In Britain, Hobhouse carried the tradition of positive liberalism forward. Like J. S. Mill and T. H. Green before him, freedom for Hobhouse means personal development, self-realization and ability of the individual to gain fulfilment. In this mission of individual moral and s elf-development, the state needs to perform certain functions. Hobhouse too envisaged a positive state, which would create social conditions for moral-development and self-realization of the individual.
His position is specifically significant given his non-idealist interpretation of the state. After Green, a debate ensued regarding the relationship between the individual and the State. Some argued that the State is higher than the individual and others felt that the State exists only to aid individuals in developing their capacity as human beings. As Nelson he developed. The Metaphysical Theory of the State (1918).51 Hobhouse is identified with the latter view. Hobhouse also provided a critique of the view of Bosanquet, who following Hegel and the Hegelian stream in Green, sought to justify state supremacy. Hobhouse criticized the illiberal possibilities of such a position and argued that Green never advocated subordination of individual to the state.
Hobhouse puts forward the view that society or the state should not be treated above the interests of the members that compose it. He says, ‘[T]he happiness and misery of society is the happiness and misery of human beings heightened or deepened by its sense of common possession.’52 By doing so, Hobhouse is paying tribute to his liberal position—the members of the society or the state are the principle beneficiaries and there is no other objective superior than their happiness or for that matter, removal of their misery. But then, he goes on to bring the individual self-realization in harmony with collective realization. He says, ‘[T]he greatest happiness will not be realized by the greatest or any great number unless in a form in which all can share, in which indeed the sharing is for each an essential ingredient.’ This interpretation of mutual interdependence of individual claim and social recognition is an ethical conception in Hobhouse, as is also in Green. For Hobhouse, individual distinct and separate personalities, can develop in harmony and contribute to a collective achievement.
The theme of moral development of members in common with others runs from Mill to Green to Hobhouse. The State is an aid to this purpose and the foundation of the welfare state could be seen strengthening. Like Green, Hobhouse also envisages that the State must play a positive role in bringing those conditions that help in achieving the goal and removing social inequalities. In his book, Social Evolution and Political Theory, Hobhouse presented his views on a positive state. According to Bottomore, his theory points clearly towards a conception of the ‘modern welfare state’.53
In Mill, Green and Hobhouse, the individual–State relationship is understood and explained in terms of ethical and moral concepts. While maintaining the individual member of society as the central theme of concern (liberal concern), it seeks to align its purpose with that of the larger society and the State. The state becomes a positive agency to provide conditions or remove obstacles to moral development of the members.
We can argue that through this understanding, liberalism made a transition from negative freedom to positive freedom. However, so far a very clear exposition of the role of the State in the economic area has not emerged in the arguments of positive liberals. Hobhouse and Tawney took up this task. Hobhouse in his Liberalism (1911) and the Elements of Social Justice (1922) argued that property has a social origin and criticized use of property as instrument of power. According to Hobhouse, prosperity and economic benefit of the capitalist is premised on the social conditions of order, security, skilled labour, and overall social knowledge and collective effort of generations. Thus, for Hobhouse, it is the society which guarantees and maintains one’s possession. If this is so, then property should not be held in disregard to social needs. Property should not be a means of power over other persons. As such, two qualifications may be put on property: (i) not to be used as an instrument of power over others, and (ii) to be exercised with due regard to social needs. This is possible and must be ensured by intervention of the State. Hobhouse while carrying the tradition of positive liberals of seeking the State’s role in moral development of an individual has also argued for limits on the property held and enjoyed. Along with the moral element, the economic factor is also brought out as an argument for positive freedom and welfare state.
Leave a Reply