both the ability to settle disputes through debate and negotiation, and a capacity to identify and express their own best interests.

However, rationalistic approaches to political understanding have never been universally accepted. A form of anti-rationalism took root in the late nineteenth century as thinkers started to reflect upon the limits of human reason and draw attention to other, perhaps more powerful, drives and impulses. For instance, Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) proposed that human beings are motivated by deep-seated emotions, their ‘will' rather than the rational mind, and in particular by what he called the ‘will to power'. In their most extreme form, associated with *fascism, such ideas were manifest in a reverence for strength and military power and the rejection of intellectual enquiry as cold, dry and lifeless. In the form of traditional *conservatism, they gave rise to the much more modest belief that tradition and history are surer guides for human conduct than reason and principle, because the world is simply too complicated for people fully to grasp. Faith in rationalism also particularly waned in the final decades of the twentieth century. This occurred, amongst other things, through a growing acceptance that particular individuals, groups and societies possess their own intrinsic values and that these are not susceptible to rational ordering, and through a recognition that rationalism is linked to Western values and that the Enlightenment project of which it is a part is merely a form of cultural imperialism. Such reservations about rationalism have been expressed by both communitarian and postmodern theorists.

REALISM

Realism, sometimes called ‘political realism', is a perspective on international politics that is grounded in an emphasis upon power politics and the pursuit of national interests. As such it represents

-105-

the major alternative to *idealism. The central assumption of realism is that the *state is the principal actor on the international or world stage and, being sovereign, is able to act as an autonomous entity. Moreover, the rise of *nationalism and the emergence of modern *nation-states has transformed the state into a cohesive political community, within which other loyalties and ties are subordinate to those of the *nation. The realist tradition therefore portrays international politics as a ‘state of nature', an essentially anarchic system in which each state is forced to help itself and give priority to its own national interests, defined, most basically, as state survival and territorial defence. Realists, as a result, stress the role of *power in international affairs, and tend to understand power largely in terms of military capacity or force.

By no means, however, does international anarchy mean relentless conflict and unending war. Instead, realists insist that the pattern of conflict and cooperation within the state system largely conforms to the requirements of a balance of power. In pursuit of national security, states may enter into alliances which, if balanced against one another, may ensure prolonged periods of peace. Similarly, realists have always acknowledged that the international order is not a classic state of nature because power, wealth and resources are not equally distributed amongst states. The resulting hierarchy of states imposes a measure of order on the international system, reflecting the control that great powers exercise over subordinate ones through trading blocks, ‘spheres of influence', and outright colonialism. Neo-realism, sometimes called ‘new' or structural realism, has modified classical realism in that it tends to explain events in terms of the structure of the international system rather than the goals and make-up of individual states.

Significance

Realism became the dominant perspective on international politics during the twentieth century, receiving its impetus from the First World War and Second World War. These not only undermined the idealist belief in *internationalism and natural harmony, but also provided abundant evidence of the naked pursuit of state aggrandisement, especially in the case of Nazi expansionism. During the Cold War period, realist theories portrayed global politics in terms of a bipolar world order based upon rivalry between the

-106-

US and Soviet power blocs. Realists were nevertheless prepared to argue that bipolarity helped to maintain peace as escalating military spending led to an effective system of nuclear deterrents, especially once the condition of mutually assured destruction (MAD) was recognised in the 1960s. A stable hierarchy based upon accepted rules and recognised processes thus kept anarchy at bay, and encouraged realists to adopt the modified idea of what Hedley Bull (1977) termed an ‘anarchical society'.

Realism and neo-realism have attracted fierce criticism, however. The central objection is that, in divorcing politics from morality, the realist perspective legitimises military escalation and the hegemonic ambitions of great powers. This view suggests that power politics has not so much maintained peace as kept the world on the verge of nuclear catastrophe. A second critique of realism is advanced by feminist theorists, who contend that power-seeking behaviour and an obsession with national security and military might reflect the worldwide dominance of male politicians whose priorities are essentially aggressive and competitive. The central empirical weakness of realist theories is that, in focusing attention upon the state as the dominant international actor, they have ignored pluralistic tendencies that have reshaped the face of international politics in the late twentieth century. Classical realism has thus largely given away to neo-realism.

SYSTEMS THEORY

Systems theory sets out to explain the entire political process, as well as the function of major political actors, through the application of systems analysis. A ‘system' is an organised or complex whole, a set of interrelated and interdependent parts that form a collective entity. To analyse *politics from this perspective is to construct the model of a political system. A political system consists of linkages between what are viewed as ‘inputs' and ‘outputs' (see Figure 4.1). Inputs into the political system consist of demands and supports from the general public. Demands can range from pressure for higher living standards, improved employment prospects, and more generous welfare payments to greater protection for minority and individual rights. Supports, on the other hand, are ways in which the public contributes to the political system by paying taxes, offering compliance and being willing to participate in

-107-

public life. Outputs consist of the decisions and actions of *government, including the making of *policy, the passing of *laws, the imposition of taxes, and the allocation of public funds. These outputs generate ‘feedback', which in turn shapes further demands and supports. The key insight offered by the systems model is that the political system tends towards long-term equilibrium or political stability, as its survival depends upon outputs being brought into line with inputs.

Significance

Systems analysis was first employed in political science in the 1950s, the pioneering work having been done by David Easton ([1953] 1981) . Linked to *behaviouralism, the systems approach was part of the attempt to introduce more scientific rigour into the study of politics, in this case through the application of models of ecological systems from biology. Systems theory has provided a rich source of insights into, for instance, the role of ‘gatekeepers' such as *political parties and *pressure groups, which regulate the flow of inputs into the political system, and into the general policy process and the nature of its outputs. Its strengths include the breadth of its scope, which extends well beyond state institutions and even the class system to include all politically significant actors, and its tendency

-108-

Figure 4.1 The political system

to foster holistic thinking. However, the systems model is at best a device for drawing out understanding; it does not in itself constitute reliable knowledge. For example, institutions such as parties and pressure groups are more interesting and complex than their designation as ‘gatekeepers' suggests; for instance, they play an important role in managing public perceptions and thus help to shape the nature of public demands. Moreover, the systems model is more effective in explaining how and why political systems respond to popular pressures than in explaining why they employ repression and coercion, as, to some degree, all do. Finally, the systems model is implicitly conservative, in that it highlights the responsiveness and inherent stability of *liberal democracy, thereby, arguably, concealing its structural weaknesses and inherent contradictions.

UTILITARIANISM

Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy that suggests that the ‘rightness' of an action, policy or institution can be established by its tendency to promote happiness. This is based upon the assumption that individuals are motivated by self-interest and that these interests can be defined as the desire for pleasure, or happiness, and the wish to avoid pain or unhappiness. Individuals thus calculate the quantities of pleasure and pain each possible action would generate and choose whichever course promises the greatest pleasure over pain. Utilitarian thinkers believe that it is possible to quantify pleasure and pain in terms of ‘utility', taking account of their intensity, duration and so forth. Human beings are therefore utility maximisers, who seek the greatest possible pleasure and the least possible pain. The principle of utility can be applied to society at large using Jeremy Bentham's (1748–1832) classic formula: ‘the greatest happiness for the greatest number'.

Utilitarianism, however, has developed into a cluster of theories. Classical utilitarianism is act-utilitarianism, in that it judges an act to be right if its consequences produce at least as much pleasure-overpain as those of any alternative act. Rule-utilitarianism, rather, judges an act to be right if it conforms to a rule which, if generally followed, would produce good consequences. What is called utilitarian generalisation assesses an act's rightfulness not in terms of its own consequences, but on the basis of its consequences if the act were to be generally performed. Motive-utilitarianism places emphasis upon

-109-

the intentions of the actor rather than upon the consequences of each action.

Significance

Utilitarian theory emerged in the late eighteenth century as a supposedly scientific alternative to natural rights theories. In the UK, during the nineteenth century, utilitarianism provided the basis for a wide range of social, political and legal reforms, advanced by the so-called philosophic radicals. Utilitarianism provided one of the major foundations for classical *liberalism and remains perhaps the most important branch of moral philosophy, certainly in terms of its impact upon political issues.

The attraction of utilitarianism is its capacity to establish supposedly objective grounds upon which moral judgements can be made. Rather than imposing values on society, it allows each individual to make his or her own moral judgements as each alone is able to define what is pleasurable and what is painful. Utilitarian theory thus upholds diversity and *freedom, and demands that we respect others as pleasure-seeking creatures. Its drawbacks are philosophical and moral. Philosophically, utilitarianism is based upon a highly individualistic view of *human nature that is both asocial and ahistorical. It is by no means certain, for instance, that consistently self-interested behaviour is a universal feature of human society. Morally, utilitarianism may be nothing more than crass hedonism, a view expressed by J. S. Mill (1806–73) in his declaration that he would rather be ‘Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied' (although Mill himself subscribed to a modified form of utilitarianism). Utilitarianism has also been criticised for endorsing acts that are widely considered wrong, such as the violation of basic *human rights, if they serve to maximise the general utility of society.

UTOPIANISM

A utopia (from the Greek utopia, meaning ‘no place', or the Greek eutopia, meaning ‘good place') is literally an ideal or perfect society. The term was coined by Thomas More (1478–1535), and was first used in his Utopia ([1516] 1965). Utopianism is a style of social theorising that develops a critique of the existing order by constructing a

-110-

model of an ideal or perfect alternative. As such it usually exhibits three features. First, it embodies a radical and comprehensive rejection of the status quo; present social and political arrangements are deemed to be fundamentally defective and in need of root-and-branch change. Second, utopian thought highlights the potential for human self-development, based either upon highly optimistic assumptions about *human nature or optimistic assumptions about the capacity of economic, social and political institutions to ameliorate baser human drives and instincts. Third, utopianism usually transcends the ‘public/private' divide in that it suggests the possibility of complete or near-complete personal fulfilment. For an alternative society to be ideal, it must offer the prospect of emancipation in the personal realm as well as in the political or public realm.

However, utopianism is not a *political philosophy or an *ideology. Substantive utopias differ from one another, and utopian thinkers have not advanced a common conception of the good life. Nevertheless, most utopias are characterised by the abolition of want, the absence of conflict and the avoidance of violence and oppression. *Socialism in general, and *anarchism and *Marxism in particular, have a marked disposition towards utopianism, reflecting their belief in the human potential for sociable, cooperative and gregarious behaviour. Socialist utopias, as a result, are strongly egalitarian and typically characterised by collective property ownership and a reduction in, or eradication of, political *authority. *Feminism and *ecologism have also spawned utopian theories. *Liberalism's capacity to generate utopian thought is restricted by its stress upon human self-interestedness and competition; however, an extreme belief in free-market *capitalism can be viewed as a form of market utopianism. Other utopias have been based upon faith in the benign influence of government and political authority. More's society, for example, was hierarchical, authoritarian and patriarchal, albeit within a context of economic equality.

Significance

The utopian approach to political understanding was most popular in the nineteenth century, generally stimulated by the immense political and social upheavals generated by industrialisation. During the twentieth century, however, utopianism became distinctly unfashionable. Criticisms of utopian thought fall into two categories.

-111-

The first (in line with the pejorative, everyday use of the term ‘utopian') suggests that utopianism is deluded or fanciful thinking, a belief in an unrealistic and unachievable goal. Karl Marx (1818–83), for instance, denounced ‘utopian socialism' on the grounds that it advances a moral vision that is in no way grounded in historical and social realities. By contrast, ‘scientific socialism' sought to explain how and why a socialist society would come into being (Marxism's utopian character is nevertheless evident in the nature of its ultimate goal: the construction of a classless, communist society). The second category of criticisms holds that utopianism is implicitly totalitarian, in that it promotes a single set of indisputable values and so is intolerant of free debate and diversity.

However, a revival of utopianism has occurred since the 1960s associated with the rise of *New Left and the writings of thinkers such as Herbert Marcuse (1898–1979), Ernst Bloch (1885–1977) and Paul Goodman (1911–72). The strength of utopianism is that it enables *political theory to think beyond the present and to challenge the ‘boundaries of the possible'. The establishment of ‘concrete' utopias is a way of uncovering the potential for growth and development within existing circumstances. Without a vision of what could be, political theory may simply be overwhelmed by what is, and thereby lose its critical edge.

FURTHER READING

Barry, B. and Hardin, R. (eds), Rational Man and Irrational Society? (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1982).

Burchill, S. and Linklater, A., Theories of International Relations (London: Macmillan, 1996).

Chalmers, A. F., What Is This Thing Called Science? (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1986).

Cohen, G. A., Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978).

Dallmayr, F. and McCarthy, T. (eds), Understanding and Social Inquiry (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1997).

Dunleavy, P., Democracy, Bureaucracy and Public Choice: Economic Explanations in Political Science (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991).

Easton, D., The Political System (Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 1981).

Finifter, A. (ed.), Political Science: The State of the Discipline (Washington, DC: American Political Science Association, 1993).

-112-

Goodin, R., Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).

Harvey, D., The Condition of Post Modernity (London: Basil Blackwell, 1989).

Held, D. (ed.), Political Theory Today (Oxford: Polity Press, 1991).

Held, D., Political Theory and the Modern State (Oxford: Polity Press, 1990).

Heywood, A., Political Theory: An Introduction (London: Macmillan, 1999).

Hutcheon, L., The Politics of Post Modernism (New York: Routledge, 1989).

Kegley, C. (ed.), Controversies in International Relations Theory: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge (New York: St Martin's Press, 1995).

Johnson, N., The Limits of Political Science (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989).

Kuhn, T., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 1962).

Kumar, K., Utopianism (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1991).

Kymlika, W., Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1990).

Marsh, D. and Stoker, G. (eds), Theory and Methods in Political Science (London: Macmillan, 1995).

Merleau-Ponty, M., Adventures of the Dialectic (London: Heinemann, 1993).

Ollman, B., Dialectical Investigations (London: Routledge, 1993).

Vincent, A., Political Theory: Tradition and Diversity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).

Weaver, R. K. and Rockman, B. A. (eds), Do Institutions Matter? (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1993).

-113-

Values

ACCOUNTABILITY

Accountability means answerability; it implies a duty to explain one's conduct and be open to criticism by another. Accountability requires that the duties, powers and functions of government bodies are defined in such a way that the performance of subordinate ones can be monitored and evaluated by ‘higher' bodies. In this sense accountability can operate only in a context of *constitutionalism; being accountable does not mean being subject to arbitrary *authority or capricious punishment. However, accountability may also amount to a weak form of *responsibility, since it establishes a duty to answer and explain one's conduct, but not necessarily to bear guilt and accept punishment.

Significance

Accountability is an important feature of limited *government, effective policy-making and *democracy. It limits government *power by establishing mechanisms of political control through which one institution oversees the working and performance of another. It can promote the quality of public *policy by ensuring that policy proposals are carefully scrutinised and political performance is rigorously monitored. When this is achieved through regular and competitive elections, it amounts to a system of public control, public accountability being the practical face of democratic rule. However, accountability is effective only under certain circumstances. These include that the mechanisms for monitoring performance are rigorous; that ‘higher' institutions or bodies have sufficient access to information to make critical and informed judgements; and that appropriate sanctions can be applied in the event of blunders or under-performance. The main drawback of

-117-

accountability is that it may constrain independent judgement and action. For instance, the accountability of civil servants to ministers can lead to politicisation and allow bureaucratic power to be harnessed to the needs of the government of the day.

AUTONOMY

Autonomy literally means self-rule or self-government. *States, institutions or groups can be said to be autonomous if they enjoy a substantial degree of independence, although autonomy in this connection is sometimes taken to imply a high measure of self-government, rather than sovereign independence. Applied to the individual, autonomy is closely linked with *freedom. However, since it suggests not merely being ‘left alone' but being rationally self-willed, autonomy is best classified as a form of positive freedom. By responding to inner or ‘genuine' drives, the autonomous individual is seen to achieve authenticity and personal fulfilment.

Significance

In international politics, autonomy is widely used as an index of *sovereignty, autonomous states being independent and self-governing. However, it is now widely accepted that very few, if any, states are autonomous in this sense, and pluralist theorists in particular now use autonomy in a relative, not absolute, sense. As a constitutional principle, referring to institutions or levels of government, autonomy is closely linked to *decentralisation. Autonomy in this context is justified through an essentially liberal belief in fragmenting *power, although the checks and balances thus established imply interdependence as well as independence. The term is also used in the analysis of the state, the autonomy of the state implying that the state articulates its own interests and is not merely an instrument or agent through which powerful groups in society at large act. Liberals have traditionally defended this image of state autonomy against the Marxist theory of the class state, even though modern Marxists are prepared to accept the ‘relative autonomy' of the state. Finally, the ideal of personal autonomy can be seen as the underlying value of libertarian and anarchist thought, self-governing individuals needing little or no guidance in the form of

-118-