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.
Posts
