Beware of the Abstract Philosophy Trap
Freedom must be built on practical reality
Welcome to a new series, where we analyze the conditions that are required to sustain freedom. The political landscape of the 21st century West is increasingly a battle between moral libertarians and moral authoritarians, and the authoritarians often attempt to take over previously libertarian movements by infiltration and bad arguments. By understanding what conditions are good or bad for freedom, we can build a non-woke progressive movement, and avoid the influence of authoritarian reactionism.
Today, I’m going to talk about the focus on abstract ideas, and why it is bad for freedom.
In the previous decade, we saw the rise of a morally authoritarian brand of activism rooted in postmodern critical theories. This brand of activism attempted to push the largely popular and successful tradition of reformist liberalism aside, justified not by objective reality, but by their philosophical commitments only. This was a disaster both from the perspective of freedom itself, seen in the rise of cancel culture and its chilling effects on free speech and rational discussion of issues, as well as from the perspective of social justice, because it allowed the rise of a reactionary, and equally moral authoritarian, ‘postliberal’ right. Left-wing moral authoritarianism has led to right-wing moral authoritarianism, and the result is a double dose of unfreedom, as well as a lot of culture war tribalism.
Perhaps surprisingly, conservative philosophy actually provides some ammunition for moral libertarians to fight back. As I’ve recently said, I have grown to appreciate conservative philosophy more as I have grown older. (I still don’t support organized conservative politics, however, because I consider it to be reactionary and deeply moral authoritarian.) What I have come to appreciate is the insight that the forced application of abstract ideas and philosophy to real life situations is more often harmful than not, especially in terms of freedom. This is because abstract ideas are often a poor fit for practical reality, with all its nuances and complexities, and the force-fitting of ideal onto reality would require a lot of moral authoritarianism. This, I believe, forms the core point of the conservative philosophical cannon, going all the way back to Edmund Burke. Contrary to popular belief, this insight could actually be useful for a reformist liberal politics too. Postmodernism’s misguided attempts at ‘liberation’ from ‘oppressive social constructs’, and the harms it has clearly caused to minority communities, is proof that progressive politics would benefit from a bit of conservative philosophical influence at this point. On the other hand, the reactionary right’s increasing unwillingness to heed this insight is what is making them increasingly authoritarian. How ironic would it be, if reformists of the center-left began quoting Burke to the ‘postliberal’ right?
The problem of trusting abstract ideas and philosophy to solve society’s problems might be most clearly seen in the case of the forced application of postmodern critical theories, but this is actually a long-standing problem, particularly in so-called progressive circles. The endless arguments about whether particular ideas are ‘progressive’, ‘feminist’, and so on are a reflection of the obsession with the abstract, and such arguments at least imply that some ideas should be taboo in progressive circles, which is a highly morally authoritarian position to take. It was against this situation that I began writing about moral libertarianism. Remember, this was the case even before postmodernism became mainstream. As I often say in reply to these debates, how about we just have more compassion for everyone? Of course, the problem is not limited to the left either. 20th-century ‘fusionism’ basically promoted a radical, abstract theory-over-reality economic policy, while tying it in a package with reactionary cultural politics, to make it sound ‘conservative’ when it was actually anything but conservative (going by the Burkean view).
Another important point to note is that the abstract opposition to abstract ideas can be just as bad for freedom too. In force-fitting all kinds of observed phenomenon into the abstract idea to be opposed, the nuances and complexities of reality are ignored, and the need for careful consideration of all sides of an issue is reflexively rejected. A good example is how the anti-woke movement went from being very morally libertarian, to being gradually hijacked by moral authoritarians. The trap here is seeing everything through a woke vs anti-woke lens, even when it is not objectively justified. For example, corporations that take particular stances on social issues are painted as ‘woke corporations’ that are complicit in the postmodern deconstructionist agenda. This, in turn, is used to justify the government trampling on the freedom of private businesses to do business as they see fit. Another example is how parts of our cultural discourse previously considered normal, especially on matters related to race and sexuality, are now painted as part of a ‘critical race theory’ or ‘queer theory’ agenda by these reactionaries, with no solid evidence needed. This, again, is used to justify an authoritarian agenda including book bans, drag bans, unjustifiably broad laws that limit free speech in schools, and even the takeover of a college by the government in at least one case. All this results from a refusal to deal with reality as it really is, caused by the obsession with opposing an abstract idea in an abstract way.
Originally published at http://taraellastylia.blogspot.com.
TaraElla is a singer-songwriter and author, who is the author of the Moral Libertarian Manifesto and the Moral Libertarian book series, which argue that liberalism is still the most moral and effective value system for the West.
She is also the author of The Trans Case Against Queer Theory and The TaraElla Story (her autobiography).
