{"id":41291,"date":"2025-03-20T18:12:54","date_gmt":"2025-03-21T01:12:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/?p=41291"},"modified":"2025-03-20T18:12:54","modified_gmt":"2025-03-21T01:12:54","slug":"can-reason-alone-save-us","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/can-reason-alone-save-us\/","title":{"rendered":"Can Reason Alone Save Us?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"To quote blues musician Elmore James, we are “standing at the crossroads.” On one side, defenders of reason and individual freedom argue that the achievements of the Enlightenment\u2014scientific progress, human rights, and democratic governance\u2014are under threat. Conversely, a growing chorus claims these ideals have undermined community life, fostering alienation, moral relativism, and social decay. Two contemporary thinkers, Stephen Hicks and Patrick Deneen, offer sharply contrasting diagnoses of this crisis. In Explaining Postmodernism[1]<\/strong><\/sup><\/a><\/em>, Hicks argues that postmodern thinkers have rejected the Enlightenment\u2019s commitment to reason, substituting truth and objectivity with relativism and power struggles.<\/p>\n

In contrast, Deneen\u2019s Why Liberalism Failed[2]<\/strong><\/a><\/em> suggests that liberalism has failed not because it was abandoned but because its core principles\u2014autonomy, individualism, and progress\u2014have been too faithfully applied, unraveling the moral and communal fabric necessary for human flourishing. In this article, I will first summarize Hicks\u2019s defense of Enlightenment liberalism and Deneen\u2019s critique of its inherent contradictions. I will then compare their conclusions, highlighting a key tension in their prescriptions. Finally, I will consider a balanced view that both are essential to address the fragmentation of the modern age.<\/p>\n

Hicks – Postmodernism Explained <\/strong><\/p>\n

To briefly summarize, Hick\u2019s central thesis is that postmodernism arose as a rejection of the Enlightenment Project.\u00a0 It attacked the core philosophical foundations of the Enlightenment \u2013 human reason, science, individualism, and capitalism.[3]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0\u00a0 Through chapters four and five, we see Hicks\u2019s<\/p>\n

<\/a>intellectual genealogy: Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, and Marx, leading to Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, and Derrida. Throughout the book, he highlights the vision of the Enlightenment with its aim of human flourishing and happiness, as seen in Chart 1.2.[4]<\/sup><\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

In chapter six, Hicks is critical of postmodern thinkers for rejecting objective truth, rational discourse, and liberal democracy and for favoring relativism, power politics, and language games.[5]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 For Hicks, a renewed commitment to Enlightenment reason and classical liberalism is essential for human flourishing.\u00a0 He argues that a winsome, clear, and complete communication of the premises is needed to do this effectively, stating:<\/p>\n

The Enlightenment was based on premises opposite to those of postmodernism, but while the Enlightenment was able to create a magnificent world on the basis of those premises, it articulated and defended them only incompletely. That weakness is the sole source of postmodernism\u2019s power against it. Completing the articulation and defense of those premises is therefore essential to maintaining the forward progress of the Enlightenment vision and shielding it against postmodern strategies.[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Deneen – Liberalism Critiqued<\/strong><\/p>\n

Deneen has a provocative thesis: liberalism has failed, not because it was betrayed, but because it succeeded.[7]<\/sup><\/a> \u00a0 He argues that liberalism’s inherent principles erode community, virtue, and meaning, ultimately leading to the degradation of society. He shows a historical narrative that, from Locke\u2019s emphasis on individual autonomy to contemporary hyper-individualism, technological control, and moral relativism, has created a society of individuals untethered from the things that give significance and security.[8]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 He illustrates the priority of liberalism is to liberate the individual by stating:<\/p>\n

Hobbes and Locke both\u2014for all their differences\u2014begin by conceiving natural humans not as parts of wholes but as wholes apart. We are by nature \u201cfree and independent,\u201d naturally ungoverned and even nonrelational.[9]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Thus, for liberal theory, while the individual \u201ccreates\u201d the state through the social contract, in a practical sense, the liberal state \u201ccreates\u201d the individual by providing the conditions for the expansion of liberty, increasingly defined as the capacity of humans to expand their mastery over circumstance.\u201d[10]<\/sup><\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Deneen\u2019s critique of liberalism is that it unravels social bonds, replacing communal life with isolated, self-creating individuals.[11]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 In his conclusion, Deneen proposes not to return to the past but to learn from it while establishing local, virtue-based communities as antidotes to liberal fragmentation.[12]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Tension? or a Middle Way?<\/strong><\/p>\n

There is common ground on which Hicks and Deneen stand.\u00a0 Both have diagnosed a cultural crisis\u2014whether framed as postmodernism or liberalism \u2013 and are pursuing a way forward they believe creates the conditions for human flourishing.<\/p>\n

Hicks champions liberal values of the Enlightenment \u2013 reason, individualism, and free markets \u2013 as not only antidotes to postmodernism but as the way toward human flourishing.\u00a0 Deneen, by contrast, argues that these liberal principles, primarily individualism, have disembedded individuals from the social and ethical constraints present in a community, ultimately leading to the deterioration of that community and hindering human flourishing.<\/p>\n

I think Hicks rightly warns against the postmodern rejection of reason and truth but may underplay how Enlightenment liberalism cultivates a fragmented society.\u00a0 Deneen offers a crucial corrective by showing that a flourishing society involves individual autonomy but requires embeddedness in moral traditions and communities.[13]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

Reading Hicks\u2019s Explaining Postmodernism<\/em> alongside Deneen\u2019s Why Liberalism Failed<\/em> reveals the complex paradox at the heart of modern Western society. I am left with a couple of questions: Does Hicks\u2019s return to Enlightenment ideals necessarily<\/em> neglect the communal, virtue-centered life Deneen sees as necessary for human flourishing?\u00a0 I wonder if there are reparative practices that aid in re-embedding while harvesting the good from the Enlightenment Project? I think a synthesis is needed. We need to preserve rational inquiry and personal freedom while recovering virtue, ethics, community, and limits on autonomy.<\/p>\n

______________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n

[1]<\/sup><\/a> Stephen Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault<\/em>, (China: Ockham\u2019s Razor Publishing, 2014).<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Patrick Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed<\/em>, (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2018).<\/p>\n

[3]<\/sup><\/a> Stephen Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism<\/em>, 14.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid., 13.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid., 174.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid., 201<\/p>\n

[7]<\/sup><\/a> Patrick Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed<\/em>, 3.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid, 184.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid., 48.<\/p>\n

[10]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid., 49.<\/p>\n

[11]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid., 143.<\/p>\n

[12]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid, 182-183.<\/p>\n

[13]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid., 191-193.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

To quote blues musician Elmore James, we are “standing at the crossroads.” On one side, defenders of reason and individual freedom argue that the achievements of the Enlightenment\u2014scientific progress, human rights, and democratic governance\u2014are under threat. Conversely, a growing chorus claims these ideals have undermined community life, fostering alienation, moral relativism, and social decay. Two […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":194,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[3437],"class_list":["post-41291","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-hicks-dlgp03","cohort-dlgp03"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41291","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/194"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=41291"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41291\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":41298,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41291\/revisions\/41298"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41291"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41291"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41291"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}