__________________________________________________________________ Gabriele Ciampini Bertrand de Jouvenel and Contemporary Liberalism Bertrand de Jouvenel was one of the most important French liberal thinkers of the last century . His most important work , Du Pouvoir ( Jouvenel , 1945 ), was a history of political power from the Middle Ages to the contemporary age . He wanted to show that the state , during this period , tended to grow constantly and to jeopardize individual freedoms . The nature of Jouvenel ’ s liberal thought has been analyzed by authors such as Daniel Mahoney ( 1995 ) and Olivier Dard ( 1998 ). If we look at the critical literature on Jouvenel , we can realize that this thinker is commonly regarded only as a liberal political philosopher . Mahoney has written : In the years between 1945 and 1968 , Jouvenel produced an impressive body of work belonging to the tradition known as conservative liberalism . These writings explored the growth of state power in modern times , the difficult but necessary task of articulating a conception of the common good appropriate to a dynamic , ‘ progressive ’ society , and the challenge of formulating a political science that could reconcile tradition and change while preserving the freedom and dignity of the individual ( Mahoney , 2005 , p . 5 ). Gabriele Ciampini holds a doctorate in political theory from the University of Florence and Paris-Sorbonne University . He currently lectures on history of political thought at Universidad Francisco Marroquín ( Guatemala ). This view has certainly a base of truth , since in his major works , Du pouvoir and De la souveraineté , he displays his conception of history saying that it is part of the anti-statist tradition . Jouvenel , all along his various works includes many elements belonging to the philosophy developed by Alexis de Tocqueville . Jouvenel intends to illustrate the historical genesis by which the Power of State ( capital P is used to distinguish State power from other powers found in any human society ) gradually acquires more and more importance : the author has described the road traveled by Power from the Middle Ages to the present , trying to demonstrate how in feudal times it was kept under control by intermediate bodies , represented by the aristocracy . Jouvenel says that Power is structurally characterized by a tendency to acquire an increasing number of prerogatives . In this way , the totalitarian systems of the 20 th century do not represent “ mishaps ”, but a foreseeable pattern of progressive growth of government in modern societies . This growth began centuries ago , during the period in which the sovereigns began to fight against the privileges of the aristocracy which threatened to control the central Power . For Jouvenel , society should be characterized by the presence of intermediate Laissez-Faire , No . 50-51 ( Marzo-Sept 2019 ): 1-13

__________________________________________________________________ bodies that put an end to State Power . With the French Revolution , everything changed . Its staunchest defenders , the Jacobins , called for the direct intervention of the People in political life . After the French Revolution , as followers of Robespierre , they were not only willing to respect the popular will , but to punish those who did not comply with the government ’ s decisions , supporting the purge of Terror . Their goal was the complete realization of the democratic ideal . According to this view , the People was seen as the source of political sovereignty , as the holder of a non-debatable opinion . For Jouvenel , this conception legitimates an abnormal extension of Power . In order to illustrate the similarities between Jouvenel and the Austrian school of economics , it is important to speak about some elements of the political philosophy of Friedrich August von Hayek , the most important Austrian liberal theorist . Jouvenel and Hayek were members of the Mont Pelerin Society from its foundation in 1947 onwards . In addition , the second half of the 20 th century saw the birth of many institutes of liberal political culture , which organized activities , seminars and conferences , at which Jouvenel was often present . For example , shortly after the end of the Second World War the Fédération économique européenne and the Liberal International Exchange were established . 1 In order to analyze Hayek ’ s vision , it is necessary to note that the basis of his thought is constituted by the observation that all human knowledge is in itself limited . Above all , he wants to demonstrate that man ’ s actions inherently lead him into error . For this reason it is dangerous to insert human action into a larger design handed down from above in order to shape society according to criteria that are seemingly objective . Who decides , for example , what is the common good ? How can one find , in a complex society like that which characterizes contemporary nation-states , the lowest common denominator of interests and expectations that concern all citizens ? The criticism that Hayek makes of socialism , statism , and all those theories that presume to impose a specific type of society without regard to the individual will , is radical : There are two ways of looking at the pattern of human activities which lead to very different conclusions concerning both its explanation and the possibilities of deliberately altering it … . The first view holds that human institutions will serve human purposes only if they have been deliberately designed for these purposes , often also that the fact that an institution exists is evidence of its having been created for a purpose , and always that we should so re-design society and its institutions that all our actions will be wholly guided by known purposes . … The other view , which has slowly and gradually advanced since antiquity but for a time was almost entirely overwhelmed by the more glamorous constructivist view , was that that orderliness of society which greatly increased the effectiveness of individual action was not due solely to institutions and practices which had been invented or designed for that purpose , but was largely due to a process described at first as “ growth ” and later as “ evolution ” … . 2 The two ways of thinking about the development of a society consisted , on the one hand , in the teleological conception ( socialism , statism and collectivism ), which wanted to point the human com- 1Moreover , Jouvenel published an article in a 2 book edited by Hayek ( Jouvenel , 1954 ). Hayek ( 1973-1979 ), I , p . 8-9 . __________________________________________________________________ 2

__________________________________________________________________ munity toward a predetermined end ; the other , in the nomocratic conception , typical of liberal regimes . Hayek , defending the latter vision , asserts that individual interactions are able to produce a “ spontaneous order ” that has no need of external impositions . The will to build an artificial political order regardless of the actual will of individuals has the aim of creating greater social justice by pursuing policies aimed at income redistribution . By comparing the political theory of Jouvenel laid out in the previous chapter with the philosophy of Hayek , we can see several similarities . Hayek ’ s epistemological thought ( concerning the impossibility of knowing the subjective expectations of the individual ) is the basis of his interpretation of totalitarianism . Totalitarianism is associated with a teleolocratic and finalistic vision of human society , whose final stage of development is a kind of “ heaven on earth ”. In reality , no political regime can be constituted by a pervasive control of every aspect , but is always the result of spontaneous interaction between individuals . We can therefore begin our analysis of the connection between Hayek and Jouvenel , focusing on the criticism of planning developed in Law , Legislation and Liberty . It is necessary to clarify that for Hayek ideologies like socialism , collectivism and statism have the same epistemological basis regarding the approach to social problems . They have the mentality behind constructivism , namely the belief that it is possible to model the human community from above . The main issue regarding Hayek is not , therefore , an ethical one . He is not interested in what socialism aims to achieve ( greater social equality ), but questions whether that purpose is actually reachable . Jouvenel also criticized the socialists and all those calling for a stronger role of the state in alleviating social tensions , without taking into account the limited possibilities of human knowledge . Socialists do not consider the subjective expectations of each individual regarding the future . But in the view of Hayek and Jouvenel , all members of society will tend to organize their lives according to their own expectations , thus any attempt to organize society according to criteria which ignore individual desires is utopian . Any attempt in this direction will lead , in the Hayekian perspective , to a reduction of individual freedom . It is obvious that no civil servant or political class may have a knowledge of the will of every member of society . If the members of the ruling class try to organize society in order to realize the “ common good ”, they demonstrate that they have a collectivist vision . They see the community they want to administer within a statist vision , without regard to the legitimate desire for individual freedom . The weak point in the autonomy of the individual is in the fact that the “ common good ” ends up coinciding with the particular conception that those who govern the state have of it . The parallel here with Jouvenel is clear . In Jouvenel ’ s view , any such endeavour could not but lead to a lessening of individual freedom . It was clear that no ruling class would ever fully know the desires of its citizenry . Ideally , political oligarchies strived to organize society in such a way as to further the “ common good ”. However , they had a collectivist , “ statist ” vision of the society they wished to rule , with little , if any , consideration of legitimate aspirations for individual free- __________________________________________________________________ 3

__________________________________________________________________ dom . The modern conception of common good would end up coinciding with the particular beliefs shared by the oligarchy governing the state at any given time . All societies are characterized by a governing élite , and a mass of citizens who , wholly or partially , are deprived of their freedom and power of choice . As known , Hayek ’ s philosophy was not representative of the élites ’ theory . However , starting from this “ elitist ” interpretation , it is possible to analyze the common positions between this author and Jouvenel : the common good coincides with a particular vision shared by the oligarchy governing the State at a given time . Hayek in fact affirms : There are many kinds of services which men desire but which , because if they are provided they cannot be confined to those prepared to pay for them , can be supplied only if the means are raised by compulsion . Once an apparatus for coercion exists , and particularly if this apparatus is given the monopoly of coercion , it is obvious that it will also be entrusted with supplying the means for the provision of such “ collective goods ”, as the economists call those services which can be rendered only to all the members of various groups . But though the existence of an apparatus capable of providing for such collective needs is clearly in the general interest , this does not mean that it is in the interest of society as a whole that all collective interests should be satisfied . A collective interest will become a general interest only in so far as all find that the satisfaction of collective interests of particular groups on the basis of some principle of reciprocity will mean for them a gain in excess of the burden they will have to bear . Though the desire for a particular collective good will be a common desire of those who benefit from it , it will rarely be general for the whole of the society which determines the law , and it becomes a general interest only in so far as the mutual and reciprocal advantages of the individuals balance . But as soon as government is expected to satisfy such particular collective , though not truly general , interests , the danger arises that this method will be used in the service of particular interests . It is often erroneously suggested that all collective interests are general interests of the society ; but in many instances the satisfaction of collective interests of certain groups may be decidedly contrary to the general interests of society . 3 Hayek affirms , like Jouvenel , that redistributive policies imply a turn in the direction of a totalitarian state , where the state takes the place of free individual initiative in determining the future of the people . The crux of the Hayekian critique of socialism is epistemological , not moral or political . The human community is not reducible to a set of abstract norms valid only for those who hold power temporarily . Society is a conglomeration of complex human beings precisely because there is a predetermined order . The peculiar character of the problem of a rational economic order is determined precisely by the fact that the knowledge of the circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess . The economic problem of society is thus not merely a problem of how to allocate “ given ” resources — if “ given ” is taken to mean given to a single mind which deliberately solves the problem set by these “ data ”. It is rather a problem of how to 3Hayek ( 1973-1979 ), II , p . 6 . __________________________________________________________________ 4