In an era of deepening polarization, Sari Hanafi examines how social scientists often reproduce the very injustices they seek to challenge, taking entrenched positions while dismissing alternative perspectives.
He introduces the concept of symbolic liberalism – a contradiction in which individuals espouse classical liberal principles, yet act in politically illiberal ways. This, he argues, has exacerbated the pathologies of late modernity: authoritarianism, economic precarity and environmental destruction, now all unfolding in a climate where reasonable debate seems increasingly impossible.
Examining key flashpoints of contemporary polarization, Hanafi critiques how symbolic liberalism inflates the universality of rights while simultaneously narrowing the space for dialogue. Rather than this rigid ideological stance, he calls for a dialogical turn, a renewed public sphere where diverse conceptions of the “common good” engage in genuine conversation.
Blending political and moral philosophy with sociological critique, Hanafi offers a path forward in an age when intellectual exchange is more necessary, yet also more imperiled, than ever. Against Symbolic Liberalism is not just a critique of polarization but a critical and impassioned call to reclaim meaningful intellectual discourse.
This book comes not only from his local and regional reflections on our late modernity and its pathologies but also from the author’s research agenda in the last five years related to his involvement with the International Sociological Association (ISA) as its President (2018–23), during which he made three calls: the first in his candidacy speech for the ISA presidential election calling for a “global sociology,” with specific qualifications; the second in the middle of his mandate for connecting sociology to moral philosophy and third, his call in the Melbourne Congress of June 2023 for Dialogical Sociology.
Liberalism and its Avatars
Combining reflection, statistical analysis and ethnographic vignettes, this book is structured in two parts. The first part offers a theoretical exploration of liberalism and its various manifestations, tracing its evolution from the foundational ideas of classical liberalism to the political liberalism of John Rawls. He argues in favor of liberalism as a “thin” theory – one grounded in core principles – while critically examining where it has gone astray when interpreted as a “thick” theory, shaped and implemented by self-identified liberals (Chapter 1). Building on this, Chapter 2 focuses on symbolic liberals, unpacking how they distort the concept of justice by diminishing the significance of social justice while overemphasizing the universality of human rights, ultimately imposing a singular conception of the good.
Dialogical Political Liberal Project
In response to the symbolic liberal project, Chapter 3 introduces his call for a Dialogical Political Liberal Project, a framework that aligns with and extends the principles of Dialogical Sociology. Sociology will be dialogical when it disentangles its commitment to civil society at two levels: the level of mediation, or soft normativity, and the level of strong normativity. At the first level, sociology provides scientific research that is important for public reason debates and social movements. It is a moment of soft normativity, as the very scientific questions themselves carry moral presuppositions. It entails the possibility of providing knowledge to governments or organizations whose actions we don’t always agree with. This sociology believes that despite the incommensurability of some modes of reasoning and political, cultural and religious traditions, actors can engage with each other through a dialogue and reach sometimes overlapping consensus. This is not only in line with the theories of Rawls and Habermas, but also with Durkheim’s vision of a sociology that promotes social cohesion, or what he terms social solidarity. The mediation level always operates within the framework of universal social justice, including the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and social welfare rights.
The second level is strong normativity, where sociology not only engages with civil society and the civil sphere but also takes a position in favor of marginalized groups against hegemonic power, and defends those values dear to sociology.
The author is worried when sociology analytically conflates the two levels or offers no distinction between providing scientific knowledge/critical thinking and position-taking or policy formulation – or worse, neglects the first level and becomes incapable of engaging with all strata of society.
Societal intolerance and academic freedom
In the second part of the book, he explores four key themes of polarization, examining how they have been addressed by symbolic liberals and how the Dialogical Political Liberal Project can help mitigate their effects.
In Chapter 4, on societal intolerance in general and specifically in relation to academic freedom, he shows how political polarization and cancel culture as political silencing are exercised by both symbolic liberals and conservatives. Each group becomes rigid and dogmatic. This results in a sharp increase in politically motivated dismissals of faculty, in the number and success of politically motivated attempts to stop invited speakers from speaking, and in politically motivated disciplinary measures against students; as well as in a chilling effect on lecturers and institutions that may lead to complete avoidance of sensitive topics. More than that, this induces a normative transformation, as political silencing and persecution are increasingly viewed as worthy and legitimate. What is very alarming is how campuses, a locus of liberal arts, have moved into illiberal positions under the effect of the eroding of their autonomy and the extreme polarization among faculty and students with the “safetyism” of (new managerial) administrators.
The author spells out a dilemma of academic freedom in the time of symbolic liberalism and excessive identity politics. Here, clearly, there is a tension between academic freedom and “diversity, equity and inclusion” (DEI). The issue is how to make the mission of sociology and related sciences to investigate marginalized people and historic injustices without excessive identity politics and disinvitation campaigns. The latter makes campuses vulnerable to attacks from both politicians of symbolic liberalism and the populist Right against their autonomy. Sometimes these politicians will use their power in government or parliament to pass illiberal bills, such as the 2021 Danish bill damning “excessive activism in research environments”.
Secularism against religion
Symbolic liberals’ secularism, discussed in Chapter 5, becomes a religion against other religions (usually foreign religions such as Islam, in Europe). Here, the author is thinking more particularly about how symbolic liberals’ France deals today with the “Muslim problem” and how these citizens who refuse to be assimilated provide French society with a mirror. A crooked, passion-laden mirror in which to see a reflection of its own identity and societal problems, and its tough conception of secularism. Instead of taking France as a paradig- matical model for secularism, he proposed a soft/multicultural secularism that is not so divisive and would be necessary and even indispensable to each society. The new framework of the relationship between religion and state in a post-secular society allows a certain permeability between what has been dissociated for so long: religion and state, ethics and politics and religious and secular arguments in the public sphere. Secularism is merely a mechanism – albeit one largely capable of effectively affirming the values of the Dialogical Liberal Project in society.
Gender and sexual diversity: Embracing vs celebrating
In Chapter 6, he distinguished between embracing gender diversity – accepting, tolerating, and refraining from discrimination – versus celebrating it, which involves actively campaigning for it and considering it beneficial to society. This distinction is not anecdotal; it is a strategic approach to advancing the rights and societal recognition of vulnerable sexual and gender groups. He observes how individuals in Western democracies shift toward the Right when they feel that symbolic liberals impose gender fluidity and a sex spectrum as fundamental principles for reorganizing society, framing them as a conception of justice (i.e., non-discrimination against LGBTQ individuals). The Dialogical Political Liberal Project seeks to contextualize sexuality and gender identity within cultural frameworks while adhering to the minimum standards of human rights established by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights conventions. It operates through a process of disentangling gender discourse – addressing both gender fluidity and anti-gender campaigns – by distinguishing between justifications based on conceptions of justice and those rooted in the plurality of conceptions of the good. The project advocates for keeping the debate open on how to reconcile the perspectives of those who wish to express their sexuality in the public sphere with those who prefer to confine it to the private sphere. While the Dialogical Political Liberal Project acknowledges and praises the critical role feminist and LGBTQ movements have played in advancing the rights of women and sexual minorities, it also calls for greater tolerance of diverse feminist perspectives.
Undermining family authority
Finally, in Chapter 7, Hanafi continues in his critique of the attempt of symbolic liberals to undermine family authority by demonstrating how the Swedish state and its symbolic liberals violate their ideals by forcibly removing children from supposedly abusive parents. He makes it clear that he has no nostalgia for the traditional family, but he doesn’t think that in this neoliberal world we can leave individuals to be devoured by the market or the state, whether democratic, populist, or authoritarian. However, he does believe that because we are in the neoliberal age, the family is a salient social structure for protecting individuals vis-à-vis the coercion of the state and the market and for providing material and also emotional support for their offspring. The way in which the neoliberal state uses its authority and that of the school/social service over the family’s authority, instead of complementing it, is problematic. Being “seedbeds of virtue”, Hanafi argues that we should not undermine the family (at least in level 1 of our commitment to civil society). The family has traditionally been a force for stability, socialization and the nurturing of moral behavior. He does not believe that the growing gap between generations can be celebrated by any intellectual tradition, especially as children spend less time talking with their parents and even less with their grandparents. Nor does he see intrinsic value in the trend of erasing social boundaries – whether in terms of gender or the distinction between children and adults. These boundaries have an anthropological depth that can, of course, be negotiated across political, cultural and generational contexts.
Ultimately, this book is filled with hope and possibility – a galvanizing alternative to the cynicism that pervades contemporary politics. The Author has proposed some alternatives and measures, but he trusts that readers will conceive of others. This requires searching for common ground and building bridges between polarized and divided groups. It also demands embracing a complex, multidimensional and multilayered theorization of the pathologies and uncertainties of our late modernity.