I. Docility in the Age of Liberal Democracy In Sharon Krause says, every book of political theory Liberalism with Honor, “Behind stands a the one thing in political life its author most fears or despises.” (Krause summum malum, 2002, ix) The aim of this section is to demonstrate that Mill’s in this sense was summum malum docility in modern mass, commercial, and bureaucratic democracy which, in the nineteenth century, was for the most part already recognizable in England and America. Docility, in the sense used here, partly refers to political apathy, or from “withdrawal politics and into private life.” (Zakaras 2009, 10) For Mill, apathy was one of the most worrisome features of the modern pecuniary spirit that became predominant in society due to rapid expansion in the size and sociopolitical power of the commercial middle class. Mill’s acute awareness of the reigning commercial culture and its negative consequences is manifest throughout his career in many different writings. In (1836), Mill observes that “Civilization” modern structural changes in economy and politics had a direct impact on the average individual’s character; in a civilized person, one observes simultaneously an overall “relaxation of individual energy” and concentration of it within the narrow sphere of the individual’s “the money-getting pursuits.” (Civ, 134) Four years later, in his second review of Tocqueville’s Mill also echoes Tocqueville by opposing the ascendant commercial Democracy in America, spirit to that of politics, though, unlike the French author, Mill associates the malaise with industrial economic development rather than democratic social equality. The other aspect of docility which Mill despised and feared throughout his career was conformity. Although he does not provide any explicit definition of the term, its meaning can be
I. Docility in the Age of Liberal Democracy In Liberalism with Honor, Sharon Krause says, “Behind every book of political theory stands a summum malum, the one thing in political life its author most fears or despises.” (Krause 2002, ix) The aim of this section is to demonstrate that Mill’s summum malum in this sense was docility in modern mass, commercial, and bureaucratic democracy which, in the nineteenth century, was for the most part already recognizable in England and America. Docility, in the sense used here, partly refers to political apathy, or “withdrawal from politics and into private life.” (Zakaras 2009, 10) For Mill, apathy was one of the most worrisome features of the modern pecuniary spirit that became predominant in society due to rapid expansion in the size and sociopolitical power of the commercial middle class. Mill’s acute awareness of the reigning commercial culture and its negative consequences is manifest throughout his career in many different writings. In “Civilization” (1836), Mill observes that modern structural changes in economy and politics had a direct impact on the average individual’s character; in a civilized person, one observes simultaneously an overall “relaxation of individual energy” and “the concentration of it within the narrow sphere of the individual’s money-getting pursuits.” (Civ, 134) Four years later, in his second review of Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, Mill also echoes Tocqueville by opposing the ascendant commercial spirit to that of politics, though, unlike the French author, Mill associates the malaise with industrial economic development rather than democratic social equality. The other aspect of docility which Mill despised and feared throughout his career was conformity. Although he does not provide any explicit definition of the term, its meaning can be
park_wpsa_Mill%20chapter.docx