User:Kshymanik

Peter Cohen 4/29/09 Classics, Question 1 Liberties Relationship to Individual Pursuits John Stuart Mill described Alexis de Tocqueville’s work, Democracy in America, as, “Among the most remarkable productions of our time.” However, this respect for de Tocqueville’s work does not imply that Mill agreed with every word in the book. Indeed, de Tocqueville’s section on individualism conflicted quite directly with one of the major themes of Mill’s On Liberty, namely individuality. While de Tocqueville feels that individualism leads to an egoism which invites despotism, Mill feels that only through individuality can the people of a society raise its mental faculties to the point of being capable to protect their own liberty, and, while it is hard to reject all of de Tocqueville’s claims, Mill’s idea of the relationship between individual pursuits and liberty is more accurate. In de Tocqueville’s conception, there are two main issues with individualism. Firstly, he describes individualism as, “a calm and considered feeling which disposes each citizen to isolate himself from the mass of his fellows and withdraw himself into the circle of family and friends,” (p. 506) which he distinguishes from egoism, a related concept, which he describes as, “a passionate and exaggerated love of self which leads a man to think of all things in terms of himself and to prefer himself to all,” (p. 506). De Tocqueville describes egoism as a familiar evil, however, he argues that, because democracy destroys the institutions and traditions of an aristocracy that keep men tied to interests in society and the well being of their class, the recent rise of democracy, with its accompanying chaotic social instability, has brought a subsequent rise of individualism to an extent that had not been present previously. This fact gives him license to investigate whether individualism is acceptable in a way egoism is not, or whether it too is a negative force in society. After establishing this background information on individualism, de Tocqueville’s argument proceeds to the two issues he finds in individualism. The first issue he treats simply, saying succinctly that individualism, “…at first only dams the spring of public virtues, but in the long run it attacks and destroys all the others too and finally merges in egoism.” (p. 507) The first part of this argument is easy to understand in that, because a citizen feels only interest in the smaller community he has created, virtues he may have that go towards societies good go unused. The second part, the way in which individualism slides into egoism can be taken in the sense that someone who has fallen prey to individualism contracts their circle of interest from society to community, but it is easy to see how someone with the inclination towards individualism could continue contracting this circle from community to family and from family finally to only self, at which point the individualism becomes in essence egoism. The second major fault of individualism, as de Tocqueville describes, is the invitation for a despot to take advantage of a self absorbed population. This is an argument which gets more directly at the heart of this paper, in the sense that it is the way that individual pursuits effect liberty that is at issue. The argument in this section is that a despot can come to power through the apathy towards civil matters of a population and it reinforces the idea of a natural relationship between despotism and individualism by saying that not only does despotism naturally grow in a state of individualism, despots also immediately turn around and consciously foster individualism as a national value as soon as they are in power. This is done in order to keep the people both from caring much about the political liberties that they are being stripped of by the despot, and also to keep people from having the relationships to unite against him in any effective manner. After describing this, de Tocqueville goes on to make an interesting argument that liberty, rather than growing from individual pursuits as Mill suggests, is actually a defense against them. He says that when men have a the liberty of a free elective government then those who want power must foster relationships among people and create enough of a consensus to get elected, thereby the personal interests of the motivated men lead them to become active agents of snapping peoples societal apathy and getting them interested, at least interested enough to vote for them. Thus, for de Tocqueville, individualism suppresses societal morals, while fostering egoism and despotism, and it is liberty itself that is a main defense against this individualism. A great focus of Mill’s work is actually dedicated to a defense of individuality, and that being the case it is obvious that he feels quite differently about the issue than de Tocqueville. He states generally, “He who lets the world, or his own portion of it, choose his plan of life for him, has no need of any faculty other than the ape-like one of imitation.” (Section 3) This is deceptively important quote, in that Mill writes how it is in using our own thoughts, discriminations, self-control and will that we develop these senses and thereby become human in the fullest and most complete sense that we are able. He uses the example of a tree which must be allowed to grow and develop naturally. In expressing how vitally important individuality is, he says, “It is not by wearing down into uniformity all that is individual in themselves but by cultivating it and calling it forth…that humans become a noble and beautiful object of contemplation…by the same process human life also becomes rich, diversified, and animating…” (Section 3) Besides raising the quality of the average man in society, Mill claims for the man who is allowed to follow his own interests the exclusive ability to become a true genius of society. In defended freedom of action to critics of his ideas he says, “There is always need of persons not only to discover new truths, and point out when what were once truths are no longer true no longer, but also to commence new practices, and set the example of more enlightened conduct,” (Section 3) Clearly if individuality is not the most important thing, it is at least vitally important to human development. Having established Mill’s conception of individuality, it is appropriate to next consider his argument as to individuality’s relationship to freedom. For Mill, it is causal relationship in the sense that by allowing humans perfect freedom to do express their personalities in any way that does not harm any other person allows the average person to choose which path of life he likes most, and also allows the truly gifted individual to blaze paths never before seen by the sum of society. Thus, Mill argues that individuality is a boon to society, and the way to foster it is by creating as much personal liberty as possible without effecting the personal liberty of others. Obviously, there is a very direct conflict between the relationship of individuality proposed by de Tocqueville and the proposed by Mill. De Tocqueville writes that a creating a society defined by free elective government is an effective method from suppressing an individualism that he thinks insidious. Mill, on the other hand, writes how individual liberty is the best soil for a benevolent, culture enhancing individuality. Now, a citizen body free to vote and run for office is not precisely the same as a citizen body free to explore itself thoroughly with very limited interference from the government, but there are certainly similarities in that both are situations which are based on adding freedoms. And yet, the two writers seem to think these freedoms have opposite effects on the extent to which citizens focus on individual pursuits. Fortunately current day America serves as a remarkable example in that it has both personal liberty very nearly to the extent Mill wanted as well as a government built around free elections. Thus, by considering America in light of both writers, we can hold all other factors constant and see which hypothesis is being borne out to a greater extent. Present day America has the elective from of government, even including the plentiful minor local positions, which de Tocqueville wrote would inevitably draw everyone out of their personal lives and involve them in their society. As far as the truth of this theory goes, it is very easy to imagine the average American is more upset about the death of a person pet than the death of a fellow citizen from a neighboring state, and that they could also name their ten top TV shows faster than the ten most recent leaders of our country. While it may be true that the sheer size of current countries is a factor which minimizes the effect de Tocqueville describes, it is very hard to argue that the common American has escaped from individualism to any great extent. On the other hand, Mill says that personal freedom of action would bring great individuality, and this is what we see when we look at America with a large lens. Practically every religion on the planet is represented, there people who work eighty hour work weeks along with neo-hippies, people that go to college and people that drop out to start business and the list goes to infinity of the different styles of life that people choose in America. This seems to support Mill very well, but it could be argued that with a tighter lens, you see that within each different type of community there is very little individuality. While this is true, it also fits into Mill’s theory in the sense that he speaks of how social mores can become a de facto law which prevents individuality. We could easily imagine how, thought there is no code of social mores which is strong enough to bind all of America, within a small, self-selected community, perhaps existing because of its members prior similarities, there would be a much stronger pressure to conform to the customs of the community. Thus, America shows how a country with the conditions described by both Mill and de Tocqueville ends up reflecting more strengthening of Mill’s individuality than suppression of de Tocqueville’s individualism. Although freedom is perhaps not as fantastic a method for moving people away from individualism, there is certainly truth to de Tocqueville’s argument about the dangers of individualism. And it is possible that the partial solution of free elections has effect, but is currently being overwhelmed by some other factor in America which needs to be addressed. At the same time, Mill’s description of individualism as a direct result of social freedom is very convincing. The two writers disagree about the relationship between freedoms and the pursuit of personal interests, however, because they use both slightly different initial conditions and propose results in slightly different realms, it is definitely possible to understand how both philosophers have made important and accurate points.