Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-2tv5m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-18T16:45:28.490Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hayek, Liberalism and Social Knowledge*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2009

Lawrence J. Connin
Lawrence J. Connin
Affiliation:
Penn State Altoona Campus
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Nobel prizewinner F. A. Hayek has spent his long career defending classical liberalism and the free market from those wishing to introduce planning and greater “rationality” into social life. As this study tries to show, Hayek's defence of market liberalism is predicated on his theory of social knowledge and how liberal principles and processes are best suited to cope with our limited ability to utilize this knowledge. He argues that we can cope best with our ignorance by resisting the temptations to set up centralized decision-making mechanisms and by accepting the discovery procedure of the market mechanism. Unlike other attempts to defend classical liberalism, Hayek offers a radically new knowledge-based foundation. If Marx's work could be labelled an economically-based sociology, Hayek's work could be labelled an epistemologically-based politics. But is his epistemological defence simply an ideological move to defend against attacks levelled at capitalism, or has he provided an indisputable foundation to justify the maintenance of liberal orders?

Résumé

F. A. Hayek, lauréat du prix Nobel, s'est consacré pendant sa longue carrière à défendre les thèses du libéralisme classique et de la libre entreprise contre ceux qui prônent la planification et une structuration sociale plus rationnelle. Nous nous proposons dans cette étude de montrer que la défense du libéralisme de marché par Hayek est basée sur sa théorie du savoir en société selon laquelle, étant donné nos capacités limitées à exploiter les connaissances existantes, il convient mieux d'y appliquer les principes et precédés libéraux. Selon son raisonnement, nous pouvons pallier à notre ignorance en ne cédant pas à la tentation d'établir des techniques générales de prise de décision et en acceptant le mode de découverte du processus spontané du marché. À l'encontre d'autres tentatives de défense du libéralisme classique, Hayek apporte un fondement tout à-fait nouveau basé sur la connaissance qu'il a de la société. Si l'oeuvre de Marx est une sociologie à base économique, celle de Hayek se présente comme une politique à base épistémologique. Se peut-il que sa défense épistémologique ne soit qu'une apologie idéologique pour contrecarrer les critiques du capitalisme? Ou y décèle-t-on un fondement incontestable pour justifier le maintien de l'ordre libéral?

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , June 1990 , pp. 297 - 315
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Laski, Harold J., The Rise of European Liberalism (London: Unwin Books, 1971), 17.Google Scholar

2 Ibid., 107.

3 See Hayek, F. A., “Kinds of Rationalism,” in Hayek, F. A., Studies in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967), 82–95.Google Scholar

4 Hayek, F. A., New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics, and the History of Ideas (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Spragens, Thomas A., The Irony of Liberal Reason (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), 10.Google Scholar

6 Ibid.

7 Unger, Roberto Mangabeira, Knowledge and Politics (New York: Free Press, 1975), 3.Google Scholar

8 See Gray, John N., Hayek on Liberty (Oxford: Martin Robertson, 1986), 4–8.Google Scholar

9 Hayek, New Studies, 36–37.

10 Hayek, Friedrich A., The Sensory Order (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951), 134.Google Scholar

11 Hayek, Friedrich A., Individualism and Economic Order (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948), 54.Google Scholar

12 Ibid., 77.

13 Hayek, New Studies, 236.

14 Ibid.

15 Hayek, Individualism and Economic Order, 193.

16 Hayek, F. A., The Fatal Conceit (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), 66.Google Scholar

17 Ibid., 61; emphasis in the original.

18 Ibid., 61–62.

19 Ibid., 62.

20 Ibid.

21 Ibid., 52.

22 Hayek, The Fatal Conceit, 25.

23 Bartley, W. W., III, “Philosophy of Biology versus Philosophy of Physics,” in Radnitzky, Gerard and Bartley, W. W., III (eds.), Evolutionary Epistemology, Rationality, and the Sociology of Knowledge (Lasalle, Ill.: Open Court, 1987), 24.Google Scholar

24 Ibid.

25 Hayek, “The Intellectuals and Socialism,” in Hayek, New Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics, 178–94.

26 Hayek, The Fatal Conceit, 53.

27 Ibid., 62.

28 Ibid., 80.

29 Ibid., 86.

30 For a critique of Hayek's epistemology see Miller, Eugene F., “Hayek's Critique of Reason,” Modern Age 20 (1976), 385–94.Google Scholar

31 Gray, Hayek on Liberty, 21.

32 Hayek, F. A., Law, Legislation and Liberty: A New Statement of the Liberal Principles of Justice, Vol. 3: The. Political Order of a Free People (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979Google Scholar), chap. 17.

33 Hayek, Friedrich A., The Constitution of Liberty (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), 29.Google Scholar

34 See Gray, John N., Liberalisms: Essays in Political Philosophy (London: Routledge, 1989), 264.Google Scholar

35 On this topic see the essays in Radnitzky and Bartley (eds.), Epistemology, Rationality, and the Sociology of Knowledge.

36 For a discussion of this point see Mazlish, Bruce, The Meaning of Karl Marx (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984), 118.Google Scholar

37 W. W. Bartley reports that when asked by people what he has learned from Karl Popper and Hayek he replies simply: “I learnt from Popper that we never know what we are talking about, and I learnt from Hayek that we never know what we are doing.” See W. W. Bartley, III, “Alienation Alienated: The Economics of Knowledge versus the Psychology and Sociology of Knowledge,” in Radnitzky and Bartley (eds.), Evolutionary Epistemology, Rationality, and the Sociology of Knowledge, 425.

38 Hayek, “Kinds of Rationalism,” in Hayek, New Studies, 87.

39 Quoted in Ibid., 88.