A Critique of J. S. Mill's Cultural Elitism, discuss
April 2nd 2008 11:44
"The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to say that this doctrine is meant to apply only to human beings in the maturity of their faculties. We are not speaking of children, or of young persons below the age which the law may fix as that of manhood or womanhood. Those who are still in a state to require being taken care of by others, must be protected against their own actions as well as against external injury. For the same reason, we may leave out of consideration those backward states of society in which the race itself may be considered as in its nonage. The early difficulties in the way of spontaneous progress are so great, that there is seldom any choice of means for overcoming them; and a ruler full of the spirit of improvement is warranted in the use of any expedients that will attain an end, perhaps otherwise unattainable. Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end. Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion. Until then, there is nothing for them but implicit obedience to an Akbar or a Charlemagne, if they are so fortunate as to find one. But as soon as mankind have attained the capacity of being guided to their own improvement by conviction or persuasion (a period long since reached in all nations with whom we need here concern ourselves), compulsion, either in the direct form or in that of pains and penalties for non-compliance, is no longer admissible as a means to their own good, and justifiable only for the security of others."
From J. S. Mill's "On Liberty", pp. 9-11
The basic thrust of Mill’s argument in this passage is that no person or institution may exercise coercive power over an individual unless it is to prevent direct harm to others. Mill argues that for the sake of a person’s own physical or moral health, for his happiness or her wisdom coercive persuasion and punishment may not be utilised; only reason, entreaty and argued persuasion. Mill’s principle is not without qualification; he leaves out two groups – children and the members of ‘backward’ societies. These two groups, so argues Mill, are fair game for despotism: in the first case, that of parents, and in the second, that of ‘benevolent’ dictators. In short, unless one is a child or a ‘barbarian’ one is entitled to sovereignty as concerns personal morality.
I think the main objections to Mill’s argument come from legal moralism, religious ideas and from the principle of humanity as it applies to ‘backward’ societies. The legal moralistic argument runs like this: a community cannot function without a shared moral code, a moral code that is not enforced by and enshrined in law has no real power over society, and therefore individuals must be compelled by coercive persuasion and punishment to obey said moral code.
The objection on religious grounds takes a similar, if more abstract, form to that from legal moralism. It runs like this: morality, both public and personal, is a matter of infinite significance as concerns the soul, personal freedom has only a finite value which ends with death, and therefore governments should be able to use any means necessary to ‘encourage’ morality.
The objection from the principle of humanity would be that Mill’s treatment of ‘barbarians’ as fundamentally different from ‘civilised’ persons is mistaken and that failing to take said ‘barbarian’s’ basic humanity into account is counter-productive to their ‘improvement’.
I believe this last objection is quite valid, much more so than the previous two. Indeed, it is because I am generally in agreement with Mill’s ideas that I object to his racism. Mill’s racial claim is, essentially, that people living in states of society considered primitive by ‘advanced’ societies – precisely those societies which resemble Mill’s own – are incapable of being ‘improved’ by reasoned discussion or persuasion, but only through despotic state intervention in their lives.
An objection could be made against this on the grounds that ‘backward’ societies don’t need to be ‘improved’ in the first place, as the value of any culture is highly subjective; that is, in general people consider their own culture to be superior to others. This follows from the fact that persons within a culture construct their knowledge within their society’s ‘conversation’ – a kind of echo-chamber of ideas1 - and, as such, have trouble appreciating ideas constructed within a dissimilar ‘conversation.’2
There is a high degree of cultural relativism involved in the claim that no culture whatsoever need be changed, I would argue that some societies are so dysfunctional that it is worthwhile to try to change them. However, I believe there is good reason to argue that cultures need not be compelled to change simply because they do not resemble one’s own.
There is at least one situation I can think of in which ‘backward’ societies truly must be ‘improved’ by more advanced ones – this is colonisation. When a native people’s land is colonised and submitted to the rule of newcomers it is imperative that the original inhabitants be instructed in the coloniser’s ways. Not for purposes of assimilation as such, but so that they can be equipped to fight introduced diseases and to function within the systems of law and government of their colonisers. Australian history provides a fine example of utter failure in this regard, and I believe this failure can be attributed to the application of a policy that is inherent in Mill’s thinking – benevolent despotism. It is hard not to hear Mill in this passage from Prof. Stephen Roberts:
It was quite useless to treat them [the Aborigines] fairly, since they were completely amoral…3
I submit that the failure of race relations in Australia, and many other colonised nations, could have been avoided or lessened and could today be, at least partially, mended through the abandonment of Mill’s racist principle and the application of the principle of humanity. Further, I believe that there are fundamental flaws in Mill’s thinking on cross-cultural interaction; Mill essentially proposes that to teach democracy one should practice fascism, to encourage freedom one should restrict liberty and to ‘improve’ a people one must degrade them. Perhaps that sounds extreme; I shall attempt an elucidation.
If Mill’s proposed aim in dealing with ‘barbarians’ was simply to exploit, control or destroy them, his recommendation of despotism would be highly sensible. But, as his espoused aim is to ‘improve’ them and make them fit for liberal democratic life, his recommendation comes across as nonsensical. It is reasonable to assume that the individuals in a society are influenced by their government’s actions; rulers, like parents, are role models in many ways. As such, it seems foolish to imagine that one can encourage democratic, free-thinking impulses by setting up a government that forces people to behave and think in certain ways through propaganda, force of arms and punitive measures. This will lead to a warped conception of democracy in the mind of the ‘barbarians’, and perhaps the only way it could lead to real ‘improvement’ would be if the ‘barbarians’ became so disgusted with their civilised masters that they set up their own democratic government in opposition to them.4
Despotic rule and the racial attitudes behind it are inimical to democracy and lead to various other harms. In Australia there are numerous legacies of ‘benevolent despotism’ – the stolen generation, massacres of ‘rebellious’ blacks, the undermining of Aboriginal culture by Christian missionaries – all of which had their justification in the idea that some peoples deserve to be treated as fully human and others do not – some are still in their ‘nonage’. Naturally, there are many other factors at play in the interaction between colonisers and colonised but a philosophy of cultural interaction such as Mill’s gives powerful intellectual support to monstrous activities, to ‘the use of any expedients…in dealing with barbarians’. Perhaps it is unfair of me to leave out the qualifier ‘provided the end be their improvement’ from that quote, but I submit that ‘improvement’ cannot be achieved through despotic ‘expedients’. I think it will be worthwhile to examine some other consequences, in Australia, of the mentality that Mill encourages.
In Arnhem Land today, the Yolngu people are in crisis.5 This crisis consists of rampant alcoholism and drug abuse, chronic unemployment, suicide, domestic violence, despair and an array of health problems more reminiscent of the third world than the ‘lucky country’; and these problems stem from a history of cultural relations informed by the idea that ‘we may leave out of consideration…backward states of society’. Arguably, the cause behind all the problems the Yolngu face is a refusal, on the part of white Australia in general, to deal with them as equal human beings. This refusal leads to major problems in education, which in turn create problems in health, social management and dealings with the law. Examples of this refusal are the complete absence of Yolngu Matha6 -English dictionaries; the absence of training in local language and culture when preparing social workers, teachers and doctors to work with Yolngu; a lack of respect for the traditional culture of the Yolngu.
I will now present a few examples of how this attitude adversely affects the Yolngu people and leads them ever further from ‘improvement’.
As there are no Yolngu Matha-English dictionaries and no teaching staff trained in the local language and culture, it is almost impossible for Yolngu to learn English properly:7to get behind the words and see the meaning. The consequences of this are drastic and can be seen most vividly in the areas of health and crime. Doctors sent to Arnhem Land are not trained in Yolngu Matha,8 and are instructed not to discuss medicine with their patients.9 This means that the doctors become little more than untrained vets10 when dealing with Yolngu; hence, the nature and seriousness of their illnesses are rarely grasped. A related problem occurs with medication: Yolngu, in general, have not been taught about bacteria, penicillin, aspirin, antibiotics and other basic medical information – this means that when they are given medicine or medical advice they often don’t comprehend what it does or means and, understandably, are wary of it.11 Another significant problem caused by non-recognition of Yolngu language and culture is a profound ignorance, amongst Yolngu, of British-Australian law. Not only does this ignorance of the law make it difficult to avoid arrest it also means that almost any time a Yolngu is tried in court, Australia is in breach of the UN human rights covenant12 which provides that all people shall be tried in a language they understand well and for a crime they fully understand.13
This list of problems could go on, but I shall finish by linking such crises back to Mill. The problems in Arnhem Land, throughout Australia and in many colonised nations stem from ‘civilised’ peoples doing exactly what Mill advises. By refusing to engage in ‘free and equal discussion’ with those we seek to improve we do them and ourselves a great and foolish injustice. One cannot ‘improve’ a society by denying the essential human reasonableness of its participants and enforcing one’s own ideas, language and might upon them. Only a universal application of Mill’s principles can lead to true cross-cultural learning; a selective, racist application of his principles – giving some freedom and others despotism – leads, ultimately, to the debasement of all attendant parties. This is well supported by the cries of fallen warriors in the Australian desert, betrayed to slow destruction by ‘the spirit of improvement’.
1. Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, Hitler’s Willing Executioners, pp. 33-4
2. This is why, for example, the German people under Hitler found it relatively easy to consent to and participate in the slaughter of Jews, whereas we can hardly imagine doing so.
3. Quoted in John Pilger, A Secret Country, p. 23
4. Ironically, this would most likely be violently opposed by a despotic regime.
5. All the information about the Yolngu I have used in the next few paragraphs is from Richard Trudgen, Why Warriors Lie Down and Die, especially chapters 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 11.
6. Yolngu-Matha is the primary language traditionally spoken in Arnhem Land.
7. It is instructive here to imagine sending someone from China to England to teach short courses in Chinese, giving them no training in English language or culture and expecting them to succeed.
8. Contrast this with doctors who go to work with ‘civilised’ peoples, such as Italians – they must complete a course in Italian language and culture.
9. This policy is known as the ‘Three Fs’ – Family, Football and Forget medicine.
10. Untrained because vets, unlike doctors, are thoroughly trained in the interpretation of animals’ physical symptoms and body language, doctors rely heavily on language.
11. A tragic example of this was a young Yolngu mother whose young son died as a result of a common infection; she did not understand what the medicine she was given did and feared it was making him sicker.
12. Article 14 – “3. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality:
1.To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him;
6. To have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court”
13. Interpreters are seldom provided at Yolngu trials. They are sorely needed as most Yolngu, though they can speak English conversationally, do not truly understand the language to the point of comprehending medical or legal terminology.
Bibliography
Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah, Hitler’s Willing Executioners: ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, London, Little, Brown and Co., 1996.
Pilger, John, A Secret Country, London, Cape, 1989.
The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Really Long Link accessed on the 30th of May, 2007.
Trudgen, Richard Ian, Why Warriors Lie Down and Die: towards an understanding of why the Aboriginal people of Arnhem Land face the greatest crisis in health and education since European contact: djambatj mala, Darwin, Aboriginal Resources and Development Services Inc., 2000.
It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to say that this doctrine is meant to apply only to human beings in the maturity of their faculties. We are not speaking of children, or of young persons below the age which the law may fix as that of manhood or womanhood. Those who are still in a state to require being taken care of by others, must be protected against their own actions as well as against external injury. For the same reason, we may leave out of consideration those backward states of society in which the race itself may be considered as in its nonage. The early difficulties in the way of spontaneous progress are so great, that there is seldom any choice of means for overcoming them; and a ruler full of the spirit of improvement is warranted in the use of any expedients that will attain an end, perhaps otherwise unattainable. Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end. Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion. Until then, there is nothing for them but implicit obedience to an Akbar or a Charlemagne, if they are so fortunate as to find one. But as soon as mankind have attained the capacity of being guided to their own improvement by conviction or persuasion (a period long since reached in all nations with whom we need here concern ourselves), compulsion, either in the direct form or in that of pains and penalties for non-compliance, is no longer admissible as a means to their own good, and justifiable only for the security of others."
From J. S. Mill's "On Liberty", pp. 9-11
The basic thrust of Mill’s argument in this passage is that no person or institution may exercise coercive power over an individual unless it is to prevent direct harm to others. Mill argues that for the sake of a person’s own physical or moral health, for his happiness or her wisdom coercive persuasion and punishment may not be utilised; only reason, entreaty and argued persuasion. Mill’s principle is not without qualification; he leaves out two groups – children and the members of ‘backward’ societies. These two groups, so argues Mill, are fair game for despotism: in the first case, that of parents, and in the second, that of ‘benevolent’ dictators. In short, unless one is a child or a ‘barbarian’ one is entitled to sovereignty as concerns personal morality.
I think the main objections to Mill’s argument come from legal moralism, religious ideas and from the principle of humanity as it applies to ‘backward’ societies. The legal moralistic argument runs like this: a community cannot function without a shared moral code, a moral code that is not enforced by and enshrined in law has no real power over society, and therefore individuals must be compelled by coercive persuasion and punishment to obey said moral code.
The objection on religious grounds takes a similar, if more abstract, form to that from legal moralism. It runs like this: morality, both public and personal, is a matter of infinite significance as concerns the soul, personal freedom has only a finite value which ends with death, and therefore governments should be able to use any means necessary to ‘encourage’ morality.
The objection from the principle of humanity would be that Mill’s treatment of ‘barbarians’ as fundamentally different from ‘civilised’ persons is mistaken and that failing to take said ‘barbarian’s’ basic humanity into account is counter-productive to their ‘improvement’.
I believe this last objection is quite valid, much more so than the previous two. Indeed, it is because I am generally in agreement with Mill’s ideas that I object to his racism. Mill’s racial claim is, essentially, that people living in states of society considered primitive by ‘advanced’ societies – precisely those societies which resemble Mill’s own – are incapable of being ‘improved’ by reasoned discussion or persuasion, but only through despotic state intervention in their lives.
An objection could be made against this on the grounds that ‘backward’ societies don’t need to be ‘improved’ in the first place, as the value of any culture is highly subjective; that is, in general people consider their own culture to be superior to others. This follows from the fact that persons within a culture construct their knowledge within their society’s ‘conversation’ – a kind of echo-chamber of ideas1 - and, as such, have trouble appreciating ideas constructed within a dissimilar ‘conversation.’2
There is a high degree of cultural relativism involved in the claim that no culture whatsoever need be changed, I would argue that some societies are so dysfunctional that it is worthwhile to try to change them. However, I believe there is good reason to argue that cultures need not be compelled to change simply because they do not resemble one’s own.
There is at least one situation I can think of in which ‘backward’ societies truly must be ‘improved’ by more advanced ones – this is colonisation. When a native people’s land is colonised and submitted to the rule of newcomers it is imperative that the original inhabitants be instructed in the coloniser’s ways. Not for purposes of assimilation as such, but so that they can be equipped to fight introduced diseases and to function within the systems of law and government of their colonisers. Australian history provides a fine example of utter failure in this regard, and I believe this failure can be attributed to the application of a policy that is inherent in Mill’s thinking – benevolent despotism. It is hard not to hear Mill in this passage from Prof. Stephen Roberts:
It was quite useless to treat them [the Aborigines] fairly, since they were completely amoral…3
I submit that the failure of race relations in Australia, and many other colonised nations, could have been avoided or lessened and could today be, at least partially, mended through the abandonment of Mill’s racist principle and the application of the principle of humanity. Further, I believe that there are fundamental flaws in Mill’s thinking on cross-cultural interaction; Mill essentially proposes that to teach democracy one should practice fascism, to encourage freedom one should restrict liberty and to ‘improve’ a people one must degrade them. Perhaps that sounds extreme; I shall attempt an elucidation.
If Mill’s proposed aim in dealing with ‘barbarians’ was simply to exploit, control or destroy them, his recommendation of despotism would be highly sensible. But, as his espoused aim is to ‘improve’ them and make them fit for liberal democratic life, his recommendation comes across as nonsensical. It is reasonable to assume that the individuals in a society are influenced by their government’s actions; rulers, like parents, are role models in many ways. As such, it seems foolish to imagine that one can encourage democratic, free-thinking impulses by setting up a government that forces people to behave and think in certain ways through propaganda, force of arms and punitive measures. This will lead to a warped conception of democracy in the mind of the ‘barbarians’, and perhaps the only way it could lead to real ‘improvement’ would be if the ‘barbarians’ became so disgusted with their civilised masters that they set up their own democratic government in opposition to them.4
Despotic rule and the racial attitudes behind it are inimical to democracy and lead to various other harms. In Australia there are numerous legacies of ‘benevolent despotism’ – the stolen generation, massacres of ‘rebellious’ blacks, the undermining of Aboriginal culture by Christian missionaries – all of which had their justification in the idea that some peoples deserve to be treated as fully human and others do not – some are still in their ‘nonage’. Naturally, there are many other factors at play in the interaction between colonisers and colonised but a philosophy of cultural interaction such as Mill’s gives powerful intellectual support to monstrous activities, to ‘the use of any expedients…in dealing with barbarians’. Perhaps it is unfair of me to leave out the qualifier ‘provided the end be their improvement’ from that quote, but I submit that ‘improvement’ cannot be achieved through despotic ‘expedients’. I think it will be worthwhile to examine some other consequences, in Australia, of the mentality that Mill encourages.
In Arnhem Land today, the Yolngu people are in crisis.5 This crisis consists of rampant alcoholism and drug abuse, chronic unemployment, suicide, domestic violence, despair and an array of health problems more reminiscent of the third world than the ‘lucky country’; and these problems stem from a history of cultural relations informed by the idea that ‘we may leave out of consideration…backward states of society’. Arguably, the cause behind all the problems the Yolngu face is a refusal, on the part of white Australia in general, to deal with them as equal human beings. This refusal leads to major problems in education, which in turn create problems in health, social management and dealings with the law. Examples of this refusal are the complete absence of Yolngu Matha6 -English dictionaries; the absence of training in local language and culture when preparing social workers, teachers and doctors to work with Yolngu; a lack of respect for the traditional culture of the Yolngu.
I will now present a few examples of how this attitude adversely affects the Yolngu people and leads them ever further from ‘improvement’.
As there are no Yolngu Matha-English dictionaries and no teaching staff trained in the local language and culture, it is almost impossible for Yolngu to learn English properly:7to get behind the words and see the meaning. The consequences of this are drastic and can be seen most vividly in the areas of health and crime. Doctors sent to Arnhem Land are not trained in Yolngu Matha,8 and are instructed not to discuss medicine with their patients.9 This means that the doctors become little more than untrained vets10 when dealing with Yolngu; hence, the nature and seriousness of their illnesses are rarely grasped. A related problem occurs with medication: Yolngu, in general, have not been taught about bacteria, penicillin, aspirin, antibiotics and other basic medical information – this means that when they are given medicine or medical advice they often don’t comprehend what it does or means and, understandably, are wary of it.11 Another significant problem caused by non-recognition of Yolngu language and culture is a profound ignorance, amongst Yolngu, of British-Australian law. Not only does this ignorance of the law make it difficult to avoid arrest it also means that almost any time a Yolngu is tried in court, Australia is in breach of the UN human rights covenant12 which provides that all people shall be tried in a language they understand well and for a crime they fully understand.13
This list of problems could go on, but I shall finish by linking such crises back to Mill. The problems in Arnhem Land, throughout Australia and in many colonised nations stem from ‘civilised’ peoples doing exactly what Mill advises. By refusing to engage in ‘free and equal discussion’ with those we seek to improve we do them and ourselves a great and foolish injustice. One cannot ‘improve’ a society by denying the essential human reasonableness of its participants and enforcing one’s own ideas, language and might upon them. Only a universal application of Mill’s principles can lead to true cross-cultural learning; a selective, racist application of his principles – giving some freedom and others despotism – leads, ultimately, to the debasement of all attendant parties. This is well supported by the cries of fallen warriors in the Australian desert, betrayed to slow destruction by ‘the spirit of improvement’.
1. Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, Hitler’s Willing Executioners, pp. 33-4
2. This is why, for example, the German people under Hitler found it relatively easy to consent to and participate in the slaughter of Jews, whereas we can hardly imagine doing so.
3. Quoted in John Pilger, A Secret Country, p. 23
4. Ironically, this would most likely be violently opposed by a despotic regime.
5. All the information about the Yolngu I have used in the next few paragraphs is from Richard Trudgen, Why Warriors Lie Down and Die, especially chapters 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 11.
6. Yolngu-Matha is the primary language traditionally spoken in Arnhem Land.
7. It is instructive here to imagine sending someone from China to England to teach short courses in Chinese, giving them no training in English language or culture and expecting them to succeed.
8. Contrast this with doctors who go to work with ‘civilised’ peoples, such as Italians – they must complete a course in Italian language and culture.
9. This policy is known as the ‘Three Fs’ – Family, Football and Forget medicine.
10. Untrained because vets, unlike doctors, are thoroughly trained in the interpretation of animals’ physical symptoms and body language, doctors rely heavily on language.
11. A tragic example of this was a young Yolngu mother whose young son died as a result of a common infection; she did not understand what the medicine she was given did and feared it was making him sicker.
12. Article 14 – “3. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality:
1.To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him;
6. To have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court”
13. Interpreters are seldom provided at Yolngu trials. They are sorely needed as most Yolngu, though they can speak English conversationally, do not truly understand the language to the point of comprehending medical or legal terminology.
Bibliography
Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah, Hitler’s Willing Executioners: ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, London, Little, Brown and Co., 1996.
Pilger, John, A Secret Country, London, Cape, 1989.
The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Really Long Link accessed on the 30th of May, 2007.
Trudgen, Richard Ian, Why Warriors Lie Down and Die: towards an understanding of why the Aboriginal people of Arnhem Land face the greatest crisis in health and education since European contact: djambatj mala, Darwin, Aboriginal Resources and Development Services Inc., 2000.
| 62 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Harry
World Art
Sydney Diary
Personals
Video Games
Brisbane Diarystar
Zoo Parent