The Similarities Between Classical and Modern Liberalism Are Greater Than the Differences free essay sample

Similarities between classical and modern liberalism are greater than the differences. Discuss. (45 marks) Typically, liberalism is categorised into two separate components; classical liberalism, which was fashioned during the 19th century as a result of the industrial revolution, and the more recent Modern Liberalism which emerged as industrialisation continued within the UK. Although both divisions of Liberalism unavoidably overlap in attitudes and approaches regarding the theory behind the ideology, I believe, fundamentally, that clear tensions between these aspects of Liberalism are more evident when analysing this ideology. Some will say that both classical and modern liberalists possess a number of parallel approaches towards this political theory and its key concepts. Firstly, both strands of Liberalism believe in the necessity of some kind of a state, since life without a state, as Thomas Hobbes stated, would be ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short’. Both views consider the existence of a state to be essential in order to protect individual rights. Since liberals generally considered humanity to be self-interested and egoistical, a state was needed to ensure that individuals did not exploit other individuals’ rights, through acts of stealing, harming, or even slavery, and was therefore the only thing that was capable of restraining all individuals and groups within society. Hobbes and Locke particularly stressed the importance of creating a ‘social contract’ where an agreement amongst individuals would be initiated, to form a state in order to escape from the disorder and chaos of ‘the state of nature’, which was a society with unrestrained freedom, but lacking any establish authority. Therefore, the state is there to act almost as a neutral referee in society, by implementing laws enshrined in the constitution and by democracy. Thus an approach similar to Abraham Lincolns â€Å"government of the people, by the people, for the people† was adopted and agreed by all liberalists to justify the existence of a state: its primary aim was to protect the rights and freedoms of the people, and therefore of the individual. Another example of corresponding views of Liberalism between modernists and classicists is their superior interest in the individual; both variations of this ideology revolve around protecting rights and freedoms of the individual, as opposed to any social group or collective body. Liberalism encouraged individuals to embrace autonomy and think for themselves, instead of accepting their identity to be based on characteristics associated with a social group or community they belonged to. A serf, for example, became a ‘free man’ and was able to choose who he worked for. Both aspects of liberalism realised that each individual possessed personal and distinctive qualities; each was of special value. The philosopher Kant was one of the first to grasp the importance of each individual, claiming that each person should be ‘ends in themselves’- not merely as means for the achievement of the ends of others. Whether egoism and self-interest is unrestrained or is qualified by a sense of social responsibility, liberals are united I their desire to create a society in which each person is capable of developing and flourishing to the fullness of their potential. Both modern and classical liberalists regarded this ideology to be one very much characterised by a willingness to accept, and even sometimes celebrate moral, cultural and political diversity. Such a versatile acceptance of people made liberals strongly related to the theme of toleration. Voltaire memorably portrays this view is his declaration that ‘I detest what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it’. Although the case of toleration was first adopted by the likes of John Locke who defended religious freedom, the concept progressed so that toleration should be extended to all matters regarded as ‘private’ on the grounds that, like religion, they concern moral questions that should be left to the individual. J. S. Mill then developed a wider justification for toleration that both modern and classical liberalists adopted; toleration was just as important to society as to the individual. So toleration was not simply a guarantee for personal autonomy, but ensured the dynamism and health of society. All liberalists believed toleration brought about debate, argument and contest, which was inevitably bring about social progress. However, I consider the tensions and differences between classical and modern liberalists to be far more apparent when scrutinising this ideology. Although liberals agree about the value of liberty, their views on what it means to be ‘free’ vary significantly. It was Isaiah Berlin who first created the concepts of negative and positive freedom that helped to differentiate between the two liberals’ views of freedom. The concept of negative freedom was adopted by classical liberals, who believed that freedom was defined as being left alone and free from interference. Classical liberals believed this theory to mean that individuals should be free from external restrictions or constraints. Modern liberals, on the other hand, believed in positive freedom. This, modernist’s perceived to means that all individuals have the ability to be their own master, and thus reach full autonomy. Unlike classical liberals, who had little faith in humankind, Modernists conveyed humans in a much more positive light: people are rational beings that are capable, and therefore should be able, to flourish and reach their full potential. Liberals also tended to split on the topic of the role of the state, and therefore, the limits to the interference of the state. Classical liberals believed that the existence of a state was evil, in that it imposed collective will on society; thereby limiting the freedom and responsibility of individuals. Thus, a state’s role should be minimal and should only be used as a system for maintaining laws that protect individual rights and freedoms, as well as acting a protection service from attack by other nations. Some, like the Lord John Acton, perceived any power or dominance given to the state to be disastrous, stating that â€Å"power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. † Thus the state’s role should be minimal, reducing its power so that it was enough to protect individuals, but not enough to become superior to the people. However, Modern liberals on the other hand allowed and even encouraged state intervention, as they believed, similarly to T H Green, that this would ensure that each individual would be able to develop and reach their full potential and autonomy. Unlike classists, who believed in no such support for people, and that they should be left alone to their own devices, modern liberals saw the state as an essential tool to create and maintain a system of ‘equality of opportunity’. This meant that the state should act as a support, helping those in need, to ensure that all people are, as it were, ‘on a level playing field’. Although the state could not determine the same outcomes for everyone, modern liberals believed it to be the states job to make sure everyone had the same opportunities in life to flourish and achieve self- realisation. Another feature that clarifies the differences between liberalism is the approach towards society and welfare. Classical liberalisms believed fundamentally that individuals make what they want, with what they can, of their own lives. Those with the ability and a willingness to work will prosper, while the incompetent or the lazy will not. Such ideas of individual responsibility was widely adopted by those with a ‘laissez-faire’ approach, such as Richard Cobden, the UK economist, who, although advocating an improvement of working conditions, argued that it should come about through their ‘own efforts and self-reliance, rather than from law†¦look not to parliament, look only to yourselves’. However, Herbert Spencer appears to be the boldest expression of a classical liberalists approach. He developed further Charles Darwin’s concept of evolution and came up with the principle, of ‘survival of the fittest’. Here, Spencer was implying that people who adapt themselves best to survive in current conditions and climates will rise to the top, while those rigid in tradition that refuse to adapt will sink to the bottom. Inequalities of wealth, social position and political power are therefore natural and inevitable- thus the government should make no attempt to interfere with them. Thus, the welfare should only provide a ‘safety-net’ to help the most desperate in society. However, modern liberalists have adopted a rather conflicting interpretation of the role of society and welfare. Modernists saw it as a vital role of the state to provide support for citizens’ by overcoming poverty, disease and ignorance. Thus, the 20th century saw a dramatic rise in the appearance of a ‘welfare state’, as many recognised that adopting such a principle would also improve the running of the nation; providing help to citizens would inevitably increase the health of people, which would then prove as a huge advantage in times of war. However, the primary aim of adopting such a principle was not to benefit the nation, but to ensure that equality of opportunity was provided to every citizen. They believed that if particular individuals or groups were disadvantaged by their social circumstances, then the state has a social responsibility to reduce or remove these disadvantages to create more equal chances. William Beveridge created a report to aid the welfare state, which set out to attack the ‘five giants’- want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness. In other words, it protected the citizens’ from ‘cradle to the grave’. Therefore, unlike Classical liberalists, modernists believed in a much wider welfare support scheme that should not just be limited to citizens’ with the most desperate situations. Although a great array of similarities and differences shape both variations of Liberalism, having scrutinised this ideology in depth, I perceive the variations of argument, beliefs and desires adopted between Modern and Classical liberalism to be far greater than any similarities that may bind them together. Some may argue that since both adaptations of liberalism are built on the same foundations, such as their shared desire for some kind of state, the superiority of the individual and the approach of toleration, this is enough to fuse together and prove that Modern and Classical liberalists are not so different. However, the differences between both takes of Liberalism clearly dominates; such fundamental details of an ideology, taking for example the opposite beliefs of the role of the state, are clearly to vital to ignore and be overshadowed by the similar principles of Liberalism. Jessica Atkins