Liberalism as Anticulture: A Defense

Liberalism, as an ideology, has come under more and more scrutiny in the West over the past few decades. Patrick Deneen’s Why Liberalism Failed is a recent book which enumerates a lot of the issues that the West is facing today and diagnoses these ailments of liberalism achieving its philosophical ends. While Deneen lists several problems of which he believes liberalism is the primary cause, Deneen’s criticism that liberalism is anticulture is his most salient. Deneen argues that liberalism is anticulture because it facilitates an environment where individuals tend to detach themselves from the communities from which they gain their cultural identity. My central thesis is that Deneen’s analysis of “liberalism as anticulture” is true and provides a serious objection to liberalism (Deneen et al. 64).

In this essay, I will begin by explaining why Deneen thinks liberalism is anticulture. I will then supplement Deneen’s point by explaining how liberalism’s emphasis on individualism leads to a separation of people from their communities and, through this, leads to people disassociating with their cultural identities. I’ll also explain why such dissociation is problematic both for the flourishing of communities, but also the flourishing of individuals. I’ll then object to my supplementation by arguing that liberalism is not as anticultural as Deneen says. I’ll elucidate the fact that liberalism tends towards globalism and so helps people to form new connections outside of their physically proximate community. I’ll then argue that liberalism, while it erodes certain kinds of cultural connections, forms new ones in the absence of the old ones as a result of its globalizing tendency, examples being the market and contemporary liberal education. Finally, I’ll respond to this by arguing that these new cultural ties which liberalism creates are not strong enough to lead to flourishing lives because of liberalism’s emphasis on individualism and individual liberty.

Deneen’s argument that liberalism is anticulture is centered on the fact that, for him, liberalism seeks to disconnect people from the various conditions which are imposed upon them. Central to liberalism’s anticultural nature is the fact that it separates people from their “nature, time, and place” (Deneen et al. 66). This is derivative of the fact that liberalism places the liberty of the individual as the primary goal of society. Deneen begins by pointing out that many liberal thinkers believed that cultural identity was not to be found in nature, nor was to be seen as derivative of human nature. He notes that Hobbes’ “‘state of nature’” is “noteworthy for the absence of any artifice created by humans” (Deneen et al. 67). Even Rousseau believed that humans, in their natural state, are stripped “of cultural forms” (Deneen et al. 67). Deneen also thinks that liberalism leads to the development of “fractured time, of time fundamentally disconnected” from “past, present, and future” (Deneen et al. 74). This leads to a detachment from history and cultural norms passed down through tradition and, thus contributing to the anticultural nature of liberalism. Finally, Deneen says that “liberalism valorizes placelessness” (Deneen et al. 77). Under liberalism, “the place where one happens to be born and raised is … arbitrary” (Deneen et al. 78). This leads to “the most fundamental right defining the liberal human” being “the right to leave the place of one’s birth” (Deneen et al. 78). This further cements liberalism’s anticultural status, for Deneen, as the separation of individuals from their geographic origins severs the cultural ties grounded in location. So, according to Deneen, liberalism’s desire to separate people from their “nature, time, and place” makes liberalism anticultural (Deneen et al. 66).

Deneen’s assessment that liberalism is anticulture can be supported by analyzing liberalism’s commitment to individualism and individual liberty. All of the anticultural elements of liberalism which Deneen identifies can be seen as ways of separating the individual from the conditions in which they are brought up. The fundamental motivation for this is to liberate the individual, which is the central goal of liberalism. For example, the desire of liberalism, according to Deneen, to separate people from their place of birth can only be understood by seeing the individual as absolutely primary and also viewing the individual’s place of birth as a possible constraint on the liberty of the individual. So, the reason why “Thomas Jefferson” says that “the most fundamental right defining the liberal human is the right to leave the place of one’s birth” is because if the individual were, necessarily, to be associated with their place of birth, their liberty could be limited since they did not choose their place of birth and so identifying their place of birth as central to who they are would be a limit on their individual liberty (Deneen et al. 78). If liberalism were not so fervently committed to individualism, it is hard to see why it would seek to have the identity of the individual defined, primarily, by the identities the individual chooses, rather than the “nature, time, and place,” which the individual exercised no agency in choosing (Deneen et al. 66). Moreover, the separation which liberalism creates between people and their “nature, time, and place” also separates people from their cultural background since “nature, time, and place” are the primary means by which customs are passed down, but are also primary means by which form their own cultural ties (Deneen et al. 66). This is a dissociation between people and their culture as they begin to view their culture of birth as imposition and restriction on their agency, rather than a vehicle for human flourishing. So, liberalism's anticultural tendency flows from its fundamental concept of individualism.

The reason why “liberalism as anticulture” is problematic for liberalism is because culture strongly secures communal bonds and relationships, which are essential for the flourishing of both individuals and communities (Deneen et al. 64). It is not controversial to claim that relationships are integral for the flourishing of human beings. We are social creatures, or, as Aristotle said, “man is a political animal” and so we must be in relationship in order to flourish (Aristotle 1253a1). Culture does a phenomenal job of fostering relationships, which is beneficial for individuals and the community at large. Culture provides a common ground which provides a shared identity among members of a community. This shared identity fosters relationships between people since individuals form relationships with those with which they share things in common. Moreover, the relationships which are formed as a result of shared cultural identity are very strong since this shared cultural identity is grounded in “nature, time, and place;” this cultural identity itself relies on traditions which are rooted in human nature and often have histories dating back centuries, thus making culture a solid foundation for relationships (Deneen et al. 66). These relationships lead to vigorous personal growth and contentment because interpersonal relationships are necessary for human happiness. Additionally, relationships formed through shared culture provide greater stability, thus increasing the likelihood of happiness among such individuals. Such individual happiness also increases the health of the community since if the members of the community are happy, the society is more stable. This individual happiness also strengthens the cultural ties which undergird the cultural bonds of the community. Since liberalism is anticultural, it cannot achieve the kind of happiness or strong communal bonds which culture produces, which is deeply problematic for liberalism.

One might object that liberalism is not as anticultural as Deneen accuses it of being and that it can actually foster new kinds of cultural connections that would not be possible without. I think the liberal might grant Deneen’s argument that liberalism can be damaging to traditional cultural forms which are a great means of strengthening communal bonds and they might even grant that this is a result of liberalism’s ardent emphasis on individual liberty. However, the liberal may be able to grant all of these things and still argue that liberalism is not anticulture precisely because of the globalizing tendency in liberalism, which Deneen identifies. Under liberalism, connections can be formed between peoples who, otherwise, would never have interacted. This, the liberal, might argue has two effects. Firstly, a new meta-culture, as it were, forms which connects people from wildly distinct backgrounds and enables them to create new relationships which they, otherwise, would never have had. This meta-culture can even be ideologically “thin,” merely obliging people to adhere to basic norms and values, such as tolerance. This would not force people to abandon their native culture in order to engage with communities which possess different cultures, and would still maintain the added benefit of fostering inter-communal relationships. This leads to the second point, which is that aspects of culture which distinguish people from each other become more highly valued in virtue of the fact that liberalism leads to homogenization among peoples. This would be the result of the basic human desire for variety and such a benefit can already be seen in contemporary American liberalism’s affection for “diversity” (Democrats, 2020). Both of these effects would garner the benefits of culture, while preventing the ill effects of sectioning people into communities which merely care about their own culture. Such ill effects can be seen in the ways that communities which emphasize culture, custom, and tradition can harm certain members of the community. This can be seen, for example, in the cultural enforcement of racism that occurred in the South for most of American history, which led to the legal codification of these practices in the form of Jim Crow (Pilgrim, 2000). 

The liberal’s hypothesis, it might be argued, can be seen in ways liberal institutions, such as the liberal education and market economy, bring about these desirable effects; when I say liberal education, I mean the predominant form of education found in contemporary liberal countries and by market economy, I mean the unplanned . Firstly, the liberal education system has, arguably, been immensely successful in creating a meta-culture. Liberal education has created new avenues for connection through its allowance of members of diverse cultures and ethnicities to commingle in school. There are two effects that arise from this. Firstly, the tolerance for diversity which is acquired through the commingling forms the ideologically “thin” meta-culture, which fosters a safe environment for cultural interaction. Secondly, this commingling leads to students learning about the culture of other students, which results in the appreciation of other students’ cultures. Moving to the market system, which is probably the most successful economic system in history and is an inherently liberal system, tracing its origin back to the liberal thinker and father of modern capitalism Adam Smith (Hausman, 2018). The market, given that it is a liberal system, has a globalizing tendency which links peoples from distant parts of the world through economic interaction. This economic interaction does not lead to homogenization, but rather a sharing and spreading of culture, which can be seen in culturally pluralistic capitalist societies like the United States (US). In a society like the US, cultures do not get eliminated by liberalism’s globalizing tendency, but rather celebrated for what makes these cultures unique and distinct from each other. Moreover, in a society like the US the cultural pluralism enables members of different cultures to interact with each other, forming new bonds in ways that would not be possible without liberalism. So, contrary to Deneen, the liberal would say, culture actually thrives under liberalism rather than being undermined by it, thereby leading to human flourishing.

However, this liberal proposal ultimately fails as the cultural ties which liberalism can produce are not as strong as those in a non-liberal system. To begin, the ideologically “thin” meta-culture does not seem to be a culture, but rather seems to be an adherence to the amount of tolerance required for a culturally pluralistic society. Any further added ideological commitments would lead to a homogenization and abandonment of the particular cultures from which people come. Moreover, the meta-cultural value of tolerance leads to an appreciation of different cultures which is surface-level and so fails to foster deep connections as effectively as culture outside that context can. This occurs because the experience of culture through this atmosphere of tolerance is always from the perspective of an outsider, rather than one ensconced in the particular culture. The effect of this is that while there may be increased cultural appreciation, this appreciation fails to connect people as strongly as culture itself can because those who appreciate a certain culture are not a part of that culture. This fact becomes clear when examining the empirical examples provided by the liberal. Firstly, liberal education is where the value of tolerance is instilled and where most people engage with other cultures through the medium of tolerance. Here, students learn about other cultures, but this only provides a superficial experience of culture since it is from the perspective of an outsider. This entails that the powerful connections which culture can form are not experienced by these students and so the flourishing that results from these connections is also absent. Secondly, the placement of culture in the market makes it simply another product among a plethora of other consumer items. This, necessarily, commercializes culture and so reduces strips it of its unique ability to unite people and form unique bonds among the people since it is no longer the foundation of communal identity and solidarity, but a commodity to be bought and sold. All of this results in weaker cultural ties and relationships between people, which, in turn, leads to less individual and communal flourishing.

In Why Liberalism Failed, Patrick Deneen lists issues confronting the West and identifies these issues as symptoms of a successful liberalism. Deneen’s analysis of “liberalism as anticulture” is his most salient (Deneen et al. 64). In this essay, I first explained why Deneen thinks that liberalism is anticulture and then supplemented Deneen’s point by explaining how liberalism’s emphasis on individualism leads to a separation of people from their communities which, consequently, leads to a disassociation between people and their cultural identities. I also explained why such dissociation is problematic for human flourishing. I then presented an alternative picture of liberalism’s relationship to culture than Deneen or supplementation illustrates. I began by pointing out that liberalism is a globalizing force and, therefore, helps people to form new connections which would not be possible without liberalism’s aid. I then argued that liberalism, while it erodes certain cultural connections, forms new ones in their absence and then used the market and contemporary education as examples of this globalizing tendency. Finally, I responded to this by arguing that these new cultural ties which liberalism creates are not as strong as cultural connections uninfluenced by liberalism and so do not most effectively lead to flourishing lives. I have, fundamentally, argued that Deneen’s criticism that liberalism is anticulture is valid and provides a serious aporia for liberalism.

Works Cited

Aristotle, and Benjamin Jowett. Politics. Indo-European Publishing, 2009.

​​Democrats, 29 Aug. 2020, https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/. 

Deneen, Patrick J., et al. Why Liberalism Failed. Yale University Press, 2018.

Hausman, Daniel M. “Philosophy of Economics.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 4 Sept. 2018, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/economics/. 

Pilgrim, David. “What Was Jim Crow.” Ferris State University, 2000, https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/what.htm.