The Liberal Political Tradition - Term Paper Example

The Liberal Political Tradition defines the framework around which the modern welfare has developed with its plethora of social policies as expressions of Liberalism. Liberal ideology ‘pervades all capitalist welfare states, whatever their type’. This conception ‘represents in itself key terms of cultural meanings, which describe human identity in the modern west’ (Taylor.1989). The fundamental assumption on which Liberal political ideology is based is borrowed or rather is complimentary to the neo-classical economics notion of person as a rational individual. It is conceived as the ‘atomization’ of society. This Liberal individualism however also adheres to the idea of separation of public and private life, with an innate, inherent and inbuilt, idealization and ‘sentimentalization’ of family life independent of control by the wider society. ‘These meanings suffuse the defining conception of person and society’ and are placed at ‘the heart of Liberalism’ (Shaver.1996). Liberalism thus is ‘individualist, giving the person primacy over the social group; it is egalitarian, regarding all persons having similar moral status; it is universalistic, valuing the moral unity of human species above particularities of association and culture; and it is meliorist in regarding all social institutions and political arrangements as capable of human improvements’(Gray. 1995: xii). The modern welfare state with its social protection policies emerged out of paternalistic and conservative ‘poor laws’, dominated state. This ‘liberal break’ occurred at the turn of the last century. The liberal break had the key beliefs in the value of individual rights, ‘the image of society as rooted in market and contract, and the role of the state as the guardian of the market and fair exchange’ (Shaver.1996). The liberal state ‘maintained the commodity status of labour, while devising ways to accommodate social protection, without transgressing the market’ (Esping-Andersen. 1990; pp.41-4), thereby strengthening the Laisaize Fare credentials. The Feminists see and criticize the inherent paradox contained within the liberal political philosophy. The separation of private and public central to the liberal thought is exclusive towards the gender concerns. The public and private are inextricably connected and interwoven. This separation obscures and washes over the fundamental source of inequality and oppression existing within the family unit due to the unequal power relationships between sexes. Liberal individualism only renders recognition to a rational bounded self, expressed through interaction of the state and society at their mutual interface. It however ‘denies recognition to the interdependencies and social connectedness of human society that are relatively more important in the lives of women then men’ (Graham.1983; Hartsock. 1983). Therefore by the same token the claim of Liberalism being Universal is also based on a fallacy because it only chooses to see the public interaction of the male dominated public-private interface (Gilligan.1982). It refuses to go beyond and an intrusion in to private life of the family is viewed an antithetical and intrusive on the fundamental value and ethical structure. Jones (1990) argues that the universalism of liberalism is modeled on, exemplifies and standardizes the white male elite. She has specified three dimensions in which this conception is ‘falsely universalized : the body in both its symbolic and corporeal senses; the division of social life in to public and private domains in which sphere of private life is perceived as outside both state and civil society; and the recognition of political behaviour only in the competitive, individual terms of electoral activity, obscuring women’s relations to the state as claimant and low-level service workers’(Jones.1990). Similarly the Liberal credentials of egalitarianism and being meliorist have also been challenged on the premise that. ‘How can it treat individuals as having equal worth without recognizing the particularities of individuals and group identity’(Vogel.1988; Yeatman.1994). Thus the basic tenets of Liberalism have been found lacking in their capacity and ability and even their design to address the structurally marginalized groups like women. Similarly the social policies embodied in the welfare function of the Liberal state have been skewed and lopsided. “ The patriarchal welfare state, since the early twentieth century have reached across from public to private and helped uphold a patriarchal structure of familial life”(Pateman.1989; pp.183). Independence as defined by liberal concepts is essentially masculine and women citizenship is framed as womanly dependence and accordingly defective’ and the liberal claims of women’s full citizenship is riddled with what Pateman calls “Wollstonecraft’s dilemma”, ‘in which demands for gender neutral inclusiveness based on equality is in conflict and adverse to wishes to be counted separately and recognition of gender specific needs and concerns’ (ibid). Similarly it has also been argued that liberal social policy concerns reflect ‘anxieties about property and its preservation in the social conditions of scarcity and inequality. The primary object and objective of social policy was thus security- the security of property rather than of the life circumstances of the poor’ (Wolin.1961; pp.331-3) and the marginalized. This crucial rather obsessive security concern overlooked even the distributional pattern of property on the basis of gender. Who and How much was owned by whom (which gender)? This myopia in gender terms also conditioned the design of social policies and target beneficiaries of state’s munificence in terms of extending economic cushions in the form welfare and social benefits. It has also been demonstrated that since liberalism essentially idealized the domestic and patriarchal family, it rationalized and reinforced the subordination of women. ‘Incompleteness of women’s personhood, including their subordinate status in many of the provisions of [social policies] welfare state is a testament to the power of fraternal social contract’(Okin.1981). The liberal social protection was ‘constructed as a feature of citizenship’(Shaver.1996). But this citizenship was not extended across the gender divide and lacked specificity for women. The conceptualization of citizenship as inherently male and blind towards gender disparities was ridden with carryovers of the past and it was pervasive across the political spectrum, including socialist and social democratic. In a number of countries the social policies were focused on defined role for women. Even among the socio-political movements seeking welfare and focused on women were inherently stereotyped and constrained by certain role definitions. Maternalist movements succeeded in shaping maternal and child welfare policies in the conventionally construed image of women as embodiment of values of care and nurturance. “ The ideology of maternalsim operated at two levels, both to extol the private virtues of domesticity and to legitimate women’s involvement in public policy arenas” (Michel and Koven.1990; see also Skocpol.1992), thereby defining the parameters and rendering any other form of political involvement for any other issue as both illegitimate and beyond the confines of the ascribed value structure. Thus the liberal welfare state since its inception after 1906 Liberal victory, through its ‘consensus days’ till Thatcherian revisionism, failed to ‘accord full liberal personhood to women’ (Land.1976; Wilson.1979). The contemporary dominant philosophy of neo-Liberalism ‘is a restatement of classical liberalism; reasserting the liberal principles of freedom, market individualism and small government. It is based on possessive individualism’ (Shaver.1996). Freedom of individual in its relation to others and the market govern the neo-liberal doctrine structure. It fails to recognize the interdependencies and “ the inhibitions on freedom that follow from lack of resources and opportunities in an unequal society and the inequalities of power among individuals” (Hindess.1987; pp.120-67). It favours the market over state interference diminishing the paternal as well as the intrusive role of the state. The dominant thought of neo-liberal paradigm is that of Hayek (1899-1992). Hayek delimits human capacity for ‘spontaneous organization’ thus minimalizing the role of state and advocating ascendancy of the market. Thus a welfare state is antithetical to Hayekian principles. The objection to welfare state emanates at a critique at the concept of ‘social justice’ and state’s role as ‘a redistributors of income’, market is the supreme social leveler according to this conception. ‘Provision of limited security for an indefinite period may be incompatible with full rights of citizenship’ (Hayek.1944). Adherence to these percepts defines the role of modern neo-liberal state. We will now examine that how neo-liberalism has treated women and how their interactive role is conceived. Neo-Liberalism is opposed to state’s ‘intervention to address race and gender discrimination as it contravenes individual freedom and is moreover unnecessary because in time problems of unequal opportunity will give way to the rationality of the market’(Shaver.1996). The study by Fraser and Gordon (1994, quoted in ibid) have depicted that teenage black mothers as ‘dependent welfare clients’, thereby reinforcing the neo—liberal assertion that welfare only creates parasitic tendencies among recipients of state’s welfare. Similarly it has been asked that; “Why should the mother be exempted by the system that must affect everyone else’s decision to work?”(Murray. 1984) “Whatever the form it takes, liberalism sits uneasily with contemporary understandings of gender relations and sexual division of labour” (Shaver.1996; pp.25). The policy focus of neo-liberals has been the household unit rather then the gender thereby minimizing the recognition of gender disparity. The policy assessment is based on couples and their children for resources. The neo-liberal state is ‘interested in the distribution of resources and the bargaining power within the unit of the couple/family/household, rather then treating the unit as a closed box (Lister.2000). Thus the preexisting patterns of gender inequality have permeated in the social policy matrix of modern state. There has been data collection on gender desegregated patterns but it has not translated in to actual specificity of policy design and application. As Rubery and Rake demonstrated that ‘ departments policies were to be assessed for their impact on gender; but their would be no imperative to formulate proactive policies to achieve greater gender equity’ (Rubery and Rake.2000). Therefore social welfare policy of UK in its design and application still is gender blind. REFRENCES & BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Gray, J.(1995), Liberalism 2nd edn, Open University Press. Buckingham 2. Taylor C. (1989), Sources of the Self, The Making of Modern Identity, Harvard University Press; Cambridge. 3. Siim, B. (1988), ‘Towards a Feminist Rethinking of Welfare State’, in K.B. Jones and A.G. Jonasdottir eds, The Political Interest of Gender, Development Theory and Research with a Feminist Face, Sage publications, London; 160-86. 4. Skocpol, T. (1992), Protecting Soldiers and Mothers, The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States, Harvard University Press; Cambridge 5. Esping-Anderson , Gosta (1990), The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK. 6. Graham, H. (1983), ‘Caring: a Labour of Love’, in J.Finch and D. Groves, eds, A Labour of Love, Women, Work and Caring, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. 7. Hartsock, N. (1983), Money, Sex and Power, Towards a Feminist Historical Materialism, Northeastern University Press, Boston. 8. Hindess, B. (1987), Freedom, Equality and the Market, Arguments on Social Policy, Tavistock London. 9. Hayek, F.A. (1944), The Road to Serfdom, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. 10. Jones K.(1990), ‘Citizenship in a woman friendly polity’, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 15(4), 781-812. 11. Vogel, U. (1988), Under permanent guardianship: women’s conditions under Modern Civil law’, in K.B. Jones and A.G. Jonasdottir eds, The Political Interest of Gender, Development Theory and Research with a Feminist Face, Sage publications, London; 135-59. 12. Shaver S. (1996), Liberalism Gender and Social Policy, SPRC Discussion Paper No.68 July 1996. 13. Wolin, S.S.(1961), Politics and Vision, Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought, George Allen and Unwin Ltd, London. 14. Gilligan C. (1982), In a Different Voice, Psychological Theory and Women Development, Harvard University Press, Cambridge. 15. Yeatman A.(1994), Minorities and the Politics of Difference’, in A. Yeatman, Postmodern Revisioning of the Political, Routledge New York. 16. Wilson E. (1979), Women and the Welfare State, Tavistock, London. 17. Pateman C. (1989), The patriarchal welfare state’, in C. Pateman, The Disorder of Women, Polity Press, Cambridge , 179-209. 18. Okin S.M. (1981), Women and making of a sentimental family’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, (11)1, 65-88. 19. Michel,S. and S. Koven (1990), ‘Womenly duties: maternalist policies and the origins of welfare state in France, Germany, Great Britain and United States, 1880-1920,’ The American Historical Review, 95(4), 1076-108. 20. Marshall T.H., (1963), Citizenship and social class’, in T.H. Marshall, Sociology at The Crossroads, Heinemann, London. 21. Land H. (1976), ‘Women: supporters or supported?’, in D. Barker and S.Allen, eds, Sexual Divisions and Society: Process and Change, Tavistock. London. 22. Murray C. (1984), Losing Ground, American Social Policy 1950-1980, Basic Books, New York. 23. Lister R. (2000), Gender and the analysis of social policy’, in G. Lewis, S. Gerwitz and J. Clarke, eds, Rethinking Social Policy, London: Open University in association with Sage. 24. Rubery J. and Rake K. (2000), Gender Impact Assessment in UK, Manchester: European Community’s Expert Group on Gender and Employment, UMIST> Read More