Liberalism: A Counter-History (review)

Domenico Lousurdo claims to have written a “counter history” that brings to light elements of the liberal intellectual tradition obscured by hagiography masquerading as historical analysis. Near the end of Liberalism the author also suggests that his goal has been to grapple with the legacy of an internationally (indeed, globally) important political movement. To accomplish these aims, Liberalism engages a daunting chronology. Beginning with the legacy of the Glorious Revolution, Losurdo writes 344 pages that bring the history of liberalism up to the mid-20th century. Geographically, the text is primarily concerned with Britain, its colonies, and the United States, although the Netherlands, France, Germany and to a lesser extent Austria, Italy, Ireland, Spain (and its empire), Brazil, and Haiti figure into the narrative as well. Losurdo argues that liberalism was never really about freedom or democracy. Rather, it served as the ideology of a class and ethnically based “community of the free” who extolled their own liberty while subjugating others through colonial slavery, forced relocations, indifference to human tragedy, and strict legal programmes that carried with them only the oppression of the poor and racism.

This is an important story but it is a story that has already been told … a fair number of times. Those looking for a new approach to the critical study of liberalism will need to look somewhere else and might, in fact, want to avoid this text. One can congratulate Losurdo on his encyclopedic use of primary sources (particularly west European and American philosophic treatises and the published correspondence of philosophers and political leaders), but the truth is that there is nothing original in his study. This is the first reason to avoid this text. I cannot comment on the state of historical analysis in Italy (where the author teaches), but the conclusion that supposedly liberal thinkers could also be slaveholders or support authoritarian governments and oppressive class relations is hardly new. Exactly why we need another text to explain something that is already so well known is not clear.

The second reason to avoid this text is that it is frustrating. The translation I am reviewing was published by Verso, a reputable publisher that has produced very good work. Liberalism will not be numbered among them. The text is repetitive as the author makes the same point (often citing the same sources) over and over again in chapter after chapter. The footnote references do not always distinguish between the words of a secondary source (from whose work Losurdo draws information) and the philosopher about whom he is speaking. And, most grievously, the author persists in referring to First Peoples as “redskins” (again, over and over). I am confused as to why neither the translator nor publisher corrected this problem.

Third, the text makes at best passing reference to gender. Feminist philosophers or political activists are not discussed (with a couple of small exceptions), nor are the views of liberal thinkers on gender given detailed attention. Losurdo’s concern with exposing the already exposed problematic character of liberal thought, his use of antedated bigoted language, and his neglect of gender as a primary axis of analysis lend Liberalism a dated feel, as if one were reading a text from the late 1960s or 1970s.

Finally, Losurdo never directly answers the question with which he began: “what is liberalism?” Liberals supposedly believe in freedom but it turns out they do not. Liberals supposedly believe in equality but we quickly discover that this is not true. Liberals supposedly support individual autonomy but yet again in other instances they stand completely behind the expansive power of the state. Losurdo’s pantheon of liberals does nothing to clear up definitional confusion. We find out, for example, that just about everyone is a liberal. In addition to the “usual suspects” (for example, Locke, Hume, Smith), Losordo contends that Burke and de Gobineau are liberals, as is John Calhoun and even the supporters of Mussolini in Fascist Italy. I am no fan of liberalism but with such catchall characterization, it is...