Great article Joao! I'm elated you're writing in a language I understand.
I would highly recommend Modernity's Alternative by Rocco Buttiglione (pusblished by Newpolity press). Newpolity, the think tank Schindler is highly involved with, usually gets falsely accused of being constantly backwards looking. However, I see two things from them.
1. There is not an outright rejection of all of Liberalism, in Andrew Willard Jones' newest book "The Church Against The State" he readily admits that his formula for subsidiarity would lead to a sort of American constitution. They rely more on classical philosophy than liberalism and that makes them postliberal, and they do accuse many of the founders of liberalism of having diabolical assumptions, but in practice, they do have some ok things to say about liberalism.
2. Especially since they have engaged with Rocco, they have indeed been looking forward. They had some tendency for nostalgia in the early days, but there has even been some discussion of the place of global markets in a post-war order.
I think that the classic political philosophy is the best framework moving forward (as you mentioned with Taylor). We learned some good things from liberalism. For example, the total abolition of slavery (at least on paper) has been pretty good, but I think going forward you have to look to a less ideological time, and as Ian Mcgilchrist has taught us, that will likely be in the past.
Hey! Thanks for the recommendation! I haven’t read that one yet, and I’m usually a big fan of the things published at New Polity (especially by Andrew Willard Jones). So, I think the New Polity folks are closer to the postliberal ideal I mention here.
In fact, the Catholic Church itself - especially since Vatican II - has been articulating something akin to that genuine postliberalism, where the goods of universal rights, anti-slavery, religious pluralism, etc., are all proclaimed as its own, even if they were mostly born out of the liberal tradition (and often in a rather anti-ecclesiastical tone).
That’s a very big question and I fear that any simple answer will be inherently defective. There are many liberalisms and the church responded in very different ways to liberalism(s) since the 19th century. One of my problems with some kinds of postliberalism is its very flat understanding of liberalism, often reducing it to a caricature of Locke-Hobbes-Mill, which is the easily refuted or deemed insufficient. The fact is that the liberal tradition is very multifaceted, and even if some of its aspects have been condemned (extreme secularism, for instance), others (such as the language of rights and human dignity, to give two examples) were incorporated by the church and play a crucial role in its contemporary self-understanding.
Very interesting. If I'm honest, most things I know about liberalism I have learned from people like Deneen and AWJ so I'm definitely biased. I'd like to hear more of you're thoughts if you ever feel like writing about it.
Great article Joao! I'm elated you're writing in a language I understand.
I would highly recommend Modernity's Alternative by Rocco Buttiglione (pusblished by Newpolity press). Newpolity, the think tank Schindler is highly involved with, usually gets falsely accused of being constantly backwards looking. However, I see two things from them.
1. There is not an outright rejection of all of Liberalism, in Andrew Willard Jones' newest book "The Church Against The State" he readily admits that his formula for subsidiarity would lead to a sort of American constitution. They rely more on classical philosophy than liberalism and that makes them postliberal, and they do accuse many of the founders of liberalism of having diabolical assumptions, but in practice, they do have some ok things to say about liberalism.
2. Especially since they have engaged with Rocco, they have indeed been looking forward. They had some tendency for nostalgia in the early days, but there has even been some discussion of the place of global markets in a post-war order.
I think that the classic political philosophy is the best framework moving forward (as you mentioned with Taylor). We learned some good things from liberalism. For example, the total abolition of slavery (at least on paper) has been pretty good, but I think going forward you have to look to a less ideological time, and as Ian Mcgilchrist has taught us, that will likely be in the past.
Hey! Thanks for the recommendation! I haven’t read that one yet, and I’m usually a big fan of the things published at New Polity (especially by Andrew Willard Jones). So, I think the New Polity folks are closer to the postliberal ideal I mention here.
In fact, the Catholic Church itself - especially since Vatican II - has been articulating something akin to that genuine postliberalism, where the goods of universal rights, anti-slavery, religious pluralism, etc., are all proclaimed as its own, even if they were mostly born out of the liberal tradition (and often in a rather anti-ecclesiastical tone).
Also, side question. What's your opinion on liberalism and Christianity? Many popes have explicitly comdemned it.
That’s a very big question and I fear that any simple answer will be inherently defective. There are many liberalisms and the church responded in very different ways to liberalism(s) since the 19th century. One of my problems with some kinds of postliberalism is its very flat understanding of liberalism, often reducing it to a caricature of Locke-Hobbes-Mill, which is the easily refuted or deemed insufficient. The fact is that the liberal tradition is very multifaceted, and even if some of its aspects have been condemned (extreme secularism, for instance), others (such as the language of rights and human dignity, to give two examples) were incorporated by the church and play a crucial role in its contemporary self-understanding.
Very interesting. If I'm honest, most things I know about liberalism I have learned from people like Deneen and AWJ so I'm definitely biased. I'd like to hear more of you're thoughts if you ever feel like writing about it.