Author: barb howe

Nice, short summary of the basic principles of liberalism from the POV of a British gentleman in 1911. Hobhouse describes liberalism as being more often associated with what it is against rather than what it is for. Liberalism is “a protest” or criticism against “religious, political, economic, social, and ethical” authoritarian orders (p. 14). He says the business of liberalism, “seems to be not so much to build up as to pull down, to remove obstacles which block human progress rather than to point the positive goal of endeavour or fashion the fabric of civilization” (p. 15). This could lead to laissez-faire and it does, but, Hobhouse argues it doesn’t stop there, ultimately because liberalism recognizes not just the natural rights of the individual in isolation but the individual as part of society.

Hobhouse sees liberalism as a restraint not just on the power of the state but on anything that interferes with the rights of individuals, including and especially inequality. The liberal state should act to restrain illiberal forces in society which would violate individual rights because “in the absence of drastic legislative protection, [the state alone] could do something to redress the inequality between employer and employed… true freedom postulates substantial equality between the parties” (p. 47). He sees no inherent contradiction between liberalism and socialism, but he devotes a chapter to describing illiberal socialism.

Of course there are some limitations given that he’s a white man writing in 1911. He’s not sure people of color have the capacity to govern themselves, and his listing of “liberal states” includes the British colonies as colonies, but he does seem to imply that he approves of women’s suffrage (although he doesn’t make that explicit). Overall, I appreciated his above description of what liberalism is and what it requires (active participation by all “intelligent adults” on at least some level) in a society which is committed to protecting everyone’s freedom as much as possible.

This is a perfect novel. It’s not only a good story with great complicated compelling characters it really tells us a lot about the way race impacts our relationships with one another, and how that changes in time and place. I’m white and grew up in a small town in the South in the late 70s and 80s and the portrayal of small town white culture in that era is painfully accurate: the overt yet casual racism, the way we saw black people as so foreign and different, dangerous yet cool. We were desegregated but still worlds apart. It’s changing but so slowly it’s almost imperceptible.

Senna’s characters are so well developed, multilayered and complicated but they’re also universal. In my own life’s journey I have met all these characters: white people doing anti-racism work, radical intellectuals who seem to forget about the humanity of their subjects, activists who get carried away by dogma and do the same and liberals who don’t practice what they preach. The almost palpable way this impacts the lives of these two sisters is incredibly moving and unforgettable.

All the above are reasons why a book becomes a classic, it stands out as not just a good read but an important piece of art with something to say about the human experience. I hope it’s on lots of high school reading lists. It’s certainly going to be for me part of my personal cannon of great literature.