Liberalism, Defined…and Defined…and Defined.
Originally published at Lane Ellen. You can comment here or there.
I did not know this, so I thought I’d share. I swear this isn’t political in nature, or at least, not discussing any candidates or the current election. It has to do with the difference between what a word really means, and what we perceive it to mean - one of my secret favorite things to think about and discuss.
A Salon.com blogpost [h/t jizosama] brought my attention to the definition of Liberalism. I had never thought to consider the actual definition. From Salon.com:
Liberalism as advocated by Adam Smith and John Locke,a liberalism that encompasses, as Wikipedia handily defines it, “freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual’s right to private property, free markets, and a transparent system of government.”
That sounds more like what we now consider “conservatism”. But the mire gets deeper. There are many sites online defining liberalism, and some of them are quite odd.
When searching the net for definitions of liberalism, one at Princeton comes up with:
- S: (n) liberalism (a political orientation that favors social progress by reform and by changing laws rather than by revolution)
- S: (n) liberalism (an economic theory advocating free competition and a self-regulating market)
Princeton’s definition sounds like (A) the definition of government and (B) economics as espoused by conservatives.
Next, we have an odd website that at least sounds plausible - although it is on something called the Maoist Internationalist Movement. So what do they have to say?
According to the New Columbia Encyclopedia of 1975, Liberalismis a “philosophy or movement that has as its aim the development of individual freedoms.” The same reference book counterposes Liberalism to conservatism,which is a philosophy opposing social change and supporting the maintenance of the status quo.
This definition seems to imply that liberals are world-changers, and conservatives are stodgy people afraid of change. That seems way too cut and dry, and partisan, for my tastes.
So, I go to Merriam Webster, where I get the following for Liberalism [formatting & comments are mine]:
1: the quality or state of being liberal [Thanks MW…that’s so like you.]
Aaaaand 2:
- (a)often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity
- (b): a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard
- (c): a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties
- (d)capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party
None of this has the fire that seems to spew from the mouths of conservatives when speaking about ”them bleedin’ heart liberals!” Perhaps (c), that seems to espouse the rose-colored glasses theory. But wouldn’t that also be currently supported by our “conservative” leaders when talking about how they thought that leaving Wall Street to handle itself would ultimately benefit everyone? Don’t conservatives also believe in:
- progress [growth, democracy and capitalism],
- the essential goodness of the common man [by its tendency to incorporate the religious right],
- and the autonomy of the individual [Keeping government small and out of our business]
- and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties [the government shouldn’t be able to take my gun]?
So, I’m confused. The more I research the word “liberalism”, the more it seems that every politician, right or left wing, has stated their support of these ideas. Is everyone a liberal?
Well, I decided to take Merriam’s suggestion and look into the definition of “liberal”:
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lēodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
Date: 14th century
1 (a): of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts
2 (a): marked by generosity : openhanded liberal giver> (b): given or provided in a generous and openhanded way liberal meal> c: ample , full
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious
4: not literal or strict : loose liberal translation>
5: broad-minded ; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 (a): of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism (b) capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism ; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives
So, it would appear that 6 (b) is the definition that deals with politics (although I’m sure some would argue that 2, 3 or 4 might also apply.) But, even here, it references back to the definition of liberalism [oh fie you Merriam Webster and your circular references!] that we previously discussed appears to apply to tenets that all politicians claim to espouse.
In fact, I am surprised to say that the Wikipedia appears to be the best entry regarding liberalism, with all its variations.
But I wonder if people really think about what they mean when they refer to someone or something as liberal. That someone or something might just smile and say, “Thank you,” regardless of their party-affiliation.