The
dichotomy between the personal and the political has long been a contentious
issue in political philosophy now. With the period of Enlightenment followed by
the ascent of modernity the importance of the role of the individual has grown
immensely over the centuries. The concept of the individual and notions of
agency, freedom and equality are the characteristic features of liberal theory.
Philosophers with authoritarian undertones have defied these notions and placed
an emphasis on public life and the role of the state. In their views the state
is an overarching institution which best knows the interest of its people. But
with pluralism and diversity on the forefront, liberals continue to argue for
the individual’s own freedom to choose. This paper aims to discuss the issue of
this divide between what issues are deemed to be the individual’s choice and
what issues are deemed to be addressed by the public sphere. For this purpose
it will take into account the texts of John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant and Carl
Schmitt.
John Stuart Mill addresses the
question of civil liberty. He is concerned with that aspect of power which can
be legitimately exercised by society over the individual. Mill reiterates the
evolution of how political power developed over time and how it has come to
define its sphere today. Initially the leader was considered as someone in
opposition to the people at large and his authority a weapon of tyranny against
which the people needed to be protected. Soon however the populace gained
awareness regarding the idea of leadership and it was thought that the leaders
should be actually the representatives of the people as opposed to being
antagonistic authorities. People realized that if they could identify with
their leaders then their own interests would coincide with the interests of the
rulers (Mill, 303). This chain of thought soon developed further and the birth
of modern democracy took place.
Democracy too over time however
deteriorated and distanced itself from many of the premises that it was based
on. Soon it was realized once again by people that the form of “self
government” that was idealized was fading. Moreover the “will of the people” on
which the entire system of government was based was in effect the will of the
majority. Soon this “will” of the majority displayed itself in the form of the
“tyranny of the majority” (Mill, 305). This too at first is perceived by one as
something comprising the domain of the political and hence subject to public
debate. But Mill contends on the other hand that a form of social tyranny
exists. This is when society tends to uphold certain beliefs and opinions and
penalizes socially those who deny these opinions. These thoughts of defiance
are not punished legally, however the individual who dares this act experiences
the interference of society into his personal domain and in a sense as Mill
proposes, imprisons his soul. According to Mill there needs to be a limit on
the power of collective opinion to the extent that it does not end up crushing
the individual opinion (Mill, 305). So Mill is in a sense proposing that the
lines of the private sphere must be respected as regards the importance of
individuality. Therefore on the question of political despotism, most political
theorists will argue that it is something that needs to be addressed by the
society at large since it concerns the well being of the entire polity.
The idea of politics is according to
most political theorists is to guarantee the protection and welfare of the
community which it addresses. Therefore it is essential to impose certain
barriers on people’s conduct to ensure that others around them are safe. Some
of these barriers such as those against crimes are imposed by law. Some acts on
the other hand are those which are not punishable by law but should be through
opinion. However how to define these acts and the opinions is one of the most
contentious issues regarding separating the role of politics from the
individual’s private sphere. Every community has its preferences and choices
based on their likings, or due to their servility to their worldly masters or
Gods (Mill, 308). Nevertheless no one realizes that what they believe to hold
true and universal is in essence their own opinion.
When considering the case of
religion, most countries claim to uphold absolute religious freedom however in
practice most individuals hold religion close to themselves and in high regard
(Mill, 308). This close association of the majority to religion is bound to
enter the private sphere of an individual who lives with such people, although
politically most liberal democratic states have declared religion to be a
matter strictly relevant to the private sphere. The interference of the state
too is a matter that depends on people’s opinions. Some people would not mind
if the state intervened in their lives and expanded its role for eradicating a
social evil. However for some individuals their private space is of immense
importance and they are not willing to give it up to the state under any
circumstances (Mill, 309).
Mill proposes that the only time
that power can be rightfully exercised is when it is to prevent harm to others.
The individual is in Mill’s consideration, and adult, and he knows what is in
his best interest. No external power apart from his own will must lead him to
do something that is beneficial for him (Mill, 310). According to Mill, the
region of human liberty comprises of liberty of consciousness, liberty of
tastes and pursuits, and liberty to unite with other persons for peaceful
purposes. Hence he stands for an extended private sphere for the individual
which comprises of the aforementioned details on liberty. For him, the true
freedom is the freedom to pursue one’s own good in one’s own way (Mill, 313). He
compares the states of past generations to the time at which he writes. Previously
it was thought that the state has a right to control almost every aspect of
people’s lives however today there is no need for this (Mill, 313). So in a
sense Mill contends that the private sphere has overtime gained more importance
and the public sphere should shrink its role with changing times. Mill also argues that with the passage of time
the tendency of the society to suppress the individual will grow which is why
the need to curtail it has become even more important.
Mill also argues over the importance
of freedom of opinion and discussion for every individual. It is in the best
interest of the society not to silence the opinion of the individual. There are
two possibilities regarding an individual’s opinion, either it could be true or
either it could be false. If it is true society will take a longer time to
realize the fact and hence lose out. If it is flawed then in that case as well,
the person holding it can argue and debate and come to a conclusion that
will satisfy his own reasoning and
rationality too rather than the situation where he would simply bow down to
social pressure (Mill, 320). The individuality of a person is solely that part
of his life which only concerns himself. So in essence the idea of the true, the
good and the beautiful is an individual’s own decision and comprises his
private sphere which society has no right to intercede in.
For Kant the use of one’s reason can
lead him to enlightenment. He identifies laziness and cowardice as the two main
reasons for why people avoid the use of their reason. With regards to cowardice
he implies the fear inherent in man of defying established values such as those
held by others around him. Kant’s idea
of the public and private use of reason is however slightly distinct from most
of political philosophy belonging to the liberal tradition especially. According
to him the private use of reason comprises that area where we do something
because we are supposed to do it for instance in the fulfillment of our
professional duty. On the other hand public use of reason would indicate our
willingness to step out of our professional life and develop our own opinion
about something (Kant, 43). It is essential for a monarch to merge the
“collective will” with his own will. Kant proposes the idea of a ruler who supports
religious freedom and so lets the people exercise their reason in the public
sphere. This can be a threat as this may produce a consequence such that the
monarch’s legislation is challenged. And so such a situation must only occur
when the monarch possesses an army to guarantee peace in the land (Kant, 45).
Kant feels that the exercise of
reason which is very much desired can only occur in a Republican form of
government. He goes on to discuss the possibility of overlap between politics
and morality. He distinguishes between the “moral politician” and the
“political moralist” (Kant, 28). Kant argues that the use of coercive authority
or force is not necessary when man follows his reason to achieve his goal. This
is the road that the moral politician takes. On the other hand the political moralist
argues that men by nature will not always do what they ought to and hence this
will lead to them to take up methods which may prefer pragmatism over morals. In
Kant’s view the moral politician is the one to be revered and upheld. Therefore
in a sense Kant places a boundary over the use of private reason. Although he
supports the liberty of individuals to think independently in their public
sphere however in both spheres he places the condition of morality (Kant, 131).
He presupposes the existence of a clear demarcated dichotomy between right and
wrong which must be upheld.
Kant argues that the prosperity of
the populace does not really depend on the type of government or the degree of
harshness imposed by the ruler. Therefore he proposes that “Seek first the
kingdom of pure reason and righteousness ad your end (Zweck; the blessing of perpetual peace) will come to you yourself “(Kant,
133). This entails that man must at all times be conscious of his actions and
must consider the benefit of the society and the consequences of his actions.
He must make sure that reason and righteousness guide him everywhere. At this
point a contrast can be seen in comparison to Mill. For Mill, the individual
knows what is in his own best interest and that this agency of his needs to be
protected against the pressures of society. He makes the idea of right and
wrong the domain of the individual only. Although Kant does not clearly talk
about the individual’s morality however
if Kant were to view the same situation, he would deem an individual’s will
insufficient rather he would contend that the individual before taking any
action must take into account the right and wrong as perceived by others and as
he would want for others. For Kant, whatever act an individual does, it is
essential for him to appreciate the same from others towards himself. But
Kant’s main focus remains the role of morality in politics.
Schmitt
discusses the lines between the institution of the state and the political.
Generally the two terms have been associated to each other and one is used to
explain the other (Schmitt, 20). He goes on to explain the pitfalls of this
argument. This equation as he calls “state=politics” creates a problem for
neutral domains such as religion and culture. They no longer remain neutral and
as a result the institution of state becomes an amalgam of everything and fails
to mark one particular characteristic to define it (Schmitt, 22). For him the
most important demarcation is the “friend enemy” antithesis. According to
Schmitt a world without war or the friend enemy antithesis would be a world
devoid of politics as well. The enemy will be a public enemy as it will be a
collectivity fighting against a collectivity and so the existential “other”.
The enemy is “hostis, not inimicus” (Schmitt, 28). All other
domains such as cultural, religious etc can only act as secondary proponents to
a conflict. There exists a friend enemy divide in every conflict and this deems
all such conflicts as political (Schmitt, 37). However if any conflict
pertaining to religious or cultural motives can translate into a friend enemy
antithesis then it can become political.
The
ever existent potential for war is an undeniable reality for Schmitt and hence
the state must possess “jus belli” which implies the real possibility of
deciding upon the enemy and fighting him (Schmitt, 45). This concept entails
that only the state has the right to even ask its people to surrender their
right to life and it can order them to take the lives of the “other” as well in
any such situation of combat.
Schmitt
critiques liberalism as it bases itself solely on the individual and makes his
interests prime. On the other hand in Schmitt’s article one can infer an
inclination towards authoritarian and an extended role of the state and hence
the public sphere. For this reason Schmitt criticizes democracy as well for he
feels that it blurs the distinction between the state and the political and
amalgamates many of the neutral domains with the domain of the state. In the
economic realm liberals perceive competition and in the intellectual realm
there is discussion (Schmitt, 71). Schmitt critiques the liberals for at one
hand supporting competition economically and on the other hand encouraging
societal good. They aim to crush the role of the state and exaggerate the role
of the individual. For Schmitt this is highly undesirable as the state requires
power since it is the only authority that can decide on the friend enemy
antithesis which for him is crucial to the politics.
Unlike
Mill, Schmitt is a proponent of the power of the political. He feels that the
friend enemy antithesis which is integral to society can only be decided upon
by the state. Moreover he has strong disagreements with democracy because he
feels that the democratic state is unable to take a strong stand. The fact that
it is dependent on the consent of the majority means that it will be
ineffective (Schmitt, 23). For Mill however the will of the majority is an evil
in itself because it crosses the boundary of an individual’s freedom.
The question of which issues should
be deemed political and which ones should be part of the private sphere of
individuals, is addressed by different philosophers according to their own
political leanings. This paper has explored the ideas of Kant, Mill and Schmitt
with regards to this issue. Kant’s method of defining the public and private
use of reason is slightly distinct from the other two. For him the use of
reason and the issue of morality in politics is more imperative. Schmitt rests
his entire concept of the political on the friend enemy antithesis. He argues
that the potential of war will always exist and in a sense it can be argued
that Schmitt would deny Kant’s idea of “perpetual peace”. This is because for
Schmitt every relation can be reduced to the friend enemy antithesis which
creates the potential for combat. Mill is overall a strong defendant of the
freedom of thought, expression and opinion. He feels that it is in the
society’s best long term interest not to curb the potential of every human who
has the right to know what is best for himself.
Work
Cited
Kant, Immanuel. “An Answer to the Question: What is
Enlightenment?” in Perpetual Peace and Other Essays, ed. Ted Humphrey
(Hackett Publishing Company, 1983).
Kant, Immanuel. “Perpetual Peace,” in Perpetual Peace ad
Other Essays, ed. Ted Humphrey (Hackett Publishing Company, 1983)
Mill, John Stuart. Excerpts from On Liberty. PP. 302-41, in
Social and Political Philosophy: Readings from Plato to Gandhi, eds. John
Somerville and Ronald Santoni (Anchor, 1963).
Schmitt, Carl. The Concept of the Political (University of Chicago Press, 1996),
pp. 53-79.