“Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”
When I first read those words, in John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, I fell in love with them. It is as empowering a statement as they come. One of personal power; of power of the mind. Of liberty.
It encapsulates the essence of Mill’s political philosophy. In On Liberty, written back in the 1850s, Mill argues for freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of expression. He believed that no external authority should have a role in curtailing the freedoms of your consciousness.
Likewise, if what we choose to do does no harm to others, them we should be free to act as we wish, he argued, no matter the opinions of others on those actions.
Much of Mill’s work, including On Liberty, builds on the equally, if not more influential work of his immediate predecessor, Jeremy Bentham.* Together, they were influential advocates of what at the time were bold ideas, like women’s suffrage, secularism, welfare, freedom of sexuality, and the abolition of corporal punishment, capital punishment and slavery. Ideas that seem to sit at the heart of what we tend to call Western, liberal culture.
It’s easy to see how Mill and Bentham still influence these societies today. Apparently, a copy of In Liberty is given to every new leader of the UK’s Liberal Democrats (of which I am not a member). But in truth, most (though not all) mainstream politicians in places like Britain would agree that in general, gathered together, these ideals tend to steer society in broadly the right direction.
Of course, that we can point at these ideals in a society’s fabric is not alone sufficient evidence that that society is somehow universally just, if a society ever could be. Of course not. But I think it is necessary evidence for a society that is at least progressing towards justice.
You only need compare places that hold these ideals to places that don’t, to work that out. Places that supress the ability to express the thoughts in your mind, that limit, define or control the role of women, that value some races of people over others or that define their values by the doctrines of one religion. These are not societies that are progressing towards justice. They are societies that have self-limited. They are at best stagnating and will, in time, decompose.
Now I loved Mill’s words a lot. I wrote that quote into a song many moons ago and I even considered having it tattooed on my arm (a whim I’m glad I didn’t act on).
There is a vital nuance to the idea though. It’s hinted at in the words “over his own mind and body.” It’s more obvious if you happen to know Mill’s moral philosophy, which is based on the idea of utilitarianism – that a good act is one that does the least harm and brings the most happiness.
Key is that these liberal freedoms should not come at the expense of others. We should be entirely free to do as we wish and to say what we wish, as long as that doesn’t harm others or their own freedoms.
And there again we see Mill reflected in our modern world. Because this nuance leads us directly into the unattractive worlds of cancel culture, “wokeism” and MAGA, where the debates between freedom of speech and protection of minorities rage.
Let’s agree some premises, or principles.
1. Firstly, that the liberal ideals of freedom to act, say and think as we wish, (at the heart of what we might call our ‘western ideals,’) are a good thing.
2. Secondly that those freedoms are only a good thing if they can be enjoyed without curtailing the freedoms or welfare of others.
3. And thirdly, that where there is a chance that those freedoms might curtail others’ freedoms or welfare, we should look to find solutions through open-mindedness, tolerance and compromise.
In some circles, particularly loud in the USA at the moment, there are those that will fight to the hilt to defend an absolutist interpretation of the freedom of speech, that first principle, to the point that the second principle is sacrificed.
In other circles, there are those that will fight to the hilt to defend the views or freedoms of some groups over those of others, with a willingness to sacrifice the first of these principles in that defence.
In both cases, where we seem to miss a trick is in a resistance to the gentler, reasonable calls of the third principle; that mild encouragement to find compromise. Fuelled by pride, fury, distrust, power and competition, they shout so loudly, and with such confidence, that the voices of the third principle go unheard.
Open mindedness, tolerance and compromise are a lot less exciting than rolling up your sleeves and kicking the metaphorical shit out of your opposition, after all. And they grab a damn sight fewer headlines and ‘likes’ too.
But return to Mill and once again, he’ll shine a light with an invigorating turn of phrase, on the value of the liberal perspective: “experiments in living.”
Mill was an empiricist, meaning he believed our knowledge is gained from our experiences. If you believe that, then it follows that the more experiences we have, the more we might learn.
But it also means that if many people have many different experiences of handling the same conundrum, then they will gain many perspectives on possible solutions, and they are all more likely to find the answer together. Whereas if all of those people respond to that conundrum in the same way, they will get far fewer possible solutions presented at the end.
Stretch that thinking out and it follows that following strict doctrines from authorities above can only limit our ability to build our knowledge and to progress our understanding. Whereas building diversity of thought and action into our communities strengthens our ability to build knowledge and understanding.
Society, culture and community thrive, flourish and progress thanks to many different inputs.
Diversity is strength.
Those many barking hordes in the culture wars, desperate to win and secure society in their image, miss the point entirely. It is by encouraging and celebrating experiments in living, expression of different views and ideas, celebration of differences and willingness to debate all of it that we get anywhere.
Without that crucial third principle, we risk allowing the loud voices of the intolerant to enable the decomposition of our societies.
* (It’s worth noting by the way, that Mill’s wife, the philosopher and feminist Harriet Taylor Mill, was herself hugely influential on John Stuart Mill’s work, although true to form, is a lot less well-known.)