Notes on Mill and multiculturalism

I apologize beforehand for this unorganized post. I wrote this fairly quickly, and I’m sure I’ve sacrificed clarity. Please forgive me Clarity. I didn’t mean nothin’ by it.

In 1859, John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty was published. It presented arguments for the very intuitive conclusion that people should be unrestrained in their pursuit of activities that cause no one but themselves (if even that) harm. But this ideal was met by opposition. There were two sources of needless curtailment of freedom, according to Mill. The first had since lost its power: the unlimited rule of the state over its subjects. With rapid political reform, citizens had greater control over the civil rights being legislated. Political democracy had more or less trumped authoritarianism. But the second source still reigned in Mill’s time. This was the oppressive nature of “collective opinion”. The mores and sentiment’s of a public’s majority has a great effect on dissenting individuals. Minority groups not in line with the traditions of the majority can experience a sense of alienation and seclusion; which is not a great thing for Mill, because they are being punished for opinions that, presumably, cause harm to no one. They are compelled to accept a worldview not their own, or pay for it with scorn and derision. Mill’s On Liberty, is therefore very applicable 150 years on considering the very heated debate over “reasonable accommodation” in Canada and the so-called “muslim problem” in the UK. Take a look, for example, at the almost absurd argument over the right of female school children to wear the Jilbab. Now, considering the very obvious relevance of Mill’s work, whether or not you agree with his conclusion that minority groups should be free to do what they like as long as it causes no harm, I was mystified by a review of a new biography on Mill. Here is what the author of the review had to say near the end, ultimately denying the relevance of Mill's work to today's context:

“When Mill wrote, there was a lot to be said for this focus. The mid-Victorian state was one of the least oppressive in the world - at any rate for the respectable classes to which Mill belonged. On the other hand, mid-Victorian society was complacent, conformist and intolerant of deviant opinions and lifestyles. The wheel has come full circle 150 years later. The multicultural, multi-ethnic society of the 21st century is not in the least like an eiderdown; it is a ragged patchwork with huge holes between the pieces. Particular ethnic or cultural enclaves sometimes oppress their own members, but if they go too far, the law can step in; and, in any case, they do not endanger diversity or individuality in the wider society. In a sense, there are no longer any deviant opinions or lifestyles to be intolerant about: there are no fixed standards to deviate from. There is only a cacophony of divergent voices.”

There are in fact fixed standards against which minority groups are judged: negatively, to be sure. They are habitually judged as not-really-Canadian, or not-really-American, because the description of a Canadian and American is based on an unchanging concept. And the evidence seems to disprove the claim that no cultural group (even the majority) endangers “diversity or individuality.”