The individual versus society. According to James Stuart Mill.

I want to start with a series of posts focusing on liberty and on the individual. I chose to post this essay (the essay is actually longer, this is an edited version) that I wrote for one of my modules because James stuart Mill's view on liberty, as exposed in his book On Liberty, is the closest to my own. so here it goes:

          The concept of liberty is seen as one of the most important in today's liberal democratic world. Appearing in opposition to the tyrannical rule of the 17th century, the idea of liberty has been interpreted, over time, in different ways. Opposing the republican tradition of thinking about liberty, supported by Rousseau, John Stuart Mill writes in the 19th century about the threats that society poses to individual freedom. In 1859, Mill published On liberty, which focused on the way in which public opinion may limit personal liberty. As he announces from the beginning, “the subject of this essay is not the so-called Liberty of Will, so unfortunately opposed to the misnamed doctrine of Philosophical Necessity, but Civil, or Social Liberty: the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over individuals” (Mill, 1988:59).

          John Stuart Mill's ideas were rooted the utilitarianism of Bentham and James Mill. The rigorous education regime that his father imposed on him had a great impact on the way J. S. Mill related to the world. Wanting to form him as a future intellectual leader of the Philosophic Radicals movement, James Mill supervised the education of his son. Considering that general education was of a low standard, James Mill decided that his son should be prepared at home, in subjects such as Greek, Latin, Algebra, History and Political Economy (Williams, 1976:11). However, the degree of inflexibility of his education, together with the intolerance of public opinion in mid-Victorian England, caused him to fall in a depression in 1826. He blamed his education for this episode, saying that his mind was not set to feel happiness or the emotions of a situation, but to analyse that situation: “My education, I thought, had failed to create the feelings to resist the dissolving influence of analysis, while the course of my intellectual cultivation had made precocious and premature analysis the inveterate of my mind” (Mill, cited in Williams, 1976:13). This time of crisis influenced J.S. Mill's ideas. He came to believe that individualism was essential for human happiness (Williams, 1976:13) and that freedom is not just a precondition for progress but is an imperative part of it.

         Because he valued liberty as one of the most important condition for human progress, J. S. Mill argues that individuals should experience maximum freedom. He identifies not just the government as a threat to individual liberty but public opinion as well: “there is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence” (Mill, 2003:87). Isaiah Berlin explains that, in Mill's view, society should interfere as little as possible in an individual's life. In return, the individual should learn to respect the independence and the freedom of those around him (Berlin, 1969:139). Mill argues that society should not intervene in the life of the individual because the individual is the only one who can decide what is good and what is wrong for him. Any interference from outside would infringe individual liberty and, for Mill, “interference, denial of choice, coercion and encroachments on individuality are abhorrent” (Hamburger, 1999:4). 

       Mill sees individuality as a way of progress not just for the individual but for society as a whole. It is not just the individual who benefits from this freedom. A strong, independent and courageous individual is more likely to have initiatives and to bring change which would lead to progress. Society would also benefit if the individual develops a good and strong character because it would select these valuable traits and imitate them. Hamburger argues that “Mill celebrates individuality less for its intrinsic value than for its usefulness in helping bring about distant and political ends” (1999: 149). Individuality is heavily promoted by Mill in his writings because, he believes, only by allowing diversity and encouraging individuals to develop, society can identify the elements needed for it to evolve. Mill's perspective is that there should be no factor inhibiting diversity and that areas such as education should not be run by the state because it will result in the state “moulding people to be exactly like one another” (Bentley, 1987:42).  

         In On Liberty, Mill argues that there is only one situation in which society can rightfully interfere in the way a person conducts his life and that situation is created when an individual's actions harm, in any way, those around him: “the only purpose for which a state can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his own will, is to prevent harm to others” (Mill, 2003: 95). However, if a person harms himself with his actions, the community does not have any right to interfere. Society may try to change his mind but it does not have any right to force that person to stop hurting himself. Mill promotes this form of negative liberty because, he considers, society lacks the authority to impose help on the individual as he is sovereign over his mind and body and the only one who can decide what is truly good for him. Barbara Goodwin concludes that Mill believed unequivocally that society should not interfere to prevent somebody from harming himself (2001:331).

      Mill links individuality to freedom of thought and discussion and considers these liberties as essential for the development of both individuals and society. A healthy, evolving society can only be reached if everybody had the right to express and protect their opinions and ideals. Debate would be encouraged if everybody would have a strong voice and would communicate their problems and solutions. Society would benefit by this because it would identify problems faster and would be able to choose the best solutions for those problems from those advocated by individuals. However, Heywood argues that this would only be possible if people were more informed about the needs of others and more tolerant (2007:35). Freedom of thought and speech would guarantee that the risk of manipulation is eliminated.. People's opinion could not be manipulated by any populist idea if all the individuals would be able to question what they were told. That would lead to a more general acceptance of the direction in which the community is heading. Mill argues that society has to accept that each individual has a right to fight for its opinion to be heard and that the community has no right in asking that person to give up their belief: “if all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would not be more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind” (Mill, 2003:98).

         Mill considers that people should not only be allowed to speak their mind but they should be free to pursue the ideals that they think might bring them happiness. Their lifestyle is self-regarding and every individual should be free to conduct their life in the way they desire. 'Liberty of tastes and pursuits' is considered by Mill as a basic precondition for the development of individuality (Jones, 2002:89). His argument is that the individual should be free to choose his own lifestyle because this would lead to more experiences and innovations from which society can benefit. If society tries to impose a way of life on the individual, the result would be a slower advancement and progress would be delayed due to a lack of experiences from which society could learn. Diversity of lifestyles would enhance the possibility of finding a better way of life. Originality, diversity, independence of state and mind are, thus, qualities that should be valued and embraced, not suppressed, even if the majority does not agree with them. 

        We might argue that Mill considers individuality from the utilitarian point of view. Diversity and originality lead to advancement and progress and it brings not just individual happiness but it also benefits the entire community as it encourages progress. 'The greatest good for the greatest number' principle can be used in defending individualism. Mill's view of individuality was criticised by some on the grounds that his opinion on human nature was too positive. James Fitzjames Stephen that Mill became a “rather simple-minded optimist” and that On Liberty “was a product of a mere worshipper of variety” (Halliday, 1976:114).

Other critics point out that the individuality promoted by Mill in On Liberty goes against the utilitarian ideas that he advocated. Negative liberties as those advocated by him may go against the utilitarian ethic theory. Isaiah Berlin agrees with the fact that Mill's ideas might be contradictory but he argues that Mill treasures the freedom of the individual: “At the centre of Mill's thought and feeling lies, not his utilitarianism […] but his passionate belief that men are made human by their capacity for choice – choice of evil and good equally” (Berlin, 1969: 192).

         But the main critic for Mill's argument in favour of individuality is linked to the idea that society can interfere in one's life when that person is harming others. But what qualifies as 'harm' to others? In a society where individuals are closely connected to one another, there is a thin line between self regarding actions and actions that affect others. Actions that might be defined as self regarding can turn out to affect others. For example, drugs are only harmful physically to the user but society bears the costs for any treatment that the user might need to improve his health, which has been damaged by the use of drugs. Moreover, those around that person might be emotionally hurt and their happiness would be affected. However, Mill refers to the direct impact of an action as a criteria on which to decide if the action is self regarding or not. He also differentiates between objective injury and subjective offence. Furthermore, Stefan Collini argues that Mill's 'harm' principle “places the onus of producing evidence of 'harm' on the proposers of interference, and, even more important, it rules out intervention on any other basis” (cited in Jones, 2002:95).

          We can argue that Mill's view on individuality is a reaction to the Victorian way of life, and that he promoted tolerance and diversity as means for progress. Hamburger (1999:87) suggests that On Liberty challenges the Church's influence in the period. Though Mill valued Christian morality because it provided good examples (Devigne, 2006:140), he believed that the Church, as an institution, was a factor that subdues free speech and the liberty of mind.
Convinced that man was a progressive being, John Stuart Mill identified individuality as a source of progress. Unlike Rousseau, who advocates the idea of society forcing an individual to follow the popular will and to be free according to general standards, Mill sees as abhorrent any attempt of society to involve itself in individuals' lives. Tolerance should be a characteristic of society and the majority does not have any right to impose a 'tyranny of the majority'. What is important about Mill's ideas is that he identifies a social component as a threat to liberty. While it is easier to change a ruler that inhibits freedom, it is much harder to protect the individual from 'the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling'.



Read More:

Bentley, M.,(1987) British Liberalism in Theory and Practice 1868-1918

Berlin, I., (1969) Four essays on Liberty, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Capaldi, N., (2004), John Stuart Mill, A Biography, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Devigne, R., (2006), Reforming Liberalism: John Stuart Mill's use of Ancient, Christian, Liberal and Romantic Moralities, Yale: Yale University Press

Goodwin, B. (2001), 4th edn, Using Political Ideas, London, John Wiley and Sons, Ltd

Jones, T., (2002) Modern political thinkers and ideas. An historic introduction. London: Routledge

Hamburger, J., (1999), John Stuart Mill on Liberty & Control, Princeton: Princeton University Press

Halladay, R.J., (1976) John Stuart Mill, London: George Allen &Unwin Ltd

Heywood, A., (2007) 4th ed., Political Ideologies. An Introduction, London: Palgrave Macmillan

Mill, J.S., (2003), On Liberty, Yale: Yale University Press

Williams, G. L., (1976) John Stuart Mill on Politics and Society, Glasgow:Fontana Press