A liberalism gone wrong? Muscular liberalism and the quest for monocultural difference

Abstract

On 5 February 2011, the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, addressed the Munich Security Conference on the theme of ‘radicalisation and Islamic extremism’. In his view this was the ‘root cause of the problem’ of ‘home-grown terrorism’ that allegedly thrived in an environment of passive tolerance, a liberalism gone wrong. The solution asserted Cameron was for British society (and by extension Western societies in general) to promote actively those values that allegedly defined it. What was needed was ‘a much more active, muscular liberalism’. This was a curious suggestion given that such an idea harks back to a much earlier time when Britannia still ruled the waves. It might well be dismissed as a throwaway line, if it was not for the fact that it was presented as a solution to a specific problem allegedly rooted in the specific context of managing diasporas and their attendant identities. But what is this idea of ‘muscular liberalism’? What does the resurrection of this mostly forgotten use of the idea of ‘muscularity’ signify in the current era? What might the Prime Minister's appeal to this sort of language mean in terms of illuminating the temper of our times? This paper aims to explore those questions. It is argued that the invocation of ‘muscular liberalism’ is more than a revealing discursive shift exposing the insecurities generated by the presence and political influence of diasporic cultures, as others have rightly noted. Beyond these insecurities lie even deeper fears, specifically that liberalism may be succeeding in empowering those who have previously been considered unimportant or unworthy of inclusion within the idea of British identity. Muscular liberalism, it is argued, is all about ensuring that the very values taken to be archetypically liberal are simultaneously applauded and neutralised.