Final paper (without footnotes) for Political Liberalism, Prof. B. Douglass, Georgetown University, Fall 1997

General Contents
I. Political liberalism and universalism
II. The aims of this paper
III. The beginning: essence and equality

I. Political liberalism and universalism Political liberalism has always made claims about universal validity. The universal quality of liberal theory is one of it's core principles. To challenge the universal attitude of liberal thought is to rattle its foundations. Yet, the idea of universality was conceived during the Enlightenment period when political philosophers presumably were thought of as well-traveled when they had been to more than three capital cities on the continent of Europe. Ideas about universality paralleled the claims of legitimacy of absolute monarchs, and were certainly needed for matters of political discourse. Yet, these ideas never really had to pass the tests of today, now that mankind has entered the "planetary stage of human development."

Problems today Today, mature liberal democracies, constituted in nation states that built on premises of liberal thought (among them the claim to universality), face the domestic challenge of identity-wars, and the challenge from non-liberal cultures abroad. The western constitutionalist democracies had been able to marry "a single, cosmopolitan conception of human nature and a vigorous national identity" . National particularities colored the different national perceptions of the same "universal" human beings and their rights , but as long as domestic diversity was not an issue (thanks to a widely perceived national homogenity, and the enchantment and delight people took in perceiving themselves as national citizens), to uphold universal claims was no problem. Imperialism abroad, fueled by liberal claims, had never been troubled by diversity, either. But now, diversity and particular identities have become an issue domestically and abroad. The marriage of the universal aim of liberty to a perception of a homogenous essence of man is troubled, and that doesn't look good to non-liberal neighbors in the global village either. Nevertheless, classical liberal thought, such as presented by David Gauthier, does not tolerate (domestic or international) particular identities and ways of life, and Western democracies continue to advertise the universality of the liberal idea of human rights, and maybe do so more today then ever. The universal seed of liberalism is finally about to be grown. The question is, does it become a flower that ornaments liberal thought and practice, or a weed that bursts other foundations of liberalism, such as it's supposed neutrality or tolerance?

II. The aims of this paper It will be argued in this paper that universal claims were originally possible because they were based on the conceptualization of the individual  as a "Kantian cipher" , or, as it shall be referred to, the "unencumbered self" . The "unencumbered self", created for the sake of political argument, has since made an astonishing career pervading all areas of life based on it’s universalist thrust, and is not shy to refute particular cultural or local identities. However, the dominance of the unencumbered self may have led to the disenchantment of citizens as described by Benjamin Barber, a result of liberalism’s universalist attitude that needs to be addressed.
But the liberal anthropological presupposition of an "unencumbered self" generates necessarily a theoretical construct that is likely to be accepted only by those who agree to the one (or the few) characteristic element(s) of the unencumbered self. This is the case, as will be briefly demonstrated, in the classical liberal argument of David Gauthier. In one largely homogenous culture, such as of the older nation states of the "North-Atlantic culture" (Rorty), Gauthier's moral claims may be accepted. However, Gauthier claims his liberal conception superior to any other. His universal claims will be shown to be unacceptable to non-liberal cultures, and very problematic even to liberal thought.

Richard Rorty, for example, who made liberal thought sensitive to it's contingency and historicity, could not agree to David Gauthier's universal claims - one may think. Rorty has recognized the futility of the long lasting liberal effort to define an essence of man, so he has abandoned "foundationalism" - the effort to ground one's theories in some universally valid truth. Rorty plays no "foundational anthropology games", as he might say. Yet - and that is the surprise - even without a perceived common essence of man, Rorty makes the claim of universal superiority of liberal thought and practice. Does he do it out of tradition? Yes. It is his liberal excitement of having developed the latest theory, having carried liberty to new heights, which certainly demands universal application. I will ultimately argue that the idea that principles useful for political causes should pervade all areas of life is ultimately wrong and leads to disenchantment. - Prior to that claim, Rorty’s universal claims shall be refuted.

III. The beginning: essence and equality But first, we will have a look at the establishment of equality of all human beings in regard to their essence. Plato and the old philosophers mused about the good life more than about the right political order, (which didn't keep them from attributing their thought universal quality. As will be shown, that was a convenient reference point for the Enlightenment interpretation of history as a movement towards the telos of a rationalist civilization). It was Thomas Hobbes, Gauthier's intellectual god-father, who introduced logic reasoning about the political order back in the 17th century, combining it with a bible exegesis that also legitimized the political order with concepts taken from the realm of the "good life" . To ground his political ideas prior to additionally justifying it with the bible exegesis, Hobbes did something new and interesting - he invented the equality of an essence of human beings. Based on the perceived equality in abilities and aim for self-preservation, he proceeded with his consequences: diffidence, then war, and the avoidance of war through the consensual "covenantal" establishment of a superstructure called Leviathan. In effect, the legitimacy of that consensual establishment of government built upon the idea of equality of this human essence, in that Hobbes based his conclusions on the observation of the individual, then "proceed(ed) from one consequence to the other."
So, along with the concept of equality, Thomas Hobbes also invented the first "unencumbered self", the abstracted model of man which, in Hobbes perception, was characterized by man's aim at self-preservation: Hobbes "anthropology as the self-interpretation of man as the being of power" transforms into a "systems theory".  On the one hand, Hobbes perceived man as unbounded free and powerful subjects, on the other, he recognizes the "infirmity" and deficiencies of human nature, which in their essence are constitutive for the state of nature. It is this "infirmity" that today reflects itself in the (communitarian and existentialist) disenchantment with liberalism, and about which liberals have forgotten.
To Hobbes, man is a being of power, and all men are. All men are equal, because average men have the same abilities, and the capacity to kill. So, the individual is being conceptualized through his supposed essence - as a being of power, aiming at self-preservation: "The decisive premise ... is the pre-supposition of a fundamental equality of man. It is not limited to the equality of a few (in the polis) - Hobbes consciously turns against the Aristotelian understanding of equality -, but (the premise)  has universalized equality and made it essential and constitutive to all mankind. What later, beginning with Locke, and in conscious exposition by Hegel, will be exposed as the equality of all men in regard to all other men by peeling off man all secondary fixations such as race, nationality, religion ect. (which are constitutive for inequality), Hobbes has done it already, when he turns away from all features and differences deriving out of society, and radically retreats to man as such."
To sum it up Liberal political theory since the Enlightenment has been working with a model of man that took certain, but different characteristics, or divine qualities, as essence of man. This essence was the foundation for the equality of man. And equality, "egalité", in turn, was one of the justifying principles and the driving forces of liberalism. Universal claims were made on the basis of the equality of all people. The standard argument sounds like: "All human beings have dignity/equal rights because all are of divine origin/have autonomy, the faculty of reason, rationality ect." The whole project of "comprehensive liberalism" (the one form of the "project of the Enlightenment" that interests us here ) tried to establish a foundation in a new morality that was a transformation of, or rivaled the existing religious beliefs.  Kant, seeking ground for that new morality, asked: "What is man?"  For him, the faculty of reasoning provided for a common essence of man, and reason as an idea of metaphysical quality the foundation of the common dignity of man. This kind of political thought had powerful results when the politicians and statesman started basing policy on holding it "to be self-evident that all men are created equal", and therefore endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.
 
On to page two