Francis Fukuyama, in his 1992 book ‘The End of History and the Last of Man’, posits that democracies founded on liberal principles would be the final form of government for all nations. These principles were made popular in the Age of Enlightenment and developed through to the 20th century; principles of justice, equality, and freedom. These are factors that we demand from our state and seek to spread internationally. Nonetheless, the foundation of this is based on abstract concepts that focus on the individual and many in the 21st century see this as a barrier on its effectiveness. With what seems like a global rejection of liberalism, it is imperative to examine these concerns. Therefore, in such a discussion, the definitions of abstraction and individualism will be addressed before moving on to the specific principles in question, starting out the major liberal school of thinking and exploring their criticisms particularly those that centralise on the abstract and individualistic nature. Finally, the usefulness of liberalism today will be examined with the view that there exists a use for said principles in modern society.

DEFINITIONS

Before moving on to the theories it is important to set down some rigid definitions on which the discussion will be based. Abstract could refer to something existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical existence, this is in contrast to concrete terms that can be measured. Being of an individualistic nature refers chiefly to self-reliance; the idea that all that one needs is one’s own power and resources. Furthermore, individuality is normally justified due to an inherent equality among people, therefore finding this in the theory could be used as evidence to support an individualistic perception. To determine whether the view of a person is realistic, various theories of the person will be examined from diverse sources (feminist, race, communitarian and utilitarian) in their responses to the liberal viewpoint. Usefulness is difficult to qualify as jurisprudence is not an exact science. However, the subject is deeply concerned with questions of the purpose of law; what moral or political underpinning there is to law. This is the field of normative jurisprudence that the liberal principles seek to provide an answer. Therefore, it is important to work backwards to see whether liberal principles provide a sufficient answer or if the alternate theories can do better.

SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORISTS

The origins of the liberal principles of freedom and equality are found in the enlightenment era theories of the social contract. While many have commented on the idea, the three that contributed greatly to the field would be Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Shared among all is the idea of who people are by their very nature. This is commonly exposited by reference to the state of life in the ‘state of nature’ - that is before the formation of the state or government. These ideas, with some variation, are that human are naturally free, equal, and endowed with the ability to reason. All people then move from a state of nature to form civilisation. Through doing this some of these inherent rights are given up in return for a benefit to ensure the action is one that people would make voluntarily. This is the social contract. There exist some differences among the theorists as to how they arrive at this conclusion therefore, each will be examined before a general discussion on their abstract and individualistic nature.

Thomas Hobbes was historically the first to present a comprehensive social contract theory. In his view of the state of nature, individuals are naturally in a life of constant strife, described as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short". The state is therefore formed to escape the state of nature. While there is a question as to whether Hobbes would be classed as a liberal jurist due to his absolutist leanings, many have highlighted the contributions he has made to the liberal cause. Leo Strauss calls him the "true founding father in liberalism" as he makes two important points relevant to liberalism and thus relevant to this discussion: first, that the moral fact is that there exists a right for men rather than a duty; and secondly that the objective of the state is to ensure that natural right is preserved in each individual instead of "creating or promoting a virtuous existence in humankind". Furthermore, per Forsyth, Hobbes shares several factors with other social theorists that pertain to this discussion. Firstly, despite the pessimistic view of humankind, Hobbes takes the view that man has an inherent right to "use his own power as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature" or concisely "all men equally are by nature free". In addition, his work opened the door to later theorists, primarily Locke and Rousseau who more easily fit the liberal frame.

John Locke’s concept of the social contract is as such: within the state of nature there exists several ‘states’. The first is the state of perfect freedom, which Locke describes as being able to, in essence, live their lives as they think fit, along the bounds of the law of nature, without the need for permission from others. Next is the state of equality, due to the equality inherent in being part of the same species and the fact that all are "born with the same advantage of nature, and use of the same faculty". Finally, the State of Liberty not a state of License where despite uncontrolled liberty, "one has not liberty to destroy himself [nor any other creature] but where some nobler use, than its base preservation calls for it".

Contrary to Hobbes, the Lockean state of nature is not one of chaos and tyranny for there exists the law of nature governed by reason, Locke believes reason would lead to the law that: “All mankind… being equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions”. This is the crux of Locke’s theory; the existence of a state of equality means that the law of nature is enforceable by everyone, thus when "one man come by a power over another". This man (government) is said to be no longer governed by reason and common equity. In this act, the man becomes a danger to all mankind. Locke therefore writes that all men have the right to restrain or even destroy anyone who has breached the law of nature; “every Man hath a Right to punish the Offender, and be Executioner of the Law of Nature".

From Locke one can see the emphasis on the ‘liberal principles’ as they are the benchmark on which the law of nature is enforced. However, is the critique that the principles are based on an abstract and individualistic version of the person accurate?

Locke bases much of his theory on the anthropologically inaccurate description of life before the formation of the state, therefore the social contract is a purely abstract thought exercise on postulating on the nature of people. Furthermore, Locke underpins his theory on Christian theology- the law of nature, reason, is sourced from God - and relating this belief to Locke’s perception of man lends credence to the view that the principle is abstract, as theology, by its very nature, is abstract.

Further, he writes that political power is possessed by the individual; "the Execution of the Law of Nature is in that State [of nature], out into every man’s hands, whereby everyone has a right to punish the transgressors of that Law to such a degree as may hinder its Violation". Tully writes that per Locke: people are naturally self-governing as they wield political power; naturally free due to people not being subject to the will of others, and naturally equal as everyone has the duty and right to exercise political power. The focus is clearly on the role and ability of the individual person. Though, questions are raised as to whether it is possible for one to extract themselves of all people, be simply an individual, and still be said to be free. Freedom is a social construct and is predicated on a mutual relationship with others. Furthermore, the principles that Locke seeks to protect - life, liberty, property and possessions - are ones that are only possible in a social apparatus. Locke’s concept of equality is also problematic as it is dependent on the philosophy of Tabula Rasa of which Locke promoted in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding. This concept takes the view that all are born with a ‘blank slate’ and thus everything we learn is based on experience. Taking this, the individual is therefore able to shape their personhood. This self-reliance is clear proof of an individualist mindset. Therefore, Locke’s work takes the view that the state of nature is one of the individual, due to the equality of people the reasoning is based on an abstract notion of the purported ‘state of nature’. Locke entire philosophy is predicated on Isaiah Berlin’s negative freedom; that freedom is maximized where the state does not interfere. Therefore, this view means that the individual would have nothing to gain from the state. This individualistic view is at odds with proponents of positive freedom who believe that true freedom is gained when the state steps in. Some would argue that the later view is more realistic especially to individuals who are only able to achieve what Locke sees as necessary with the law, people who have been historically disadvantaged under the law.

Rousseau writes, in ‘The Social Contract’, from the view that the state of nature was a world of more freedom and thus an improvement over his contemporary world, famously stating that "man is born free and everywhere he is in chains". Following this he attempts to find a way that would ensure legitimacy in the rule of men. His version of the state of nature is inspired by what he refers to as the "ancient of all societies… the family", specifically, the fact that the giving up of freedom by the child is in return for utility and when said utility is no longer of us, the child departs from the parent. Therefore, Rousseau theorises that men, who are naturally free, alienate their freedom to a sovereign in return for some utility. Of importance is the idea of a constant cycle of alienation, as children would be born free and would have to make the same decision as their parents and the definition of alienation per Rousseau: "to alienate is to give or to sell", and this must be done for a profit as to simply give oneself for nothing is "absurd and inconceivable" per Rousseau; it is only done when one is not in their right mind. To Rousseau, the Hobbesian view that this action is done for the sake of peace is insufficient, "tranquility is not enough", therefore people would have the ability to decide what laws they would obey. He expands on this when he writes:

“To find a form of association that will defend and protect the person and goods of each associate with the full common force, and by means of which each, uniting with all, nevertheless obey only himself and remain as free as before”

To Rousseau this is the fundamental problem to which the social contract would provide a solution. Laws must attempt to ensure the same amount of freedom that existed in the state of nature and this is based on human nature. His theory is different from the Lockean variety as he believes in a more paternalistic version of freedom, this comes the idea of a ‘general will’. Whereas Locke writes that civil society exists in the protection of natural rights and should any laws breach this, it can be legitimately overthrown, Rousseau believes in a dual nature for humanity. Firstly, the egoistic striving, which is similar to the Hobbesian and Lockean viewpoint, but also a communal sociability. Therefore, Rousseau sees the state and modern society as necessary for realizing the ‘true will’ in human nature. Since the state must serve this additional purpose, it must ensure liberty for its citizens in order to get this, or else consent to the government will be revoked by the ‘general will’ and could then be legitimately replaced.

RAWLS, JUSTICE, AND CRITICS

The major source of the liberal principle of justice is found in John Rawls’ magnum opus, A Theory of Justice. Rawls takes the view ‘justice as fairness’, and invites the reader to go through several thought experiments in order to logically arrive at two principles of justice. Before setting this out it is prudent to define fairness as it plays such a central role; to Rawls this is synonymous to neutrality, removing any form of bias, interest, or factors that might pull in a direction. Using this as his basis, Rawls asks for an imagining of what principles individuals would decide behind a ‘veil of ignorance’, that is not knowing what their lot would be. The neutrality of the individual would result in what Rawls would see as ‘fair’.

Expanding on his methodology Rawls uses two argumentative devices, a hypothetical contract with similarities to the social contracts of old and the idea of ‘reflective equilibrium'. His methodology is important to the discussion as it allows one to identify how Rawls’ theory defines a person.

On the hypothetical contract, Rawls asks a purely rhetorical question; what if you were in what he terms ‘an original position’? In this position, people can choose general principles on which to imbue within society. Rawls suggests that should it be possible to identify principles in this way, they could be said to be just. This would take place in the ‘veil of ignorance’, where the specifics of personhood in terms of factors such as race, gender, class or ability is unknown. Those there would agree to principles on which to create a fair society. The ‘original position’ is one where the individual knows of factors that affect the quality of life in modern society but know not where they would lie. Of great importance is how Rawls envisions the individuals in the original position. He assumes them to be "rational and mutually disinterested", elaborating that "they are conceived as not taking an interest in one another’s interest". Furthermore, Rawls sees rationality as "taking the most effective means to given ends". He concludes that the individuals must not be envious as this would avoid perfect equality, they must be risk averse to ensure that the worst-off position is mitigated, and social co-operation is necessary to ensure that a compromise will be reached.

Reflective equilibrium is a tool used to compare rival theories of justice to the two principles of justice Rawls devised. Reference to "our considered judgement" is used; taking contemporary viewpoints on certain issues and running them through rival theories and taking this as a measure. Reiner gives the example of slavery, which rival theories such as utilitarian theories might hold as just depending on some qualifiers.

Reiner summarises the two principles of justice: “first, each person has an equal right to the most extensive system of equal basic liberties, compatible with a similar system for all and; second, social and economic inequalities are arranged so that they benefit the least advantaged as much as possible, subject to a just savings principle, and inequalities are attached only to statuses open to everyone under conditions of fair equality of opportunity".

Rawls theory, especially his view of the person has been subject to much criticism, particularly from those who see people from a more communitarian, libertarian and feminist viewpoint.

Communitarians have two branches of criticisms, firstly that the devices used by Rawls, the original position is methodologically unsound thus the version of the person as individualistic and abstract is unrealistic. The second branch pertains to the belief that in failing to consider the inherent value in community it has limited use.

On methodology, the original position takes the view of the person that must see themselves as abstract. This mean that they are devoid of any factors which are central to people in modern society, factors Rawls suggest would make the decided principles unfair. Inessence one must look part the factors that form one’s identity. This is what Sandel refers to as the ‘unencumbered self’ and he takes the view that identity is not independent of the person but interlinked. This, to communitarians is unrealistic, per MacIntyre, we "all approach our own circumstances as bearers of a particular social identity… Hence what is good for me has to be the good for one who inhabits these roles". Thus, to accept a realistic version of the person would be to embrace these rather than attempt to extract them. Furthermore, others such as Walzer have bemoaned the attempts to create universal principles of justice, just as communities differ so too must justice as per habits and traditions. However, in his Dewey Lectures (1980), Rawls concedes that his theory of justice was designed primarily to serve the dominant beliefs in modern liberal societies, this is the starting point not the original position. Kukathas and Pettit examine that the original position is designed simply to "enable us to see more clearly what is presumed to be already there". Taking a step back, ‘A Theory of Justice’ is really a defense of the already existing welfare state, not an attempt to build a new just society from first principles. Therefore, in the current climate where what was a right of the citizen is increasingly on fragile ground, perhaps a simple defense and not a radical reimagining is of the most use.

The liberal conceptions of the person has been critiqued from a feminist perspective, Frazer and Lacey trace this from the concept of "gender as an aspect of social reality, as a political fact and as raising ethical questions". They see the desire to "transcend bodily being" as a masculine desire, this reasoning device used from Locke to Rawls is held to be unrealistic as due to the realities of socio-political life, the responsibility for childcare placed on women as an example, women are able to engage in this. Therefore, as the body is central to gender philosophy, disregarding it would ensure that liberal theory is "ill-equipped to focus constructively and critically on social institutions and relations" therefore, the liberal principles devised from this system have limited use. An extension of this critique is based to the view that the original position is not one of multiple abstract individuals coming to an agreement but since everything about the identity of the individuals is stripped away, it is actually the agreement made by one person. Frazer and Lacey contend this person is a "white, middle-class, liberal, American male"; a person similar to Rawls himself. While the original position is meant to be a starting point to achieve fairness, however, the resultant principles are said to be enshrined by the very conditions meant to create them. However, other theorists such as Susan Moller Okin see the original position as salvageable, depending on the possibility of a degendered individual, not a default male, being used.

Robert Nozick, in his ‘Anarchy, State, and Utopia’ offers a critical appraisal of Rawls’ theory of justice. As the heir of Locke, he argues primarily for libertarianism described by Wolff as "the free market, absolute property rights, and the ‘minimal state’". His main concern comes against the underlying principle supporting the Difference Principle. Rawls views society as a "cooperative venture for mutual advantage" and inequalities as being allowed only in so far as to improve the position of the worst off. The discussion of natural abilities is discounted by Rawls as he sees them as ‘common assets’ from which all members of society to benefit from as they are not down solely to the individual. Nozick raises one argument relevant to this discussion of versions of the person. By diminishing the role of personal responsibility, he argues the concept of a person is also diminished; "denigrating a person’s autonomy and prime responsibility for his actions is a risky line to take for a theory that otherwise wishes to buttress the dignity and self-respect of autonomous beings". Therefore, Nozick takes the view the real version of the person is primarily interested. However, this view of personal responsibility is rooted in the natural rights derived from a Lockean account of the social contract and therefore to argue for a view for a perfectly autonomous person is to invite argument on the same line as Nozick’s.

CONCLUSION

It has been proven that the liberal principles of justice, equality, and freedom are based on an abstract and individualistic version of the person and, per communitarians, feminists and libertarians is unrealistic. Not all their arguments to this claim have been properly countered. Rawls’ revision of Political Liberalism accepts, as Reiner places it, that "there is no foundational, transcendent, knock-down argument that can convince everyone to agree on what is just". This is, perhaps, because these principles are developed with a result in mind, even the non liberal ones. Therefore, to determine what level of use they have one must step back into the field of normative jurisprudence; what is the goal of the law? Living in a liberal system has allowed the diverse discussion to take place as well as promote legal standing as a person. This is due to accepting an admittedly flawed version of the person that is perhaps unrealistic, although liberal theory does not take the law to reflect the realistic state of the person but rather in reflecting and protecting loftier ideals. By incorporating the legitimate concerns raised by alternate viewpoints, there remains great use for these principles.