[I]t is crucial to see that in contending that people may be restrained only to prevent “harm to others,” Mill was speaking of the effects of social norms and conventions, not merely of government. Much of his attack was on the oppressive quality of public opinion.... His particular case for liberty emphasized the immense importance of allowing “experiments of living.” In his view, “the worth of different modes of life should be proved practically, when any one thinks fit to try them. It is desirable, in short, that in things which do not primarily concern others, individuality should assert itself.”
Here we can find the sharpest of the divergences between two of the great figures in the liberal tradition. Enthusiastic about individualism, Hayek generally prized traditions and customs.... Mill and Taylor embarked for many years on a kind of “experiment of living” that was designed to promote their own happiness despite being roundly condemned by “the traditions or customs of other people.”...
Who was Harriet Taylor? Hayek’s own verdict was clear. She “was an unusual person. But the picture Mill has given us of her is throughout determined by his own character and tells us probably more of him than of her.” To Hayek, Mill was in the grip of a delusion. Thus Hayek’s conclusion:
Behind the hard shell of complete self-control and strictly rational behavior there was [in Mill] a core of a very soft and almost feminine sensitivity, a craving for a strong person on which he could lean, and on whom he could concentrate all his affection and admiration.
April 1, 2015
Cass Sunstein on Friedrich Hayek on the effect of Harriet Taylor on John Stuart Mill.
An essay in The New York Review of Books. Excerpt:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
Shorter: Look you libertarians, even *Hayek* thought Mill was crazy. Therefore, my own totalitarian philosophy is obviously correct.
there was [in Mill] a core of a very soft and almost feminine sensitivity, a craving for a strong person on which he could lean, and on whom he could concentrate all his affection and admiration.
A millstone.
On this rock I found my church.
I think it's safe to say that Cass Sunstein is one of the most pernicious rationalists of our time. And I mean that in the most "pejorative" sense possible.
Still, that said, his review was literate and thoughtful However, I was less interested in the review than I was determined to discover why our hostess was drawn to it. I think this statement by Mill about Taylor that was quoted in the review captures my own view of Ann:
Alike in the highest regions of speculation and in the smaller practical concerns of daily life, her mind was the same perfect instrument, piercing to the very heart and marrow of the matter; always seizing the essential idea or principle
I'm not asserting that our hostess would describe herself in this way, but I do believe that, like Hayek, she would want to know such a woman better. For that matter, me too. Which is why I read this blog.
Ok. Enuf with the blogress butt-kissing.
- Krumhorn
BTW, that's a very intriguing picture of Hayek in that class. While it's entirely possible that it was posed for the photographer, I prefer to believe that it was not.
If not posed, wouldn't you love to know what he was saying at that moment?
- Krumhorn
I'm sure that photo was posed, but I do believe that in 1948 there were classrooms where all of the students were men in suits.
"there was [in Mill] a core of a very soft and almost feminine sensitivity, a craving for a strong person on which he could lean, and on whom he could concentrate all his affection and admiration.
A millstone.
On this rock I found my church."
My pet rock.
So Mill helped coax a married woman to leave her husband. And when she went back to take care of the husband when he was gravely ill, Mill acted selfishly. Mill also cut off contact with his own family. And Mill believed in socialism.
Hayek believed in individuality and lived a more traditional life.
Sunstein sides with Mill. Sunstein is divorced and is now remarried with young children and in his early 60s. He believe in ordering society what to do but doesn't want society to judge his personal life. Too bad. He's way too old to be the father of young children. But I don't think the government should take his kids away from him, even though he has no compunction about wanting the government to force people to live their lives a certain way.
If you look closely, I think that there is at least one woman there. Maybe two. None of my BLAW students are dressed like this. I have to insist that they sit up, remove their sunglasses and baseball caps and attend to my every word rapturously as in the Hayek photo.
- Krumhorn
at least three women, maybe four - one (int he back, next to the other woman) is somewhat obscured by the person in front of her. In the front, there is another women one over from the women wearing glasses that is clearly visible and possibly another women in a plaid something or other next to her.
Agree w/ Krumhorn re Sunstein's character. These wanna-be overlords are so petulant and transparent, when they think that they are sophisticated and inscrutable
Thoreau's simple living at Walden was underwritten by (and made possible only because of) others.
You can be certain that the Hayek classroom photo is posed because it is perfectly set up for the camera to see the faces of both Hayek and the students. In a normal, traditional class teaching arrangement, the teacher and students would face each other, which requires they face opposite directions. So the camera could see either the teacher or students but not both. By putting Hayek near the rear of the room, the cameera catches him facing forward, while the students turn towards him but the orientation of their bodies prevents them from turning fully back, leaving at worst a side profile presented to the camera. It's really quite clever. Also note the absence of any students in the immediate foreground in the bottom right of the photo. They would have had to turn so much as to have put their backs to the camera, so the photographer clearly directed that no one sit there. I'm impressed.
Sunstein writes:
Mill was a progressive, a social reformer, an optimist about change, in some ways a radical. He believed that, properly understood, liberalism calls for significant revisions in the existing economic order, which he saw as palpably unjust:
Yes, well, the experience of governing a vast territory containing some hundreds of millions of people without ever once having visited it, without speaking its many languages or knowing its many traditions, will tend to incline one to prize ideal systems over messy reality.
To his credit, though, Mill seems to have tempered his idealistic and radical tendencies in his actual professional life. In the East India Company, he apparently tended more towards cooperation with existing patterns of local authority rather than radical reform. This may have had the tendency of freezing the existing social order in place (I have heard this criticism in connection with the role of the zamindars in collecting tax) but it was surely better than attempting to destroy Indian society root and branch as Macaulay might have liked.
JSM's mind was magnificent. It warms my heart to read that such a person found a woman to love him. More proof that there is a God.
From Mill's description of Taylor, we can infer that she never said to him "Stop interrupting me," "I just said that," and "No explanation needed."
The arrogance one needs to both believe in evolution and that societal relations should face experimentation to determine what works best is entertaining.
Cass Sunstein is right, Hayek generally prized traditions and customs. He thought that society ought not become too permissive, that individual conduct ought to be subjected to the pressure of opinion or disapproval. He disagreed with Mill on this topic.
At the same time, however, Hayek thought that the observance of traditional and customary rules ought not be enforced but merely enjoined, so as to make gradual and experimental change possible. Indeed, let us not forget that, in his view, “most of these steps in the evolution of culture were made possible by some individuals breaking some traditional rules and practising new forms of conduct”.
The problem is, how to allow people to break away from the habitual rules of conduct without allowing society to become permissive? Clearly, Hayek thought that an equilibrium had to be found here, but, to my knowledge, he never explained in concrete terms how society could reach such an equilibrium.
Regards,
Régis Servant.
Post a Comment