Sakiri 1 Individual and Social Progress John Stuart Mill lived during the Victorian era in Great Britain,

which made his main concern societys will to conform and look down on creativity. In his essay, On Liberty, Mill theoretically discusses the importance for a nation to encourage vital and principled individuality because society will advance as a result of it. Therefore, he concludes, the nations well-being is looked after and promoted. The central obstacle toward individuality and progress is the tyranny of the majority, or the tendency for the larger population to silence the minority. The majority includes both political institutions and public opinion. Mill advocates that through personal and social means this obstacle can be overcome. For this to be possible, each person should refine his ideas through reflection, action, and deliberation, while social policy should not repress new ideas and use the harm principle as the only limit on individual liberty. I personally believe the detailed concepts of individuality and harm that Mill describes are too difficult to achieve in reality. I will argue that his solutions do not overcome his major obstacle, because his reasoning is obscure and leaves too much room for misinterpretation. As society progresses and becomes civilized, there is a tendency towards conformity which leads to the loss of individuality. Mills definition of individuality focuses on reflecting upon ones choices and then deciding what is the best decision.1 This notion does not discourage conformity. Moreover, one can choose to conform if he feels that it is the best choice for himself. An individual must actively look to himself first before he decides to reject or conform to public opinion.2 Therefore, his principles are based off of good character and any decision derived from these principles can be asserted as valid, at least to himself. The emphasis on the correct type John Stuart On Liberty (Cambridge; Cambridge University Press, 1989) p. 59 (The faculties are called) 2. Ibid. p. 59 (It really is of)
1. Mill,

Sakiri 2 individuality is the basis of a human. The concept of individuality only applies to those of age and those that do not need to be taken care of by others.3 This narrows down the amount of people that can actually achieve and be judged as individuals. To be a human, Mill emphasizes, one must constantly make the most of his mental capacity, otherwise he is more machine-like than human.4 If one simply rejects societys ideas or conforms to them without using reason and debate, then he is not making the most of his ability. He loses his vital and principled individuality, hurting himself individual and society at large. The betterment of the collective is lost and this is a true tragedy. According to Mill, individuality cannot be suppressed for two distinct reasons and both promote the well-being of the nation state. As an individual, one should be able to think freely even if the idea is radical. If one is correct and silenced, then the collective loses the possibility of gaining a truth.5 Whether the oppressor is public opinion or the state, the best outcome cannot be reached. This notion is easy to comprehend because anytime truth is lost society is hurt. If one is false and silenced, then the collective loses something almost as important, a clearer notion of an already established truth.6 Freedom to be an individual and speak ones mind is a liberty bestowed on each person; he or she should develop personal opinions even if they are wrong. Furthermore, arguing a contested opinion displays its problems and signifies its strengths, making discussion key to choose the most perfect truth. An individual who attempts to establish a truth helps society move forward. Progress of society is reactionary to its treatment of individuals. First and foremost, a state is made up of individuals, and if a state dwarfs its individuals for immediate benefits,
3. Ibid. p. 13 (We are not speaking) 4. Ibid. p. 60 (Human nature is not) 5. Ibid. p. 20 (If the opinion is) 6. Ibid. p. 20 (If wrong, they lose)

Sakiri 3 long term success cannot be attained.7 This shows how important the cultivation and encouragement of individuality is to the individual and the collective. More specifically, the cultivation of an individual is crucial because without it society becomes stagnant and further progress is forfeited.8 Creativity helps society progress because dissenters can discover new methods to existing and prospective functions. A stagnant society can be beneficial for a short time, however progression allows for easier living and other advantages. Simply questioning the status quo allows for refinement, as the current state is never perfect due to the fallible nature of humans.9 Humans do not have the right to decide that their opinions are perfect and therefore must debate opinions with others. Losing the right to individuality is detrimental to society because progress of the whole should be its main goal; failing to create progress creates the susceptibility of complacency and decline. It is equally important for individuals and the public to stimulate individuality against its obstacles. The tyranny of the majority includes aspects from both the political and social realms. Because of the society and time period Mill lived in, he felt that this was the major obstacle to the cultivation of individuality. The notion constitutes that the majority of a population stifles the minoritys opinion.10 This is a direct obstruction to individuality because if a person attempts to puts forth contradictory ideas in comparison to the majority, his voice will not be heard. As explained previously, if the majority silences a contrasting opinion, progress for the collective cannot be achieved and thus it is inflicting harm upon itself. Political and social despotism occur because the majority focuses on maintaining customs rather than using reason to legitimize their customs.11 Instead of striving to become a better individual and consequently help the state, the
7. Ibid. p. 115 (The worth of a) 8. Ibid. p. 70 (A people, it appears) 9. Ibid. p. 21 (Unfortunately for the good) 10. Ibid. p. 8 (The will of the) 11. Ibid. p. 11 (They have occupied themselves)

Sakiri 4 majoritys attempt to preserve custom purely to remain the majority hurts vital individuals who can help the state progress. This obstacle is not unique to the Victorian era, as history proves that tyranny, especially institutional, is a perpetual issue. Prior to modern times, political rulers often sought after their own interests, leaving their subjects to seek protection from its own government. Contemporarily, this is less of an issue because of specific acts like the Bill of Rights in America and other forms of protection throughout the world. However, small or large governments can often infringe on peoples individual rights, creating the tyranny of the majority through the institutional realm. Mill reminds the reader that liberty includes insurance against the tyranny of political rulers.12 Without distinct limits on political power, the governed must obey written law or risk legal punishment. In this case, if the government, be it monarchical, aristocratic, democratic, etc., makes or passes laws that violate the human ability to choose for himself, individuality suffers. As Mill establishes, if individuality suffers, the collective, including the government, does as well. The more contemporary aspect that hurts individuals is the tyranny of the majority through public opinion. Societal influence on an individual can be as strong or stronger than political influence.13 Societal influence occurs through familial, occupational, and recreational relations. Therefore, political pressure is not as prevalent in daily life as public pressure, creating stress on the individual to conform. Furthermore, even though public opinion does not punish in the legal sense, it allows for fewer methods of escape.14 This form of silencing is just as destructive as the law prohibiting freedom of speech because it forces an individual to choose between true individuality and absentmindedly conforming. A mans principles and morals say a
12. Ibid. p. 5 (By liberty, was meant) 13. Ibid. p. 8 (When society is itself) 14. Ibid. p. 8 (Society can and does)

Sakiri 5 lot about him in these circumstances; if he is not morally strong, he can easily be persuaded to relinquish questioning accepted norms to avoid being ostracized or harmed in other ways. Mills example of Chinas refusal to reform custom15 conveys how stagnant a society becomes without individuals willing to look in a new direction, while the death of Socrates16 personifies what can happen when a new way of thinking is completely silenced. The tyranny of the majority results in self-inflicted harm, and the need to limit the power of influence on individuals is evident. The majority can be can be overridden if each individuals personal life is lived in the right way, followed by applying those personal principles and the harm principle in the social realm. Mill proclaims that the correct cultivation of individuality is vital to justify its encouragement.17 Therefore, simply passively living and claiming to hold a particular individualistic opinion is not true individuality. This does not help society or solve the problem of the majority imposing its will onto the minority. However, once each individual lives in the right way, constantly investigating and deliberating new and old truths, he becomes valuable to himself and others.18 Changes must be brought forth by an individual who truly believes in his ideas for the change to stick. Without this dedicated belief, the idea will not last and any benefit from it would be momentary. From this way of life, the majority learns to debate with the minority and tyranny is avoided. If this is accomplished, then the next factor that needs to be looked at is the need to limit a persons opinion to avoid harm to others. Mill is left with legitimizing a limit on society to create freedom from the tyranny of the majority opinion, because certain opinions should not be allowed to be spread due to their inherent extreme nature. He states in his harm principle that the only valid reason in silencing an
15. Ibid. p. 72 (The modern regime of) 16. Ibid. p. 27 (To pass from this) 17. Ibid. p. 59 (He must use observation) 18. Ibid. p. 63 ( In proportion to the)

Sakiri 6 opinion is if it causes harm to another individual, and there are certain positive acts for the benefit of others that one is compelled to perform.19 By applying this principle, political institutions and society could not interfere in the personal lives of individuals. Therefore, if one is a true individual and the harm principle is exercised, the obstacle tyranny of the majority can be avoided and progress and benefits for all could be had. Mill also implies that having an opinion and acting on it is not the same, and if one radically inspires a riot then a reasonable punishment, politically or socially, is warranted.20 This is a specific appeal to logos, or reason, and further legitimizes the implementation of the harm principle. Enforcing the requirement of education for minors is a method for cultivating individuality for all citizens.21 Education promotes the core aspects of individuality: reflection, action, and deliberation. Starting at a young age is the best way to instill the right character traits and decisions. Additionally, Mill establishes that each individual knows himself best.22 It is up to him to choose how to live his life. There is no need of external intervention if one does not harm others. Therefore, if the government and society do not infringe on the liberty of individuals, the nation state is allowed to progress and Mills idea of individuality is a success. Mill logical argument shows that if each person in society focuses on becoming a true individual and there is a limit on the tyranny of the majority, then each person and society as a whole can advance and live a productive life. However, I feel that there are specific wholes in his rationalization that prove that his ideology cannot be fully implemented. His notion of the individual is very detailed, and in todays society there are few beings that embody the whole definition of the word. A child is not considered an individual, but once he turns of legal adult
19. 20. 21. 22.

Ibid. p. 14 (If any one does) Ibid. p. 56 (Acts of whatever kind) Ibid. p. 106 (An education established and) Ibid. p. 76 (He is the person most)

Sakiri 7 age he is. I believe that this should not be based on age because in todays society, most eighteen year olds would not live up to the standards of a mature individual prescribed by Mill. Each person is innately different and reaches the minimum amount of maturity to satisfy Mills definition of individuality at a different time. Also, the severity of each case of mental illness is up for interpretation. Mill himself admits that human beings are fallible; therefore, I believe we do not have the right to declare who has the potential to be an individual and who does not. The final requirement of individuality that I question is the fact that Mill requires each individual to make the most of his faculties, while having laudable character. I feel that this is nearly impossible as not everyone can make the most of his faculties, especially with a moral backbone, on a constant basis without succumbing to some days of weakness. These days of weakness could possibly undermine all the progress made, as history has proven from time to time. The harm principle is excellent in theory but it is not practical because there is no exact science for it. Harm in nature does not have any form of concrete measurement, which opens it up to abstract claims. Most claims of harm are presumed to be reasonable and pass by with menial political or social punishments, as in traffic tickets and cutting in line, respectively. However, some abstract claims can cause major uprisings and turmoil, like international wars. Recently, in my Slavic Civilizations class, by reading The Good Soldier Svejk, I learned how abstract claims of harm in the second half of the 20th century caused the death of millions and the breakup of Slavic countries.23 Therefore, fallible humans cannot be trusted to analyze the levels of severity of harm and base punishment off their claims. Everyones interpretation is extremely subjective and Mills grand vision of an individuality based society is defeated.

Hasek, Jarolsav The Good Soldier Svejk (New York; Penguin Group, 1974) p. 13 (However, Bretschneider told him)
23.

Sakiri 8 We have been lead to understand that the life John Stuart Mill wanted to have been able to subscribed to has many exceptional qualities, but have also realized his failure to triumph over vagueness and difficulty of lifestyle. His argument does utilize logical reasoning and I believe this is very commendable in every explanation. However, Mill has detailed an inherent problem in human nature that needs to be evaluated and analyzed in order to advance society. It may be possible that one day society will be able to implement a system to create a near perfect society, but until then we must avoid the issues of his solutions to the obstacle to the make the best use of the positive parts of his theory.

Work Cited Hasek, Jaroslav. The Good Soldier Svejk. United States: Penguin Group, 1974. Print. Mill, John Stuart, and Stefan Collini. On Liberty and Other Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1989. Print.