6 Comments

You cite Christian Smith's work on what you call the "core faith commitments of today’s social sciences:" the "unencumbered individual." I'm having a difficult time imagining truly unencumbered individuals, even in the most liberal societies. We are all "encumbered" by living in and among others - among loved ones and friends, in our communities, in our nation, in the world. We are "encumbered" by the mores, ethos, and law of the society we live in. Isn't any society organized by less, or more, "encumbrance?" You seem clearly to favor more, with the greater encumbrance levied by the Catholic church. For non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians alike that seems clearly to imply an imposition of a faith they do not believe in and do not want imposed upon them. Catholic "encumbrance" would severely reduce, and potentially eliminate, the freedom of non-Catholics. Am I wrong? If I am, how so?

Expand full comment
Jan 12, 2023·edited Jan 12, 2023

Nice comment, Scott, and a good question at the end of it. The postliberal project the founders of this Substack are committed to, as well as other thinkers and scholars simpatico to that project, would argue that by and large we're not encumbered by anything anymore. Since the end of WWII (to take a date that crops up a lot in their critiques), the United States has been on a trajectory of ensuring its citizens are not encumbered: by traditional marriage, by child rearing in a traditional family, by morals, by abstinence. This disencumbrance has been maintained and strengthened politically, juridically, culturally, religiously, and academically. Put another way, as the decades roll by, Americans become freer and freer to choose every aspect of their lives; to curate their existence down to even which sex they would like to be.

The aspects of society you mention--"loved ones," "friends," "communities," or "nation"--I would submit have seen their powers of encumbrance chipped away at so significantly since at least the 70s that it's fair to say they have little disciplining power presently. Sure, we might offend friends if we stop speaking to them, or we might be missed by family members or community members if we move away (to college or another city because of work), but do we have thick connections to the people around us that discipline our behavior? That disciplines our choices? Do we have thick commitments to our communities? To our country?

To the degree that "Catholic encumbrances" (or any other proscriptive elements of Christian faith) would reduce our freedom would be an issue hashed out democratically, regionally, and over time. However, one of the most robust arguments these scholars make (in the realms of law, politics, economics, and culture--I strongly recommend Yarom Hazony's "Conservatism: A Rediscovery" and Professor Deneen's "Why Liberalism Failed" as exemplars of this line of critique) is that freedom all the time, in the name of whatever one wants whenever one wants it, and to the extent it tramples over previous traditions, casts aside all prior commitments and moral strictures, all the while coated in seemingly benign language of progress, rights, and freedom, has been a recipe for disaster for most Americans. In short, progressivism has led to an impoverishment of our lives, both as individuals and as citizens. How Catholicism or other forms of Christianity and the moral strictures therein might be helpful in leading us out to the place we find ourselves, well, I'm more than willing to listen.

Expand full comment

Extraordinary insight. Thanks. Downloaded The Sacred Project of American Sociology.

Expand full comment

Fanatic piece, Professor Deneen. One of your central points has great explanatory power, namely that “institutional relativism” doesn’t mean all points of view in our society are equally respected or that the State and cultural and academic institutions honor a plurality of political and religious commitments.

This notion of neutrality was always a mystification of the liberal order. Some beliefs or someone or some institutions laden with discreet ideological commitments will always order our lives as individuals and order our society.

Expand full comment
Jan 6, 2023·edited Jan 6, 2023

Thanks for great read. Look forward to Part 3 for a grand synthesis.

In the meantime, I am somewhat confused. I read Dewey as eminently on the side of Nature and Natural Science (as in physics, chemistry, biology) and therefore Natural Law and Common Good. In that light, 100% Thomistic and Catholic, with emphasis on capital "C". Please do not mistake Timothy Leary, a pothead, for John Dewey whose concern was education in accordance with Natual Law.

Expand full comment

Very Insightful, thanks. I’d love to talk to you about my invention ideas I’m working on. Perhaps in twitter DM’s or through email first so I can show you pictures of the ideas. It’s highly relevant to your work.

Expand full comment