Liberalism - what's in a name?

Abstract

[Introduction]: Like the play, this paper disputes the answer given by Juliet’s fantasy. It does so in the context of academic debate by showing that the use of a name, ‘liberalism’ in this case, can have significant implications for political and historical analysis. My aim, in fact, is to question conventional academic characterisations of liberalism and to suggest that the adoption of a different usage not only serves to clarify liberal governmental practice – including many of the recent developments which, for want of a better name, tend to be grouped together under the label of neo-liberalism – but also to provide a fuller and more powerful account of the work of central figures in the liberal tradition. Specifically, the characterisations I wish to dispute present liberalism as focused essentially on one or more of the following concerns: - relations between the state and its subjects; - the promotion and defense of individual liberty; - and, as a special case of the second, the promotion and defense of private property.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 47 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.