J S Mill and the demise of the Women's Equality Party

The disappointing news this week is that the WEP, the Women's Equality Party, has dissolved, preferring to continue as activists.

What would J S Mill and Harriet think about this? 

In a word: Disheartening. 

J S Mill and Harriet would see it as a huge step backwards in terms of social progress. He thought parliamentary reforms were more effective, solid and longer lasting than activism. It was, he thought, a democratic process rather than relying on sporadic activism which could result in harm to oneself and others. Hence, he was more in line with the suffragists in wanting to bring about parliamentary reform, rather than the suffragettes who were more in the activist mode. Besides, his early experience of activism didn't go well so this could have encouraged him to use the wheels of democracy in the shape of parliament. Indeed, J S Mill became the man to lead the first parliamentary debate on women's suffrage in 1867. 

Nonetheless, famous for her militant activism, the suffragette Emmeline Pankhurst was instrumental in bringing forward the issue of women's suffrage and the right to vote. Her pressure for reform possibly sped up women's suffrage. This shows that activism has to lead to parliamentary debate and the introduction or amendments of bills and acts.

But J S Mill was also right in that women's right to vote was brought about by two acts of parliament in 1918 and 1928, albeit well after J S Mills' death in 1873. These acts gave women the right to vote. A right they could exercise and would count. 

But it was the Pankhursts that set up a women's political party not J S Mill. This party, and later the Women's Equality Party, were the only political parties to be based on the concept of gender instead of class. It was created in 1917 when Emmeline and Christabel repackaged their Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU), turning it into a political party called Women's Party. 

So there's always been a demand for a women's political party. 

Therefore, it's a dark day for women today because many were pleased they could vote for women and a woman's party. They felt they counted. They were on the ballot sheet. Now it's hit and miss whether there's necessarily a progressive woman candidate on the ballot sheet and it's back to the same tediousness of right/far right fighting the less right with the Liberals holding the middle ground. 

So I'm not sure what women are talking about when they refer to womens' spaces. Surely having their own space in politics is more important than worrying over trans women using the same group of cubicles. Especially since I've seen loads of men wander off piste into women's toilets. Interestingly, so called Gender Critics /TERFS never mention this phenomenon, yet it is a common sight and these men  are the ones that'll be the problem there, not the trans women. You cannot target the trans women in toilets (on the excuse that they are men really) yet conveniently overlook all the cis men (dressed as gender conforming men and clearly not gay) who unashamedly walk straight into women's toilets, without contradicting yourself in a transphobic way. 

It's also somewhat of a contradiction to profess such apparent fear and disgust at men and such an attachment to women-only spaces, while drastically failing to support a Women's Party in two consecutive centuries, so that both collapse quite quickly after they are founded. 

Why do women prefer to sit around and pick over the policies these women political parties did or did not adopt, so leading to their demise, instead of simply supporting the existence of a women focused political party in the first place, before it's too late and they're gone? 

James Mill and a Mill Circle update

James Mill, father of JS Mill, was born on the 6th April 1773 (4 years prior to Mary Shepherd, whose salon he attended) into a poor family in a run-down Scottish town. James's mother was ambitious for him, changing their Scottish family name Milne to the English 'Mill'. However, James did have a wealthy patron, Sir John Stuart without whom life would have been very challenging. I doubt James would ever have written anything or been able to bring up his son John in the way he did but for this generous man. This would mean that JS Mill would never have had the opportunity to become the great philosopher and politician that we know today.  James went on to study Greek, Philosophy and Theology at Edinburgh University and, as was usual in the 18th century, he started out as a preacher (1798). He soon gave that up and became a writer on philosophy, history, politics, economics, psychology (mind/mental association) and Education. David Hume influenced his Psychology. James was one of the founders of the Ricardian School of Economics and London University which was intended for the middle and lower classes because Oxbridge was too exclusionary.

Since it's the posthumous anniversary of his birthday, I thought it was a good time to discuss James Mill's role as the educator of John and his siblings. As often happens in families, siblings don't always remember the same things in the same way. John was critical of his father and thought him cold, and lacking in emotion, whereas his siblings thought him a wonderful father. John was born in 1806 and shortly after this James became a close friend of utilitarian philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, who was a supporter of gay rights! This relationship lasted throughout their lives, Bentham was pivotal in supporting the family financially. James had more children than he could afford and a journalistic career that didn't pay much. The two families lived next door to each other and spent a great deal of time in each other's company. Bentham sometimes worked in the same room as father and son. So John was used to working with others around him not in isolation as is often thought which is why he was quick to work with Harriet.

As an educator of his children, James spent at least four hours tutoring them and then doing his own work. Not unsurprisingly, the day started very early! Some were critical of the hot-housing that the children, especially John, were experiencing. Personally, I think if the children were not up to it, James would not have been able to succeed in the educational experiment. Children are considerably more capable than adults think. There is no doubt they worked hard but John never felt he was just a sponge absorbing facts. His father always emphasised learning by discovery and critically questioning everything. I can identify with this Socratic method of questioning everything and anything because I was brought up like that from an early age. Its aim is to teach you to think not just absorb knowledge uncritically and without understanding.  

My home education, although intensive, was not as demanding as John's. While John could read Plato in Greek by the age of seven, I had only just started learning Latin at that age (Cambridge Course📚). I had a lot of fun and, unlike John, was very physically active and mixed with children of my own age, productively, at theatre school and sports clubs. John, however, led a more isolated life and did very little physical activity although his music education enabled him to play the piano. This surely shows that his father was catering for John's emotional development! Apparently, John only liked playing the piano for Harriet! How romantic! ❤

His father also encouraged a study of great past poets which held him in good stead with Harriet who was a poet herself but it also meant he was confident striking up friendships with poets such as Wordsworth whose company he thoroughly enjoyed! Although the reason for studying poetry may not have been for emotional development but rather rhetoric and activism, it still meant that John would have had an emotional outlet for his feelings, especially since his father encouraged him to write his own poetry. This may be why his writings flow so well.

John would build on his working relationship with his father with Harriet basing this collaboration on the one he shared with him. Working together in the same study space at the same table. My mother and I worked in the same study room too. It creates a bond and a more equal relationship. It also means you have one-on-one attention all the time!

As with me, learning was prioritised by my mother just as James prioritised learning before play with John. However, James was quite a disciplinarian whereas my mother is very liberal and believes discipline comes easily when the child has a close, emotional bond with the parent and both have fun together e.g. Playing lego, dolls, board games, making things and so on. And, of course, leading a social life which allows the child to learn from others and enjoy interacting with them. 

Having said that, John seems to have been perfectly capable of an emotionally satisfying relationship with Harriet and staying faithful to only her. That's emotional maturity! Especially since he met her very early on when he was still in his early twenties. He was also able to sustain a working relationship with her and give her credit for the work they did together. Unusual for those days!

John was rational but his father, James, prided himself on being in control at all times and super rational. He was independently minded and a strong  anti-clerical, atheistic secularist, as was Bentham. Perhaps philosophers conflate James and his son John by assuming John was also a strong atheist. I'm inclined to see John Stuart Mill as an agnostic or at least a soft atheist who disliked dogma and institutional religion much like Hume and home-educated, radical, free thinker and atheist Harriet Taylor Mill whom he married. They suited each other very well. Even though he didn't mind going to churches and admiring the architecture he was never initiated into religion as a child. He grew up without a religious faith and happily stayed that way although he was not as negative as his father who parted ways with Christianity.

James Mill was always ready to become friends with intellectuals. One such was the political economist Ricardo who had a great deal in common with Adam Smith in this area. Ricardo was a firm favourite with both father and son and his death (1823) was felt deeply by both. It was due to Ricardo that John remained interested in political economy all his life. 

James Mill was a loving father who devoted a great deal of time to his children. John looked up to him and respected him deeply. I think John was, however, unnecessarily afraid of his father. James was just ambitious for his son rather like his mother had been with him. James was, nonetheless, very close to his children considering it was the early nineteenth century when fathers had little to do with their offspring, and still don't in many cases! 

Although we mustn't forget Marx, who was Mill's contemporary, and also a wonderful father with a very good personal and working relationship with his daughter, Eleanor. However, he didn't demand as much from her as James did of his son, John. Marx was, in many ways, a typical Jewish father, caring, warm and loving. 

Nevertheless, I think John's upbringing enabled him to sustain working hard and quickly in adult life. He was prolific! His brain was always functioning at a high level. It shows how bright Harriet must have been to keep up with John and to have such a massive input in their joint work projects. Certainly his feminism wouldn't be up to scratch without her because his father James was not a feminist, as far as I'm aware!

To celebrate James Mill's birthday I've created a sub-group devoted exclusively to him and his writings within the Mill Circle website (wix).

Harriet Taylor Mill Posthumous Birthday and New Group

To mark Harriet (Taylor) Mill's posthumous 215th birthday, I've created a new group dedicated to her life and works within my Mill Circle. It's a free, public group you can join in addition to the J.S. Mill Philosophy Circle group, both available on my Mill Circle website and app. 

Harriet was a philosopher in her own right yet we still read tedious, sexist depictions of her as an unimportant sideshow living in the shadow of J.S. Mill. She was, in fact, already up and running, creating her own work before she met and worked with J.S. Mill. She had published her solo works and went on to produce further solo works (unpublished) in her lifetime too. 

Harriet was a great influence on J.S. Mill. He wouldn't have become such a radical, thoroughgoing feminist without her and I very much doubt he would have been as prolific a writer as he was without her input of ideas, suggestions, comments, criticism and more. It was Harriet who made John an exciting, passionate, liberal, feminist philosopher and politician who cared deeply about personal freedom for both men and women.  

So let's celebrate her birthday by correcting misinformation in history that reduces and erases her equal status with J.S. Mill. Let's celebrate her by acknowledging her as equal co-author of works published under his sole name as well as appreciating her solo contribution to Philosophy, Feminism and Poetry. 

I've posted one of her poems in the Harriet group. Just something to think about and mull over during the weekend.

New Website for this Circle

Click here for the new website that I've created today for my J.S. Mill Philosophy Circle, which celebrates his birthday on this day every year. It's aim is to chat about all things Mill! There's a forum and a group to join on the website where you can learn about, share your thoughts and discuss J.S. Mill's texts. The website resources, blog and group keep you updated about all the group's latest happenings. There are rules you have to keep to but they are the kind of rules that one would expect any group to abide by anyway! There is also a contact form on the website for you to reach me directly. 

Feel free to come along and chat! You don't have to be doing research on Mill or have any knowledge about Mill to join and participate. There'll be no tests! 📃✍️🤯😂 All welcome! 

J S Mill's Posthumous Birthday 2022

J.S. Mill was a Londoner born in Pentonville, Islington, on this day early on in the 19th century. However, as an adult, he loved France, spent a great deal of time there, often using it as a bolthole when his views in England caused too much controversy. Both he and his wife, Harriet, are buried in Avignon, France.

John Stuart was taught at home by his father, James, who was extremely strict but nonetheless, put together the most arduous and impressive education ever attempted in history! I identify with John Stuart in so far as I was also educated at home but, for me, it wasn't a strict regime yet despite this I was taught a very broad curriculum, even at A Level, across various fields: Science, IT, Social Sciences, Humanities, Classics, Languages, Creative and Performing Arts, Sport. My mother's method wasn't discipline and a regimented day, it was a fluid,  co-operative way of working together. I was an active learner and involved participant in my education. Mill, on the other hand, was forced more into a passive role and had to work unreasonably hard! He was given Greek to do at three years old at home on his own whereas, at the same age, I learnt the (Suzuki method) violin with a small group of children. Definitely more fun! And I think J.S would agree because at the age of 20 he backlashed against his over analytical, dry, theoretical education becoming aware that his intellectual development had outstripped his emotional flourishing. Thereupon, he embarked on an interest in poetry which awakened his feelings. I believe this made J.S. a better philosopher than he otherwise would have been, as well as, a more socially aware one. J.S.Mill was also a constructive, inclusive thinker not a destructive, disparaging one which caused some to fault him as halfhearted. I'm inclined to think it was a reaction to his overcritical father! His inclusivity is best seen when he credits Harriet's influence on his thinking and his work. He praised her genius at a time when women were seen as intellectually weaker than men. (Has anything changed?) 

I think this says something important about education and that is that schools overfocus on academic work, usually as a solitary activity, to the detriment of the emotions and co-operative study, which reduces flourishing. This government might well exacerbate this further by reducing the teaching of creative subjects, such as music and art, preferring instead to promote practical, 'useful' subjects, such as, STEM. But as we can see with Mill, there's no such thing as an useless subject. The arts and humanities are every bit as important as the sciences. They support each other. Physics is not more important than Sociology. I've studied both and found both valuable!

So what I'm doing in this particular post is looking at JS Mill, the man. Who was he? This is often my starting point when researching any philosopher. Who is the person behind the writings. Of course, we can't be sure but we can piece together who someone was by looking at their biography and listening to their voice through their texts and letters. Otherwise, it's all too easy to conflate philosophers who touch upon the same topic areas. Nevertheless, that's not to say that fascinating parallels can't be drawn between philosophers.

For instance, Spinoza, Hume and JS Mill, all wrote about religion but each in a different way. Spinoza was a 17th century Dutch Jew and that immediately situates him at a particular time, place and gives an insight into his upbringing. His life revolved around his family's synagogue up until his father's death when he was in his early twenties. His mother died when he was a child. Mill, (19th century Londoner) on the other hand, as I have just said, was home educated by his overambitious, overstrict father whereas Hume, (18th century Scot) whose father was a distant cousin of the Earl of Home, attended Edinburgh University leaving there in his mid teens having rejected the family profession in law. All three were freethinkers and considered atheists. I think very few now see Spinoza as an atheist. He was, I believe, an orthodox Jew all his life. However, Hume and Mill are still seen as atheists although I'm inclined to dispute this. My view is that they were agnostics who were simply anti the Church establishment. Neither liked institutional religion. In the end, neither did Spinoza but he came to that conclusion from bad personal experience. I'm not aware that Hume and Mill suffered from similar appalling treatment from a religious institution. There is, I think, still a fair amount of misunderstanding of these three philosophers, maybe because they did not fit the Christian brief. 

Mill wrote more than it's possible for any one of us to study in a lifetime. I marvel how he managed this as well as work for the East India Company where his father held a high position. But he did lead a regimented life that he set out for himself and carried on even after marrying Harriet, and that meant his job did not take up the whole day so leaving him time for his philosophy, collecting rare plants abroad, and political life, including being an MP and advancing women's suffrage. 

My Undergraduate Essay on J.S. Mill to Celebrate his Posthumous Birthday

J. S. Mill was born on this day in 1806 so to mark his posthumous birthday, I'm sharing this one and only essay that I wrote on J.S. Mill during my Undergraduate philosophy degree. I printed the date in light purple ink so it's difficult to read but if you look closely, you'll see that, after my name, it reads '2nd year Ethics 13/10/10'. It was unfortunately one of those many short notice changes to an essay title/topic. It was supposed to be an essay on Hume and I had already started working on the essay when it was switched to J.S. Mill. Fortunately, this time the essay changed to one of my favourite philosophers, J.S. Mill, who I had studied during my A Level philosophy. Utilitarianism is one of those topics which are always on the A Level syllabus so I was very surprised J.S. Mill and Utilitarianism were not a bigger feature on my degree course. 

Here's what I don't understand. J.S. Mill is a leading British philosopher yet the undergraduate course spent far more lecture time and essay writing time on the German philosopher Leibniz and presented him in a much more positive light. Yet we're are all claiming to be very British and promptly left the EU 🇬🇧. And J.S. Mill is not just arguably the most famous British philosopher, he was also an MP for Westminster and a prominent feminist who played a vital role in bringing about votes for women and arguing for women's rights in parliamentary debates. So how can you not devote a substantial amount of degree time and essay writing on him? J.S. Mill wrote about a wide variety of topics so his philosophy could be taught throughout a degree course. 

You'll see that this is a marked essay, written over in red pen. However, here I haven't distracted the reader with the marker's comments because, on re-reading his comments, I thought they were completely irrelevant and unhelpful. Worse still, the tutorials were group tutorials which took place after essays were already written yet there was no individual feedback or discussion of our essays. The only individual feedback students received was the written comments and mark, unless the PhD student or lecturer marking it couldn't be bothered to return the essay, make any comments or tell you the mark. In the past, individual tutorials were common place!

There's really no point in asking students to write essays, especially if students are writing over 2-3,000 words each time, yet never discussing these essays in a tutorial. You learn nothing from the marking. The only usefulness of writing essays so frequently is that you get into the good habit of writing philosophy regularly. I tended to write longer essays than required because it is far more beneficial in the long run. It is much easier to go from writing 2-4,000 word essays into presenting research papers at conferences. Whereas a full-time student writing only 1,000 word essays will struggle to draw on that for writing up any research they later do after graduating. It definitely helped me post-degree that I was up and running and used to regularly writing detailed essays on a wide variety of topics for which I often independently found my own extra reading and had spent time doing my own research in order to add depth of thought and argument to each essay. For this, you need a several thousand word limit, otherwise there just isn't enough space to develop any of your ideas. Every essay had set reading you had to use so when looking at my references/bibliography you are not looking at a list of my own choice of reading material! Often the set reading was 2-3 articles. I might add to the reading but I had to include what was set. 

On the last page, you will see that I received 70%, which is a 1st - firsts are the top grade, for those which don't understand the English university system. So, to give 3 European examples, in Spain, this essay would be graded as 8.5 +;  in France it would be 16+; in the Netherlands, it would be 9-10. In the US, this essay is an A, in Canada it's an A to A+. Why grades cannot be internationally understood and preferably standardised, I don't know, especially between EU member states! People shouldn't have to keep looking it up and explaining their past grades at length, just for the international academic community to understand their grades. Universities and their staff should already understand international educational systems so not require individuals to keep figuring it out for themselves. And marking expectations vary too - presumably, a student could get a 10 in the Netherlands, whereas nobody in England would attain a 100% for a 'first', it's simply a British convention. Not to mention that marking varies hugely in quality, the effort put in and is highly subjective. Hence, when it comes down to it, university grades don't really represent actual student ability. This is even more true when you study at a university like mine, where the marker is given free rein by the college to write whatever they feel like, without any responsibility attached, because students are, in effect, given no powers or recourse to challenge the way their work has been marked or graded. Anything went when marking my essays and nobody in the entire college would ensure that my essays were even returned, never mind correct any nonsense comments/feedback, illogical grading or tutor attitude problems, no matter how obvious and provable it was. Yet these markers are surely used to peer reviewing academic research! If this is how they conduct their peer review, then the academic publishing system needs serious overhauling! 

My blogs and ebooks are an interactive system whereby readers can leave peer review, comments, ask academic questions and chat with me as the author. Indeed, all my work is open to peer review anytime, there's no time limit on it, unlike conventional academic publishing systems. This is in keeping with the modern publishing system, including for academic ebooks, whereby readers are given the opportunity to engage interactively with the content. I used to allow all comments from anyone to be automatically published on my blogs. However, after I once received an extremely unpleasant, homophobic, misogynistic, anti-Semitic comment on a Spinoza blog post that I had written a few years earlier, I adapted the commenting system. So after that incident, I now have all comments monitored before they are published on my blogs. This is merely to uphold standards and prevent things, such as hate speech, bigotry or internet trolling harassment from being accidentally published. The monitoring system also helps filter out spam, bots, anonymous and fake accounts. Academic freedom is always ensured, no comments are filtered on the basis of their academic stance. The reason that there are no published comments is simply that nobody has submitted any so there has been nothing to monitor or filter out. Thus, I can assume that everyone understands everything perfectly and does not need anything explaining! My work, and, in particular my books are, therefore, considered perfect. I'll take that as a compliment.🙂💪💖🌠

Please also note that my work is my copyright automatically but I haven't just relied on the UK granting me my copyright automatically. I also don't only rely on Blogger to date my work or objectively 'witness' the date or content for me. I have actively registered my copyright in such a way that it is also protected through international law. This also makes it more straightforward for me to issue 'take down' notices and copyright infringement notices if I wish. It also seems to be little understood in the academic community that everyone has the right to possess the copyright to their ideas and work, irrespective of their qualifications or job title. Academic snobbery is not an excuse. Thus, my ideas and work must not be cited and referenced any differently or any less thoroughly than anyone else working or studying in academia/universities. Moreover, my work is readily, easily available, free and open access on the internet so it is implausible for a student or lecturer, including experienced researchers of any age, to have managed to overlook my work and fail to cite it. This additionally means that my work is also detectable by software scanning the internet to check for correct citation before publishing researchers' journal articles or books. Blogger is powered by Google so any Google search will find my work on my blogs (and find my academia.edu sites). 

Now to JS Mill: 

Essay: © Libuse (Liba) Kaucky 2010 All Rights Reserved 

My IDs: 

Web of Science Researcher ID: P-2484-2016 URL: https://publons.com/researcher/2202509/liba-kaucky/;
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1598-0833

J. S. Mill’s 214th Birthday Today!

John Stuart Mill was born today, in 1806 so to celebrate this year, I shall focus on his biggest legacy – feminism.

A brief commemoration was eventually added to J.S. Mill’s grave in 1980 and simply depicted him as an advocate of women’s rights^[i], even though his work and thought was very varied, ranging from philosophy (especially as a political, ethical, social philosopher and logician) to his contributions to scientific method, activism/social reform (including supporting the abolition of slavery in America) and even becoming an MP for the Liberal Party. Although aspects of much of this work supported and advanced feminism, his work was broader than women’s issues and rights. Nevertheless, perhaps feminism is J.S. Mill’s single largest contribution left to us, and so it is fitting to highlight this today.  

Three aspects of J.S. Mill’s active support for women’s equality that stand out in my mind are:

1 education

2 domestic control and violence

3 women in political roles.

So I shall say a little about all three and show how, unfortunately, all these three areas of life continue to be key and in need of drastic improvements today.  

One, education today remains very gendered even though there is more knowledge about gender stereotyping and bias than back in the 19^th century when the Mills were raising awareness of barriers holding women back. One of the many consequences of gendered discrimination is that, as J.S. Mill correctly emphasizes, it prevents women from reaching their full potential and having the same freedom as men to flourish and become independent, responsible adults choosing their own path for themselves^[ii]. I share J.S. Mill’s concern that girls’ education is imbued with a subtext of social conditioning about what is suitable for women and men to do. I am always astonished to discover the gendered differences of opportunities and options given to girls at schools (whether mixed or single sex schools and including at elite schools) compared to what is offered to boys. For instance, I’ve noticed that philosophy and debating skills are not timetabled equally between comparable boys’ and girls’ schools, even when they are merely single sex branches of the same school! Philosophy is just an academic subject which provides rigorous intellectual development so there is no excuse for not teaching it at the same age and to the same standard for both. It still remains a male dominated field so by giving many boys a head start in the subject it directly exacerbates gender discrimination and stereotypes later on in their education within universities and academia in general. Equally, I think it is also unacceptable to offer, within the physical education curriculum, ballet or dance to girls but not to boys, while removing sports such as cricket or football from girls’ curriculum yet offering it to boys. What message is this conveying to young teenagers about gender roles and what physical activities are available to them, whether as hobbies, interests or as athletes and dancers, when they become adults? This discrimination also impacts on girls’ physical development at a time when their physique is still developing. This leads to inaccurate perceptions of their respective physical strengths and weaknesses.

I agree with J.S. Mill that, given that most girls receive a gendered upbringing, it is impossible to assess or make claims about what is or isn’t in “women’s nature” “until the cultural, legal, social and economic playing fields” are “levelled”^[iii].  There is no doubt in my mind that the basic gender principal should be in line with J.S. Mill’s belief that there is “no innate difference along gender lines” ^[iv].

Recently, there has been a push towards reverting norms and values back to some outdated notion of binary, fixed gendered concepts of men’s and women’s natures. However, it has already been seen for centuries that such an approach is at odds with human rights and identities. It means that the whole of society loses out which is why mainstream feminism has rejected the assumption of binary gender roles for most of the 20^th century and intersectional feminism continues to do so. Binary, biologically gendered societal notions have and continue to attempt to eradicate intersex, people who are non-binary (be they agender, polygender) and trans. However, I think it is often recently forgotten that binary gender roles also oppress cis men and women who become stuck in narrow social roles of what it means to be a male or female which inhibits them from developing themselves to their full potential, including emotionally, psychologically, physically, economically and socially. This, I suggest, makes a cis defence of binary gender concepts untenable, implausible and harmful to human flourishing and human rights. Current counter-arguments are not that different from those in the 19th century. J.S. Mill received criticism from less enlightened men, such as J.F. Stephen, who argued back as though it would be absurd for girls to learn “to play at cricket, to row and be drilled like boys” while boys’ education would include the ability to “sew, to keep house, and to cook”^[v]. But why look upon these sports and life skills in such a gendered way when they are merely activities with no inherent gender and are useful or fun skills for any adult to acquire? It also denies the existence of men who are just as equally capable at sewing and cooking as they are at playing cricket and enjoy all these activities to the same degree. Such men do exist and not necessarily because they wish to be gender non-conforming. The ability to mend clothes and feed yourself can come in handy for men too, especially if living alone! However, these are also essential skills for men to be familiar with if they are to pull their weight once married and sharing household jobs. DIY jobs are all very well but they are more sporadic and give a sense of achievement. Washing dishes, doing the laundry, hoovering and cooking standard meals for the family are daily, repetitive chores which do not give the same sense of fulfilment, achievement or permanence. Nonetheless, both sets of skills are part of developing self-sufficiency to the full – so good for those who develop themselves beyond the confines of gender expectations! It is just as important for women to learn to do DIY as it is for men to learn to cook and sew.

Two, to bring ourselves completely up to date, the present pandemic is showing just how shockingly prevalent domestic control and violence committed by men towards women is when the two are in each other’s company 24/7 during lockdown. It has highlighted that domestic violence is even more prolific and dangerous than previously estimated prior to COVID-19 (whereas the same widespread phenomenon of numerous acts of violence and murder is not being committed by women against men during any period, at any time). The statistics show a sharp increase in women dying as a direct result of domestic violence during lockdown. Since people were confined to their homes it clearly illustrates that women are in more danger in the home than outside in the world. This is despite it being a time when society began to adopt a paternalistic approach, emphasizing ‘keep safe’, ‘stay at home’. I think this shows the continuing relevance of J.S. Mill’s thought (and indeed Harriet Taylor Mill’s too) on domestic and heterosexual marital life. Arguments similar to his (contra the anti-reformers in his era) need to be repeated – politics needs to end the deluge of abuse, violence and murder of women by their “fathers, husbands and brothers”, the very same men who are traditionally seen as their so-called “male protectors”^[vi]. Although this seems like a bygone phrase, aspects of male paternalism still pervade society, such as, perpetuating the idea of women needing a male relative or partner to go with them or pick them up to ensure their safety when they go out or return late at night together with a list of do’s and do not’s eg don’t walk down unlit streets at night, don’t wear provocative clothes (whatever that means!). Furthermore, lockdown itself cannot be solely blamed for the massive rise in domestic violence and murdered women. Patterns of domestic abusive behaviour do not appear overnight purely as a result of a change in lifestyle and circumstances – male domestic controlling, abusive and violent behaviour merely becomes more apparent and dangerous to the female victim for a variety of reasons and is purely down to the male abuser. Many other partners and family members may experience the same challenges and strains but do not resort to domestic violence in any or all of its forms (eg economic, coercive, emotional, psychological, physical, sexual). So we cannot thank J.S. Mill and Harriet Taylor Mill enough for their tireless work to try to end domestic control and abuse of women! Without them, we may well be even further behind than we are today.

Three, a key way to help address women’s inequality, including in marriage, the home and work, J.S. Mill maintained, was to acknowledge women’s capabilities in politics and leadership. Mill was impressively advanced in his appreciation of the wonderful work some women rulers had achieved in England/ the UK and abroad and even argued that women are better suited to politics and leadership than men^[vii], something people still struggle to take on board today! Like Spinoza, he noticed that preconceived stereotypes about women’s capabilities in political life stem from social expectations and habit. J.S. Mill observed that what men perceived to be natural for one’s gender varied between countries, for instance, while the English saw nothing strange about having a female ruler because they were used to seeing a queen on the throne, other nations could not accept the notion of a queen^[viii]. However, having never seen a female in the army or as an MP, the English tended to reject the idea of women occupying these roles^[ix]. Over 200 years later, and this gender bias has persisted and resulted in bullying and security problems for women in politics. It has also meant that there is a lack of women going into and remaining in politics, as can be seen by the important work done by 50:50 Parliament which tries to encourage women into politics with initiatives such as #AskHerToStand – a project I’m sure J.S. Mill,  Harriet Taylor Mill and her daughter Helen Taylor, would have supported.  

---

[i] Richard Reeves, John Stuart Mill: Victorian Firebrand (London: Atlantic Books, 2008), 413.

[ii] Reeves, 417–8; 427.

[iii] Reeves, 417.

[iv] Reeves, 417.

[v] Reeves, 421.

[vi] Reeves, 423.

[vii] Reeves, 426.

[viii] Reeves, 420.

[ix] Reeves, 420.

How can we draw on J.S. Mill’s philosophy when trying to understand politics and Brexit today?

Although J. S. Mill was born over 200 years ago, his philosophical approach to political and social analysis is as relevant and informative as ever. This year, his birthday (20/5/19) is just a few days before the European Elections in the UK (23/5/19) so I shall discuss his politics.

The upcoming European Elections started me thinking about which party J.S. Mill may have belonged to today, given that he was elected MP for Westminster representing the Liberal Party (1865-8). The Liberal Party grew out of the Whigs, Radicals, free trade Peelites and the Independent Irish Party uniting together into this one party 160 years ago next month. In 1988, the Liberal Party transformed into the Liberal Democrats (Lib Dems) party we know today. So I imagine that, if J.S. Mill were a politician now, he would stand as a Lib Dem candidate and wish to be an MEP (Member of the European Parliament). As I mentioned in my previous post, Mill as a Francophile (as many 18^th and 19^th century philosophers were eg David Hume, Jeremy Bentham, Karl and Eleanor Marx) and traveller around Europe and beyond, would, I think, have supported Remain, which is a central campaign of the Lib Dems. I wonder, how might J.S. Mill have argued for Remain? How might he have tried to prevent a chaotic Brexit?

We shall never know, but it may be informative to analyse what we can learn from his unique brand of political philosophy so we can avoid repeating the same mistakes in the future. Fitzpatrick published his interpretation of J.S. Mill’s political philosophy in 2006 yet, I suggest, a decade later in 2016 voters fell into the same logical errors Fitzpatrick describes as problematic at the beginning of the 21^st century[i]. Thus, it seems to me that perhaps, Brexit and Trump are seen as being the result of a more recent change in how voters and politicians argue and present their views in debates than is actually the case. Politicians attracting voters through fallacious reasoning and misrepresenting the facts and problems to give apparent solutions is not a new phenomenon yet voters seem to fall into the same logical traps. Although learning from history is important, I suggest it needs to be supplemented with learning from philosophy by analysing past argumentative strategies which aim to convince and change behaviour, including voting patterns and world views. This, I claim, is just as vital to breaking the cycle of history repeating itself, be it repeating the poor political judgement of a government, preventing WW3 or preventing voter manipulation and political rhetoric which encourages hate crime and discrimination.

How can we draw on J.S. Mill’s philosophy when trying to understand politics and Brexit today?

While demonstrating how J.S. Mill can successfully answer Rawls’s criticisms of theories similar to Mill’s, Fitzpatrick outlines some key principles which show how J.S. Mill’s brand of utilitarianism helps to combat modern problems in politics[ii]. Although Fitzpatrick uses American examples of the Bush administration and his book was published in 2006[iii], I couldn’t help but see striking resembles with observations made in the UK about Brexit since the 2016 referendum. I think Fitzpatrick[iv] provides us with excellent vocabulary and descriptions which I think can be cross-applied to understanding the Brexit process and shed light on thoughts and feelings many Remainers are struggling to express in words. So I want to share my favourite quotes and explore how to relate three of Fitzpatrick’s five reasons[v] why, contra Rawls, J.S. Mill has a solid theory/concept of justice which can be applied to Brexit.

1: Fitzpatrick’s “reality-based community”[vi]

Although consequentialist theories are often heavily criticised, I think Fitzpatrick points out two vital advantages of good consequentialist thinking[vii] used by utilitarians which I think would have made a huge improvement to Brexit. By having to reason from actions to predicting various possible outcomes (consequences of your actions), it encourages two important mind sets:

a)      being “reality-based”[viii]: in order to accurately calculate what might happen as a consequence of your actions, you need to begin with and track true facts, not a fictional notion, to find solutions[ix]. So it inherently rejects the recent phenomenon of what a White House aide described as the mind set of “That’s not the way the world really works anymore.” “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality” which is considered more powerful because it makes them “history’s actors”[x]. Meanwhile, those who base their thought (in the spirit of the enlightenment and empiricism) on reality, truth and fact, “will be left to just study what we do.”[xi] Indeed, much of the anti-EU Leave campaign seems to me to have taken the reality-creating approach rather than the reality-based approach. This is evidenced by the many false statements and promises made, embodied by the Brexit Bus which misled voters into thinking the EU was draining money away from the NHS, making it suffer under the strain. Even recently, it became apparent that some stats cited were invented by the wishful thinking of a Leave supporter, as opposed to grounded in statistical fact. When it comes to Brexit, I think, this reality-creating approach feeds into the second aspect of Fitzpatrick’s first reason reasons[xii].

b)      “path dependence”[xiii]: Fitzpatrick quotes Diamond as writing that: “The particular course of action that a leader, or a country, pursues initiates a chain reaction of events that prevents a return to the starting point and the implementation of an alternative course.”[xiv] This seems to me to be very similar to the uphill struggle the people’s vote campaign for a second referendum and the push to revoke Article 50 are experiencing. Triggering Article 50 on the basis of the referendum result (despite the referendum only being advisory not legally binding so there was no obligation to act on it) set off a chain of causal events which have gathered so much momentum that no matter how disastrous Brexit could be, MPs march on regardless with a mantra of delivering the undeliverable (a good Brexit). It seems inconceivable to many MPs that they could simply return to the beginning by revoking Article 50 and take a less damaging course of action. However, the Lib Dems and Change UK do see this as a possible course of action. As with the Iraq war, Brexit has also been compounded by “poor planning and outright blundering” which led to “chaos”[xv]. All in all, this path dependence analogy I think fits the political dilemma of Brexit rather well:

“When you enter a one way street in the wrong direction, no matter which way you turn, you will be entering all the other streets the wrong way.”[xvi]

2: “Opportunity costs”[xvii]

Two and three are paired together as closely related reasons. This principle relies on identifying what is “a relevant cost”[xviii]. What’s an important detriment/disadvantage? What’s the pros and cons “trade-offs”[xix]? Although these questions seemed to be asked, the calculations were skewed by misinformation and irrelevant issues to social welfare, such as whether UK passports should be blue or red. Misinformation severely impacts on calculations, for instance, money for the NHS is a relevant cost but needs to be calculated using true facts otherwise you end up with the wrong solution. For instance, the solution to problems in the NHS may be to provide them with more financial support, however, if all the facts are not transparently accounted for then the solution may be impossible to implement. In this way, the cost of losing huge sums of money preparing for Brexit drains money away from the NHS in itself with no upside to balance it out. Whereas paying the EU is not as costly as preparing and going through with Brexit and it does provide some upsides, such as EU funding for UK projects, which saves the UK money. By not admitting to these costs they could not be measured against each other to accurately predict ahead of the referendum whether there would be more money for the NHS if the UK stayed or left the EU. Thus, it was only relatively recently that the UK public learnt that Brexit was more expensive than remaining in the EU so the NHS is in greater danger of collapsing than before. Therefore, many members of the public voted on the false belief that the NHS would be better off if they voted for Brexit when in fact the opposite was true.   

3: “False dichotomies” (aka false bifurcation; the ‘either-or fallacy’)[xx]

In a nutshell, this logical fallacy occurs when you are presented with a restricted choice of x or y as though they are the only options available, when in fact there is a minimum of one further option z you could choose instead. Fitzpatrick demonstrates how such fallacious reasoning can also be used to manipulate voters into choosing option x over option y because y is so ridiculous you decide on x by default, forgetting that someone has thereby distracted you off a better option, z[xxi]. Fitzpatrick provides an example of a false dichotomy argument in American politics, which he refers to as a syllogism[xxii]. More precisely, perhaps he has ordered his false dichotomy argument as a disjunctive syllogism which takes the form of:

Premise 1: x V y (x or y)

Premise 2: ¬ y (not y)

Conclusion: ∴ x (therefore x)

I shall test his hypothesis that setting out contemporary politics in this logical form would help voters to detect erroneous arguments.

P1: Either you support the Leave campaign or you oppose the NHS (by ploughing money into the EU instead of the NHS)

P2: Nobody should oppose the NHS

C: Therefore everybody should support the Leave campaign (so vote for/support Leave)

This tries to exclude the possibility of supporting the NHS and supporting the Remain campaign. This false dichotomy disjunctive syllogism also ignores that merely planning Brexit has deprived the NHS of huge sums of money and so failed to help the referendum voters predict that now, nearly three years on, Leave supporters are saying that the NHS might collapse after Brexit and become a private health insurance system instead, which is the very opposite of the referendum promises. Had their promises been shown to be based on reality-creating fictions not true facts, then people would have been able to better predict the outcome of Brexit prior to the 2016 referendum. Thus, voters in 2016 mostly failed to see that there was no dichotomy. Voters could vote Remain and not be opposed to the NHS, quite the contrary, they were in a better position to support it. Fitzpatrick points out that the purpose of false dichotomies is to “distract” from “rational discussion” including weighing up the relevant, important opportunity costs[xxiii]. A comprehensive opportunity cost debate was further hindered by David Cameron’s refusal to allow EU leaders to come to the UK prior to the referendum to outline what Brexit may look like. Hence, the situation of knowing better now than we did back in 2016 could have been somewhat avoided had false dichotomies been exposed and a full opportunity cost debate had taken place prior to the 2016 referendum. This I think explains why many Leave voters felt deceived that they had been distracted into believing the Leave predictions of what a post-Brexit UK would look like, only to discover on exiting the EU, this would not be the case.  

I suggest other false dichotomies that occur in Brexit debates which could be modelled on Fitzpatrick’s syllogism. One such example which may show the force of Fitzpatrick’s argument structure is:

P1: Either you respect a referendum result/will of the people or you want to oppose it /democracy

P2: Nobody should want to oppose a referendum result/ democracy

C: So you should respect the referendum result (delivering Brexit and not having a second referendum)

This all avoids z: the first referendum was in 1975 and was also about whether to stay in the EEC (now the EU) two years after joining. Thus, the first referendum was not in 2016, that one in fact counts as the second referendum on EU membership. So by that logic, the 2016 referendum should not overturn the first referendum result in 1975 and thereby the advocate of the above disjunctive syllogism would also have to assent to the parallel conclusion that the 2016 referendum disrespects democracy.

Any once-in-a-generation argument doesn’t avoid this conclusion because it seems impossible to measure what one generation is since it is a moving target. How can it be that, at time T, person A, belongs to generation G and so is free to vote on EU membership while person B who is only a few months younger belongs to generation G2 and cannot vote? Both may have the same lifespan, dying in the same year at almost the same age yet categorize as different generations with different rights. Indeed, person B could outlive person A and thus be more affected by person A’s vote than person A themselves. Like grains of sand being added, babies are continuously being born and attempts to distinguish such clear generational categories on which to base wide ranging rights seems to me too arbitrary.

Fitzpatrick’s reasons for supporting J.S. Mill’s political philosophy also capture the problems of obtaining a Brexit deal and finding solutions which satisfy both MPs and voters. Often people look for solutions to Brexit which amount to “the desire to have the best of both worlds” and forget that many things boil down to a “trade-off”[xxiv]. So, if by solution one means having your cake and eating it then voters will be left with just “the illusion of a solution by someone seeking their vote.”[xxv]

Thus, I think Fitzpatrick’s interpretation of J.S. Mill’s brand of Utilitarianism and Consequentialism gives us incredibly useful tools of thought. However, we need to appreciate them and learn to use them wisely. We always need to think and analyse for ourselves not just blindly follow doctrines and principles because “no single philosophical vision has a monopoly on the truth”[xxvi].

So listen, debate, analyse and unearth the truth and problem solve accordingly.

The path dependence could have been avoided had the UK followed Fitzpatrick’s interpretation[xxvii] of how to put J.S. Mill’s political philosophy into practice: be a reality-based community who is skilled at spotting false dichotomies thereby weighing up the opportunity cost accurately to make reliable predictions and take the best course of action which does not leave a country stuck up a one-way street! 

---

[i] John Fitzpatrick R., John Stuart Mill’s Political Philosophy, Continuum Studies in British Philosophy (Great Britain: Continuum, 2006), 150–57.

[ii] Fitzpatrick, 150–57.

[iii] Fitzpatrick, John Stuart Mill’s Political Philosophy.

[iv] Fitzpatrick.

[v] Fitzpatrick, 150.

[vi] Fitzpatrick, 150.

[vii] Fitzpatrick, 150–54.

[viii] Fitzpatrick, 150–51.

[ix] Fitzpatrick, 150.

[x] Fitzpatrick, 151.

[xi] Fitzpatrick, 151.

[xii] Fitzpatrick, 150–57.

[xiii] Fitzpatrick, 151.

[xiv] Fitzpatrick, 151–52.

[xv] Fitzpatrick, 152.

[xvi] Fitzpatrick, 152.

[xvii] Fitzpatrick, 152.

[xviii] Fitzpatrick, 153.

[xix] Fitzpatrick, 154.

[xx] Fitzpatrick, 154.

[xxi] Fitzpatrick, 155.

[xxii] Fitzpatrick, 155.

[xxiii] Fitzpatrick, 157.

[xxiv] Fitzpatrick, 154.

[xxv] Fitzpatrick, 154.

[xxvi] Fitzpatrick, 152.

[xxvii] Fitzpatrick, John Stuart Mill’s Political Philosophy.