Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism Paperback – October 23, 2017

Over the last 20 or so years, there has been a revolution in mainstream philosophy and history--reexamining the relationship between Christianity and modernity: liberalism, secularism, and democracy, etc. Larry Siedentop has joined the ranks of Philip S. Gorski (at Yale), Eric T. Nelson (at Harvard), Charles Taylor (Emeritus Professor at McGill), and the long deceased, but highly influential and respected, Talcott Parsons (at Harvard) who have re-asserted a formerly forgotten widely held belief in the academy--Christianity, regardless of the "God Question," helped give rise to cherished Western principles and values. In "Inventing the Individual," Dr. Siedentop examines the notions of individualism in the early Christian community and historical process. Primarily looking upon the works of the Apostle Paul, his epistles--found in the New testament, Saint Augustine and his work City of God (Penguin Classics), and then Medieval theologians and philosophers, like William of Ockham and Saint Thomas Aquinas among others, Siedentop highlights how these Christian works came to found the foundation for Western liberalism, individualism, and secularism (all good ideas in Siedentop's mind).

Paul's theological egalitarianism, "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for all are one in Christ Jesus," etc. (Gal. 3:28), Augustine's separation of the two worlds (the "two cities": the city of man, and the city of God)--a precursor to secularism, which is not anti-religion, but the separation of matters of the temporal world ("city of man") and possible divine world ("city of God"), Ockham's nominalism (the idea that abstracts exist), and Aquinas's pioneering work in Natural Law all helped slowly build the foundations for liberalism and individualism. Lest we forget that liberal social contract theory, from Hobbes, Locke, Pufendorf, and Grotius, etc. have their foundation, or minimally, some influence, from Natural Law theory which is rooted firmly in the Christian/Catholic tradition. In fact, some conservative critics of liberalism have attempted to pin down liberalism as a modern reincarnation of Medieval Nominalism (cf. Richard Weaver, d. 1963), so again, Siedentop's discussion of Ockham's Nominalism and its influence on the direction of Western understanding of human freedom (pp. 313-319) are incredibly important and insightful, but nothing "new" in the same sense that others have already made these assertions (but in a negative means as opposed to Sidentop's more neutral to celebratory tone). Indeed, even atheist and agnostic scholars and philosophers, not associated with the "New Atheism" of recent fame, have also "rediscovered" Paul's philosophy of individuals and community have begun a "critical" re-examination of Paul and early Christian philosophy through Marxian lenses (cf. John Milbank, Slavoj Zizek, and Creston Davis).

Siedentop's work, most appropriately, can be seen as a scholarship in the field called "political theology." Political Theology is not theocracy, or religious fundamentalism guiding law, but the analysis of how theological principles and ideas have come to influence "secular" institutions. This is where Sidentop's work shines most brightly. He eruditely shows what had been accepted in the Academy long ago, but only recently has been gaining new popularity in the present: religious ideas and principles inexorably influenced Western institutions that we still have today. While Siedentop largely defends modernity as the product, or child, of Christianity, he also offers a cold question for future.

In recent times, the West has been embroiled in a "civil" war between religious conservatives on one side and secular agnostics, atheists, and even anti-institutionalists (mostly referring to being anti-Church and anti-religion) on the other (sometimes better referred to as the "culture wars"). Siedentop argues that this "disturbing" civil war is harming the fabric of Western civilization. Indeed, even learned religious leaders, like Pope Benedict XVI, in saying that his primary mission was the confrontation of secularism, made a huge error in not recognizing the contributions to secularism from Christianity itself (p. 360). This civil war is the product of BOTH sides not really understanding their own history and heritage. As the West is moving into the 21st Century, and with recent conflicts with the Islamic World, the serious question remains whether secular and religious forces in the West will unite to realize its shared heritage, or continue to wage a bitter, destructive, and ultimately needless, if not "disturbing" civil war.

Thus, Siedentop's work is much needed, and hopefully, is not going to be under appreciated by emotivist secularists and Christians who will likely see Siedentop as either "giving cover to Christians" or conversely, "giving cover to secularists." However, one area where Siedentop work falls a bit short, as opposed to Charles Taylor's "A Secular Age" is the brevity of "excessive" footnoted scholarship employed by Dr. Siedentop. While Taylor's A Secular Age is far longer, it is also more extensively footnoted, whereas Siedentop opted for a more accessible and popular style, at the expense of extensive footnoting. Regardless, "Inventing the Individual" is a timely work that is the next wave in modern scholarship finding the roots of Western liberalism.

The concept of the Individual has evolved over the past two millennia and the discussion by Siedentop is a superb overview of that process. It has been a complex process, moving from family and tribal identity to the ability to have an identity as a self, an individual. Along with that ability to identify with self, a single person and an individual comes many attributes as well as the basis for many of our current theories of political science.

Siedentop has presented a brilliant addition to the body of materials on the development of the individual as a vital political and social entity. This book is an excellent presentation of his ideas. It is well written, encompasses all the key issues, and his arguments are concise, compelling, and highly informative.

Siedentop starts with the Ancient world as a world of families and towns. Athens was a typical example of the Ancient World and the Platonic tales of Socrates were key to their understanding. Loyalty and identity were to the city of Athens, or later, to the Empire of Rome, via ones family. In Plato’s Gorgias, Protagoras and Meno we see the loyalty to Athens and in turn to the gods as being the means to relate, the family being the linkage binding all to the city state. In Chapters 1 through 3 the authors lays out how he sees such relationships.

Then in Chapter 4 we see the author introduce Paul of Tarsus. On p 60 the authors presents the opening salvo of the individualism of Paul. The “one” in Christ is a double edged sword. One is “one” as a group in Christ but one is also “one” morally, having an individual path to salvation? The concept of individual salvation or perdition is developed to its fullest in Paul. On p 61 the author asserts that it is with Paul that the “fusion marks the birth of a “truly” individual will”.

On pp 74-75 the author discusses Marcion and his heresy of extreme Paul individualism. The soul is individual in each person and salvation is an individual act and the communal nature of the Old Testament must be rejected with the individual responsibility of the New Testament. In fact Marcinon said all one needs is Paul’s Epistles and Luke, and reject the rest. For that he was rejected as a heretic.

The author then examines monasticism and the martyrs in the process to building up to Augustine. Chapter 8 is an analysis of Augustine in the context of the individual. Augustine was on the one hand a strong adherent to Paul while also being imbued in the classic culture of the Roman Empire. In a sense the author sees a strong flow of individual identity in the writing of the Confessions. The author also included the Pelagian conflict, which in a sense if a conflict of the individual qua person and the individual qua grace. Without grace man is doomed. Yet man’s actions alone cannot provide redemption, each individual must, according to Augustine; have grace given if he is ever to gain eternal redemption. One can see a stand for individuality in Augustine but the demand of grace as given and not earned has always sent a penumbra of concern.

On pp 132-133 the author discusses Gregory I and Columbanus. This could have represented an interesting point for contrast. Gregory was from a classic old Roman family and had even been the martyr of Rome before becoming its Bishop. Columbanus was an Irish monk who established dozens of monastic institutions of study, and was in conflict with Gregory, albeit with respect. Columbanus as an Irish monk had never had his country subject to Rome, and thus in this interaction we could see the move from old Rome to the new non-Roman church.

The author progresses by moving on to the development of natural law and natural rights in Chapter 16. This is a wonderful exposition of these topics. Natural Law was a vehicle to explain the basis for law extra the Church and Natural Rights became the cornerstone for what became individual rights.

Chapter 21 is a discussion of the Friars. In a sense this is a battle between Aquinas and Ockham, between Dominican and Franciscan, between group and individual, between Aristotle and the opening of new philosophical insights. In Chapter 21 the author nicely uses the Franciscan issue of property and the New Testament to discuss property and individual ownership. To follow Christ one must abjure one’s property. To do such, one must have some nexus with the property as an individual in the first place. This may very well be the basis for Locke’s subsequent arguments. Chapter 22 then is a focus on Ockham. And it follows in detail in Chapter 23. I felt that these were the best chapters in the book, but perhaps it is my bias towards Ockham.

William of Ockham is extolled throughout the book. It is a worthy discussion. Ockham was a nominalist; namely he believed that universals were a fiction and that subjects were in essence individuals, not humans, but individual things. Thus, when we say; “The daylily is blue.” we mean a specific daylily, the subject. Yet Ockham would allow for the predicate “blue” to have some nexus to a universal called blue. Daylilies as a universal do not exist. A specific daylily like the one I may hold does exist, as an individual. But to extend this and say that the specific daylily is blue, do we mean as a predicate some universal concept of blue or blue like a coneflower? As we progress to a more scientific venue we may use a predicate like the spectrum of the blue we want, and then say blue like “this”. Thus ultimately we do not use the construct of a universal but an individual for the subject and likewise for the predicate.

Locke clearly must have had a clear understanding and acceptance of the individual when he developed his concept of property. For Locke property was the result of an individual providing some form of work and the conversion of that labor into a one to one relationship with the property; namely the individual owned the property and from that he had certain rights.

To expand on Siedentop we must then look towards the political philosophers who integrate Individuals into society. As de Tocqueville noticed about mid-19th century America, there was a preponderance of Individualism, an Individualism not of the type that abhors collective associations, quite the contrary, but an Individualism of the type that demands individual equality of rights and opportunity. I would argue that to understand this strain in de Tocqueville that one must read his American analysis in conjunction with his analysis of the French Revolution and of Ireland under English suppression and subjugation.

On the end the author tries to connect the individualism of Christianity with the secular goals of modern society. Also the author does see the threat to modern political theory from the ascendancy of more rigid past religions which eschew the individual and build on the tribe.

Overall the book is a powerful and superbly presented argument for the individual, and their rights. The argument that the concept of the individual did not suddenly arise from the Enlightenment is powerful and compelling. This book is a valuable contribution to understanding the individual, individualism, and the conflict with alternative societal political constructs which demean the individual and their rights.