Sorry for late posting
Dai Oba
Jonathan M. Shoemaker
In Mill’s discussion of despotism in Considerations of RG, it is unclear
how it is that the transition from despotism to representative government
would take place. It seems that although the very requirements of
despotism would ensure the necessary condition of government, an obedient
populace, there seems to be a significant counter-effect on the progress
of a people both morally and intellectually.
Consider the following three passages:
1) In IV, Mill states that the first lesson of civilization is obedience
(IV.6). Hence, the uncivilized require a despotic leader (similar to a
military dictatorship) that can crush insubordination and awe the people
to submission by displays of power. The unruly would choose, if left to
their own decision, a representative that would introduce further
turbulent insubordination into the government and harm society further.
2) Also, in IV, Mill admits a further affect of an extremely passive
people that would cause them to elect a tyrant to rule them (presumably
against the common interest), thus worsening their circumstance.
3) In III, when criticizing the ancient idea of Greek political philosophy
(e.g. Plato) that would support a man of supreme virtue to rule
absolutely, Mill states that to have such power would enervate the people
and cause them to be passive as all decisions would be made for them. He
states: “A person would have a very unusual taste for intellectual
exercise in and for itself, who will put himself to the trouble of thought
when it is to have no outward effect, or qualify himself for functions
which he has no chance of being allowed to exercise” (III.2). As the
public is excluded from operations of government, their “moral capacities
are equally stunted” (III.2).
It seems that if one were to follow (1) it would yield citizens with the
character of (2) and thus lead to the circumstance Mill describes at (3).
If this a fair representation of the issue how would a constitutional
despotism avoid this consequence? How would it mold and reform the
characters of the people so as to be fit for self-government without
creating characters similar to (2)?
Arneson, Richard
and do not progress further.
Mill clearly thinks the possibility you envisage is often actual.
is it wrong then to head into the despotism stage, if there is a risk we may not be able to exit from it?
mill would say, the options are worse. staying in barbarism is worse for people.
if the despotism stage was risky, you might try to think of alternatives. maybe we can bypass despotism
altogether, so avoid getting stuck there. in addressing this issue, one would want to note that mill has a very odd idea of
normal human psychology in primitive hunter gatherer societies. he acts as if adults in such societies
are acting as kids, unable to control their impulses. how would such societies survive and thrive for eons, if
that were the case?
how might we envisage exiting from despotism toward a better stage of society?
i suppose mill thinks we might have three things going in our favor. One is that there are natural human impulses,
tendencies to chafe at arbitrary restriction and want to be more self-governing or at least free from
arbitrary imposition. With culture and socialization, these tendencies in us can be amplified or dampened, but they are always there, and
potentially an impetus away from despotism, especially despotism that has served its purpose and is no longer
progressive.
A second is sheer luck. A despotism may go sour, come unglued, for any of a variety of reasons. in
the transition, new possibilities for less despotic social order.
a third is the quality of despotism. mill is pretty emphatic about this. a wise despot is beating people up, to get them to
accept discipline, but with an eye toward encouraging people to be self-disciplined, and more broadly, with an
eye to preparing people for better forms of social organization. also, a wise despot by his own exemplary character points toward better ways.
the peasant treis to be like the good king, and becomes less peasant-like.
there is a luck factor here also, of course. you have to be lucky, to get an enlightened rather than an unenlightened despot.
(but after a string of stinkers, your number might come up.)
you might compare mill's ideas on despotism to those of marx. Marx sees despotism as a sign of social and economic progress. we have progressed beyong subsistence production methods, we have, say, organized agriculture, and a social surplus. the social surplus makes possible a beter life, and humans, partly
owing to perfectionist motives, want a betetr life,. but there is not enough to go around, and peopel fight for what there is, and thus roughly you get class sstruggle and rule by an elite, that hogs the social surplus. there isn't anything inherently progressive about the despotism, according to marx; its existence is just a byproduct made possible by social progress.
_________________
From: phi...@googlegroups.com [phi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jonathan M. Shoemaker [jsho...@uci.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 12:41 PM
To: phi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Question
