By Rubin Friedman
A Thousand Small Sanities: The Moral Adventure of
Liberalism
By Adam Gopnik
Basic Books
272 pages
Adam Gopnik, a staff writer at The New Yorker, has written a personal
and spirited outline of his view of liberalism, illustrating how it has been
developed and practiced by those he sees as liberal precursors and heroes, and
then by attempting show what it is not.
His first definition of liberalism presents difficulties from the
beginning and he starts by limiting it to “those of us who think of ourselves
as liberal humanists.”
Liberalism is an evolving political practice that
makes the case for the necessity and possibility of (imperfectly) egalitarian
social reform and even greater (if not absolute) tolerance of human difference
through reasoned and (mostly) unimpeded conversation, demonstration and debate.
Admitting the vagueness and lack of clear specificity, Gopnik then
proceeds to use the lives, personalities and writings of those he most closely
identifies with the admittedly evolving liberal tradition, often coupling those
who worked together such as John Mill and Harriet Taylor, or George Henry Lewes
and Marion Evans (George Eliot), but also William Gladstone and Benjamin
Disraeli.
The starting point of all these examples is the need to move towards
social justice within our democratic structures. To narrow down further what he
means by liberalism, Gopnik introduces the notion of fallbilism and sympathy
for others as central to liberal practice. Humans are often wrong and those who
are ‘right’ need to show compassion and sympathy for those who cannot change as
fast as others.
Ultimately, his liberalism is marked by pragmatic progressivism and
politics as the art of the possible in a democratic society.
Gopnik further tries to separate liberalism from those ideologies both
to the left and the right, finding both rigidities antithetical to both
liberalism and to long-term change. Both of these make sweeping condemnations
of certain categories of humans and seek to impose change through revolution or
oppression.
In a way, Gopnik is illustrating the challenges for all those who want to
avoid conflict, divisiveness and the cruelty of victors to losers which
ultimately is overturned in a continuing cycle.
Strangely, the considerations he speaks of have been germane to Jews
throughout their history: Separation or integration? Egypt or Assyria?
Resistance/revolution or compromise and obéissance? Notice the seeming
contradictory advice of Isaiah and Jeremiah, one for resistance, the other for
surrender.
Jews in the Diaspora have long had other political dimensions that press
upon them: Associate with the powerful or the ordinary person? The linguistic
majority or the minority?
In the end, just meaning well and wanting to avoid conflict does not
predict which course of action is called for in a particular situation nor
whether any individual Jew will be more for change or for tradition. Have we
yet learned how not to let these myriad questions divide us?
Gopnik’s definition of liberalism indicates why things inevitably fly
apart, why the centre will not hold.
Every one of the words he includes in brackets can have many answers.
Thus neither the upper nor lower limit of tolerance of difference is set. How
egalitarian is good enough, and what do we even mean by egalitarian? Under what
conditions and using what tools should debate be impeded? Boris Johnson’s
actions might even be acceptable except that it could interfere with other
current desires of liberals. And as Gopnik himself notes, decisions are not
just made on the basis of reason, but also of emotion.
The final sine qua non of Gopnik’s liberalism is pluralism. Everyone can
be included except those who are opposed to it. Yet here we have another one of
those disputable terms. Does pluralism apply to everything and which aspects of
religious practice or belief go beyond the “tolerance” limit?
Indeed, it is likely that many of Gopnik’s liberal heroes would have
what are now considered “illiberal” views about at least some topics.
Superiority of European civilization? Differences of races? Same-sex
marriage? Fluid gender identity? And
even Gopnik has reservations about pushing some of these rights in ways that
might be coercive.
Gopnik is right in noting the urgent need for liberals to combat the
extremes of fascism and violence. But should we not also encourage those closer
to the middle to make common cause?
Gopnik, a kind of Jewish Canadian American (he was born in the U.S. but
grew up in Montreal and graduated from McGill University), has clearly been
influenced by his Canadian experience and one could wish that his warm humanism
prevails. The 2019 elections in both Canada and Israel may have a strong impact
on the kind of liberalism he favours.
No comments:
Post a Comment