Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 10

Individualism in classical liberalism

Linh Do

8682188

POL2108B winter 2018


In the history of political philosophy, the question of individual versus institution has been a

subject for debate, even within the same tradition. This is especially evidenced when looking at

the competing political thought of Edmund Burke and John Stuart Mill, who were both part of

the classical liberal tradition. Which is more important, the individual or the institution? Burke

and Mill provide very different answers to this question based on the ground of responsibility,

freedom, and progress.

For Burke, individuals owe their obligation to society. Men cannot exist as fully developed

beings without society since reason is not inherent in each person but is given and nurtured by

the community. He believed individuals owed a duty of support to those social institutions,

however imperfect, that showered them with benefits. People are nothing but a product of the

past so it is important reflect upon history. A political representative, therefore, should always

respect the customs and norms of his or her constituency. Each individual has the duty to respect

and preserve tradition. Burke put the emphasis on the love for the community and the nation,

argued that it creates trust among members of society: “To be attached to the subdivision, to love

the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ as it were) of public

affections . . . The interest of that portion of social arrangement is a trust in the hands of all those

who compose it.” (Burke, 1982, 40) According to Burke, society is based on a contract between

the sovereign and its people, and people have the obligation to respect that contract. Respecting

and preserving the monarchy is important because the monarchy is part of the constitution, of the

contract, and of tradition. While admitting that the sovereign should serve the people to fulfill its

role in the contract, Burke criticized the practice of referring to the sovereign as servant of the

people, since the people are in fact the ones who have obligation. Burke wrote: “Kings and
nations were trampled upon by the foot of one calling himself the Servant of Servants.” (Burke,

1982, 24) Mill, on the other hand, had a very different perception of obligation and

responsibility.

While recognizing the responsibility towards community, Mill ultimately argued for that towards

the individual. According to him, society is not founded on a contract, and there is no good

reason to invent a contract to deduce social obligation from it. (Mill, 2007, 69) While each

person should care about their community, this is not the result of participating in a contract but

of responsibility towards their fellow beings. Individuals come together as a society for the sake

of living well, and not due to some inconvenience in the state of nature. In other words, the

individual for Mill is pre-political but not pre-social, and this has an implication on his view on

the duty of the individual. Each person has the duty to develop themselves intellectually

according to their own path, and all institutions and customs should be critically examined. Mill

wrote: “The term duty to oneself, when it means anything more than prudence, means self-

respect or self-development, and for none of these is any one accountable to his fellow

creatures.” (Mill, 2007, 73) For each citizen, duty towards the state is not important as doing

what is right. Basing his moral theory on utilitarian principle, Mill argued that each individual

can do whatever they see fit as long as they do not harm others. If everyone follows this rule, the

greatest happiness for the greatest number of people can be achieved. The difference between

Mill and Burke on individualism becomes even more evidenced when it comes to the question of

freedom.
Burke saw excessive individualism as the threat to freedom and precursor to tyranny. Burke not

only treats locality, and party as a natural part of the pre-political order of society but he also

appreciates the crucial role of these attachments as a safeguard against tyranny. For burke, the

excessive belief in one’s reason can lead to violence and outcomes that are disastrous to the

public. Burke accordingly opposed the French Revolution's radical social and political ideals,

which nominally elevated the individual above the rest of society. Just as Burke predicted before

his death, a society in which all subsidiary organizations between individual and state - the

indirect restraints which prevent despotism were broken proved easily dominated by the

charismatic leadership of Napoleon. In Burke's estimation, anarchy will likely prevail "until

some popular general . . . who possesses the true spirit of command, shall draw the eyes of all

men upon himself."(Burke, 1982, 86) The revolution in fact centralized power in France due to

the excessive belief in the role of one man. The individual who seeks to reform politics by his

own efforts should be regarded as delusional and potentially dangerous. It is the individual

statesman people should fear, for individual efforts to single-handedly reform politics disguise an

ambitious disdain for sharing the glory of success and the spoils of victory. Mill, as shall be seen,

took Burke’s argument on individual and freedom and flipped it over.

While Burke saw individualism as the precursor to the tyranny of one, Mill saw it as the bastion

against the tyranny of the majority. According to Mill, the individual should stand against the

opinion of the mass to prevent tyranny of the majority. It is important to retain individual opinion

since the majority of the public could be misled by a tyrant or intentionally discriminate against a

specific minority group for their own benefit. Individuals should stand up for what is right since

the rule of public opinion is intolerance of any view except its own. This action depends on one
of the most fundamental freedoms – the freedom to speak one’s mind without the fear of public

persecution, the freedom of expression and speech. True freedom for Mill is the ability to use

one’s own reason to evaluate the surrounding world, discern the good and the truth through

experimentation. Even without being influenced by political leaders or intentionally doing harm,

society as a whole sometime makes mistake which harm a minority group. Society can execute

its own will and “practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political

oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of

escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself."

(Mill, 2007, 10-11) The authority of society over the individual should be limited, just like the

authority of the government. For Mill, the individual, empowered by freedom of expression, is

not only crucial for preventing tyranny but also for making social progress. This emphasis on the

individual is once again different from Burke’s view on progress.

Burke considered progress to be an amendment to existing institutions. Burke believed that

drastic reforms, especially ones made by a single individual, might be made in the heat of the

moment that would do more harm than good, as it was during the French revolution. Burke uses

a biological analogy to show that change occur slowly by steps in nature. Burke writes that "by

preserving the method of nature in the conduct of the state, in what we improve we are never

wholly new; in what we retain we are never wholly obsolete." (Burke, 1982, 47) Burke's analogy

to the conservatism of nature is intended to bring out that organisms do not evolve on the model

of radical change. His saying that the products of change are never completely new speaks to this

element of continuity. But that the fact that society are never wholly obsolete in what people

seek to improve separates Burke’s stance both from the stasis of uncritical enjoyment of present
conditions and from the reactionary stance of those who want to recover some glory in the past.

The necessity of limiting the application of abstract personal reason and the desirability of

knowledge gained through experience, as underscored by Burke, has an important link with

tradition. Burke saw tradition as the cumulative addition of the past experiences of a society,

experience that no single individual possesses. The "unsteady and precarious contribution of

individuals" can serve as a sound basis neither for politics nor for any other social institution.

(Burke, 1982, 83) Burke suggested that the preservation of constitutional government depends on

institutions capable of reintegrating individuals into the habits and traditions of the larger

political order. Burke thought that existing institutions had already processed the necessary

element for changes, and that changes should be made on top of those existing institution: “We

found these old institutions, on the whole, favorable to morality and discipline, and we thought

they were susceptible of amendment without altering the ground.” (Burke, 1982, 83) Burke noted

that we must respect traditions and institutions and saw the constitution as the supreme tradition.

Changes, whenever possible, should not alter that holy constitution. The process of change,

however, is interpreted differently by Mill, who emphasized the role of great men.

Mill saw that, throughout history, social progress and well-being has been the work of

exceptional individuals. These people are the one who bring changes by challenging the

convention, posing competing opinions that produce new ideas. For Mill, intellectual stagnation

is the most dangerous threat for democracy, a system that depends on the knowledge of the

people. Custom is a hindrance to social advancement since it takes away individuality, which is

necessary for progress. Tradition makes society become more and more homogenous and

discourage public discourses. This is harmful for progress since exceptional individual can no
longer exist in such environment, an environment where all opinions are alike. He wrote:

“Human nature is not a machine to be built after a model, and set to do exactly the work

prescribed for it, but a tree, which requires to grow and develop itself on all sides, according to

the tendency of the inward forces which make it a living thing.” (Mill, 2007, 81) All customs,

therefore, should be subjected to critical examination by individuals. The struggle between

custom and individual is the source of cultural and social progress. Freedom of expression,

therefore, is important for progress since it enables creative individuals to express their view.

Individuals are the agent of change, but they cannot do so without being knowledgeable about

the institution they want to change. What is also important for progress, apart from freedom of

expression, is a universal public education system that develop the individuals’ rationality.

Education is especially important for women, who make up half of society but have remained,

throughout most of history, ill-educated. Along with education, knowledge of the legal system

should be accessible for everyone. Changes also require each individual to develop themselves

intellectually, unaffected by tradition and majority opinion. Most important of all, progress

requires full political participation from public, and extending right to vote is instrumental in that

matter. All in all, individuality is considered to be a fundamental element of society’s well-being.

One can see that Burke emphasized the role of the institution while Mill argued for the

importance of individuality. Burke thought that man has obligation towards society, that

individualism can lead to tyranny, and that progress comes from slow changes to existing

institutions. Mill thought that man should focus on developing himself, that individuality

prevents social tyranny, and that exceptional individuals create progress. The finding above

shows two of the different perceptions of individualism, particularly within the tradition of
classical liberalism. Once can study these differences to better understand the tradition and

competing views within it. Future researches can examine this matter in greater detail by looking

at other thinkers in relation to same research question.


References

Boyd, R. (1999). The Unsteady and Precarious Contribution of Individuals": Edmund Burke's

Defense of Civil Society. The Review of Politics, 61(3), 465. Retrieved from

http://link.galegroup.com.ezproxy.biblioottawalibrary.ca/apps/doc/A55884767/AONE?u

=otta35732&sid=AONE&xid=5e2c6b82

Burke, E. (1982). Reflections on the Revolution in France: and on the proceedings in certain

societies in London relative to that event. London: Penguin Books.

Cahn, S. M. (2011). Political philosophy: the essential texts. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Mill, J. S., & Sher, G. (2001). Utilitarianism. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub.

Mill, John Stuart. (2007). On Liberty and The Subjection of Women. Penguin Group USA

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi