Customer Reviews

On Liberty and Liberalism: The Case of John Stuart Mill

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Yet another example of thorough and enlivened scholarship from this great historian! Professor Himmelfarb provides salient clues on the apparent dichotomy in Mill's thought, particularly in those areas of personal liberty and responsibility. Mill's abdication to his wife's opinions appears to be (unfortunately, in this case) the primary cause of the disconnect between the philosophy in most of Mill's work compared to that in his magnum opus, On Liberty. The supporting references on Mrs. Mill's impact are numerous and irrefutable, particularly Mill's own correspondence. This book is indispensible for those interested in Mill and his influence on Anglo/American thought.

you could not do better than to read this book. It lays out his ideas and the inevitable results of those ideas. Himmelfarb shows how what is called classical liberalism, meaning equal rights, freedom to worship, universal franchise, led to the adversary culture we have today where all authority is suspect. She points out how Mill, without meaning to do so, was instrumental in bringing about the notion that being in a constant state of rebellion against all convention and tradition constituted freedom. Although he advocated the total freedom of the individual to do as he/she wants, Mill operated on certain underlying premises, about social order, crime, honesty, tolerance, that he never imagined would end up in the situation we have today of license rather than liberty. For instance, Mill was very severe on criminals to the point of thinking that his age was too lenient! He recognized that the kind of liberty he wanted people to have depended on people being law abiding. Mill was also very conservative on sexual matters. There were those in his day who believed in sexual liberation, but he did not agree with them. Mill also saw the great importance that a nation have a common culture that would enable people to live together peacefully, that would make them feel they were all part of the same nation, with the same interests. Mill apparently never dreamed that his ideas would lead to the kind of resentment of all restraint that is the norm today among a large part of western society. Mill never said so explicitly, but he expected that while some were living in total freedom, others would continue to do what had to be done to keep civilization going, that is, not acting freely, but doing their duty. Mill never really acknowledged the inconsistency of his ideas, which was that people would be totally free, yet society would continue to be orderly and people would continue to cooperate together. And of course Mill never acknowledged that the freedom he advocated in turn depended on an agreement about the freedom. If people say, well, we are free to destroy the freedom, what happens then. An excellent well written book that shows how the "counterculture" came about, along with the idea that everything that is, at least in western culture, is bad.

One other thing, Mill's wife was a great advocate for the poor and for socialism. Himmelfarb quotes one priceless letter from his wife, when she complains how she has to move her summer house because of the noxious views of the poor people's houses across from her. How little things change!

This book is an attempt by Ms. Himmelfarb to fit Mill into her vision of the 19th century. One only has to actually read On Liberty to realize that she hasn't suceeded. A more succinct (and less expensive) version of her thesis is her introduction to the Penguin edition of On Liberty. It is like having a creationist write an introduction to Darwin's Origin Of Species.

Himmelfarb is a conservative ideologue who is extremely unsympathetic to Mill's liberalism, which she seems to view as the root of all cultural evil in modern America. Her thesis that there are "two Mills" (one a classical liberal, the other -- inconsistent with the first -- a radical feminist/socialist controlled by his wife) has been thoroughly discredited in the academic literature. It is simply a product of Himmelfarb's own confusions. The book is so misleading as to be worthless.