MONKEY BUSINESSnLiberalism as a formidable political philosophynwas dead before the First WorldnWar. The negative critique (and in thenworld of affairs, the destruction) of socialnstatus, established religion, and traditionalnprivileges (for poor as well as for rich)nhad succeeded beyond the wildestndreams of the philosophes, but no onenwas satisfied, not the working classesnwho listened ever more eagerly to thensocialists, and not the intellectuals whonsuffered hunger pangs on the thin gruelnof rational individualism. Nietzsche andnMarx, Eliot and Brecht offered richernsustenance, and the 20th century hasnproved to be a cultural battlegroundnbetween right and left. The liberal intellectual,nlike the liberal artist, is almost ancontradiction in terms.nLeftist critics of liberalism, like AnthonynArblaster, have mounted a devastatingnattack on liberal capitalism, andnwhile there has been no lack of responsesnfrom the various liberal factions, noncredible defense of centrist liberalismnhas been produced. The exception thatnproves the rule is John Gray’s Liberalism,na solid and intelligent book by anphilosopher who soon defected to thenright. Among the most recent counterattacksnis Liberalism: Politics, Ideology,nand the Market by sociologist John A.nHall (Chapel Hill: University of NorthnCarolina Press; 254 pp., $24.95). AlthoughnHall’s analysis is not without itsngood points, it will take more than thisnto restore an outworn ideology to life.nHall takes on Arblaster as his mainntarget and disputes the conventionalnthesis that liberalism is inextricablynbound up with capitalism. (Among thenbook’s many shortcomings is Hall’s ignorancenof the spirited defense of liberalncapitalism mounted by neoconservativesnlike Michael Novak.) Capitalism,nin Hall’s view, is only a means to annend, and the end is a view of individualsnas “the seat of moral value, as of equalnworth.” One might argue that a greatnmany non-liberal moral philosophiesnREVISIONSnhave held a similar view, but there is, ofncourse, more to Stoicism, Epicureanism,nand Hume than simplemindednindividualism. Indeed, even Hall describesnthe core principles of liberalismnas “banal, spare.”nThere are intelligent liberals who saynfoolish things. One might mentionnRawls and Nozick at Mr. Hall’s university,nor down the road to New Haven,nBruce Ackerman and Douglas Rae, ornall the way South to Texas, the onlynphilosopher to hold a chair named afterna football coach, James Fishkin. But ofnthese serious liberals. Hall mentionsnonly his Harvard colleagues and dismissesnthem with a shrug. But Hall’snignorance is not limited to the 1980’s.nHis History of Ideas 101 discussion ofnHume could not have been written bynanyone who had read either AlasdairnMaclntyre or Donald Livingston.nWorse, he has to borrow MichaelnIgnatieff’s pop description of Hume’sndeathbed conversations with Boswell, asnif the source could not be obtained fromnany library. I thought Harvard professorsnhad graduate assistants who couldnread, even if the professor couldn’t, andnI also thought the University of NorthnCarolina Press had referees.nA more revealing flaw in Hall’s booknis his discussion of science. He is enthrallednwith the march of progressn(with which he connects both sciencenand liberalism) and can write, withoutnirony, of the blessings of peace andnhumanity that science has brought tonthe 20th century. He observes thatnwhatever its shortcomings, “thenscientific/industrial complex at leastngives us the possibility of decent behavior.”nWhat a wealth of naivete to packninto a single clause!nBut hand in hand with this touchingnfaith in science goes a near total ignorancenof anything that scientists mightnhave to say about the human conditionnor man as the social and political animal.nOf the revolutions in psychology,nanthropology, and biology, there isnhardly a word. Here is a mighty faith.nnnindeed. Like most liberals. Hall takes hisnview of human nature from the threenmonkeys: see no evil, hear no evil, andnspeak no evil.nA far different sort of optimism isnoffered by the primatologist Frans DenWaal in a wonderfully readable newnbook. Peacemaking Among Primatesn(Cambridge: Harvard University Press;n294 pp., $29.95). Even the most boringnprimatology affords more insight intonthe human condition than most politicalnsociology, and De Waal is never’nboring. In Peacemaking, he reviews thenexisting studies of conflict resolutionnamong monkeys and apes (both in thenwild and in captivity) and joins to themnhis own research on captive chimpanzeesnand rhesus monkeys. His purposenis the frankly philosophical, even ideologicalngoal “to correct biology’s bleaknorientation on the human condition.”nIn his earlier book. Chimpanzee Politics,nDe Waal had described in lovingndetail the mechanisms of social ordernemployed by man’s nearest relatives. Innhis latest book, he focuses in on thenproblems of conflict and resolution, warnand peace, in several species. The bestnchapters are as readable as a novel (DenWaal has more than once been chidednfor his exuberant anthropomorphism),nand what emerges is a general perceptionnof primates as ambitious schemers,ncoalition builders, murderers if necessary,nbut able and eager to resolve theirnconflicts peaceably wherever possible. Itnis only at the end that De Waal fallsnprey to the universalist sentimentalitynthat lies at the heart of liberalism: “Wenmust teach our children new goals,ndifferent skills, and global responsibility.n. . .” Surely the opposite conclusionnis to be drawn from his work—nthat man’s capacity for love is notninfinite but must be rooted in local andntribal attachments, and that to love ournuniversal neighbor as ourselves, wenmust begin by learning to love ournneighbor next door. (TF)nJULY 1989/35n