No man is an island. By Ingemund Hägg 2. John Stuart Mill, liberalism and flawed attacks by anti-liberals 1. The human being

Transcription

1 No man is an island John Stuart Mill, liberalism and flawed attacks by anti-liberals 1 By Ingemund Hägg 2 The human being It is important to now and then take a new look on what liberal thinkers have written, sometimes long ago. We can get insights relevant for liberalism and liberal policy today. When choosing my particular theme No man is an island I thought of some attacks on basic liberal principles by anti-liberals. We can hear the following from anti-liberal thinkers: Liberalism sees the human being as a free floating atom, as an isolated island, as standing alone, as an individual acting in its own interest, an interest which is narrowly personal, defined in a world without any other human beings. This type of characterization as an isolated island is used in attacks both from collectivistic socialist thinkers and from communitarian thinkers. How valid is that description of liberalism? I started by rereading my old copy of John Stuart Mill s On Liberty which I had not opened for many years. 3 Not maybe unexpectedly I came to conclusions that the characterizations of liberalism by antiliberal thinkers are not very valid. The title of this article, No man is an island, is a nice phrase which originates from the poet John Donne in the beginning of the 17 th century, written in a context that has not much to do with liberalism. Still I find this phrase highly pertinent, catching ideas in liberalism as expressed by Mill on the individual in a context. On Liberty was published in In his Autobiography Mill writes that the book actually is a joint product with his wife Harriet Taylor: There was not a sentence of it that was not several times gone through by us together (Autobiography, p. 150) The Liberty is likely to survive longer than anything else that I have written. (Op. cit., p.150) I agree. The small book (about 110 pages) is worth reading and considering also today. Mill on the individual and on individuality I start with a few quotations that show how Mill sees the human being. Men should be free to act upon their opinions to carry these out in their lives, without hindrance, either physical or moral, from their fellow-men, so long as it is at their own risk and peril (On Liberty, p. 114) From this liberty of each individual, follows the liberty, within some limits, of combination among individuals; freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others (Op. cit., p. 75) It is not by wearing down into uniformity all that is individual in themselves, but by cultivating it, and calling it forth, within the limits imposed by the rights and interests of others, that human beings become a noble and beautiful object of contemplation (Op. cit., p. 120) We note that Mill argues against coercion and oppression in different forms that limit development of individuality. Individuality and its development is for Mill what is important, not individualization as such. 1 This paper is a revised version (May 2012) of a talk given 26 April 2012 on the occasion of the European Liberal Forum (ELF) General Assembly in Brussels. With the title No man is an island perspectives from J.S. Mill and others it was a keynote speech on the ELF theme Traditions of Liberalism. 2 Ingemund Hägg is professor emeritus at Uppsala University in Sweden. He is member of the board of trustees of the Bertil Ohlin Institute, liberal think tank in Sweden (of which he was co-founder). He has been active in ELF since its start and involved in projects there. He was president of the World Federation of Liberal and Radical Youth in the 1960ies and then active in the Liberal International where he was member of the Bureau in the late 1980ies. He was awarded the title of Patron of the Liberal International in addresses: ingemund.hagg@fek.uu.se, ingemund@ingemund.se 3 I could have started with other classical liberals as well, for example John Locke. But Mill was so appealing to me. 1

2 In proportion to the development of his individuality, each person becomes more valuable to himself, and is therefore capable of being more valuable to others (Op. cit., p.121) In this quotation we notice that Mill recognizes that no man is an island and this is developed in the following quotation: How (it may be asked) can any part of the conduct of a member of society be a matter of indifference to the other members? No person is an entirely isolated being; it is impossible for a person to do anything seriously or permanently hurtful to himself, without mischief reaching at least to his near connections, and often far beyond them (Op. cit., p.136) My (selective) reading of Mill not only the quotations I have given - leads me to a view of an individual that is not an isolated atom, limited in her or his actions to narrow self-interest, but including the advancement of other individuals. We find similar views with other classical liberals. I also find support in Mill s essay on Utilitarianism for the assumption that no man is an island. In a society the interests of all are to be consulted. Society between equals can only exist on the understanding that the interests of all are to be regarded equally... people grow up unable to conceive as possible to them a state of total disregard of other people s interests (Utilitarianism, p. 29) The good of others becomes to him a thing naturally and necessarily to be attended to (Op. cit., p. 30) Mill is more worried about the constraining influence that custom and habit and majorities in society can have, than the risks of constraining influence from the state: The despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human advancement (On liberty, p. 127) Human advancement including deviating from norms and habits is seen by Mill as important with room for eccentricism and geniality. This demand is highly relevant today with oppressive customs and habits such as group-thinking, closed communities, not allowing a person to leave the circumstances in which a person is born etc. Communitarian anti-liberalism Communitarian ideas have often elements of anti-liberalism, but sometimes with efforts to find complementarity with liberalism. 4 In mainstream communitarian ideas importance is given to the community, often connected to the so called common good, to groups of individuals and bonds between individuals in groups. Daniel A. Bell 5, who thinks that communitarian insights can supplement liberal values, expresses it as follows, building upon an analysis of communitarian thinking: We are, first and mostly, social beings, deeply bound up in the social world in which we happen to find ourselves [Second] Political thinking involves the interpretation of shared understandings bearing on the political life of one s community, as opposed to those who would derive universally applicable political principles starting from a more abstract specification of the individuals and their needs, interests, and moral claims [Third] A need to experience our lives as bound up with the good of the communities out of which our identity has been constituted (Bell 1993, p. 14) Bell gives a good view of much of communitarian ideas. In first reading some seems sensible for a liberal. But looking more closely we can find anti-liberal traits. First, yes we are social beings but liberalism and not least Mill does not accept that we are bound to stay in the social world in which we are born. Mill is very explicit on the potential of human development including breaking with habits and customs of the majority. Second, Bell finds a contrast between liberal universal principles (calling them abstract) with habits and norms in particular communities. Third, and clearly anti-liberal, putting 4See for example Simhony et.al. (2001) on reconciling liberty and community. 5 Daniel A. Bell is today professor of ethics and political philosophy at two universities in China. He is the author of Communitarianism, an essay in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ( 2

3 community first and individual second when stating that identity is constituted by the good of the community. Thus, communitarian ideas see liberalism as a set of ideas where the individual is an isolated island, where universal principles are given priority over values pertaining to particular contexts, where regard for the common good is lacking, where the individual is given precedence over the community. Stephen Holmes s 6 book The anatomy of antiliberalism (1993) is an excellent analysis of anti-liberalism in communitarian ideas and a convincing defence of liberalism. Holmes writes liberals deny that the value of a person hinges on his or her contribution to the aims of the collectivity Liberals consistently urge individuals to think for themselves (Holmes 1993, p.195). exactly what Mill stresses throughout in On Liberty. And this is not all an urge to contribute to an atomization of society. 7 The traditional language of common good, Holmes writes, was deeply implicated in the justification of authority, monopoly, privilege and social hierarchy (Op. cit., p.198). When communitarians attack liberals for denying the existence of a common good Holmes responds that this is not so when liberals retained an emphatic conception of the common good. Justice, self-rule, and the fruits of peaceful co-existence are all common goods. They are enjoyed by individuals, to be sure, but jointly, not atomistically. As pluralists liberals discourage the use of force to impose an official set of moral purposes on all citizens, without being hypertolerationists (Op. cit., p. 200). Holmes also offers critique of the communitarian idyllic view of the community. He notes that there are communitarian thinkers who idealize earlier times forgetting that women, minorities of different kinds, like homosexuals were not seen as full members of the community. A community is not always good in itself: It is only through intense social interaction, for example that human beings acquire their worst follies and fanaticism: the capacity for intolerance or racism would never flourish in pre-social isolation (Op. cit., p. 179) Individuality and life chances in liberalism: no man is an island Liberalism and Mill challenge constraining authoritarian communities. Holmes writes Individualism was never counterposed to all forms of community, only to stifling or authoritarian kinds, such as sects, clans, caste systems and parochial village life (Op. cit, p 254). With uniformly enforced individual rights cooperative and interactive communities can be developed by individuals this is the open liberal society. Mill s view of the human being is not an interest-driven person, driven by narrow self-interest but a person with individuality, a person with moral responsibilities to do the best in developing his or her characteristics, and a person who treats other persons as individuals in the same way, not as members of a group of some kind. It is individuality which is Mill s focus individuality in contrast to collectivism. A favourite of mine among liberal thinkers is the late Lord Dahrendorf. I find his view of individuality compatible with Mill s. Ralf Dahrendorf developed a theory of life chances where an idea of bonds or linkages between individuals is a basic element. The theory was first presented in his 1979 book Life chances. 8 6 Stephen Holmes is today professor of law at New York University. Apart from the book on anti-liberalism, which I quote here, he has written Passions and constraint. Both books provide thorough analyses of liberalism. In The anatomy of antiliberalism he analyses the ideas of Joseph de Maistre, Carl Schmitt, Leo Strauss, Alasdair MacIntyre, Roberto Unger and also Christopher Lasch ( a popular American writer ). 7 See Holmes 1993, pages Ralf Dahrendorf, great social scientist and liberal, over the years devoted much thought to life chances, including in what came to be his last book The modern social conflict (2008). 3

4 Life chances are opportunities for individual growth, for the realization of talents, wishes and hopes, and these opportunities are provided by social conditions (Dahrendorf 1979, p.30) Life chances are a function of options and linkages. Deep cultural linkages provide meaning to choices made by the individual: Deep cultural linkages that enable people to find their way through the world of options (Dahrendorf 2008, p. 19). An often quoted very telling expression is: Ligatures without options are oppressive. Options without bonds are meaningless (Dahrendorf 1979, p. 30). Linkages such as groups or communities that are created by individuals, communities that the individual can choose to enter and to leave are positive. That is, in contrast to communitarian communities, seen as given once and for all for the individual. Mill was not quite clear on the importance of enabling bonds, seeing his task to liberate individuals from oppressive bonds emanating from authoritarian states and from habits and customs of majorities. Mill s emphasis on individuality and respect for differences makes him as important to liberal policy today as more than 150 years ago. Liberals can proudly stand on the footing of no man is an island. Liberals must resist communitarian ideas with their emphasis on predetermined communities, the common good given from above, and from norms and habits in majorities. Instead liberals should promote individuality which, as Mill shows, is not the same as individuals pursuing narrow self-interests. There are today too many examples in our societies of constraining groups, group-thinking and identity politics that hinder human development. 9 John Stuart Mill s words again I give Mill the last words. Here are again significant statements by Mill that I quoted in the beginning: *It is not by wearing down into uniformity all that is individual in themselves, but by cultivating it, and calling it forth, within the limits imposed by the rights and interests of others, that human beings become a noble and beautiful object of contemplation. * In proportion to the development of his individuality, each person becomes more valuable to himself, and is therefore capable of being more valuable to others. * How (it may be asked) can any part of the conduct of a member of society be a matter of indifference to the other members? No person is an entirely isolated being. * [In a society] the interests of all are to be consulted. Society between equals can only exist on the understanding that the interests of all are to be regarded equally..people grow up unable to conceive as possible to them a state of total disregard of other people s interests. [And] the good of others becomes to him a thing naturally and necessarily to be attended to. We find compatible thoughts about the human being in Isaiah Berlin s writings: my ideas about myself, in particular my sense of my own moral and social identity, are intelligible only in terms of the social network in which I am an element. (Berlin 1992(1969), p. 155) 9 See challenges for liberalism in the chapter Liberal policies for life chances by Ingemund Hägg in Hägg (editor), 2010, pages

5 References Bell, D., 1993, Communitarianism and its critics. Oxford Clarendon Press Berlin, I., 1992 (1969), Four essays on liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press Dahrendorf, R., 1979, Life chances. Approaches to social and political theory. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson Dahrendorf, R., 2008, The modern social conflict. The politics of liberty. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers Hägg, I., editor, 2010, Liberal reflections on life chances and social mobility in Europe. European Liberal Forum with support of the Bertil Ohlin Institute Holmes, S., 1993, The anatomy of antiliberalism. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press Holmes, S., 1995, Passions and constraint. On the theory of liberal democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Mill, J. S., 1964, Utilitarianism (1863), Liberty (1859) and Representative Government (1861). London: Everyman s Library, No. 482, with Introduction by A. D. Lindsay Mill, J. S., 1971 (1874), Autobiography. Edited by J. Stillinger. Oxford University Press Simhony, A. and Weinstein, D., editors, 2001, The new liberalism. Reconciling liberty and community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 5