DOCSLIB.ORG

On Liberty at 150

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
On Liberty at 150 REVIEW ESSAY ON LIBERTY AT 150 John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty isn’t always convincing, but after 150 years it is still worth reading, writes Andrew Norton On Liberty By John Stuart Mill First published 1859. Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, Penguin Books, and many other publishers. ohn Stuart Mill is the only nineteenth policies likely to produce the greatest happiness. century liberal intellectual still widely read Liberals in the natural or human rights traditions and discussed in the twenty-first century, see utilitarianism as an insecure foundation for thanks mainly to his book On Liberty, freedom, fearing that it justifies sacrificing the Jpublished 150 years ago. In his time, several of freedoms of some for the benefit of the many Mill’s books were influential, particularly his (anti-terror laws, for example). In On Liberty, Mill Principles of Political Economy, but it is On Liberty needs sometimes complicated arguments to move that has lasted. It has been continuously in print from utilitarian premises to liberal conclusions. since 1859. Classical liberals—their adjective a response to the On Liberty’s longevity makes it the most-read then new ‘social’ liberalism Mill helped usher in— classic of the liberal canon. It retains an audience question the priority Mill gave to ‘individuality’ because the dilemmas Mill writes about— over other forms of life, and his critique of the role especially over when to regulate speech and of custom in social life. behaviour that lacks clear harm to others—are nineteenth-century versions of issues that remain On Liberty’s argument controversial today. Mill speaks to the present as Though every liberal wants to limit state control well as the past. Quotations from him still appear over individuals, in On Liberty Mill was as regularly in the world’s English-speaking media; concerned by private as public power. He went his ideas proving useful and his name adding further than many liberals before or since in weight to arguments made more than 130 years arguing that ‘social tyranny’ over individuals after he died. could be worse than political oppression. While Despite the book’s enduring popularity and influence,On Liberty is not undisputed as a liberal sacred text. Liberals as well as conservatives contest Andrew Norton is the editor of Policy. its arguments. Mill was a utilitarian, favouring those POLICY • Vol. 25 No. 2 • Winter 2009 49 ON LIBERTY AT 150 the penalties may not be as extreme, he said, the Mill’s harm principle, as it later came to rules and norms of social life can penetrate more be called, may be ‘very simple’ to state, but its ‘deeply into the details of life’ than laws, ‘enslaving application is complex, as his own examples, and a the soul itself.’ large secondary literature over the last century and a half, show. It needs a theory of harm to decide which harms justify limits on individual liberty Against the ‘despotism of and which do not. In Mill’s case, this theory has custom,’ Mill proposed the ‘free to draw on other aspects of his philosophical development of individuality.’ position. Mill uses utilitarian principles to justify the harms clearly caused to those who lose out in market competition as ‘better for the general Against the ‘despotism of custom,’ Mill interest of mankind.’ Society as a whole benefits if proposed the ‘free development of individuality.’ those offering cheaper or better goods and services Where other people’s traditions, rather than the are allowed to win in the market, even if their person’s own character, are the rule of conduct, Mill unsuccessful rivals clearly suffer. thought that there is ‘wanting one of the principal While the harm principle clearly prohibits ingredients of human happiness.’ Even following purely paternalistic interventions, few people are good customs was not enough for Mill when it was so isolated that the things they do to themselves are simply conforming rather than choosing. Uncritical without any effects on others. On Liberty discusses imitation of others does not develop qualities such the disgust felt at other people’s behaviour, which as ‘perception, judgment, discriminative feeling may feel like harm in the offence or upset it causes. and even moral preference,’ gaining no practice Mill’s theory of harm rules out this as grounds in ‘desiring what is best.’ Instead, Mill favoured, for intervention: The revulsion Muslims feel in one of the most well-known phrases from On when Christians eat pork, and Mill himself felt at Liberty, ‘experiments in living.’ These experiments Mormon polygamy in the United States, do not would help individuals choose the best ‘plan of life’ qualify as actionable harm to others. If the harm for them. The ‘moral coercion’ of public opinion principle is to defend liberty it must disqualify threatened the experiments in which individuality psychological harms; otherwise, as Mill notes, could be created. ‘there is no violation of liberty which it would not Mill wasn’t, however, against ‘moral coercion’ justify.’ as such. Indeed, On Liberty requires it against Ruling out offence or mental hurt as ills those who would seek to smother, by their words covered by the harm principle complicates Mill’s and deeds if not their laws, the ‘free development argument against ‘social tyranny.’ It means of individuality.’ On Liberty is a call not for liberty of thought and discussion, the subject abolishing social norms but for their rewriting, to of an eloquent chapter in On Liberty, cannot be support individuality and the ‘eccentricity’ that restricted to prevent people with unpopular views Mill laments is under threat. Much of his book is devoted to sorting out when moral coercion being ‘ill-thought of and ill-spoken of.’ With could, and when it could not, legitimately be used. Mill’s utilitarianism again putting a broader social Mill’s ‘one very simple principle’ on this subject is good ahead of protecting individuals from harm, that the sole end that warrants interfering in the Mill offers several advantages of free speech. It is liberty of others is ‘self-protection.’ His argument important in discovering and exposing error he is summarised in this much-quoted passage: says, with ‘every age having held many opinions which subsequent ages have deemed not only false … the only purpose for which power can but absurd.’ To compel silence may suppress an be rightfully exercised over any member opinion that turns out to be true, or to contain a of a civilised community, against his portion of truth. In a nice twist, Mill also defends will, is prevent harm to others. His own free discussion in the name of orthodoxy, arguing good, either physical or moral, is not a that it is kept alive in the process of defending sufficient warrant. itself from attack. 50 Vol. 25 No. 2 • Winter 2009 • POLICY ON LIBERTY AT 150 Mill reconciles his arguments for free speech reason for supporting a quest for individuality. and for free-flowering individuality by saying that Survey research on well-being since Mill’s time the greater harm in deterring those who might confirms a connection between free societies and offer ‘heretical opinions’ is not in the cramping high average levels of happiness, but not that ‘free of their mental development but in the world’s development of individuality’ is essential to well- loss of unexpressed ideas. There is, however, a fine being. To the contrary, highly creative individuals line between, on the one hand, valuable-to-society are prone to mental illness. By contrast, some sharp criticism of erroneous ideas and, on the relatively traditional individuals, such as religious other hand, not deterring ‘timid characters’ from believers, persistently report higher-than-average offering their thoughts. Mill’s balances the two by levels of happiness. calling for civility. With ‘studied moderation of language,’ and no stigmatising as bad or immoral those expressing contrary opinions, we will get While liberal freedoms permit the benefits of new ideas evaluated by public ‘experiments in living,’ Mill’s own discussion. early life warns against necessarily Criticism of On Liberty encouraging them. On Liberty marks a turning point in liberalism. To the freedoms all liberals support, it adds an ideal of individuality, complete with experiments On Liberty’s attacks on the ‘despotism of in living. Ironically, Mill’s views on free-flowering custom,’ while still resonating in twenty-first individuality almost certainly owe something to century liberal democracies, now seem overstated. his having been the subject of an ‘experiment in Mill’s passion on this subject almost certainly living’ himself, conducted by his father, James owes something to the discomfort he felt over Mill. As Richard Reeves explains in his 2007 his long and semi-scandalous relationship with a biography John Stuart Mill: Victorian Firebrand, married woman, Harriet Taylor. They carried on Mill senior was a friend and disciple of the a probably platonic affair for many years before utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham, and Harriet’s husband died, allowing Mill to finally applied Bentham’s tabula rasa theory—the idea marry her. If a contemporary John Stuart met a that children are blank slates who can be shaped contemporary Harriet in 2009, there would be entirely by life experiences—to young John Stuart. few social or legal obstacles to their relationship. The aim was to ‘produce an ideal standard-bearer The courts would even award Harriet her children for radicalism, rationalism and reform.’ and a significant share of her former husband’s The result was perhaps the most crushing assets. Given Mill’s concern in On Liberty about educational workload ever imposed on a child. permitting couples unable to support children to According to Mill’s Autobiography, he started marry, today’s norms and laws governing adult learning ancient Greek at age three and Latin at age romantic and sexual relationships may be too eight, and wrote histories of Rome and Holland liberal for Mill’s tastes.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Liberalism, Social Democracy, and Tom Kent Kenneth C
    Liberalism, Social Democracy, and Tom Kent Kenneth C. Dewar Journal of Canadian Studies/Revue d'études canadiennes, Volume 53, Number/numéro 1, Winter/hiver 2019, pp. 178-196 (Article) Published by University of Toronto Press For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/719555 Access provided by Mount Saint Vincent University (19 Mar 2019 13:29 GMT) Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes Liberalism, Social Democracy, and Tom Kent KENNETH C. DEWAR Abstract: This article argues that the lines separating different modes of thought on the centre-left of the political spectrum—liberalism, social democracy, and socialism, broadly speaking—are permeable, and that they share many features in common. The example of Tom Kent illustrates the argument. A leading adviser to Lester B. Pearson and the Liberal Party from the late 1950s to the early 1970s, Kent argued for expanding social security in a way that had a number of affinities with social democracy. In his paper for the Study Conference on National Problems in 1960, where he set out his philosophy of social security, and in his actions as an adviser to the Pearson government, he supported social assis- tance, universal contributory pensions, and national, comprehensive medical insurance. In close asso- ciation with his philosophy, he also believed that political parties were instruments of policy-making. Keywords: political ideas, Canada, twentieth century, liberalism, social democracy Résumé : Cet article soutient que les lignes séparant les différents modes de pensée du centre gauche de l’éventail politique — libéralisme, social-démocratie et socialisme, généralement parlant — sont perméables et qu’ils partagent de nombreuses caractéristiques.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking the French Liberal Moment: Some Thoughts on the Heterogeneous Origins of Lefort and Gauchet's Social Philosophy
    CHAPTER 3 Rethinking the French Liberal Moment: Some Thoughts on the Heterogeneous Origins of Lefort and Gauchet’s Social Philosophy Noah Rosenblum ecent scholarship has taken an interest in the renaissance of French liberal thought in the second half of the twentieth century. This R“French liberal revival” has swept up scholars and commentators alike, and is often thought to include the important French philosophers Claude Lefort and Marcel Gauchet. But, as work in intellectual history has shown,1 the term sits uneasily on at least these two. On close examination, we see that some of their mature thought is only ambiguously committed to liberal goals and rests on complex philosophical premises that are incompatible with some traditional liberal arguments. Tracing aspects of their social thought back to its roots reveals how deeply opposed to liberalism some of their premises were and helps us see how they carried illiberal ideas forward into new contexts. This forces us to take a new perspective on at least this piece of the twentieth century’s French liberal moment, revising accepted stories of its origins and meaning. Recognizing the heterogeneous sources of their argument leads us to appreciate Lefort and Gauchet’s creative work of reconstruction and resist the urge to canalize their powerful social philosophy. Conceptualizing the “French Liberal Revival” In a purely analytic sense, we can understand the idea of a “French liberal revival” in two different ways. The phrase describes, first, a new or renewed interest in traditional liberal themes by thinkers writing in French. We can S. W. Sawyer et al.
    [Show full text]
  • American Civil Associations and the Growth of American Government: an Appraisal of Alexis De Tocqueville’S Democracy in America (1835-1840) Applied to Franklin D
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 2-2017 American Civil Associations and the Growth of American Government: An Appraisal of Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America (1835-1840) Applied to Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal and the Post-World War II Welfare State John P. Varacalli The Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/1828 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] AMERICAN CIVIL ASSOCIATIONS AND THE GROWTH OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT: AN APPRAISAL OF ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE’S DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA (1835- 1840) APPLIED TO FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT’S NEW DEAL AND THE POST-WORLD WAR II WELFARE STATE by JOHN P. VARACALLI A master’s thesis submitted to the Graduate Program in Liberal Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, The City University of New York 2017 © 2017 JOHN P. VARACALLI All Rights Reserved ii American Civil Associations and the Growth of American Government: An Appraisal of Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America (1835-1840) Applied to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and the Post World War II Welfare State by John P. Varacalli The manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Liberal Studies in satisfaction of the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Arts ______________________ __________________________________________ Date David Gordon Thesis Advisor ______________________ __________________________________________ Date Elizabeth Macaulay-Lewis Acting Executive Officer THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iii ABSTRACT American Civil Associations and the Growth of American Government: An Appraisal of Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America (1835-1840) Applied to Franklin D.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Polarization in the United States and Canada by Philip Carl Salzman
    (EF24) FEBRUARY 2018 Political Polarization in the United States and Canada By Philip Carl Salzman Political polarization in both the United States and Canada seems to increase every year. Those on the left appear to move ever farther to the left; while those on the right find less and less in common with their fellow citizens. The political rhetoric has, in fact, escalated to a toxic level. From the highest political level in the U.S. half of American citizens are labelled sexist, racist, homophobic, and Islamophobic, a basket of deplorables,1 redneck failures who cling to their guns, fundamentalist religion, and fear,2 and white supremacists. American opponents of the progressive left view it as consisting of traitors of America, betrayers of Western civilization, haters of Christianity and apologists for Islam, violators of the Constitution, advocates of open borders who wish to bring a flood of Third World immigrants, even those dedicated to destroying the West, enemies of capitalism who openly revere socialism, and champions of a dominant state apparatus that aims at suppressing freedom. Canada is also increasingly polarized along the same lines, with Parliament denouncing the non-existent psychiatric condition “Islamophobia” in order to suppress criticism of Islam, the press driving out conservatives, such as Kellie Leitch, whose advocacy of “so-called “Canadian values,” [was] widely viewed as anti-immigrant and nativist,”3 as racists and fascists, and with “Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals” suppressing speech that hurts someone’s feelings. In Canada too, at the highest political level, Canada’s heritage in Western Civilization is denied4 in favour of “diversity,”5 and minorities favoured over majorities.
    [Show full text]
  • Liberalism 1100
    Chap 10 6/5/03 3:13 pm Page 195 Liberalism 1100 Liberalism has become the dominant ideology at the start of the third millennium. Like conservatism it cannot be easily identified with one particular political party. We trace the origins of liberalism back to the late seventeenth century and the political turmoil in England that followed the civil wars of the middle of the century. After this, liberalism’s ‘golden age’ during the nineteenth century is studied and the main themes of ‘classical’ and ‘New’ liberalism are outlined and discussed. The limitations of British liberalism began to become evident just before the First World War and it was almost eclipsed during the inter-war period. We discuss the apparent renaissance of liberalism that followed the collapse of Soviet communism during the late 1980s and the apparent triumph of liberal capitalist democracy on a global scale. Some of the inadequacies of contem- porary liberalism are discussed and an estimate is made of the future that lies in store for liberalism. POINTS TO CONSIDER ➤ Is liberalism culturally specific to Westernisation or is it of universal value? ➤ To what extent is the liberal focus on the individual based on a misunderstanding of human nature? ➤ At what point does liberalism end and socialism begin? ➤ Why were nineteenth-century liberals so uncomfortable with democracy and why don’t modern liberals appear to share the doubts? ➤ In the twenty-first century is the state still the main threat to the individual? ➤ How far is it true to say that the triumph of liberal ideology has been at the price of the eclipse of liberal political parties? Kevin Harrison and Tony Boyd - 9781526137951 Downloaded from manchesterhive.com at 09/26/2021 08:03:51PM via free access Chap 10 6/5/03 3:13 pm Page 196 196 Understanding political ideas and movements A rich man told me recently that a liberal is a man who tells other people what to do with their money.
    [Show full text]
  • PAUL HINDLEY I Am Standing for Re-Election to the Social Liberal Forum Council After Serving on the Council for the Last Two Years
    PAUL HINDLEY I am standing for re-election to the Social Liberal Forum Council after serving on the Council for the last two years. Many communities have been ‘left behind’ by market fundamentalism, which has opened the door to nationalism. Individual liberty cannot thrive if people are in the grip of poverty, social hardship and economic powerlessness. Brexit puts at risk our hard-won workers’ rights, our vital EU trade links and our ability to combat climate change. With the Conservatives and Labour fighting a battle of big ideas, it is essential that the Liberal Democrats rediscover the radical heritage of social liberalism. Britain has never more needed an ambitious radical social liberal movement. Advancing Big Ideas: I wrote a chapter for “Four Go In Search of Big Ideas” calling for a new culture of social rights in-order to reach out to ‘left behind’ seaside towns. I am an advocate for economic democracy, universal inheritance, radical welfare policies, land value taxation, federalism, workers’ rights and German-style works councils. A Strong Record: I have been actively involved in the SLF Council for the last two years. Since January 2018, I have been managing the SLF social media accounts on Twitter and Facebook. I have also written many articles for the SLF Blog and Liberator. A Progressive Movement: I proposed an amendment to the SLF Constitution which enshrined the SLF’s commitment to build a “progressive alliance of people, ideas and campaigns”. The SLF must be the voice of progressives within the Liberal Democrats, while reaching out to liberal progressives in other political parties and across society.
    [Show full text]
  • Manifesto for a Humane True Libertarianism
    Manifesto for a Humane True Libertarianism Deirdre Nansen McCloskey July 4, 2018 The first chapters of Humane True Liberalism, forthcoming 2019, Yale University Press. All rights reserved. #1. Libertarians are liberals are democrats are good I make here the case for a new and humane version of what is often called “libertarianism.” Thus the columnist George Will at the Washington Post or David Brooks at the New York Times or Steve Chapman at the Chicago Tribune or Dave Barry at the Miami Herald or P. J . O'Rourke at the National Lampoon, Rolling Stone, and the Daily Beast. Humane libertarianism is not right wing or reactionary or some scary creature out of Dark Money. In fact, it stands in the middle of the road—recently a dangerous place to stand—being tolerant and optimistic and respectful. It’s True Liberal, anti- statist, opposing the impulse of people to push other people around. It’s not “I’ve got mine," or “Let’s be cruel.” Nor is it “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you, by force of arms if necessary.” It’s “I respect your dignity, and am willing to listen, really listen, helping you if you wish, on your own terms.” When people grasp it, many like it. Give it a try. In most of the world the word “libertarianism” is still plain "liberalism," as in the usage of the middle-of-the-road, anti-“illiberal democracy” president of France elected in 2017, Emmanuel Macron, with no “neo-” about it. That's the L-word I’ll use here.
    [Show full text]
  • From Neoliberalism to Social Liberalism Situating the National Solidarity Program Within Mexico’S Passive Revolutions by Susanne Soederberg
    LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES Soederberg / FROM NEOLIBERALISM TO SOCIAL LIBERALISM From Neoliberalism to Social Liberalism Situating the National Solidarity Program Within Mexico’s Passive Revolutions by Susanne Soederberg Launched by President Carlos Salinas de Gortari in 1988, Mexico’s Programa Nacional de Solidaridad (National Solidarity Program— PRONASOL) has become the organizational center of an ever-changing, complex web of education, health, productive, and infrastructural projects aimed at improving the living conditions of the poor (PRONASOL, 1991). This de facto welfare program, which embodies Salinas’s “third-way” doc- trine of social liberalism, basically claims to be more humane and democratic than unfettered free-market capitalism and heavy-handed state intervention- ism. The objective of this article is not to supply another policy assessment of PRONASOL but to address a gap in the literature by providing a historical materialist account of its emergence. Seen through the lens of historical mate- rialism, PRONASOL is neither an attempt to alleviate the poverty afflicting well over half the population of Mexico nor a move toward constructing a stronger civil society in a top-down fashion (cf. Salinas de Gortari, 1990). Instead it is a reflection of new forms of ideological and political domination targeted at preserving the hegemony of the ruling classes while excluding the majority of Mexicans from participating in the formulation of state pol- icy. In the face of the increasing poverty brought on by “modernization,” PRONASOL aims to weaken counterhegemonic movements in civil society as Mexico further deepens its dependent relations with the United States. Antonio Gramsci once referred to these expressions of political and ideologi- cal retrenchment in the relations between state and civil society as a “passive revolution” (1992).
    [Show full text]
  • Justificatory Fables of Ordoliberalism: Laissez-Faire and the “Third Way”
    CRS0010.1177/0896920519832638Critical SociologyDale 832638research-article2019 SYMPOSIUM: Neo-Liberalism and Ordoliberalism: One or Two Critiques? Critical Sociology 2019, Vol. 45(7-8) 1047 –1060 Justificatory Fables of © The Author(s) 2019 Ordoliberalism: Laissez-faire Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions and the “Third Way” https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920519832638DOI: 10.1177/0896920519832638 journals.sagepub.com/home/crs Gareth Dale Brunel University, UK Abstract This article critically examines two conceptualisations of ordoliberalism. In one, it is defined, together with neoliberalism, against 19th-century liberalism (in its social liberal and laissez-faire variants). This reading was common among ordoliberals themselves, and early neoliberals such as Friedrich von Hayek, as well as among critics, notably Michel Foucault. In another, ordoliberalism is contrasted to neoliberalism, with the latter presumed to be a species of laissez-faire economics. This reading is commonly accompanied by the supposition that ordoliberalism represents a “Third Way” between capitalism and socialism, or between laissez-faire liberalism and state planning. The main body of this contribution presents a critical analysis of both positions, by way of analysis of ordoliberal texts and a history of the discourse of laissez-faire. Keywords Austrian School, laissez-faire, neoliberalism, ordoliberalism, Third Way Introduction Despite having lost status and definition as a current of economic thought since its heyday in the 1950s, the ordoliberal spirit has retained its presence within the German establishment and receives ritual obeisance still today, with ordoliberal incantations serving to signpost an assortment of lib- eral-conservative positions and mentalities (Hien and Joerges, 2018).1 Its fortress has long been the Bundesbank.
    [Show full text]
  • Classical Liberalism, Neoliberalism and Ordoliberalism1
    ELZBIETA MĄCZYNSKA PIOTR PYSZ CLASSICAL LIBERALISM, NEOLIBERALISM AND ORDOLIBERALISM1 The key to distinguishing between classical liberalism, neoliberalism and ordoliberalism is their approach to the freedom of the individual. In 1938, Walter Lippmann asserted that the main cause underlying all failures of economic liberalism was its focus on expanding the scope of individual freedom in the market. This was accompanied by a lack of understanding of the need to develop an economic system under which the freedom of the individual would serve not only a select few, but also promote the interests of the majority of society. Eighty years later, this criticism goes to the crux of the contemporary dilemmas, as the neoliberal doctrine is driven by “freedom without order.” To overcome the ongoing global economic crisis, characterized by disorder, chaos, and anarchy, it is imperative to guide economic policy towards thinking “in terms of order” (Max Weber). And such an approach is offered by ordoliberal thought, which is concerned with the issue of economic order. Its leading idea, which is critical for today’s world, is “freedom within order.” Keywords: classical liberalism; neoliberalism; ordoliberalizm; historical context; advantages; reform. UDC 330.837.1 ELŻBIETA MĄCZYŃSKA ([email protected] ), Professor, Head of the Scientifi c Research Institute of bankruptcies Business Finance and Investment Corporation in the College of Business of the Warsaw School of Economics. Warsaw School of Economics, al. Niepodległości 162, 02-554, Warsaw, Poland. +48 22 564 60 00; PIOTR PYSZ ([email protected]), Professor of the Higher School of Finance and Management in Bialystok (Poland), the College of Business and Technology (Vechta, Germany).
    [Show full text]
  • The Quest for a Liberal-Socialist Democracy and Development
    The Quest for a Liberal-Socialist Democracy and Development The Quest for a Liberal-Socialist Democracy and Development: Against the Behemoth By Vjeran Katunarić The Quest for a Liberal-Socialist Democracy and Development: Against the Behemoth By Vjeran Katunarić This book first published 2018 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2018 by Vjeran Katunarić All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-5275-0907-9 ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-0907-8 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ................................................................................... vii Introduction ................................................................................................ ix Chapter One ................................................................................................. 1 Liberal Socialism Faced with the Behemoth Chapter Two ................................................................................................ 9 The Higher Immorality of the New Power Elites Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 16 The Impossible Self-Production Chapter Four .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Citizenship and Cultural Policy Citizenship and Cultural Policy
    Citizenship and Cultural Policy Citizenship and Cultural Policy edited by Denise Meredyth and Jeffrey Minson SAGE Publications London • Thousand Oaks • New Delhi Sage Publications 2000, 2001 Originally published as a special issue of the American Behavioral Scientist (Volume 43, Number 9, June/July 2000) Revised edition published as Citizenship and Cultural Policy 2001 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without permission in writing from the Publishers. SAGE Publications Ltd 6 Bonhill Street London EC2A 4PU SAGE Publications Inc 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, California 91320 SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd 32, M-Block Market Greater Kailash - I New Delhi 110 048 British Library Cataloguing in Publication data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN 0 7619 6293 X Library of Congress catalog card number available from the publisher Printed in Great Britain by Athenaeum Press, Gateshead Contents The Authors vii Introduction: Resourcing Citizenries Denise Meredyth and Jeffrey Minson x 1 Community, Citizenship and the Third Way Nikolas Rose 1 2 Acting on the Social: Art, Culture, and Government Tony Bennett 18 3 The National Endowment for the Arts in the 1990s: A Black Eye on the Arts? Toby Miller 35 4 Participatory Policy Making, Ethics, and the Arts Janice Besch and Jeffrey Minson 52 5 Popular Sovereignty and Civic Education
    [Show full text]