Essay on John Stuart Mill's On Liberty

This paper, authored by my son, Geoff, underlines what must be done before we can ascend to a New Renaissance of freedom and thought, unsullied by the vested interests of the religious/military/industrial establishment who only aspire to keep us focussed on consuming, and being controlled by a propaganda machine that would make Joseph Goebbels die of envy.

"Genius can only breathe freely in an atmosphere of freedom" (John Stuart Mill, On Liberty)

While the major theme of John Mill’s On Liberty is undoubtedly the role of freedom in society and the harm principle (that gives citizens in a society the right to do anything unless it harms another), Mills gives many smaller examples that, when enlarged upon, are almost as vital to his thesis as the rest of the work. One of these examples is that of genius in a liberal society; Mills states that “[g]enius can only breathe freely in an atmosphere of freedom” (Mill, On Liberty, 62). This point is true beyond a reasonable doubt. For one, in a society where the harm principle is in practice, an intellectual is not limited in any way by laws designed to stifle his mind or conform him to the masses. He will be allowed to express his ideas freely and without fear of persecution, and, finally, in a society where debate is downtrodden and a single opinion on most subjects prevails, a genius will have no use for his intelligence.

In an authoritarian society, or even merely a society where the freedom of the individual is not sacred, individual freedom can be stifled for what is seen as the good of the society. For example, if individuality is seen as affecting the society’s cohesion, ideas will be suppressed for the so-called greater good. If an intellectual has an idea that challenges the views supported by the government, the idea will be forcibly removed from the society so that none of its bad influence is felt. In a free-thinking, liberal society, on the other hand, thought will not be a crime. The genius will be able to flourish, as it will not be seen as a threat to the society, but rather as a gift that bolsters the society as a whole. There is no reason to suppress something, such as an idea, that is the result of one’s own society’s mindset. In short, if there are no laws to serve as a rooftop to genius, it can reach up to improve the society without hindrance.

Without freedom of expression, genius would be in a similarly poor situation. Even if there is no authoritarian government in place that actively puts down all opposing viewpoints, conservative societies can do this all on their own. If it is not a social norm to express one’s own opinions, and people view opinions that are radically different from their own, the genius will be unlikely to share his thoughts and beliefs. Locked up, his ideas are of no use to anyone. In a liberal society, the exchange of ideas is encouraged, even if the expressed views may seem radical or strange at the time. If the genius is not ridiculed when he expresses his beliefs, then he is far more likely to continue to share them to the benefit of everyone. This aspect of the society is far harder to change than the government, however. Governments can rise and fall in revolutions and rebellions, but societies themselves only change gradually. Even if the government has become liberal, its citizens may still have conservative tendencies, and may still ridicule and even threaten those that have foreign ideas. Only education and time will change the society into one that is accepting of genius.

On a similar note, more radically conservative societies will not only be hostile to radically different ideas, but merely the thought of debate as well. Debate is an intellectual’s sustenance, and his genius will not flourish without it. If a single opinion on most subjects prevails, and debate is stifled by the very nature of the society, it is possible that the genius will never realise his own gift. He will be so used to the concept of a society-wide opinion that it will be hard, if not impossible, to conceive of it any other way. What use is there coming up with an effective alternative to coal as fuel if one has no idea that coal is harmful? What reason is there to invent a plane when a car is widely seen as the one and best means of transport? While genius is capable of growing in a society like this, and will eventually plant the seeds of revolution, it is unlikely the flourish. It takes a society where a free and liberal exchange of ideas is commonplace for genius to truly prosper.

The truth is that the less liberal a society is, the harder it is for genius to flourish. Without free exchange of ideas, an accepting mindset, and a liberal government, intellectuals will be looked down upon, ignored, or forced to become equal. It is only natural that ideas would be bolstered by liberty; with liberty, genius can properly reach up to touch all that it can with the ideas and beliefs that it nurtures. This is, after all, the very goal of a free society: a constantly-adapting, ever-accepting canvas for those who have the conviction to hold the paintbrush and draw forth their vision. This is as vital to Mill’s point as any of his other arguments; with the harm principle in practice, not only is the society benevolent and free, it also has the ability to change with time when a particularly great idea emerges from its culture of acceptance. In the end, genius can only breathe freely in an atmosphere of freedom.



WORKS CITED

Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. Ed. Elizabeth Rapaport. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing
Company, 1978.