Andrew Board

ENGL 414
May
10/7/12
The Greatest of Weavers: Carlyle, Mill, and the Choice of Custom

It is evident Thomas Carlyle and John Stuart Mill cast a scathing eye towards custom.

Mill puts it bluntly, “He who does anything because it is custom makes no choice” (1096). Both

men agree one cannot be an individual without critically questioning customs and his

relationship to them. Mill concedes,”…people should exercise their understandings, and that an

intelligent following of custom…is better than a blind and simply mechanical adhesion to it”

(1097). But Mill stresses the importance of liberty; the individual can exercise his liberty to

follow custom or not as he sees fit (within reason). Carlyle offers no such leniency: to follow

custom is a path to dehumanization, regardless of the freedom one exercises.

Both Carlyle and Mill acknowledge the importance of custom to a greater or

lesser degree; both concede custom is necessary for the development of an individual. Otherwise,

to rely purely on experience what has already been proven throughout the generations is

foolhardy, Mill argues, “On the other hand, it would be to absurd to pretend that people ought to

live as if nothing whatever had been known in the world before they came into it; as if

experience had as yet done nothing towards showing that one mode of experience, or conduct is

preferable to another” (Mill 1095). Were a young person to disregard such generalized

knowledge, they would grapple in the dark of willful ignorance. Carlyle concedes this point:

“True, it is by this means we live; for men must work as well as wonder: and herein is custom so

far a kind nurse, guiding him to his true benefit.” Custom facilitates the day to day interactions
between people; however Carlyle dismisses it as quickly: “But she is a fond, foolish nurse, or

rather, we are false, foolish nurslings, when in our resting and reflecting hours, we prolong the

same deception.” Custom is a crucial, but vestigial observance which must be discarded when it

is found inapplicable to the individual’s experience. The path to adulthood, to freedom, is “to use

and interpret experience in his own way. It is for him to find out what part of recorded

experience is properly applicable to his own circumstances and character” (Mill 1096).

At the core of Carlyle’s argument against custom is its debilitating effect on the soul. It

provokes much hollow talk and allows the prosaic interactions between people, but reliance on it

keeps us like children who rely on their “fond, foolish nurse” to take care of us when we can take

care of ourselves. Carlyle’s goal is transcendence; if we do not transcend custom, we are no

longer even human, but machines functioning entirely for the soulless work of money. This

implies Carlyle considers materialism to be customary as well; money is necessary to survive in

this world, if not a noble path to individuality. Interestingly, Mill does not comment on the

customary need of money. Perhaps because he keeps a more understanding, permissive view of

the pragmatics of custom.

Mill, consistent with the thesis of “On Liberty,” respects the right of others to follow

custom, as it applies to them personally. Custom presents a danger to individuality when it is

followed for its own sake, without discrimination or skepticism. It becomes a way to avoid the

use of God-given faculties of reason and interpretation. Hence, Teufelsdröckh’s admonition,

“Custom…doth make dotards of us all.” The Professor questions the role of custom as an agent

of education, “Philosophy complains that Custom has hoodwinked us, from the first; that we do

everything by Custom, even Believe by it; that our very Axioms, let us boast of Free-thinking as

we may, are oftenest simply such Beliefs as we have never heard questioned.” According to Mill,
it is necessary for a child to learn from custom, so he or she may not be ignorant. Carlyle argues

custom is a handicap: it stifles skepticism from the first so that no new knowledge may come

forth. We maintain beliefs simply because we have never heard them challenged. Custom is

indeed a powerful force. It led to China’s intellectual stagnation (according to Mill) and the

masses’ cautious eye on eccentrics, the individuals who cast off custom in order to cultivate their

genius, whatever it may be.

Mill and Carlyle agree on the result of custom impressing itself on people. Mill states,

“But society has now fairly go the better of individuality; and that danger which threatens human

nature is not the excess, but the deficiency, of personal impulses and preferences” (1097). In a

similar vein, Carlyle writes “…unless, indeed, I am a mere Work-machine, for whom the divine

gift of Thought were no other than the terrestrial gift of Steam is to the Steam-engine; a power

whereby Cotton might be spun, and money and money’s worth realized.” Custom, observed

unquestioningly, transforms people into automatons, mindless producers of capital and labor.

Mill offers a conditional path to become a better person, “It is not by wearing down into

uniformity all that is individual in themselves but by cultivating it and calling it forth, within the

limits imposed by the rights and interests of others, that human beings become a noble and

beautiful object of contemplation…” (1099).

It is tempting to label Carlyle an unforgiving misanthrope and Mill a gentler pragmatist.

To do so would denigrate Carlyle’s high ambition and idealism. It is apparent he holds out hope

for people to transcend the mental and spiritual limitations of custom, to challenge their axioms

with experience. Mill would agree without such individuals society will wallow in mediocrity.

However, Liberty means one can exercise the right to observe customs, as well as cast them

aside.