Beyond Symbolic Liberalism: Co-Creating the Common Good

Beyond Symbolic Liberalism:
Co-Creating the Common Good

in conversation with Sari Hanafi

About Sari Hanafi

“If democracy is to survive its current crisis, we don’t need louder certainties; we need better conversations,”

Sari Hanafi in Against Symbolic Liberalism: A Plea for Dialogical Sociology

Sari Hanafi is a Professor of Sociology and Director of the Center for Arab and Middle Eastern Studies at the American University of Beirut. He served as President of the International Sociological Association (2018–23) and Vice President of the Arab Council for Social Sciences (2015–16). An International Fellow of the British Academy, he was also the Editor of Idafat: The Arab Journal of Sociology (2007–22). His contributions to the field have been recognized with some of the Arab world’s most prestigious academic awards, including the Abdelhamid Shouman Award (2014) and the Kuwait Award for Social Science (2015). In 2019, he was awarded an Honorary Doctorate from the National University of San Marcos, Peru.

Sari Hanafi Wikipedia Page. Click here.

Sociology in the Arab World:
An Interview with Sari Hanafi. Click here.

Against Symbolic Liberalism:
A Plea for Dialogical Sociology

"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 imperilled, than ever. Against Symbolic Liberalism: A Plea for Dialogical Sociology (Liverpool UP, 2025) is not just a critique of polarization but a critical and impassioned call to reclaim meaningful intellectual discourse.

Morteza Hajizadeh (interviewer) is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature.

Key Themes in the Work

Core Concept: Symbolic Liberalism

Hanafi defines "symbolic liberalism" as a contradiction where individuals and institutions vocally support classical liberal principles—such as equality, human rights, and freedom of speech—while acting in politically illiberal ways.

The Contradiction: Proponents often use the language of progress and human rights to reproduce exclusion through identity-based dogmas or "elitist universalism".
Narrowing Dialogue: By inflating the universality of certain rights, symbolic liberals often narrow the space for actual dialogue, treating their own conceptions of "the good" as absolute and marginalizing dissent.
Pathologies: This trend is blamed for exacerbating modern issues like deep political polarization, the erosion of academic freedom, and rising authoritarianism.

The Solution: Dialogical Sociology

In place of rigid ideological posturing, Hanafi proposes a "Dialogical Political Liberal Project" rooted in what he calls "dialogical sociology".

Public Sphere Renewal: A call to reclaim the public sphere as a space for genuine conversation between diverse conceptions of the "common good".
Listening vs. Canceling: It advocates for a sociology that "listens, argues, and transforms" from within communities rather than imposing solutions from above.
Bridging Incommensurability: Hanafi suggests that even when political, cultural, or religious traditions seem incompatible, actors can reach an "overlapping consensus" through principled engagement rather than cancellation.

Key Arguments and Case Studies

Academic Freedom: The book discusses how "safetyism" and excessive identity politics on campuses have led even liberal institutions toward illiberal positions.
Gender and Diversity: Hanafi distinguishes between embracing (accepting and protecting rights) versus celebrating (actively campaigning for specific social reorganizations), arguing that the latter can alienate populations and drive them toward right-wing populism.
Historical Responsibility: He argues that liberalism must move beyond its "ahistorical foundations" to address past injustices without falling into the trap of performative or symbolic politics.

1. Introduction
2. From Classical Liberalism to Political Liberalism
3. Symbolic Liberalism
4. The Dialogical Liberal Project
5. Societal Polarisation and Academic Freedom
6. Secularism as Religion vs. Multicultural Secularism
7. Sexual and Gender Diversity: Embracing vs Celebrating
8. The Demise of Family Authority: The Case of Swedish Compulsory Child Removal
9. Conclusion

Co-Creating the Common Good

Visions of the Common Good

We live in a world where there are diverse and often competing conceptions of the common good:

Libertarian: “A good society is one in which individuals are free to pursue their own paths without unnecessary interference from the state.”
Religious Traditionalist: “A good society is one that reflects God’s will and upholds moral truths rooted in sacred teachings.”
Technofuturist: “A good society is one that uses technology to overcome limitations and create a better future for humanity.”
Ethnic Nationalist: “A good society is one that safeguards its cultural heritage and maintains the unity and identity of its people.”
Market-Oriented / Neoliberal: “A good society is one where free markets generate prosperity, innovation, and opportunities for all.”
Secular Individualist: “A good society is one that organizes public life without reliance on religious authority while prioritizing personal autonomy, self-expression, and the freedom to define one’s own identity and goals.”
Working-Class Populist: “A good society is one that protects ordinary people from elite domination and ensures dignity, fairness, and economic security for working families.”
Classical Liberal: “A good society is one that secures basic liberties for all and allows diverse ways of life to flourish side by side.”

Many people combine these into hybrid visions rather than holding any single view in pure form:

Market-Oriented + Technofuturist: “A good society is one where innovation and entrepreneurship drive technological progress and human advancement.”
Religious Traditionalist + Communitarian: “A good society is one where shared moral traditions and communities shape character and sustain social cohesion.”
Working-Class Populist + Nationalist: “A good society is one that protects ordinary people while preserving cultural identity and national solidarity.”
Classical Liberal + Secular Individualist: “A good society is one that secures basic rights while allowing individuals the freedom to define their own beliefs, identities, and ways of life.”

These differences—and combinations—can generate tension and misunderstanding, sometimes leading to violence.

The question, then, is whether people shaped by such divergent visions can genuinely engage in conversation with one another. The answer, says Sari Hanafi, is yes—but only if they approach dialogue with humility, recognize one another as subjects rather than stereotypes, and remain open to the possibility that each perspective expresses a partial truth that can be deepened, challenged, and, at times, woven into a more inclusive understanding of our shared life.

Hanafi's ideas may or may not resonate with Religious Traditionalists or Ethnic Nationalists, but they certainly resonate with classical liberals, who have traditionally been committed to pluralism and tolerance, seeking to create public spaces where people with competing visions of the common good can engage in dialogue. Indeed, pluralism is one of the key tenets of the post-liberal approach to civic society that I myself recommend. See Toward a Process Post-Liberalism: A Civic Creed in Twelve Theses.

And yet, as Hanafi explains, this commitment can become merely “symbolic”: professed in principle but undermined in practice when disagreement arises. In such cases, liberals exclude or dismiss views they find unreasonable, treating them not as conversation partners but as problems to be managed or silenced.

The result is a paradox: a framework designed to sustain dialogue can, under pressure, inhibit it and foster the very tensions it seeks to resolve. What is needed, Hanafi suggests, is a more genuinely dialogical liberalism—one grounded not only in abstract tolerance but in practices of listening, humility, and mutual recognition that make real engagement across difference possible. The liberals become, as it were, "symbolic liberals."

Who is Silenced by the Liberals?

Those most often silenced by symbolic liberals are those whose views fall outside the boundaries of what is deemed “reasonable” or “acceptable” in advance of dialogue. This can include religious traditionalists who ground their moral claims in sacred sources, working-class or populist voices that express distrust of elite institutions, and non-Western or culturally embedded perspectives that do not fit secular, individualist frameworks.

In such cases, exclusion does not always take the form of overt censorship; it can appear instead as dismissal, moral condescension, or a refusal to engage seriously. However, as Hanafi makes clear, such exclusion can also take the form of public policy, as when certain forms of clothing are outlawed in public spaces. The irony is that a commitment to pluralism becomes selective, extending openness only to those who already share its underlying assumptions, thereby narrowing rather than expanding the space of genuine conversation.

There are many traditions afoot in academic life that can help address this challenge—deliberative democracy, care ethics, critical theory, virtue ethics, pragmatism, and interreligious dialogue, among others. Two especially promising examples are the sociology of social love, which highlights practices of care, recognition, overabundance, and universal concern, and process philosophy, with its emphasis on relational listening, responsiveness, and openness to post-liberal points of view. These are not the only resources for moving beyond symbolic liberalism, but they offer complementary ways of deepening dialogue: one by emphasizing concrete social practices of love, and the other by cultivating habits of relational awareness and responsiveness in the very act of engagement.

The sociology of social love highlights concrete practices of care, recognition, overabundance, and universalism as forces that can reshape social life from within, while process philosophy invites a mode of engagement grounded in responsiveness, humility, and a willingness to be affected by others as subjects of experience. Together, they offer not a rejection of liberalism, but its transformation: a shift from merely tolerating difference to actively cultivating relationships across difference, where dialogue becomes a shared, ongoing practice of co-creating the common good.

However, it takes courage to embrace these ideas, especially among academic peers who are, in effect, symbolic liberals. To move toward a more dialogical liberalism requires risking one’s standing within established intellectual cultures—listening seriously to voices that may be deemed unreasonable, engaging perspectives that unsettle one’s assumptions, and resisting the subtle pressures to conform to prevailing norms of acceptability. It involves not only intellectual openness but also a kind of moral and relational vulnerability: a willingness to be changed by encounter. Without such courage, the aspiration to pluralism remains thin and procedural; with it, dialogue can become a genuinely transformative practice.

Can a Common Good Be Co-Created?

Can a common good be co-created amid conflicting notions of the common good? We ought not be naïve. The conflicts are often intense, and the convictions deeply held. Any plausible future for humanity will include ongoing disagreement, and at times sharp conflict. The hope, then, is not for the elimination of conflict, but for the cultivation of relationships in which conflicting parties remain in conversation—learning what they can from one another, even amid enduring differences, in a spirit of mutual coexistence.

It is imaginable, however, that over time divisions may soften. People may come to recognize the partial, finite truths embedded in opposing visions. After all, human beings need both security and adventure, roots and wings. Some visions lean toward rootedness, others toward freedom and exploration, but these are not necessarily irreconcilable. They may, in certain contexts, be held together.

Process philosophy offers one way of imagining this possibility. It emphasizes the transformation of conflict into richer forms of synthesis, not by erasing difference but by integrating it into more complex harmonies. It also suggests that there is a spirit at work in the world—an Eros of love—by which each person is invited to listen, to respond, and to participate in the ongoing creation of shared forms of life. In this sense, the insights of process philosophy converge with the sociology of social love.

Perhaps there is indeed an underground current of social love—a kind of karst river—flowing beneath the visible surface of social life, shaping possibilities in quiet and often unseen ways. This current, whether understood in human, divine, or relational terms, may be life-giving. Trust in this deeper flow of love does not eliminate conflict, but it can sustain hope: hope that, even amid division, more co-creative and compassionate forms of the common good may yet emerge.

Seminar on Social Love

in Arabic and English

"For a long time, love has been confined to the private sphere and its social dimension has been overlooked. Instead, love is a force capable of generating social bonds and change in human sociability. While classical sociologists, such as Simmel, Weber and Sorokin supported this idea, sociological schools of thought have long relegated this topic to the intimate and pre-social sphere. Nevertheless, in the last decades contemporary sociological theory and scholars have re-evaluated love as an essential element of public life. Adopting a sociological perspective, the seminar will be structured in two parts. The first part unveils the concept of social love as a kind of ‘Karst River’ that flows through the history of sociology, reassessing it as a form criticism by social actors of everyday life. Breaking the logic of instrumentality, calculation and standardization, love enables people to enter in a regime of overabundance which recognizes the irreducibility of the other. In this sense it can be a key element in the promotion of solidarity and recognition in current plural and unequal societies. The second part of the seminar will be devoted to show the results of empirical studies on social love, such as case studies, survey, and also the construction of an innovative World Love Index which aims to measure the level of unconditionality and overabounding present in different countries around the world."

Seminar: Social Love and the critical potential of people: When the social reality challenges the sociological imagination by Silvia Cataldi, Associate Professor of sociology, Sapienza University of Rome Gennaro Iorio, Professor of sociology, University of Salerno April 5, 2022