Introduction
In his book Liberalism, T. L. Hobhouse lays bare the claim that man is in continuous search for truth, and this search for truth is based on the conflict between old truth and new truth (Hobhouse,1992: 117). His works build on those of other established philosophers. This paper demonstrates how Hobhouse’s pluralistic ideology relates to liberalism and the pursuit of a well-ordered, harmonious society. Much of the argument in this paper is based on Chapter VI of his book Liberalism.
In Chapter VI of his famous book Liberalism, Hobhouse dwells largely on his thoughts on what he considers to be the heart of liberalism. He ventures straight into his discourse by acknowledging that his views are largely informed by earlier works of established thinkers such as John Stuart Mill, a 19th Century English philosopher (Schmidtz & Brennan, 2015: 54). Hobhouse’s acknowledgment of the influence that J. S. Mill has on his thinking is an admission that the concept of liberalism is multifaceted and all-encompassing and thus cannot be limited to singularism (Scott, 2016: np). While he acknowledges earlier works of great philosophers, he nevertheless refutes that almost linear approach to their thinking (Hobhouse & Meadowcroft, 2003: 322). This could be seen as the genesis of the expression of pluralism and the multiplicity within which he defines new liberalism (Wolfe, 2014: 43).
Hobhouse’s Pluralism
Hopbhouse begins his assertions by issuing a major refutation of liberty. He claims that liberty is neither “a simple formula of law nor of the restriction of it” (Hobhouse, 2012:117). By so doing, Hobhouse dispels the popular myths associated with classical liberalism and ushers the reader into novel ways in which the pursuit of liberty must be attained (Hobhouse & Meadowcroft,1994: 67). He uses two terms effectively to underscore the weight of his reasoning: abundance and tyranny. The use of these terms is deliberate. Tyranny is used to describe the abundance of circumstances, opinions, and customs within which new liberal ideas must be contained. The use of the term tyranny in this case is deliberate. It is intended to give the notion the overwhelming power of the factors that he considers crucial in the attainment of liberty.
Surprisingly, Hobhouse discredits tolerance as a liberal ideal. Tolerance as a liberal ideal is proposed by some of the earlier philosophers (Neumann, 1999: 129). He sees tolerance as equal to indifference, which he sees as illiberal. Justice is one of how liberty in the modern age can be attained, as corroborated by Von Mises (2012: 55). Opposing views ought not to be tolerated; instead, all views must be put through fair testing. Sustained testing of opinions reveals errors, which ought not to be tolerated (Locke, 2016: 167). Errors are misconceived truths, and as such, they must be understood. Hobhouse sees errors as crucial in not only deepening our discernment of truth but also the development of human ideas. He sees an error as just a symptom of a problem, and, like in the search for the cure for cancer, the error must be pursued and its cause identified. Eliminating errors is just a way of curtailing human understanding of the depths of truth and untruths.
Hobhouse’s concept of pluralism can be seen as overlapping spheres that aptly describe how religion and liberalism interact (Helmes-Hayes,1997: 204). According to Greenwalt (2006: 76), Hobhouse's argument deviates from the core principles of classical liberalism under which religions and liberty are treated as different and separate concepts that have no relationship. Hobhouse’s liberalism asserts that religion and liberty, despite being two distinct spheres, must not be alienated from each other since they are implicitly touching on each other. They will always conflict with each other. Hobhouse further differs from classical liberalists such as Locke by arguing that religion and liberty naturally overlap (Epstein, 2013: 114). Their desires, benefits, and interests are very similar. Therefore, religious differences ought not to lead to disharmony among people.
On the concept of expression of one’s personality, Hobhouse’s new liberalism lifts the individual above religious beliefs (Schultz,1998: 113). This does noo imply that he ignores the importance of religious norms in the achievement of personal and communal liberty. He supports free expression of one’s personality. While this presents a potential area of conflict between an individual and religious beliefs, Hobhouse provides a ready solution for this scenario. He avers that the state has the power to block religious beliefs and practices if those beliefs and practices are perilous to the to the countries secular beliefs.
To prove his point, Hobhouse uses the following example. He argues that it is in the best pursuit of liberalism for a parent to reject his children’s tutor’s religious differences since this is an “innate disqualification” (Hobhouse, 2012: 119). Yet, it offends the best liberal ideals if the parent rejects the same tutor's tutorial skills on account of his religious differences. While it may be liberally okay to discount one on account of religious divergence, it is illiberal to disqualify the same man’s teaching, accounting, or other ‘secular’ abilities on account of his differing religious opinion. Hobhouse claims that the search for liberty must not be viewed as an affront to religion and God (Laski, 2013: 101).
Hobhouse's liberal multiplicity in reference to the individual’s personal differences is further highlighted as follows. He argues that a man is more than the total sum of his opinions. This implies that it is illiberal to imply that a man’s opinion is unimportant to the members of his community. Yet, it is illiberal for a man to be merely controlled by other men. Instead, he ought to surrender to social principles and rules that society obeys. At the basis of this lies liberty to free thought. However, the liberty of thought is only liberal provided that there is freedom to express one’s divergent views with others. This is because thoughts are social constructs (Collini,1998: 170). Thus, the freedom to share one’s thoughts can be exercised through writing and printing, as well as through peaceful discussion.
While Hobhouse acknowledges the contribution of J.S. Mill in the development of new liberalism, his arguments show that Mill's ideal of personal liberty is based on old individualism in which only a man’s good virtues are given prominence over his flaws in the pursuit of liberalism (Bousfield,1999: 211). Hobhouse looks to advance the ideology of multiplicity through his perception of man and his relationship with others and the environment around him. He asserts that no “side of a man's life which is unimportant to society” since the sum of his thoughts, actions, moralities, opinions, and attitudes contribute to his general good (Hobhouse, 2012: 121). Yet, to understand man, one needs to look beyond these things. Human differences appear to be highlighted by personal attitudes, opinions, sex, race, and even religion. Yet, beneath all these is the core of humanity, the oneness through which equality and social solidarity are achieved. Through this assertion, Hobhouse appears to suggest that the multiplicity of man is just at the surface level. Man’s multiple facets do not permeate the core of his being, his humanity. Equality and oneness are some of the core components that help man to resist intellectual, religious, us, and ethical conflicts.
On the concept of correcting errant members he society, Hobhouse does not deviate from his pluralistic approach to issues. He sees liberalism as the only true solution to the problems of social misdemeanors. He avers that the core of liberation is growth that is attained through learning. Learning is not a mere automatic act. It’s a deliberate effort by the learner to interact with the environment and absorb from it as much as he can. This requires a certain level of moral discipline. Yet, not all men have the luxury of such a moral discipline. The question of how to control such people becomes paramount. He terms “harsh punishment and arbitrary social control” as illiberal since, while such methods may be in the best interest of other members of the society, they are immoral (Hobhouse, 2012: 123). He equates them to crushing down of such errant members, which disobeys the principle of moral discipline. Instead, he places the duty of correcting the errant behavior on those who are well adjusted. He argues that through rational thought, criminals and social misfits can be led to become better members of society.
On the organic nature of the person and community, Hobhouse seeks to dispel commonly held myths by claiming that a substance is said to be organic if it is made of complexly relating multiple parts that are “destroyed and virtually altered” if removed from the body of the substance (Hobhouse, 2012:123). Similarly, the human body, the human life, and society are organic in nature. Their existence is based on the functioning of all parts. A single human part merely decomposes if removed from the body. Similarly, a person virtually changes if removed from the society in which they live. His thoughts and morals would virtually change to something unknown to us if he were removed from society. Further, he uses the word “harmonic” alongside “organic” to explain the need for harmony in which all parts must function for the benefit of the whole. Yet, the term harmony dispels the myth that a person, a society, or a nation is re fully developed organic entity. This view corroborates his assertions at the beginning of Chapters I and VI that an entity is not static (May,1997: 67). It is in a continuous state of growth and development. Thus, it is only through the harmony of all the parts that the whole body can function.
Hobhouse’s view of an organic society is not without challenges, especially in relation to the conflict between individual and communal interests (Hobson et al., 1998: 54). Hobhouse offers a solution in mediation by an impartial third party, who must look at all competing interests and only settle for those that serve the common good. This should not mean that liberty is merely an “antithesis between personal freedom and social control” (Hobhouse, 2012: 125). Instead, it is a tool for the attainment of social solidarity. The solidarity of shared “feelings and ideas, sentiments of patriotism, kinship, common pride, and a thousand more subtle sentiments” (Hobhouse, 2012: 128). While people might take this to imply that an individual is subservient to society, Hobhouse clarifies that society’s well-being must be the individual’s, its ill fortune an individual’s as well. Thus, the common good, common interests in which an individual holds a share, is also good for him.
Conclusion
In summary, Hobhouse ascertains that the organic nature of life is the core of liberalism. Life is made up of multiple elements, all of which relate complexly. Since all these functions have to function together for the common good, harmony becomes a prerequisite condition. This portends the multiplicity of life.
References
Bousfield, A. (1999). The relationship between liberalism and conservatism: parasitism, competition, or symbolism? Aldershot, Hants, England, Ashgate.
Collini, S. (1998). Liberalism and sociology: L.T. Hobhouse and political argument in England, 1880-1914. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Epstein, R. (2013). The Classical Liberal Ideology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press
Greenwalt, K. (2006). Religion and Liberty. Princeton: Princeton University Press Helmes-Hayes, R. (1997). ‘Hobhouse twice removed’: John Porter and the LSE years*.
Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue Canadienne De Sociologie. 27, 357-389.
Hobhouse, L. T. (1992). The heart of liberalism. Liberalism / Edited by Richard J. Arneson.
Hobhouse, L. T. (2012). ‘Liberalism.’ Hambutraditionion.
Hobhouse, L. T., & Meadowcroft, J. (1994). Liberalism and Other Writings.
Hobhouse, L. T., & Meadowcroft, J. (2003). Liberalism and Other Writings. Beijing, Zhongguo zheng fa da xue chu ban she.
Hobson, J. A., Myers, C. S., Hammond, J. L., Mannheim, K., Ginsberg, M., Hicks, G. D., Stocks, J. L., Tawney, R. H., Toynbee, A., & Laski, H. J. (1998). Hobhouse Memorial Lectures, 1930-1940. London, G. Cumberlege, Oxford University Press.
Laski, H. (2013). The Rise of European Liberalism. London: Unwin Books
Locke, J. (2016). A Letter Concerning Liberty and Toleration. New Haven: Yale University Press.
May, B. (1997). The modernist as pragmatist: E.M. Forster and the fate of liberalism. Columbia, University of Missouri Press.
Neumann, H. (1999). Liberalism. Durham, N.C., Carolina Academic Press and the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy.
Schmidtz, D. and & Brennan, J. (2015). A Brief History of Liberty. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell Schultz, H. J. (1998). English liberalism and the state: individualism or collectivism?
Lexington, Mass, Heath Scott, J. (2016). ‘Hobhouse as a social theorist’. Sage Publishing.
Von Mises, L. (2012). Liberalism. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform Wolfe, A. (2014). The Future of Liberalism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf
