tl;dr: Liberalism must evolve to include Ivan Illich’s concept of conviviality, integrating ecological sustainability and social justice, emphasizing mutual dependence and ethical responsibility for today’s crises.
Liberalism, as a political philosophy and historical movement, strives for a free political, economic, and social order. Freedom, in turn, means the absence of constraints in making decisions between different options. In philosophy, political science, theology, and law, the term generally denotes a state of autonomy of a subject. In today’s times, given the pressing ecological and social challenges, there is a need for a realignment of liberalism towards an ecologically oriented model, in which the concept of conviviality by Ivan Illich plays a central role. This vision of modern liberalism can harmonize freedom and sustainability, creating the foundation for a more just and ecologically sustainable society.
The Crisis of Liberalism
Historical Overview
Since the late 1980s, when Francis Fukuyama proclaimed the “end of history” with the end of the Cold War and the impending collapse of the Soviet Union, liberalism has dominated the political landscape in Western Europe and North America almost hegemonically. Fukuyama’s work “The End of History and the Last Man” (1992) addressed the predominance of liberal democracy after the Cold War. Fukuyama argued that liberal democracy represents the final form of human government and the market economy the final form of economic activity. In line with Hegel, Fukuyama saw the history of human ideas reaching its crowning conclusion.
Both emancipatory liberalism from the left and economic liberalism from the right completely dominated the political imagination and societal discourses of the 1990s and early 2000s.
Challenges in the Present
The financial crisis of 2008, increasing social inequality, and the accelerating man-made climate change raise the question of whether liberalism in its current form is still capable of solving the pressing problems of our time.
Joseph Stiglitz, US economist and Nobel laureate for economics, primarily criticizes neoliberal policies, stating that they contributed to the financial crisis and exacerbate social inequality. Similarly, US linguist Noam Chomsky argues that neoliberalism mainly contributes to inequality and the weakening of democratic institutions.
A major criticism of liberalism today is its often conservative stance towards new social and ecological challenges. Liberal policies, such as the stance of the FDP in Germany on ecological issues, are often perceived as a braking element in the transformation towards a more sustainable society. Here, sustainability is initially understood as the principle of using resources (both ecological and social) as sparingly as possible, so that they remain available to future generations while simultaneously protecting the environment.
This conservative function of liberalism today is also somewhat ironic, as historically, liberalism was an enemy of conservatism, opposing traditions and advocating for change.
However, it is quite legitimate to doubt whether this defense of freedom against the state is still the only meaningful interpretation of liberalism today. Both the concentration of market power, especially in information goods-based industries (keyword: platform economy), and increasing ecological threats present entirely different constraints against which modern liberalism must also defend itself.
Origins of Liberalism in the 17th and 18th Centuries
John Locke and the Foundations of Liberalism
John Locke is generally regarded as the intellectual father of liberalism. In his work “Two Treatises of Government” from 1689, he argues that a government is only legitimate if it has the consent of the governed and can protect natural rights – life, liberty, and property. Locke emphasizes that the power of the rulers must be limited to safeguard the rights of the citizenry.
Natural law here refers to fundamental legal entitlements that every person possesses by nature, such as the right to life, liberty, and property. The US Constitution speaks of “self-evident truths.”
Locke’s principle of the consent of the governed means that the legitimacy of a government is based on the consent of the population – and nothing else, such as “divine right.”
From a Marxist perspective, Locke’s theory of property is primarily criticized for legitimizing the inequality between “rich” and “poor,” being blind to the accumulation of power and its political and economic consequences, and serving primarily the interests of the propertied.
Immanuel Kant and the Freedom of Will
Immanuel Kant, the great philosopher from Königsberg, understands freedom as a fundamental concept of ethics and emphasizes that moral action is only possible through individual freedom. Only those free from coercion are responsible for their actions. Without freedom, there is no moral capacity for action. Kant’s philosophy foregrounds the autonomy of will, which he sees as a prerequisite for moral behavior.
Kant’s critics, such as Isaiah Berlin, accuse him of neglecting the social and material conditions of freedom (positive freedom, freedom to participate in society) with his focus on autonomy (negative freedom, freedom from coercion).
Adam Smith and the System of Natural Liberty
Adam Smith, the notable Scottish moral philosopher, proposes in his work “Wealth Of Nations” from 1776 a system of natural liberty, where individual freedom and societal prosperity go hand in hand. Smith emphasizes that through the pursuit of self-interest, the welfare of the general public is also promoted – an idea he describes with the metaphor of the “invisible hand.”
Smith himself, however, imposes a restriction on the invisible hand, already in his “Theory of Moral Sentiments” from 1759: only when economic individuals look into the mirror of morality and can self-examine and judge their actions, does the invisible hand function. Thus, for Smith, moral capacity determines freedom – in short: no freedom without morality.
Karl Marx and other socialist thinkers criticize Smith’s theory by arguing that the free market leads to exploitation and inequality and that state interventions are necessary to ensure social justice. Smith himself, however, was never opposed to state intervention, harshly criticizing capitalists for always trying to undermine the free play of market forces through monopolies and price-fixing.
Neoliberalism and Ordoliberalism
Continental European Neoliberalism
The term neoliberalism was coined in 1938 at the “Colloque Walter Lippmann.” Representatives like Wilhelm Röpke and Walter Eucken aimed for a renewal of liberalism that sought a balance between a free market economy and state regulation. In Germany, we often speak of ordoliberalism, a variant of early neoliberalism that advocates a strong regulatory role of the state to ensure the competitive order.
Anglo-American Neoliberalism
In the USA, thinkers like Friedrich August von Hayek and Milton Friedman advocated a more radical form of neoliberalism that favored significantly fewer state interventions. Friedman developed the theory of monetarism and emphasized the importance of a minimal state primarily responsible for law and order and the protection of property.
Michel Foucault and other poststructuralist thinkers criticize neoliberalism as a form of governance technology that disciplines society and deepens inequalities – thereby contradicting the actual goal of liberalism, which is the freedom of individuals.
Recent Ethical Considerations on Society
John Rawls and Justice as Fairness
John Rawls is a central figure in egalitarian liberalism. In his work “A Theory of Justice” from 1971, he introduces the principle of “justice as fairness.” Rawls argues that social and economic inequalities are only justified if they benefit the least advantaged members of society. A key thought experiment in this context is the veil of ignorance.
With the concept of justice as fairness, Rawls establishes a principle that societal institutions should be designed to be fair and secure the basic freedoms of all individuals – especially the weakest in society.
Through the veil of ignorance, Rawls encourages us to engage in a thought experiment where decision-makers decide on the principles of justice without knowing their future positions in society. That is, without knowing whether they are poor or rich; male, female, or diverse; young or old; healthy or sick; white or non-white, etc.
Inequality, according to Rawls, is only acceptable if it serves the social mobility of the weakest. Thus, it is about a socially mobile and non-discriminatory societal order. Anticipating the question of sustainability, one would have to include “all individuals” as also the unborn individuals – and similarly the living non-human environment.
Ivan Illich and Conviviality
Ivan Illich was an Austrian-Croatian philosopher and social critic known for his critical views on modern institutions and his concept of “conviviality.” Illich emphasizes that technological progress should support individual freedom instead of restricting it. He warns of the consequences of improperly applied technological progress, leading to hypertrophied productivity that cannot meet the needs of people and even results in counter-productivity.
Here, several terms need to be explained:
- Conviviality: Ivan Illich defines “conviviality” as “autonomous and creative interaction between persons and between persons and their environment.” He regards conviviality as “individual freedom realized in personal interdependence – mutual dependence – and as such represents an intrinsic ethical value.”
- Hypertrophied Productivity: Overproduction that overstretches natural resources and ignores the social and ecological needs of society.
- Counter-Productivity: The concept of “counter-productivity” describes the situation where an originally beneficial process or institution reaches a point where it has negative effects. Illich argues that institutions that become too institutionalized become counterproductive, causing more harm than benefit. For example, schools make people dumber, and hospitals make people sicker when they surpass a certain threshold of institutionalization.
Ecologically Oriented Liberalism
Sustainability and Global Justice
A modern ecologically oriented liberalism must address the challenges of sustainability. The use of ecological and social resources must be managed so that they remain available to everyone permanently and that globally fair access to these resources is ensured. This is necessary to enable a self-determined life in dignity and freedom for all.
In my very broad understanding of sustainability, I see it as more than an ethical imperative to care for our human and non-human environment. Sustainability is a duty of care towards all (today and future generations) and everything (animals, plants, entire ecosystems, the biosphere of the planet as a whole). Global justice, on the other hand, means striving for a fair distribution of resources and opportunities worldwide, regardless of geographic and political boundaries.
For those interested in the economic implications, I recommend the book “Doughnut Economics” by Kate Raworth (2017). It presents a new vision of economics where sustainable development is pursued through a balance between social foundation and ecological boundaries. The inner ring of the doughnut represents basic human needs (such as food, water, health), while the outer ring symbolizes planetary boundaries (such as climate change, biodiversity). The goal is to operate within this “safe and just space” to ensure both social justice and ecological sustainability.
Freedom as Mutual Dependence and Conviviality
Based on the ideas of Ivan Illich, freedom can be redefined: Individual freedom realized through personal interdependence with our human and non-human environment combines Illich’s approach to autonomy with social and ecological responsibility. Such liberalism would foreground ethical principles, question political-economic and technocratic structures, and promote community-oriented sustainable initiatives.
This leads to a society where individual and collective freedoms are in harmony with ecological sustainability and social justice, ensuring the freedom of individuals and the long-term well-being of the human (and non-human) community. This is indeed a radical or rather: convivial redefinition of freedom as mutual dependence: The idea that true freedom is not achieved in isolation but in mutual dependence and cooperation within a community.
Such ecologically oriented liberalism sees nature not just as a resource but as an independent value that must be respected and protected. “Intrinsic value of nature” refers to the recognition that nature has a value beyond its usefulness to humans. This brings us to an eco-centric perspective: Nature does not exist for humans; rather, humans are part of nature, which exists for its own sake.
Conclusion
Liberalism, once celebrated as the undisputed promise of salvation of the Western world, faces massive challenges today. In its newer neoliberal form, it is considered a co-cause of multiple ecological, economic, social, and political crises – not their solution.
With this article, I aim to clarify that it is time for a radical reorientation – and thus a rescue! – of liberalism: An ecologically and socially oriented liberalism that acknowledges the mutual dependence of humans and nature and defines freedom not only as the absence of coercion but as an ethical responsibility for our human and non-human environment.
Without such a realignment, liberalism remains an ideological fossil, incapable of solving the pressing problems of our time. In short, liberalism must fundamentally renew itself or inevitably end up where Fukuyama’s “end of history” landed: in the abyss of history.