M.A.(Political Science) Part-II Paper-VIII (Option XI) Semester-IV Women and Political Theory

LESSON NO. 1.3 AUTHOR : RAMANDEEP KAUR

Liberal Feminism J. S Mill and Harriet Taylor Liberal feminism conceives of freedom as personal autonomy—living a life of one's own choosing—and political autonomy—being co-author of the conditions under which one lives. Liberal feminists hold that the exercise of personal autonomy depends on certain enabling conditions that are insufficiently present in women's lives, or that social arrangements often fail to respect women's personal autonomy and other elements of women's flourishing. They hold also that women's needs and interests are insufficiently reflected in the basic conditions under which they live, and that those conditions lack legitimacy because women are inadequately represented in the processes of democratic self-determination. Liberal feminists hold that autonomy deficits like these are due to the “gender system” or the patriarchal nature of inherited traditions and institutions, and that the women's movement should work to identify and remedy them. As the protection and promotion of citizens' autonomy is the appropriate role of the state on the liberal view, liberal feminists hold that the state can and should be the women's movement's ally in promoting women's autonomy. There is disagreement among liberal feminists, however, about the role of personal autonomy in the good life, the appropriate role of the state, and how liberal feminism is to be justified.

More than half a century later to Wollstonecraft, Harriet Taylor and John Stuart Mill were still arguing the same point about women. From 1790 to 1850 the excitement, confusion and enthusiasm of revolution channelled into new social and political structures, gave way to a more sober and specific consciousness of women’s exclusion. It is fitting that the first systematic, detailed defence of women’s rights came from John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor. Both were placed ideologically and pragmatically in the midst of currents of democratic M.A. (Political Science) PART II 35 PAPER VIII (Option XI) reform in nineteenth century England. Furthermore their collaboration brought together two divergent strains in the reform movement and in democratic theory. Mill was a utilitarian in a Benthamite tradition, an active member of a philosophical group which took Bentham’s idea as the basis of Parliamentary reforms. After a painful period of self-questioning and after meeting Harriet Taylor, Mill was also increasingly drawn into her circle, the Unitarian Radicals, more literary, more radical and more libertarian than the Utilitarians, especially in matters of the family and sexuality.

In the work of Taylor and Mill, these two sometimes conflicting strands in democratic theory came together: firstly, utilitarian demands for a society in which there is the greatest happiness of the greatest number and secondly, a libertarian, Rousseauian claim that freedom is the natural right of every human being. Both doctrines had weaknesses- utilitarianism because, if applied strictly, it seemed to allowed actions that were clearly and intuitively wrong and the doctrine of natural rights because it could too easily as argued by critics such as Edmund Burke, degenerate into the dangerous metaphysical fictions which led to the excesses and destructiveness of the French Revolution. In Mill’s political theory, a synthesis of utilitarianism and libertarianism structured the final balance of the functioning democratic state. In arguments of a society in which the interest of every man would be protected, Mill and Taylor found the justification for a corresponding feminist revolution. These arguments provide the agenda for the next 200 years of liberal feminism. Women should be granted all political privileges including the vote and right to run public office. They should also available to them the choice to enter a profession rather than to marry and the education necessary for the fulfilment of that ambition. According to the principles of democratic theory, such reforms would eventually lead to equality.

3.1 Harriet Taylor and J.SMILL’s Intellectual closeness leads to Attachment Harriet Taylor (1807–1858) was a surgeon's daughter and grew up in London. She married at the age of eighteen to thirty nine year old John Taylor and

M.A. (Political Science) PART II 36 PAPER VIII (Option XI) went on to have three children with him. In 1830 she met John Stuart Mill and began a close friendship with him. Mill credited her with contributing to his work and respected her as an intellectual equal. The extraordinary relationship between Mill and Taylor shaped not only their personal lives, but also the priorities of their thoughts and writings. They met in 1830, when Harriet was married to John Taylor. Her intimate friendship with Mill was a source of much criticism; the restrictiveness of Victorian morality made their relationship suspect. Their disgust at the ostracism they faced due to their close relationship may be recognised in the criticism of cultural conformity in On Liberty. In The Subjection of Women, Mill discusses the situation of an intelligent woman confined by patriarchal institutions and customs that deny her individuality. Through his relationship with Taylor, Mill reached the strong conviction that women’s suffrage was an essential step towards the moral improvement of humankind, and that the relationship between husband and wife had to be grounded in legal as well as real equality – that “marital slavery should be replaced by “marital friendship”. In 1851, two years after John Taylor’s death, Mill and Harriet Taylor were married, subsequently working together on Mill’s Autobiography and On Liberty. Harriet died only seven years after their marriage, and The Subjection of Women was published after her death. 3.2 Taylor Mill's Influence on Mill and their collaboration Taylor had an important role in Mill’s writing of SW. Taylor was a strong feminist. It seems that he identified with her intellectually, and perhaps through her his conscious awareness of his own subjection was raised. Taylor had a great deal of integrity, which Mill’s mother did not have, enabling Mill to write SW by raising his own subjugation to consciousness. It must be emphasized that while Taylor had a very important role in raising Mill’s consciousness and bringing inspiration to his work, he would not have embarked on such an important work if it were not out of his own soulful need for liberation and development. According to Mill, ‘’ When two persons have their thoughts and speculations completely in common; when all subjects of intellectual or moral interest are discussed between them in daily life, and probed to much greater depths than are usually or

M.A. (Political Science) PART II 37 PAPER VIII (Option XI) conveniently sounded in writings intended for general readers; when they set out from the same principles, and arrive at their conclusions by processes pursued jointly, it is of little consequence in respect to the question of originality, which of them holds the pen; the one who contributes least to the composition may contribute most to the thought; the writings which result are the joint product of both, and it must often be impossible to disentangle their respective parts, and affirm that this belongs to one and that to the other.’’ Indeed, his own subjugation was foundational to his creative direction; it could not have been accomplished if his own life and integrity were not on the line. In short, Mill embarked on this work because he needed to for his own salvation. The joint nature of their writings is important for our understanding of the context of their philosophical ideas 3.3 Mill on Subjection on Women An important by product of Mill’s early life and his relationship with Taylor was his writing on the subjugation of women. Mill knew first-hand the impact of being subjected to a dominant other. This work was no doubt a statement of his experience and a strong statement of a cultural condition of his time. A brief description of this work follows to provide context for understanding the commentary relative to Mill and this work. Mill published The Subjection of Women in 1869. Mill formulates the fundamental argument of The Subjection of Women in its first paragraph: [T]he principle which regulates the existing social relations between the two sexes – the legal subordination of one sex to the other – is wrong in itself and one of the chief hindrances to human improvement; and […] ought to be replaced by a principle of perfect equality, admitting no power or privilege on the one side, nor disability on the other. Mill’s criticism of the social status of women is based on his analysis of the social injustice excluding women from public and civil life, from politics and decision-making. He stresses that this kind of social injustice is one of the main barriers to human progress and the moral improvement of humankind. Analysing

M.A. (Political Science) PART II 38 PAPER VIII (Option XI) the consequences of women’s subjugation, he points out that such conditions negatively affect not only the lives of women, but of men as well. Men and women alike are harmed by such a situation, and consequently the subjection of women negatively affects the whole of society. As a liberal thinker, Mill expresses his strong conviction that the subordination of women, which deprives them of freedom, is an unjust violation of the principle of liberty. He locates the origin of women’s oppression in men’s physical strength, assuming that the more influence reason has in a society, the less importance physical strength will have. In such a state of affairs, women would no longer be disadvantaged, as physical strength becomes less important as civilisation progresses. This progress implies the development of reason which, according to Mill, is the same in either sex. Hence the subjection of women in an advanced society has no other basis than habit or custom, both of which are serious hindrances to the full development of reason. In this way, Mill conceptualises human life as progressing from the passionate and the natural to the rational and the cultural. Today Mill is commonly viewed as the most important representative of Enlightenment liberal feminism, and no doubt this essay on women’s subjection is the most persuasive piece of liberal feminist thinking. However, some of his views are more similar to certain radical feminist ideas developed within “second-wave feminism”. For example, in exploring the question of the causes and motives for which unequal relations between men and women are maintained, Mill claims that, apart from established customs and general sentiments, it is in the interest of men to keep women in their subjugated position. The exclusion of women from public life is the result of men’s will to “maintain their subordination in domestic life, because the generality of the male sex cannot yet tolerate the idea of living with an equal”. When speaking about women’s status, especially in the family and marriage, he often uses the image of slavery: a wife “is the actual bondservant of her husband: no less so, as far as legal obligation goes, than slaves commonly so called” (Mill, 1984: 284). Mill considers marriage, or more precisely the marital law of his society, as the main factor in generating, perpetuating and enforcing women’s slavery. In his view, women are in

M.A. (Political Science) PART II 39 PAPER VIII (Option XI) a double bind: they are not free within marriage, and they are not free not to marry. Due to this lack of freedom they cannot acquire education or earn money in the public sphere. Thus there is strong social and economic pressure to marry: law and custom dictate that a woman has scarcely any available means of gaining a livelihood, except as a wife and mother. Mill’s reflections on women’s status within marriage contain not only this critical moment, but also some constructive ones. He outlines a vision of marital partnership based on the principles of equality, partnership, cooperation and reciprocity between woman and man, and stresses that only such a relationship between married persons is acceptable, not only in a political but also in a moral sense. Mill’s analysis of the subjection of women in society clearly reveals his utilitarian position, as well as his participation in the English liberal tradition. In accordance with his liberal political and philosophical convictions, he maintains that the very principle of justice requires that women possess the same rights as men, and that equality before the law will lead to justice in all spheres of social and political life. The situation of one half of humankind, which he describes in terms of subjection, oppression and slavery, is not only in sharp contrast with the principle of equality and individual freedom. It is also a serious obstacle to social and individual improvement, to prosperity and happiness. 340). Mill justifies the necessity of women’s emancipation mainly by the need to create room for each individual (which means not only men, but also women) to develop their personal inclinations and talents, so as to realise the maximum of their personal happiness and, as a consequence, contribute to the development of the whole of society. As for Mill’s strategy, it may be said that he, like Harriet Taylor, wanted to extend the ideology of liberal individualism to women; for both of them sought to secure an independent, autonomous identity for women as distinct individuals. Many of Mill’s views on women’s social position and status are relevant today; this is true even from the viewpoint of current feminist philosophy. These include Mill’s thoughts on issues like the source of women’s subjection, the difference between women and men, the origins and nature of such differences,

M.A. (Political Science) PART II 40 PAPER VIII (Option XI) and so on. In accordance with his liberal social and political philosophy, Mill stresses the similarities between women and men, rather than their differences. Mill argues that any gap in intellectual achievement between men and women can be explained by the better education and privileged social position which men enjoy. Mill made the strongest nineteenth-century arguments for opening women’s opportunities for employment, education, and suffrage. It was Mill’s view that the disabilities of women were because of legislation and that in his time their social subordination was an isolated fact. He advocated many measures meant to foster women’s equality. He, however, understood that law alone could not bring about women’s equality. Education, social inculcation, habits, and family life itself all had to be changed along with the law. Mill (1869) states that women are not allowed to do the things they are best at. To exemplify this he refers to the work of queens and other great women. He also sees that “The power of earning is essential to the dignity of a woman…” The vehicle for this is education. Mill argues that there would not be any difference between men and women in their capacities and character if women were not kept in an “unnatural state” in which “their nature [is] greatly distorted and disguised.’’ 3.4 Mill and the Gender Ideal An important component of Mill’s feminism is his notion of ideal gender. Mill’s view of androgyny –-or the possibility of “abolishing the distinction between characters”—forms the foundation for equal relationships between men and women and free development of individuality. Mill’s ideal of androgyny articulates two distinct ideas. Firstly, the segregation of gender is contrary to full human development. The notion that men are rational and speculative, while women are poetic and religious, is strongly refuted by Mill. Androgyny would mean, in this regard, the possibility of de-segregating positive attributes, so that a person would be simultaneously rational and religious, poetic and analytic, assertive and caring. Second, the ideal gender abolishes the distinction between male and female, because the ideal gender selects the traits from actual masculine and

M.A. (Political Science) PART II 41 PAPER VIII (Option XI) feminine characteristics. The ideal gender is neither masculine, nor feminine, but something different. It defines a human ideal, and it would be developed in a family where both members have equal positions. Mill’s commitment to overcome the artificial distinctions between men and women leads him to imagine a new type of family grounded in the ideal of equality. Mill’s notion of ideal gender is elaborated in theoretical texts, as well as in letters to his partner and friends. In The Subjection, Mill thinks that identity in moral and emotional abilities creates the conditions for equality in marriage. In On Marriage, Mill claims that the ideal gender would be different from the actual segregation of sexes. Mill goes on to argue that differences between actual masculinity and femininity are generated by contemporary structures of society and family life. The segregation between the ideal masculine and the ideal feminine is an outcome of environmental expectations and differences. In his emphasis on different types of gender socialization, Mill sounds strikingly contemporary. Like many feminists, Mill feels that “feminine” and “masculine” are a set of structures and conditions that delimit a typical situation lived by women and men. Like Rubin (2006), Mill feels that far from being a product of natural differences, gender identity is the suppression of important similarities. Like Young (2005), Mill knows that gender is passed on through education and social norms. Mill understands that “gender is a socially imposed definition of the sexes”. A set of structures define one’s gender, and different conditions of socialization lead to different performances of an action such as playing in the dirt, or “throwing a ball.” In The Subjection of Women, Mill makes clear that legal and social norms structure gender and hinder human development. Like many liberals, Mill wants to leave behind the negative features of gender or sex. Like Rawls, Mill wishes that in a just system the parties to the social contract would not have sex, or rather a system where they would have only better gender characteristics. Like Dworkin, Mill wants that a just system would treat people with equal respect, as long as gender is an outcome of ideal equality.4 An important assumption in liberalism is that persons need to be treated equally regardless of their gender.

M.A. (Political Science) PART II 42 PAPER VIII (Option XI)

3.5 Mill’s Feminism and the Subjection of Women and the Improvement of Mankind The fact that John Stuart Mill was an ardent and active feminist is particularly interesting for two reasons Fir prior to the publication of Mill's Subjection of Women, was a little-known work And since Mill's Subjection of Women, too, there have been no feminist writings by men which approach its forcefulness, comprehensiveness and lucidity. Secondly, Mill's feminism is a striking example of the application of political theory. Though, far from the abstractness of Plato or Hegel, Mill was a philosopher who was concerned with the broadest and most profound issues affecting the life of man in political society. Liberty, individuality, justice and democracy were his values, and at the root of his whole philosophy was his conviction that the utilitarian goal of 'the greatest happiness of the greatest number' could not be achieved apart from the greatest possible advancement, moral and intellectual, of the human race. Thus, for Mill, unlike Bentham and James Mill, one of the principal purposes of social and political in-situations was to develop human potential to the highest possible stage. His feminism was a valuable opportunity to see how he applied his central ideas about human beings in a social setting. Mill, like many of today's most prominent radical feminists, sees sexist socialization as the root of women's oppression by men. Women have been conditioned to devote themselves to men, to identify with male interests, and, perhaps most insidiously, to see themselves as incomplete and unfulfilled unless they are affiliated with a particular man. These are not the sentiments of a liberal feminist whose sole or main concern is repealing in egalitarian laws, although Mill was certainly interested in doing that. They are the sentiments of a radical, one who wishes to change society at the root by first understanding and then altering the processes that make us what we are.

M.A. (Political Science) PART II 43 PAPER VIII (Option XI)

Enfranchisement of Women Harriet wrote (or co-wrote with Mill) an essay 'On the Enfranchisement of Women' published in 1851. In it, she defended a woman's right to the vote and argued that economic independence was the key to the liberation of women.

Taylor defended the vote on the grounds that:

Equality should be the general principle that people follow unless there is a rational reason to do otherwise ('the presumption ought to be on the side of equality'). There is no rational reason to deny women the vote. Under English law taxation and political representation have gone together. Yet women pay taxes but don't have the vote. People only object to women voting because it is new. However, people will get used to new ideas.

She made it clear that jobs should be decided on the basis of ability. She argues that the denial of political rights to women tends to restrict their interests to matters that directly impact the family; with the result that the influence of wives on their husbands tends to diminish the latter's willingness to act from public-spirited motives. Further, she said that that when women do not enjoy equal educational rights with men then wives will impede rather than encourage their husbands' moral and intellectual development. And it insists that competition for jobs will prevent most of the problems that admitting women into the workforce would putatively cause from materializing. All of these points are common to “The Enfranchisement” and The Subjection. The major point of difference between the two is that while the Subjection rather notoriously suggests that the best arrangement for most married couples will be for the wife to concentrate on the care of the house and the children (Mill 1984a, 297–8), a position that Mill also takes in an early essay on marriage written for Harriet, the

M.A. (Political Science) PART II 44 PAPER VIII (Option XI)

“Enfranchisement” instead argues for the desirability of married women's working outside the home.

'There need be no fear that a woman will take out of the hands of men any occupation which men perform better than they. Each individual will prove his or her capacities.'

This shows that she allowed for the possibility that men might do some jobs better than women. However, she objected to the 'arbitrary limit' which stated what was and was not suited to a woman. She further argued that when women have been able to take part in traditional 'male' roles, they have excelled.

'Women have shown fitness for the highest social functions, exactly in proportion as they have been admitted to them.'

Having set out her thesis, Harriet set out the counter thesis in good discursive style. She recognised that people might object to women having jobs on the grounds that:

1. Jobs are incompatible with motherhood. 2. It is unwise to add more people to the workforce (wages will go down as there would be a labour surplus) 3. Women's characters will be hardened.

In response to the argument that motherhood is incompatible with having a job she pointed out that you do not need to ban by law something that is already impossible (i.e. if a woman is a mother and cannot take on a job then she won't). She said 'where the incompatibility is real, it will take care of itself.' She emphasised that not all women are mothers, so this argument cannot apply to them. She referred to the 'large and increasing' portion of the population who were single and said 'There is no inherent reason or necessity that all women should

M.A. (Political Science) PART II 45 PAPER VIII (Option XI) voluntarily choose to devote their lives to one animal function and its consequences. Numbers of women are wives and mothers only because there is no other career open to them.' In reply to the economic point (that it could lead to a fall in wages) she considered the worst case scenario (that the man and the woman together bring home no more than the man on his own used to make). She said that even if this were the case, the woman would be in a better position than she was in as an unpaid wife. 'How infinitely preferable is it that part of the income should be of the woman's earning, even if the aggregate sum were but little increased by it... a woman who contributes materially to the support of the family, cannot be treated in the same contemptuously tyrannical manner as one who, however she may toil as a domestic drudge, is dependent on the man for substance.' A wage would make the woman independent. It would mean that she does not need to please her husband out of fear that he might cut off her income if she offend him. In the extreme cases, she would have the option of leaving a violent relationship. Economic independence liberates women from requiring men.

The Principles of Political Economy, On Liberty, and “The Enfranchisement of Women” are the major writings of Harriet Taylor and “On Liberty’’ celebrated defence of individual freedom. The third and an important work, “The Enfranchisement of Women,” published in The Westminster Review in 1851, is the best candidate for a significant philosophical work authored primarily or even solely by Taylor Mill.” It discusses the ballot right for women means... “Equality in all rights political, civil, and social, with the male citizens of the community’’. It maintains that the denial of political rights to women tends to restrict their interests to matters that directly impact the family; with the result that the influence of wives on their husbands tends to diminish the latter's willingness to act from public-spirited motives. Further, it contends that when women do not enjoy equal educational rights with men then wives will impede rather than encourage their husbands' moral and intellectual development. And it

M.A. (Political Science) PART II 46 PAPER VIII (Option XI) insists that competition for jobs will prevent most of the problems that admitting women into the workforce would putatively cause from materializing. All of these points are common to “The Enfranchisement” and The Subjection. The major point of difference between the two is that while the Subjection rather notoriously suggests that the best arrangement for most married couples will be for the wife to concentrate on the care of the house and the children (Mill 1984a, 297–8), a position that Mill also takes in an early essay on marriage written for Harriet (J. S. Mill 1984b, 43), the “Enfranchisement” instead argues for the desirability of married women's working outside the home. 3.6 J. S. Mill and Harriet Taylor on Marriage and Divorce John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor in 1831 or 1832 represent a challenge to that orthodoxy. The intellectual career of John Stuart Mill (1803-73) is virtually synonymous with the development of liberal theory in Britain during the nineteenth century. According to Mill, ‘’ In the investigation of it is not good for man to be alone," And more than all in what concerns the relations of man and woman the law which is to be Observed by both should surely be made by both; not, as hitherto, by the strongest only. Harriet sees marriage in her age as laws primarily designed to assure the sexual satisfaction of man. The problem is not with sexuality as such but with an inequality in marriage that results in male sexuality expressing itself without regard for female sensibilities or pleasures. Harriet focuses on the contemptible nature of man in marriage. She castigates men because they have existed so degraded from all that is beautiful as to find the greatest pleasure of their existence in the lowest and blindest physical sensuality. Harriet classifies the role of sex in marriage by suggesting, ‘’ no man of education more than any women of education would derive pleasure from mere animal gratification- there must be some mind. Harriet argues that pleasure which does not involve some intellectual companionship or connection along with the sex is probably a expression of man’s pleasure not of a women. She wonders aloud whether the present differences between men who appears to be ‘sensualists’ and women who appears to be ‘quite

M.A. (Political Science) PART II 47 PAPER VIII (Option XI) exempt from this trait’ might not be mearly the training of the society and not an inherent differences. She does assert that ‘every pleasure would be infinitely heightened both in kind and degree by the perfect equality of sexes. If women and men are equal then pleasure of sex will be heightened for both. She also talks about women’s lack of conscious of choice of marriage partner. Harriet says women enter the marriage contract without knowing its nature and terms. As long as women are not taught about the reality of marriage and hence continue to stumble into marriage, the law should make divorce relatively convenient. She further says that if women had access to education and were legally equal they would control their own reproduction and there would be no need for marriage. According to Harriet that marriage accounts to ownership of one person by another. Women have used their sexual power to buy protection and economic power for themselves and their children. Harriet rails against the reality of marriage as a kind of prostitution, whether for middle class or for lower. On divorce she argues a new point. Harriet claims that divorce is needed for women because their inequality may result in domestic violence or she call it the ‘’ power to tyrannise’’. She also claims that marriage will continuosly degrade women until two changes are made: economic equality for women and no- fault divorce. In Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Wollstonecraft wrote that many of the supposed differences between the sexes were either fabricated or exaggerated and therefore could not be used as the basis for differential rights and roles. Imposing different educational expectations on men and women was not only unjust but also counterproductive, tending to create less productive female citizens with "artificial, weak characters”. Both sexes, Wollstonecraft argued, have the capacity to reason; hence both should be educated as to enhance their rationality. John Stuart Mill echoed Wollstonecraft's sentiments in The Subjection of Women (1869). He described sex roles as a kind of caste system in which women were assigned lower status and restricted in what they were permitted to do simply because of their sex, even though there were no categorical differences between the

M.A. (Political Science) PART II 48 PAPER VIII (Option XI) sexes that could justify it. This not only stunted the moral development of women but also denied them the self fulfilment that comes only with the freedom to pursue one's own good. Mill thought that when provided with the same educational and civic opportunities that men had, most women would choose to remain wives and mothers, improving domestic life for the family. 3.7 Mill and Taylor on Liberty Mill and Harriet spent much time writing and rewriting “On Liberty.” On Liberty, the celebrated defense of individual freedom, and published in the year after Taylor Mill’s death. At the beginning of “On Liberty,” Mill stated that democracies like the United States were going to replace the absolute monarchies and tyrannies of the past. With the people in control of their governments, however, a new problem arose. Mill feared that the “will of the people” would more often be the “will of the majority.” This could threaten liberty and individual self- development if the majority acted to oppress minority viewpoints and lifestyles. Mill argued that a democracy could easily become a “tyranny of the majority.” To overcome this threat, Mill proposed what philosophers today call his “harm principle.” Mill wrote that “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” Mills’ “harm principle” would block democratic majorities from interfering with the liberty of any adult unless that person threatened harm to others. Mill then identified the specific liberties he had in mind:

“liberty of conscience” “liberty of thought and feeling” “absolute freedom of opinion” “liberty of expressing and publishing opinions” (freedom of speech and press) “freedom to unite, for any purpose” (freedom of assembly) “liberty . . . of forming the plan of our life to suit our own character, of doing what we like” even if this appeared to be “foolish, perverse, or wrong”

M.A. (Political Science) PART II 49 PAPER VIII (Option XI)

Mill declared any society without these liberties was not free. Mill further argued that truth is found through the “collision of adverse opinions.” He wrote, “He who knows only his side of the case, knows little of that.” When people listen only to one viewpoint, he explained, “errors harden into prejudices, and truth itself ceases to have the effect of truth, by being exaggerated into falsehood.” Mill recognized that individual liberty needed limits or else harm to others may result. He gave the example of an “excited mob” outside the house of a grain dealer, shouting that he was starving the poor. In such circumstances, Mill agreed, the police were justified in arresting those whose angry words might easily inflame violence. He also said that the government had no business censoring those same words published in a newspaper article.

Mill argued that “an atmosphere of freedom” was necessary to assure all people the opportunity to develop their individuality. He condemned British society of his day for its suffocating conformity. Mill stated that government should be limited to providing the conditions necessary for people to achieve their individuality. Mill’s “On Liberty” drew criticism. Some accused him of encouraging anarchy, immorality, and godlessness. Other critics doubted that he had adequately defined “harm” and questioned his assumption that people actually wanted to pursue self-development. Mill himself remarked that “On Liberty” was “likely to survive longer than anything else that I have written.” He was right. It is his most famous work and has never gone out of print. 3.8 Education: Like Wollstonecraft, Taylor thought that women were the intellectual equals of men - provided they are given the opportunity to be. She said it was not enough to educate women just to make women better companions of men. For Taylor, education had to equip a woman with the ability to challenge a man, not just entertain him with interesting topics of conversation. She said that if men have only 'disciples' (i.e. wives who humbly follow them) then their own intellect will 'stagnate' whereas intellectual equality creates true companionship.

M.A. (Political Science) PART II 50 PAPER VIII (Option XI)

John Stuart Mill can be considered one of the very few exceptions to the an drocentric character of Western philosophy, one who stands out from a long tradition that tended more to devalue and marginalise women and issues concerning relations between the sexes, or to keep silent about them, than to develop philosophical ideas and explanations regarding women’s subordination and consider gender issues based on the principle of the equality of women and men. John Stuart Mill considered this to be one of the most fundamental principles for building a liberal and democratic society. His interest in the emancipation of women was systematic and continuous. It is also very important to note that he worked on this issue not only theoretically and philosophically, but also as a publicist and politician. As is well known, was not a typical academic philosopher and scientist, and did not regard his activities as mere theorising. Rather, he was a “public man”, an enthusiastic participant in public and political debates concerning various social problems of his time, and was especially interested in legal and social reform. Among the issues on which Mill campaigned most intensively were women’s rights, women’s suffrage and women’s equal access to education. From the latter half of the 1850s until his death, he actively supported the women’s movement as it developed during this period, and participated in various forms of women’s political struggle against subjection and discrimination and for civil and political rights, especially women’s suffrage, as well as social and political reforms aimed at improving their situation. He cooperated and regularly corresponded with several women’s rights activists, including Elisabeth C. Stanton, leader of the first organised women’s movement in the USA and author of the famous Declaration of Sentiments of 1848, a manifesto articulating the demand for equality between the sexes. During his brief political career as a member of British parliament (he became a member of the House of Commons in 1865), Mill worked to influence legislation and public policy concerning issues affecting women; for example, he fought for a women’s suffrage amendment to the Reform Bill of 1867, and also supported the Married Women’s Property Bill one year later. He was critical of the idea that husbands, through their right to vote, served as the

M.A. (Political Science) PART II 51 PAPER VIII (Option XI) protectors of their wives; for him, women’s enfranchisement signified the greater struggle for women’s equality. His ideas about the emancipation of women, and his feminism are closely related to his personal relationship with Harriet Taylor and her thoughts on these issues. Although there is much disagreement regarding the impact of Taylor’s ideas on Mill, and especially about the merit and value of her influence on Mill’s feminism no one denies that Mill and Taylor greatly affected each other’s thinking.

Although in the Victorian age women gained more legal rights but she was still far inferior to man in education, political rights and social status. Mill was a British philosopher who was fed up with in secondary position of women. He analysed this position of women in his book ‘The subjection of women’. Harriet Taylor asserted in The Enfranchisement of Women that it was not only necessary for women to have the capacity and training to be able to earn their own subsistence (which was Mill's formulation in The Subjection of Women) but that women's position in the family would improve substantially 'if women both earned, and had the right to possess, a part of the income of the family'. Both mill and Taylor advocated equality, freedom, education and political rights for women.

3.9 Question : Evaluate J.S. Mill's Feminism.

M.A. (Political Science) PART II 52 PAPER VIII (Option XI)

3.10 Readings Bogdan, Popa, “Mill, Gender Ideal and Gender Oppression: Do Feminists Need to Abolish Gender Roles?’’, UCLA Center for the study of women, Thinking Gender Series, California, January, 2011. Hayak, F.A (2011), “ John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor: Their Correspondence and Subsequent Marriage’’, The University of Chicago Press, England: Routledge. https://tajakramberger.files.wordpress.com Jacobs, Ellen J. (ed. August, 1998), “The Complete Works of Harriet Taylor Mill’’, Indian University of Press, USA. Keith, Burgess –Jackson, “John Stuart Mill, Radical Feminist’’, Social Theory and Practice, Vol.21, Issue, 3, p 369, September 1995. Mill, J.S and Harriet Taylor (1832), “Essays on Marriage and Divorce ‘’, In Early Liberal Thought and Practice. www.iun.edu/`~histjwb/MillandTaylor Mill, John Stuart, “Essays on Equality, Law and Education’’, John M. Robson (ed. 1984), Introduction by Stefan Collini, University of Toronto, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Nye, Andrea (19 October, 1989), “Feminist Theory and The Philosophies of Man’’, UK: Routledge Okin, Susan Moller (ed. January 1988), “John Stuart Mill’s Feminism: The Subjection of Women and the Improvement of Mankind’’, Cambridge: Hackett. Ozler, sule, “John Stuart Mill’s Relationships His ‘Mental Crisis’ and the Writing Subjection of the women, The New Center For Psychoanalysis, Los Angeles, June 2014. plato.stanford.edu/entries/harriet-mill/ Szapuova, Mariana, “Mill’s Liberal Feminism: Its Legacy and Current Criticism’’, prolegomena 5 (2), pp. 179-191, Slovakia, 2006 Vashonsd.org www.philosopherkings.co.uk/Secular_ Liberal_ Feminism.html