John Gray has become one of our liveliest and most influential political philosophers. This current volume is a sequel to his Liberalisms: Essays in Political Philosophy. The earlier book ended on a sceptical note, both in respect of what a post-liberal political philosophy might look like, and with respect to the claims of political philosophy itself. John Gray's new book gives post-liberal theory a more definite content. It does so by considering particular thinkers in the history of political thought, by criticizing the conventional wisdom, liberal and socialist, of the Western academic class, and most directly by specifying what remains of value in liberalism. The upshot of this line of thought is that we need not regret the failure of foundationalist liberalism, since we have all we need in the historic inheritance of the institutions of civil society. It is to the practice of liberty that these institutions encompass, rather than to empty liberal theory, that we should repair.

Liberal democracy is the dominant political ideology in the West today. Taken at face value it suggests an equivalency between its two central components--liberalism and democracy--but as Fred Dallmayr argues here, the two operate in very different registers. The two frequently conflict, endangering our public life.This is evident in the rise of self-centered neo-liberalism as well as autocratic movements in our world today. More specifically, the conflict within liberal democracy is between the pursuit of individual or coporate interest, on the one hand, and a "people" increasingly fractured by economic and cultural clashes, on the other. Dallmayr asks whether there is still room for genuine privacy and authentic democracy when all public goods, from schools to parks, police, and armies, have been made the target of privatization. In this book, Dallmayr sets out to rescue democracy as a shared public and post-liberal regime. Nonetheless, "post-liberalism" does not involve the denial of human freedom nor does it suggest the endorsement of illiberal collectivism or nationalism. Drawing on a wide range of contemporary political, religious, and secular thought, Dallmayr charts a possible path to a liberal socialism that is devoid of egalitarian imperatives and a private sphere free from acquisitiveness.

In After Liberalism, the distinguished historian and political scientist Immanuel Wallerstein examines the process of disintegration of our modern world-system and speculates on the changes that may occur during the next few decades. He explores the historical choices before us and suggests paths for reconstructing our world-system on a more rational and socially equitable basis.

Liberalism is dying?despite its superficial appearance of vigour. Most of its adherents still believe it is the wave of the future, but they are clinging to a sinking dream. So says Melvyn L. Fein, who argues that almost none of liberalism's countless promises have come true. Under its auspices, poverty was not eliminated, crime did not diminish, the family was not strengthened, education was not improved, and universal peace has not been established. These failures are not accidental; they flow directly from liberal contradictions. In Post-Liberalism, Fein demonstrates why this is the case. Fein contends that an "inverse force rule" dictates that small communities are united by strong forces, such as personal relationships and face-to-face hierarchies, while large-scale societies are integrated by weak forces, such as technology and social roles. As we become a more complex techno-commercial society, the weak forces become more dominant. This necessitates greater decentralization, in direct opposition to the centralization that liberals celebrate. Paradoxically, this suggests that liberalism, as an ideology, is regressive rather than progressive. If so, it must fail.Liberals assume that someday, under their tutelage, these trends will be reversed, but this contradicts human nature and history's lessons. According to Fein, we as a species are incapable of eliminating hierarchy or of loving all other humans with equal intensity. As Emile Durkheim argued, humans cannot live in harmony without appropriate forms of social cohesion.

Liberalism is in trouble. As a set of ideas, it has lost much of its historical authority in guiding public policy and personal behaviour. In this post-liberal climate, Russell Blackford asks whether liberalism is truly over. How We Became Post-Liberal examines how Western liberal democracies became nations where traditional liberal principles of toleration (religious and otherwise), individual liberty and freedom of speech are frequently dismissed as outdated or twisted to support conservative policies. Blackford traces the lineage of liberalism from problems of toleration that emerged when Christianity triumphed in the late centuries of classical antiquity, with comparison to non-Western civilizations. The political and philosophical story culminates in the recent development – over the past 30 to 50 years – of post-liberal ideologies in the West. At each stage, Blackford discusses arguments for and against liberal principles, identifying why no argument to date has been totally successful in convincing opponents, while maintaining that liberalism's ideas and language are still worth saving. From campus wars over academic freedom to the Charlie Hebdo attack and the murder of Samuel Paty, this is an indispensable guide for anyone wanting to understand the why, what and how of the post-liberal world.

Two expert authors combine a compelling critique of contemporary liberalism with post-liberal alternatives in politics, the economy, culture and international affairs, to provide the fullest account so far of the post-liberal alternative in Western politics.

The economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the unrest in the US following the unlawful death of George Floyd, and other sources of social unrest and insecurity, have brought to a head something that has been brewing in Western societies since the Great Recession of 2008: the disillusionment with liberal democracy as it evolved after World War II. Liberal political systems were characterized by a working compromise between capital and labor, between liberalism and socialism. This book analyzes how, and to what extent, the rise of populism and “identitarian” political movements, as well as the acceptance of world leaders who embody an authoritarian style of government, has undermined this compromise. Written by scholars from various disciplines, all of which share the Christian faith, it offers a snapshot of an intellectual debate among Christians who are deeply concerned about the world they live in, and who share their constructive proposals for a way forward after “liberalism as we know it.” The contributors address topics such as Christian alternatives to liberalism and populism, challenges to post-liberalism, trans-liberalism, and relational anthropology. Accordingly, the book will appeal to scholars who wish to reflect on the order of our society, and to anyone who shares the view that it is high time to rethink liberalism.

Liberalism is dying—despite its superficial appearance of vigor. Most of its adherents still believe it is the wave of the future, but they are clinging to a sinking dream. So says Melvyn L. Fein, who argues that liberalism has made countless promises, almost none of which have come true. Under its auspices, poverty was not eliminated, crime did not diminish, the family was not strengthened, education was not improved, nor was universal peace established. These failures were not accidental; they flow directly from liberal contradictions. In Post-Liberalism, Fein demonstrates why this is the case. Fein contends that an "inverse force rule" dictates that small communities are united by strong forces, such as personal relationships and face-to-face hierarchies, while large-scale societies are integrated by weak forces, such as technology and social roles. As we become a more complex techno-commercial society, the weak forces become more dominant. This necessitates greater decentralization, in direct opposition to the centralization that liberals celebrate. Paradoxically, this suggests that liberalism, as an ideology, is regressive rather than progressive. If so, it must fail. Liberals assume that some day, under their tutelage, these trends will be reversed, but this contradicts human nature and history's lessons. According to Fein, we as a species are incapable of eliminating hierarchy or of loving all other humans with equal intensity. Neither, as per Emile Durkheim, are we able to live in harmony without appropriate forms of social cohesion.

The book provides an original analysis of the central philosophical differences between liberal and postliberal theology. Knight argues that important developments in philosophy of language reveal serious problems with the central methodological commitments of liberalism and postliberalism and suggest ways in which the divide can be bridged.

John Gray has become one of our liveliest and most influential political philosophers. This current volume is a sequel to his Liberalisms: Essays in Political Philosophy. The earlier book ended on a sceptical note, both in respect of what a post-liberal political philosophy might look like, and with respect to the claims of political philosophy itself. John Gray's new book gives post-liberal theory a more definite content. It does so by considering particular thinkers in the history of political thought, by criticizing the conventional wisdom, liberal and socialist, of the Western academic class, and most directly by specifying what remains of value in liberalism. The upshot of this line of thought is that we need not regret the failure of foundationalist liberalism, since we have all we need in the historic inheritance of the institutions of civil society. It is to the practice of liberty that these institutions encompass, rather than to empty liberal theory, that we should repair.