[Unperson-K]

I just wondered if anyone here is familiar with the works of the political theorist John Gray and his attempts to formulate what has been called 'post liberalism', in essence a form of social liberalism that Gray has tried to strip of Enlightenment pretensions about progress in history. Gray has also called this 'agnostic liberalism' because he argues that the teleological and utopian elements of Marxism, fascism and liberalism essentially derive from a Christian scheme of history (i.e. paradise then a fall and then an eventual reclaiming of that paradise) which ultimately leads to the proponents of these theories assuming the absolute correctness of their doctrine across both time and space. Once such a correctness is assumed, the end product of history become all important and everything can be justified in the attempt to realise it: the means simply cease to be a matter of discussion in politics because they are no longer considered to be important or relevant in comparison to the goal. For Gray, however, the means are the most important part of any political discourse because it is through the means that we either create or violate a sustainable political compact with other members of civil society.

I am a big fan of his books and find much of what he writes persuasive: I also think that his ideas are precisely what the moderate left (in which I include social democrats) needs to revitalise itself: a vision of a complicated political world in which an End of History is neither considered the point of politics nor conductive to its workings: instead we have a vision of political world where a state of compromise that is in itself in perpetual flux is ultimately the best way to proceed. In essence, his is a vision of a politics as the art of the possible wherein the limited human animal attempts to find a peaceful modus operandi with others in a historical context from which they cannot and will not escape.

Does anyone have any thoughts on Gray? It has been some time since I read anything by him but I would see find a discussion of his ideas enlightening. As I read through this forum, with its increasing numbers of eloquent fascists and communists, I keep on thinking back to his stuff and how his criticisms of and suggestions for the moderate left provide us with a nuanced defence and programme with which to combat the violent utopian instincts of extremist ideologies.

[Zenno]

Thanks for posting this. I haven't read anything by Gray, but from what you write it certainly does ring a lot of bells with me. The left definitely needs a new impetus if it wants to survive in a globalized World and to emphasize the means over the end also sounds good. The teleological and doctrinal approach has certainly dominated much of Western thinking. Most of all, we need to accept that things are in a continual flux. What do you suggest as a starter to get into his thinking? Are there any good online resources you can recommend?

[fuser]

he argues that the teleological and utopian elements of Marxism, fascism and liberalism essentially derive from a Christian scheme of history (i.e. paradise then a fall and then an eventual reclaiming of that paradise)

I don't think Marxist consider some distant past as being paradise. The "primitive communist" phase of human society is not idolized by Marxist but the terminology itself creates a confusion just because it has communism in its name, grey seems to be another victim of this confusion.
Then, its not just Christianity or abrahmic religions, eastern religions (specially Hinduism) also follows same sort of line paradise (treta yuga, satya yuga) and fall (the present kal yuga) and again reclamation of the former paradise, the only difference being that in Hinduism this circle goes infinitely.

[Unperson-K]

Thanks for posting this. I haven't read anything by Gray, but from what you write it certainly does ring a lot of bells with me. The left definitely needs a new impetus if it wants to survive in a globalized World and to emphasize the means over the end also sounds good. The teleological and doctrinal approach has certainly dominated much of Western thinking. Most of all, we need to accept that things are in a continual flux. What do you suggest as a starter to get into his thinking? Are there any good online resources you can recommend?

I'd recommend you search The Guardian website for some of his pieces and then see about purchasing Straw Dogs , False Dawn, Black Mass and The Immortalization Commission: these books were meant for popular consumption and so are pretty straightforward. You could then think about looking at Postliberalism and Enlightenment's Wake for more stringent and sophisticated versions of the ideas present in the popular books. Also take a look at Isaiah Berlin's works and some of Herzen's stuff, particularly the dialogues in From the Other Shore. Aileen Kelly's Towards Another Shore has an invaluable introduction on Herzen, Berlin and Gray and her other works on Russian thought in the 19th and 20th centuries are well worth a look.

I don't think Marxist consider some distant past as being paradise. The "primitive communist" phase of human society is not idolized by Marxist but the terminology itself creates a confusion just because it has communism in its name, grey seems to be another victim of this confusion.

I would advise you read the first volume of Leszek Kolakowski's Main Currents of Marxism for a very sophisticated examination of how Marx's schema of history was heavily influenced by a Christian conception of time. Marx joins a very, very long line of philosophers that stretches all the way back to Plato in positing an essentially fallen humanity whose history is the story of resolving alienation through the mastery of themselves, the material world and the very idea of Being. Whether or not Marxist philosophers consider the stage of 'primitive communism' to be a paradise (and I doubt Gray would make the claim: my brief summary was somewhat unjust to him), they would probably posit a time prior to man's alienation from himself (i.e. his material output) and that it is desirable to return to that prior state, although, of course, with the additional knowledge and experience that was gained through having been alienated and resolving that alienation.

Then, its not just Christianity or abrahmic religions, eastern religions (specially Hinduism) also follows same sort of line paradise (treta yuga, satya yuga) and fall (the present kal yuga) and again reclamation of the former paradise, the only difference being that in Hinduism this circle goes infinitely.

Very possibly although the circular theory of history has many great differences from a linear theory in terms of their philosophical implications. If history is an infinite circle, then there is neither a beginning nor an end of history and thus teleology falls flat on its face.

[fuser]

I would advise you read the first volume of Leszek Kolakowski's Main Currents of Marxism for a very sophisticated examination of how Marx's schema of history was heavily influenced by a Christian conception of time. Marx joins a very, very long line of philosophers that stretches all the way back to Plato in positing an essentially fallen humanity whose history is the story of resolving alienation through the mastery of themselves, the material world and the very idea of Being. Whether or not Marxist philosophers consider the stage of 'primitive communism' to be a paradise (and I doubt Gray would make the claim: my brief summary was somewhat unjust to him), they would probably posit a time prior to man's alienation from himself (i.e. his material output) and that it is desirable to return to that prior state, although, of course, with the additional knowledge and experience that was gained through having been alienated and resolving that alienation.

Ah, Now I see what you are getting at and indeed Marx's theory of alienation does seem like following the given paradigm of 'gray' but I was thinking more in material terms as Marxist unlike Fascists don't root for some long gone past in order to bring it back.

[Ombrageux]

I have not heard of Gray, but he seems to understand exactly why liberalism and realism (anti-utopianism) are so important.

[Zenno]

Thanks Kirilov, I had a quick look at the Wikipedia page about Gray and noticed that the one aspect you didn't mention is his interest in environmentalism. Perhaps that could be the interface where "agnostic Buddhism" meets "agnostic liberalism", even though Buddhists aren't very strong on political thinking.

Ombrageux, if I understand Kirilov correctly, Gray rejects liberalism or tries to go beyond it because the idea of "progress", inherent in Western liberalism, is teleological, i.e., aimed at a future paradise or utopia in which science will have solved all problems and cured all diseases. That is obviously not going to happen. On the contrary, science may well become the tool by which we destroy ourselves.

[Soixante-Retard]

His book on Friedrich Hayek was good. Since then, however, it seems he has turned his back on liberalism as a whole.

[Unperson-K]

Gray rejects liberalism or tries to go beyond it because the idea of "progress", inherent in Western liberalism, is teleological, i.e., aimed at a future paradise or utopia in which science will have solved all problems and cured all diseases. That is obviously not going to happen. On the contrary, science may well become the tool by which we destroy ourselves.

I think we have to be specific about what type of liberalism Gray attacks: it is principally the neo-liberal/neo-conversative variant that found its expression in Francis Fukuyama's The End of History, an essay which argued that the US's victory in the Cold War meant that liberal democracy and free market capitalism was the true last stage in humanity's history and that all countries would now inevitably progress towards that form of government and economy. The argument found its political expression in the Afghan and Iraq wars as well as in the complete privatisation of the former Soviet economy. Gray attacks the idea because it is teleological and also historically unjustifiable: why should we expect liberal democracy and free market capitalism to emerge and be successful in states that have no historical experience of them or the necessary infrastructure to back them?

[Soixante-Retard]

I find your comment strange Kirillov, because in the neoliberal literature I've read (I can't comment on neoconservatism) there's no mention or allusion to a telos.

[Ombrageux]

He sounds a like liberal-conservative of the Mosca/Ortega y Gasset/Aron variety. The kind who were very explicitly in their warnings against "end of history" liberal arrogance (especially OyG) and also of excessively idealizing liberal regimes as "true democracies."

[Zenno]

Leon Vandermeersch, in his study of ancient China (Wangdao ou La Voie Royale, 1980, tome 1, pp. 267 …), characterizes Western thinking as “teleological” and Chinese thinking as “morphological”. In China “formality is more important than finality”. (Or to speak with Gray, the means are more important than the aim). The concept of the “rites” Li (禮) has governed all aspects of Chinese life since antiquity, i.e. the correct form must be maintained. Everything in life has to conform to the underlying principles of the universe. That is achieved by performing the rites. Even to Maoists, the “correct line” was more important than all else.

In his “Civilizations in Dispute: Historical Questions and Theoretical Traditions”, Por Jóhann Páll Árnason claims that this "morphological" mode of thinking has facilitated the embedding of economic entities in social structure and the creation of networks which are essential for the economic development in the Far East.

The study of Far Eastern thought is interesting because it allows us to recognize our own way of thinking (by looking at it from a distance) and necessary because the Far East is the only World region that effectively challenges the West on the technological and economic fronts.