A Review of Deneen's "How Liberalism Failed": Defending Liberal Democracy in the Information Age

DISCLAIMER: All opinions are mine and do not reflect the views of my employer.

Patrick Deneen's "Why Liberalism Failed" (2018) has emerged as one of the most provocative and widely discussed political texts of recent years. In this incisive critique of modern liberal democracy, Deneen, a professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame, argues that liberalism's inherent contradictions have led to its demise, resulting in social fragmentation, environmental degradation, and the erosion of communal bonds. While Deneen's analysis offers valuable insights into the shortcomings of liberal ideology, his perspective is incomplete without considering the profound impact of the information revolution on contemporary political thought and social organization.

Deneen's central thesis posits that liberalism's ontological foundation, rooted in a conception of humans as autonomous, self-interested individuals, has created a society incapable of sustaining meaningful communities or addressing collective challenges. He contends that the liberal project, despite its promises of freedom and progress, has paradoxically led to greater state control, cultural degradation, and a loss of civic virtue. Deneen's critique resonates with conservatives and traditionalists who are skeptical of the promises of progressive liberalism and concerned about the erosion of traditional values and institutions.

Deneen's analysis falls short, however, by failing to adequately account for the transformative impact of digital technologies on human relationships, social structures, and political systems. To fully appreciate the evolving context of political philosophy in which Deneen's critique is situated, let us consider the groundbreaking work of Luciano Floridi, whose philosophy of information provides a crucial counterpoint to Deneen's perspective.

Floridi, director of Yale University's Digital Ethics Center and a leading figure in the philosophy of information, argues that the development of digital information can be likened to a Copernican revolution, similar to the Darwinian and Freudian revolutions. He means that the information age has fundamentally altered our understanding of ourselves and our place in the universe. This framework challenges several of Deneen's assumptions about human nature and social organization in ways critical to evaluating the current state of liberalism.

A central point to Deneen's analysis is his conclusion that contemporary liberalism inevitably leads to atomized individuals. He is particularly concerned that liberalism's emphasis on individual rights and personal autonomy has eroded the notion of the common good, leading to a society where collective welfare is often sacrificed at the altar of individual self-interest. He contends that this individualistic focus has weakened our capacity to pursue shared goals and maintain a cohesive social fabric.

However, from an information philosophy perspective, a more nuanced view of the common good in the digital age is possible. Floridi's philosophy of information recognizes individuals as interconnected nodes in a vast information network. His relational ontology suggests that our networked information environment increasingly shapes our identities and relationships, offering a more nuanced and subtle understanding of human nature than Deneen's individualistic model allows. Floridi's perspective opens up new possibilities for social ontology, community formation, and social cohesion in the information age, challenging Deneen's assertion that technological advancement inevitably leads to social atomization.

For example, narratives of personal identity today are likely to include descriptions of information networks, work relationships, meaningful social encounters, and friendships that began and are maintained through information technology. For example, the isolation that a person with a rare disease faces can be met in forums and advocacy groups devoted to their illness. They are no longer alone.

From the information philosophy standpoint, the common good can thus be seen as an emergent property arising from the complex interactions of individuals within information networks. Rather than being imposed from above or sacrificed to individualism, the common good in the information age is dynamically co-created through the free behavior of interconnected individuals. This view aligns with the concept of "collective intelligence" and "wisdom of crowds," where aggregate behavior often produces outcomes that benefit the whole.

Moreover, digital technologies enable new forms of collaboration and collective action that serve the common good in ways unimaginable in traditional liberal theory. By facilitating rapid information sharing, crowdsourcing solutions to complex problems, and enabling decentralized decision-making, the information age offers novel pathways to achieving common goals without sacrificing individual agency. This perspective suggests that rather than eroding the common good, the interconnected nature of our digital society might actually enhance our capacity to pursue collective welfare, albeit through mechanisms that differ from traditional communal structures.

Similarly, Deneen critiques liberalism for over-focusing on individual rights at the expense of communal responsibilities. While this concern is valid, Floridi's "ethics of information" provides a more sophisticated and nuanced framework for addressing ethical challenges in the digital age. By emphasizing the moral significance of information and advocating for responsible stewardship of our informational environment, an information perspective offers a path to reconcile individual freedoms with communal obligations – a balance that Deneen struggles to achieve in his critique.

Moreover, Deneen's analysis of governance focuses on the liberal state's failure to address systemic inequalities. In contrast, Ugo Pagallo proposes a model of "Good Onlife Governance" that integrates ethical considerations into the development and deployment of digital technologies. This approach offers a more constructive path forward, recognizing the need to adapt our political institutions to the realities of the information age and addressing the very inequalities that concern Deneen.

The environmental concerns raised by Deneen are undoubtedly important, but his perspective would benefit from incorporating the concept of "information ecology." This more holistic approach emphasizes the importance of maintaining a balance between technological development and environmental sustainability, offering a more comprehensive framework for addressing ecological challenges in the digital era.

Deneen's "Why Liberalism Failed" offers a compelling critique of liberalism's shortcomings, but its analysis is incomplete without considering the transformative impact of the information revolution. By integrating insights from thinkers like Floridi, we can develop a more comprehensive understanding of the current state of political thought and the challenges facing modern societies. This synthesis allows us to appreciate the valid concerns raised by Deneen while also recognizing the new possibilities and challenges presented by the information age, ultimately offering a more nuanced and forward-looking approach to addressing the complex issues of our time.

Deneen's work remains a valuable contribution to contemporary political discourse, challenging us to reconsider the foundations of liberal society. However, a truly comprehensive critique of liberalism in the 21st century must grapple with the realities of our digital age, a task that requires engaging with the kind of innovative thinking represented by Floridi and other philosophers of information. Only by bridging these perspectives can we hope to chart a path toward more ethical, sustainable, and cohesive societies in our rapidly evolving technological landscape.