Chapter 5: Liberalism and colonialism: a critique of Locke and Mill
Bhikhu Parekh
The idea of Liberalism is filled with logically unacceptable ideas and rules. It can be contradictory, some ideas are focused on the value of Human Rights, yet some Liberals will speak of the positive effects of colonialism. Their morals were in the right although to some extent they approved of exploitation and arrogance of the colonies. The liberals wanted everyone to survive as a whole, but they want everyone to succeed individually (autonomy). Liberals want the best for everyone, and the rights for every individual to progress but they do not know how to make this happen without getting rid of the social “diamond”. Parekh uses examples of “two of the greatest liberal philosophers who lived during two distinct phases of colonial expansion”, John Locke and John Mill. He begins with Locke, by stating a quote by a Critic of English colonization, William Strachey First Secretary to the Colony of Virginia, an argument about how the Native’s human rights were being violated as the British came and annexed their land while treating them like savages. Other critics agreed with this statement, saying this version of colonization violated the rights of the indigenous people. Locke was interested in the Americas and the controversy. He studied the Native’s way of life, and the English settlers opinions of them. Locke noted “the Indian way of life offered a realistic contrast to, and provided most valuable insights into, the nature and structure of political society.” His interest in the New World gave him an influential philosophical defense to colonization. Locke speaks of the mutual characteristics and materialistic possessions of the human-kind, but he gives the idea that the world was not given to man to be used collectively, but rather for individual prosperity. God gave the Earth to man so they could use it to flourish individually and “maximize the conveniences of life”. Locke implies that all men have similar qualities and aspirations, they were all created equal. Locke’s main point was equality was one of the most basic features of mankind. Humans should live and make decisions based completely on their own thoughts and feelings, as long as it did not negatively affect another. His entire concept was based on the idea that one’s acts should neither positively nor negatively affect others, though they must function on their own and not be dependent on others. Belief that sovereignty is necessary was a dominant opinion of Locke, and this is a main point of his argument against the way of life the Natives pursued. Locke had a pessimistic view on the life of Natives, and his speeches of “equality of all man-kind” was directed mainly to the English settlers. His feelings contradict themselves in the way that he has a bias for men like himself, and viewed others as below those who “lacked internal solidity” and in return were an easy defeatable society. That very bias conflicts his idea of equality of all men, as he did not view the Indians as “one people”. They were not entitled to have respect or their own respected territory, their society was unstructured, and they did not fit into Locke’s perception of man. With these contradictions, Locke was not highly regarded by society and philosophers and English critics found many ways to break down his argument. They found his idea of “equality” only was directed towards English settlers, and his descriptions of the Native’s countered his concept of all man created the same. He did not realize that with the word individuality, comes individual ways of life. Locke’s moral imagination battled his prejudiced opinions, by degrading others ways of life whilst comparing it to his own. His ideas were simplistic in how man was to conduct himself, and he overlooked other imperative components to survival of a human. “Locke humanity was a status, a rank, with its own dignity and corresponding rights and obligations.” For Locke, life was like a game to be lived up to, and man were to fail his expectations than they were viewed as below the rest. Parekh then changes to John Mill’s philosophical ideas. Alive during imperialism, Mill was a philosophical defense to these new forces. He was closely associated with the East India Company as an examiner until British government abolished the company, and took over control of India. Mill’s ideas were that man was alive to fulfill his faculties to the maximum. (intellectual, artistic, etc) Man was to always attempt at improving himself, and those who pursued this self-determination and autonomy had the title of individuality. “For Mill as for most other liberals, individuality represented human destiny”, but this went against human nature. History’s oldest controversy between what man-kind does, and what they must do, was a factor of Mill’s philosophy. To live the Liberal way of life, man had to rebel against himself, and only a few were able to attain this without being educated first. Mill, like Locke, had a biased opinion against “foreigners” who lived in un-civilized societies. He viewed them as un-educable and that they could not encounter “human destiny” nor fit into his standards of the successful man. Mill spoke of how these “backwards” societies were entitled to moral claims but not political claims, the exact claim as John Locke had made. Mill was convinced that the political affairs of the country should be run by carefully selected politicians in the upper-class, as opposed to being democratically selected by the public who was subject to frequent opinion changes. He believed in colonialism of semi-civilized societies, and that the colonialists had a right to dominate and “improve” over said colonies. Mill’s thoughts bore a similarity to Lord Durham’s report on anglophones having power over the francophones, and like Durham, Mill did not comprehend ethnic loyalties nor had sympathy for other ethnic identities. Just as Durham wished to turn francophones to anglophones, Liberals desired the indigenous peoples be formed to match the English peoples way of life and though. They also wondered why man should remain attached to their customs instead of being coerced by colonial rulers to adopt the same thoughts as the liberals. Mill, like Locke was contradictory in his ideas. Mill stressed diversity, individuality and personal choice, under certain conditions. “Diversity” had to fit under the social theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control. This canceled out vast amounts of diversity as it did not accept traditional and customary ways of life. Mill looked upon those who lived life for happiness rather than a greedy state of mind, in a demeaning way. We discover that Mill did not cherish diversity itself, but rather liberal diversity. His political views were very strong, and he disagreed strongly with racism and misuse of power by colonial bureaucrats. Although he stated he felt like so, he had no problem sharing disdain towards the indigenous people and approving the violent actions used to overthrow their society. Mill and Locke were separated by a century and a half, there are a surprising amount of similarities between both their thoughts, approaches and assumptions. Both pushing for autonomy, progress, and equal reason, they defy their arguments by dividing man into two categories of “civilized” and “primitive” and having each “group” be treated accordingly. Locke and Mill treated any supporter of non-European ways of life with disrespect, and assume there is nothing to be learned from said non-Europeans. These two philosophers use seemingly just language and metaphors to make colonial rule appear as a legitimate reason to act violently or usually socially-unacceptably. They used their beliefs of equality to regulate colonial rule, and unlike the conservative defenders of colonialism they seemed concerned about the well-being of man such as violation of human rights and misuse of political power. Both philosophers did not understand the intense and intricate relationship between man and his culture, they believed that man could take a critical perspective to their culture, and that cultures could be “graded” and human beings could not be. They took the theory of culture and almost compared it to clothing, something that could be worn then discarded with ease. Liberals believe in equality of man, however they believe that the best way of life was individuality. And it is difficult to treat each as an individual yet also as an equal. Liberals grant equality to those who believe in individualism and the specific liberal philosophy. Though they have desires for equality and autonomy, they need to take a critical look at their promotions of inequality and sometimes illiberal impulses.
1) Which philosopher had a stronger ideology? Locke or Mill? Why?
2) Did Locke have a more condescending attitude towards those who were not English settlers? If so, why?
3) Is the Earth here to be used in any way man wants? Or are we here to make improvements to the world for following generations?
4) Is it fair to treat people of different cultures and ethnicity differently, or should
everyone be viewed as “equal”?
5) How can everyone be equal while still being an individual, and supporting themselves in their own ways?
6) Did the Adbusters - the organizers of Occupy Wall Street (OWS) - contain the same Liberal ideas which Locke and Mill spoke of?
7) Were the protesters upset that these business people had more power and wealth? Was OWS an act of jealousy or need for equality?
8) What is a viable solution to this issue?
9) What would the results be if everyone was to become equal in the modern day?
“Occupy Wall Street is a protest that began on September 17, 2011 in Zuccotti Park, located in New York City's Wall Street financial district. The Canadian activist group Adbusters initiated the protest, which has led to Occupy protests and movements around the world. The main issues are social and economic inequality, greed, corruption and the undue influence of corporations on government—particularly from the financial services sector. The OWS slogan, We are the 99%, addresses the growing income inequality and wealth distribution in the U.S. between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of the population. To achieve their goals, protesters act on consensus-based decision made in general assemblies to effect direct action instead of petitioning authorities for redress.”
Nicole Thompson
Mr. Robinson
May 23rd, 2012