A Critique Of Overlapping Consensus Theory In The Perspective Of Historical Materialism

Liberalism,the dominant ideology of American society,is suffering from a crisis of consensus.Rawls,as a giant of liberalism,is a "savior" of liberalism in essence,and the overlapping consensus theory is the result of this effort.Rawls said that "Marx is the greatest opponent of liberalism," and among Marx’s many profound critiques,one thing is consistent: the revelation of the "ahistoricity" of the liberal view of history,such as Proudhon’s history as "high above time and space".Time and space are the constitutive elements of history and the existential conditions for the free and comprehensive development of human beings.Under the vision of historical materialism,critiquing Rawls’ theory of overlapping consensus and examining the crisis of liberalism can help uphold Marx’s critique of liberalism in the new era and enhance the ability to recognize the penetration of liberal ideology,thus providing useful lessons for the construction of socialist ideology.The vision of overlapping consensus theory is that the various unifying philosophical,religious and moral doctrines in a pluralistic society can agree on some principle of political justice,such as justice as fairness.However,this theory faces a double dilemma in time and space: in time,the three stages of the overlapping consensus,"expediency,constitutional consensus,and overlapping consensus," have broken down in reality,as manifested by extremism,constitutional crises,and fundamental philosophical differences that undermine this path.In the spatial dimension,the "rational pluralism and public rationality" have caused the absence of consensus subjects in the real history,and the "original state and extended argumentation" have caused the singularity of consensus contents.The double dilemma of time and space dimensions makes the overlapping consensus a non-historical consensus.According to the idea of historicity in historical materialism,history is developmental rather than final in the temporal dimension,and synergistic rather than single-willed in the spatial dimension.The overlapping consensus’ s ahistorical dilemma is manifested in the theoretical assumption of homogeneity with the finality of history in the temporal dimension,which undermines the developmental nature of history,and in the spatial dimension,which undermines the synergetic nature of history by appealing to the single will of the principle of political justice.The root of this is the "historical dichotomy" used by Rawls-the division of history into political and non-political spheres,allowing the latter to reach a consensus on the former.But as the boundaries between the two spheres in real history converge,this division can lead to a wider range of disagreements,which is clearly contrary to the original intent of the theory of overlapping consensus.Historical materialism reveals that the ahistorical consensus theory,represented by the overlapping consensus theory,is a manifestation of the ahistorical ills of liberal ideology: it boasts of freedom,rationality,and tolerance,but in real history it fails to confront and accommodate identity subjects with irrational values,and instead excludes them from the consensus agenda,resulting in a lasting social division.In contrast,historical consensus not only confronts the existence of irrationality,but also reduces the division between the political and non-political spheres to a whole history,so that people can develop their identity.When historical consensus becomes a historical ideology,it will play a cohesive and leading role in social development.