I am what you might call a classic liberal. The root of what this means is freedom. It means that one has a disposition of flexibility and adaptability to experience. It means that there no conceptions, beliefs, ideas, or convictions that are not subject to change at some point. For scientists this is essential. As one works in an assumed theoretical structure to explain phenomena, one must also be willing to break apart that theoretical structure if the evidence can no longer be explained by it.
For instance, Einstein was sure that he was right regarding quantum mechanics. His fundamental theoretical assumption was that there must be a rational explanation for the particle world that his theories of general and special relativity would make sense of. He came up with some crafty arguments to do this. Yet, as history bears out, Niels Bohr was right. Now we assume a much messier sub-atomic world than Einstein was willing to accept.
Not until the late 19th century was there a discipline called “biblical studies.” But through the 20th century, as biblical studies took root among intellectuals as a subject in its own right apart from the strictures of any theological lens from a given tradition, it forced the hand of Christians. The same provocation came from the sciences. The earth kept getting older, the universe kept getting bigger, and what were once indubitable biblical facts were now questioned. The assumed theoretical lens of the various Christian traditions could not be assumed without a better explanation for why it was a good idea to assume such lenses were true. Those who adapted to the new evidence were called liberals and this included evangelicals. Those who refused to adapt slowly became associated with the world “fundamentalist” largely as a reaction to these adaptations to new knowledge.
To be liberal is to be free to adapt to new knowledge, new questions, and new ways of understanding the reality in which we live. This is the brand of liberal I find myself not simply choosing to see the world through, but it is at the very core of what I am as a human being. Not to adapt to the grandeur of what we continue to know about our world would be like asking a bird to clip its wings for no other reason than to stay on the ground at the behest of something other than my own conscience and the insatiable curiosity that God gave all human beings.
This does not mean that I am a “relativist” which many a fundamentalist, conservative, etc. has categorized my liberal disposition. There is a very strange perception among those who feel funny with the word “liberal” that one who has a liberal perspective can therefore have no clear sense of conviction. It is thus a shocker when a liberal will debate a point with any degree of stalwartness or ferocity. To have a free conscience that adapts is not assuming the posture of a relativist. Relativism is the perspective that all perspectives are not only to be valued, but are to be cherished as being another version of one grand truth. We are all right. A liberal does not take this position at all. Judging someone to be right requires careful critique and questioning. At the core it is that no perspective deserves undue attention simply because it exists. It means that assuming that one must be correct regardless of the evidence is flawed and must be made better in the interests of human progress.
This is why the critique from any brand of non-liberal that goes something like: “Wow. For someone so open-minded you sure are set in your ways.” First, a liberal can assuredly be set in his or her ways. In fact, most liberals are. If you are not a liberal and find the need to raise that challenge, I think you don’t understand what being liberal really means. This claim confuses liberalism with relativism and it is clear why this is incorrect. Second, liberalism can itself become an ideology. When this happens, someone will reject any view that is not consistent with their own. They will also reject any view that is not willing to adapt to experience in the same way. When this happens, liberalism and any form of belief that is opposed to it (e.g. conservatism, fundamentalism, neo-conservatism, etc.) are more bed fellows than anything else. When liberalism becomes an ideology, it is no longer liberal. It is something different.
So if you are liberal, keep your mind open to explore and adapt to change in order to understand your experience better. In Christian spirituality this is what prayer should be doing for you. This is what reading scripture and listening to God should do for you. If you are adamantly opposed to liberals as some spawn of the devil as if being liberal is a ruse of Satan, check that misunderstanding at the door and be a little more open-minded to a view that is different than yours all in an effort tot submit to the quest we all have for Truth. If we engage each other with the foundation that before God we are all absurd, as Kierkegaard said, maybe that Truth we all seek will be a little more clear to us rather than muddied in the mazes of self-interest.
Related posts:
I think what I hate most about any argument as of late is this labeling system. their conservative, their liberal. What is that really? Does any one person really fit what it is to be conservative or liberal. One maybe conservative in theology, but liberal politically. So it is this social construct we burden ourself with. This is why I hate it being thrown in an argument or debate, because truly, what does it mean?
I prefer to stand in the question and prefer not to hold to one label. Does that make me liberal or conservative? Or does it make me a PoMo rebel? I'm not sure. What I know is that if I remain in the question I can learn, I can hear and I grow. I don't think we should box ourselves up because we stop growth. It even causes one to not hear the other, because they are working from an assumption of what the person thinks.
I'm sorry to ramble, but this thought has been on my mind a lot as I've watched all assortment of labels being thrown around. Is this what the conversation has come to? Maybe I'm stuck back in the late 90's when this was being deconstructed and taken to its bear bone. Maybe I'm too stuck in pushing away of certain constructs. I look at your tag for TheOOZE and it makes me smile, because it takes me back to the old conversation and how it tore these labels at the seams. However, its seems those labels have come back and I'm just processing it very uncomfortably.
Peace!
[...] you might be a liberal (even if you don't want to be) – notes-from-offcenter.com/2009/08/20/you-might-be-a-liberal-even-if-you-dont-want-to-be – view page – cached #RSS 2.0 RSS .92 Atom 0.3 » you might be a liberal (even if you don't want to be) Comments Feed index Have Your Cake and Eat it Too? the tornado to stop the "gays" — From the page [...]
i think that deconstructing and disbanding labels is not the right question. the question is to address how label function. a label is nothing more than a name we use to describe something we have categorized. not to categorize is not to think! so i question not THAT we have labels, but HOW we use them that is important.
[...] Tatusko writes at the Notes From Off Center blog: I am what you might call a classic liberal. The root of what this means is freedom. It means that [...]
" not to categorize is not to think!"
Maybe I'm taking this wrong, but how is not to categorize to not think? I see it as looking beyond the category. I think we get too stuck in them. I personally am a thinking person, possibly over thinking one. Which leads me why I question their use…
"so i question not THAT we have labels, but HOW we use them that is important."
Doesn't social construct define how we use them? Yes, I realize we can change that, but as we can attest to "conservative" and "liberal" are used in a negative connotation than positive. We don't use them to define how we may think (or perceive life) but to almost marginalize the people who do not look/act/speak like us. This to me would support more of not thinking at all than something else.
Am I off track?
Jules!
getting too stuck in categories.
i agree with that. categories are tentative and that's important to understand. but thinking itself is making distinctions and synthesizing things all over again (among other things)!
social constructs
i think that is absolutely true. this follows from the first bit that we have categories. the function of them properly understood is that they are indeed tentative on the basis largely of social constructs that are constitutive of their function.
does that make sense? thanks!
yep! Thanks for the time!
blessings!
Drew,
What, a liberal quoting Kierkegaard? No fair. That's sort of like copyright infringement. Who will you be quoting next? Pascal? Chesterton? C. S. Lewis?
I don't think it's possible to take a label like "liberal" and make it content-free. Nor do I think your liberalism is content-free. You seem to fit squarely enough into the "Christian Century" niche. The difference is that your views are carefully thought out and furthermore, you are a liberal liberal. You are a liberal who, at least in theory, is willing to question what pass for liberal values.
I am a conservative on most definitions, yet I daresay I have a liberal mindset. There is no contradiction.
Drew,
What, a liberal quoting Kierkegaard? No fair. That's sort of like copyright infringement. Who will you be quoting next? Pascal? Chesterton? C. S. Lewis?
I don't think it's possible to take a label like "liberal" and make it content-free. Nor do I think your liberalism is content-free. You seem to fit squarely enough into the "Christian Century" niche. The difference is that your views are carefully thought out and furthermore, you are a liberal liberal. You are a liberal who, at least in theory, is willing to question what pass for liberal values.
I am a conservative on most definitions, yet I daresay I have a liberal mindset. There is no contradiction.
i think my point, as you gathered, is to reclaim the word because i think it's useful. so you can absolutely be a liberal conservative. it's way of thinking, not an ideology. we have unfortunately made it something that it never was supposed to be "back in the day."
oh, and diogenes allen has a great book called "three outsiders." who are the outsiders? kierkegaard, pascal, and weil. nice.
This explains the relentless narcissism of the majority of the leftie posters/commenters here, and why they hijack every thread to be about themselves or their adjustable bed. It also explains why some who regard themselves as “conservative” or “libertarian” will relentlessly argue for the “right” to indulge in stupid and destructive behaviors without consequence as emblamatic of “freedom”.
This explains the relentless narcissism of the majority of the leftie posters/commenters here, and why they hijack every thread to be about themselves or their adjustable bed. It also explains why some who regard themselves as “conservative” or “libertarian” will relentlessly argue for the “right” to indulge in stupid and destructive behaviors without consequence as emblamatic of “freedom”.