| Part ofa series on |
| Conservatism in Hungary |
|---|
 |
Organisations |
Postliberalism is apolitical ideology that critiques and opposesliberalism, particularly as it developed in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Proponents argue that liberalism, with its emphasis onindividual rights,free markets, andlimited government, has failed to adequately address issues such as an erosion offamily values,community, andsocial cohesion, as well asincome inequality.
Postliberals advocate for acommunitarian approach that emphasizessocial conservatism andsocial solidarity, often drawing ontraditionalist conservative and religious frameworks. They are generally skeptical of liberalindividualism, instead viewing individuals as being connected to networks of obligations within families, communities,tribes, and religious institutions. Postliberal thinkers support a greater role for the state in influencing culture and reinforcing shared values. The movement is associated with ideas such aseconomic nationalism,localism, andcriticism of liberal democracy.[1]
Postliberalism emerged in theUnited Kingdom from a movement within theLabour Party calledBlue Labour.[2][3] Early British theorists includedJohn Gray,Maurice Glasman,Phillip Blond,Adrian Pabst,John Milbank, andJon Cruddas.[3][4] Initially, British postliberalism developed as a center-left ideology with roots inChristian socialism.
In the United States, postliberalism gained influence primarily among conservatives critical offusionism. Figures associated with this perspective includePatrick Deneen,Rod Dreher, andAdrian Vermeule, as well as the Israeli-American philosopherYoram Hazony.[5][6][7]
Postliberalism contends that liberalism, in both itseconomic andsocial forms, weakens social and communal bonds that contribute to human well-being. A central idea in postliberal thought is that individuals are shaped by their social and cultural contexts rather than existing as purely autonomous agents. Postliberals argue that the liberal emphases onindividual rights and freedoms have diminished the roles of community, family, andtradition in fostering meaning and belonging. They posit that a stable society requires a shared sense of purpose and commitment to the common good, which they claim liberalism has not sufficiently provided.
Postliberals referencesocial contract theorists such asThomas Hobbes andJohn Locke, as well as figures likeJohn Stuart Mill andJohn Rawls, to argue that liberalism promotes anindividualism that they see as incompatible with human sociability.[8] Patrick Deneen contends that liberalism encourages individuals to approach commitments and relationships with flexibility, treating them as interchangeable and subject to renegotiation, leading to weaker social ties.[9]
Postliberals critique the liberal conception of thestate as a neutral mediator, arguing instead that it should actively promote an ideal vision of social well-being grounded in the values and traditions of the community it serves. They promote politicalopposition to immigration andcultural diversity while advocating for conservative institutions like thenuclear family and religion. Postliberals reject a value-free state, arguing it should actively foster social cohesion and the common good.[10]
Liberal theorists such as John Rawls have framed liberalism as a system in which the state remains neutral on personal values. In contrast, Deneen argues that neutrality is an illusion, asserting that everysocial order is built on fundamental beliefs and commitments.[11]
Postliberals emphasize a political approach centered on thecommon good, seeking to balanceindividual and group rights with social responsibilities. Some critique economic liberalism, advocating for greater regulation and socialembeddedness, while others emphasize the role of cultural traditions andnational identity in maintaining social cohesion.
Postliberal critics of economic liberalism argue that economic liberalism has contributed to the concentration of wealth and power among a small segment of society, leading toeconomic stratification betweenelites and theworking class. They advocate formarket intervention by the state, includingprotectionist policies and measures aimed at reducing economic inequality, protectinglabor rights, andcommunity development.
John Gray has argued that free markets andglobalization have weakened the foundations of modern market economies. Similarly, Patrick Deneen contends that liberalism leads to a cycle of state expansion to manage socialfragmentation, requiring legal and administrative mechanisms to replace communal institutions such asschools, healthcare, andcharitable organizations, ultimately diminishing a shared sense of community andcollective identity.[11]
Postliberal perspectives oninternational relations andglobal politics have been developed by scholars such asJohn Milbank,Adrian Pabst, and Patrick Deneen.[3] Postliberalism attributes contemporary challenges in international relations to what it sees as an intensification of liberalism. In contrast toJohn Ikenberry's view that theliberal international order is threatened byilliberal forces and requires further liberalization to counteract these challenges, postliberals interpret the rise of illiberal movements as a reaction to what they perceive as contradictions within liberalism itself.[3]
Pabst suggests that the emergence ofpopulism andcivilizational states reflects a response to global politics that, in this view, prioritizesutopian ideals over national and local concerns, emphasizing individual identity at the expense of collective belonging. From this perspective, liberalism no longer advances a substantive common good, resulting in ambiguity that both promotes individual freedoms and struggles to manage their broader consequences at national and international levels.[8]
Some scholars argue that the United States-led liberal order, established afterWorld War II, follows a trajectory similar to domestic liberalism. Milbank and Pabst argue thatU.S. imperialism promotes liberal principles to nation-states, influenced by American individualism andvoluntaryism, and is pursued through imperial means to achieve national objectives. They argue that since the 1970s,global governance has strengthened state power and expanded individual freedoms while reducing local decision-making and distancing authority from national democratic institutions. According to their analysis, "Enlightenment liberalism" has the potential to frame conflict as an unlimited struggle against perceived enemies of civilization—an idea associated withCarl Schmitt.[3][8] They suggest that thisuniversalist liberal expansion has contributed to the formation of civilizational blocs.[3][8]
Critics of postliberalism argue that defining a common good in pluralistic societies presents challenges. Liberal critics argue that morestatist versions of postliberalism risk unduly restricting individual liberty by using state power to enforce a particular vision of the good, while some postliberals advocate for a more pluralistic approach.[12]
Critics from the political left oppose the sociallyreactionary positions of postliberalism.Socialist historian Chris Wright asserts that the political right primarily serves the interests of the ruling class, capitalism, and businesses rather than the common good. He contends that "because of its alleged interest in the public good but its conservative (Republican) orientation, postliberalism is ultimately incoherent".[13] Similarly, socialist critic J. J. Porter argues that postliberalism undermines its own foundations, stating that "it wants to preserve many of the fruits of liberalism while doing away with the structure from which they grow".[14]
Critics from the free-market right argue that postliberalism's support foreconomic planning, regulation, and skepticism toward free markets could damageeconomic growth.[15] Other conservative critics maintain that postliberalism underestimates the significance of individual freedom and the economic advantages of market capitalism.[16]
Elements of postliberal political thought have been integral to the development ofnational conservatism and the ideology of various factions within theConservative Party of the United Kingdom.[17][18][19] Analysts have also identifiedCatholic social teaching as a significant influence on postliberalism.[20][21] Some scholars have noted the impact ofChristopher Lasch on postliberal thought.[3][13]
Reactionary feminists aligned with postliberalism, includingLouise Perry,Nina Power,Christine Emba, andMary Harrington, argue that thesexual ethics andnorms emphasizingindividual autonomy,reproductive rights, and sexual freedom—emerging from thesexual revolution of the 1960s—have led to negative consequences for women.[3][22][23][24][25]
Hungarian Prime MinisterViktor Orbán and his political party,Fidesz, have been described as postliberal and national conservative.[20][26] In a speech on September 14, 2023, Orbán stated: "The postliberal era we look forward to, which will replace the current progressive-liberal era, will not come automatically. Someone has to make it happen. And who will make it happen, if not us?"[27]
In the United Kingdom, members of theNew Conservatives faction of the Conservative Party, includingDanny Kruger andMiriam Cates, have either identified with postliberalism or been associated with it. The Blue Labour tradition has included figures such asJon Cruddas andMaurice Glasman. WritersAdrian Pabst and Sebastian Milbank have suggested that Labour Party leader and Prime MinisterKeir Starmer has shown some interest in policies associated with Blue Labour.[28][29]
In the United States, several Republican politicians have been linked to postliberal and national conservative ideas, including Vice PresidentJD Vance[30] and SenatorsJosh Hawley andMarco Rubio.[31][32][33]
