they do show very plainly what the whole story of the development of Mill's political thought shows that Mill had gotten well away from the doctrinaire democracy of his predecessors, and was really trying to work out a type of government which, both for the sake of the individual and for the sake of society, would foster individual develop ment. IV. This same interest on Mill's part, from a somewhat different angle, is shown in his writings on the position of women. Mill was not primarily interested in giving women the vote. That was a mere incident. What he wanted was that women should have the same freedom and the same opportunities that men have for self-culture and self-development. Mill's two essays on this subject cover much the same ground. The essay on the Enfranchisement of Women was published in the Westminster Review in 1851. In his prefatory note in the collected essays, Mill says that it was largely the work of Mrs. Mill, his own share in it being "little more than that of an editor and amanuensis." " The Subjection of Women, a longer essay, was written in 1861 but not published until 1869. The position of women, Mill holds, is a kind of slavery, a relic of barbarism. It is due to the fact that men are physically stronger, and the institutions based on man's physical superiority have been perpetuated by custom. Thus the law gives the husband entire control over the person and property of his wife. In many cases this does not work hardship, on account of the affection that each bears to the other, but the situation is nevertheless bad. That it is not necessarily and always bad is no argument for it, any more than the fact that some slaveholders were kind to their slaves is an argument for slavery. There are three stages of morality: » Dissertations and Discussions, Vol. III. p. 93. the "morality of submission," when might makes right, and the weak do the bidding of the strong; the morality based on chivalry, where the stronger of his goodness is kind to the weaker; and the morality based on justice, where the weaker is given certain rights. The morality of chivalry still obtains in the relation between men and women. Mill should not be understood as underestimating the value of chivalry. On the contrary, he has the highest regard for it. There is a large part of conduct in which it is to be man's guide. But the point he is making is that when weaker people have to depend on chivalry in place of the protection of legal rights, they fare badly. 26 On the question of the equality between men and women, Mill does not dogmatize. All he says is that you have no right to assume that the two sexes are fundamentally and innately different until you have exhausted every possibility of explaining their differences in terms of environmental factors. It is true that Mill's inclination is to assume equality. Being born a man or being born a woman, and being born white or being born black, he speaks of in the same breath as being born a patrician or being born a plebian.' He believes that the differences between men and women can largely be explained by training. He quotes with approval Sydney Smith's suggestion that 21 "as long as boys and girls run about in the dirt and trundle hoops together, they are both precisely alike. If you catch up one-half of these creatures, and train them to a particular set of actions and opinions, and the other half to a perfectly opposite set, of course their understandings will differ, as one or the other sort of occupations has called this or that talent into action. There is surely no occasion to go into any deeper or more abstruse reasoning, in order to explain so very simple a phenomenon.” ” Subjection of Women, pp. 94-95- Subjection of Women, p. 35. The fact that women have to depend for all they get on winning the approval of men, Mill thinks, makes them artificial and disingenuous, and explains most of the differences in character generally attributed to sex. At the same time, he does admit certain differences between men and women. He says that it may be that men's brains are larger than the brains of women, or that women are more "nervous than men.” ""This last may be an advantage rather than a disadvantage. It may explain the fact that women have more sense of the concrete and more power of "intuition"-that is, "a rapid and correct insight into present fact." (This has nothing to do, he says, with general principles. "Nobody ever perceived a scientific law of nature by intuition, nor arrived at a general rule of duty or prudence by it.")" The skill of women as rulers both in Europe, at different times in history, and in India, where mothers were often regents for minor sons, made a great impression on Mill; as did also the anomaly that in England the only government position open to a woman was the highest one of all-that of Queen." Mill's final conclusion on this matter is that in whatever ways women may differ from men constitutionally, if they turn out to differ at all, there is as much chance that the peculiarities of women will be of advantage to them in the world of affairs, as that the contrary will be true. In any case, if women are left free from the trammels of custom and adverse legislation, they can be depended upon to find the place where they will fit in best. The advantages of the recognition of equality between men and women are many. It will do away with the sufferings of many women at the hands of unkind husbands." The Subjection of Women, p. 141. Subjection of Women, p. 27. Subjection of Women, p. 173. present situation makes men tyrannical and overbearing and women submissive and dependent on artifice." "The relation of superiors to dependents is the nursery of these vices of character."" Recognition of equality will do away with this. Furthermore, if women were free to enter business and the professions, society would gain, both because there would be more talent in the field, and because there would be more competition and therefore a higher standard set. Women's votes will be on the side of adjustment of differences "not by fierce conflict, but by a succession of peaceful compromises."" And finally, the emancipation of women from their position of thraldom will mean the limitation of the number of children that will be born to them, and the reduction of the population." Again we see Mill's interest in individuality, and his eagerness for that kind of freedom which will make the development of individuality possible. That women should be deprived of education, kept mere drudges in the home, not given the opportunity to take their rightful places in society, not allowed to vote, seemed to him an intolerable relic of barbarism. His hostility to the subjection of women had for its motive that same dominant interest in personality which was the basis of his interest in representative government. Whoever the individual might be-man or woman, rich or poor, educated or uneducated-what Mill wanted for him or her was more freedom for self development and more interest in self culture. For this he saw that a 'fair chance for self expression was essential, whether it be at the polls or in the broader fields of social interest. "Dissertations and Discussions, Vol. III. p. 122, 84 Subjection of Women, p. 78. "Letters, Vol. II. p. 311. Chapter VII. Liberty and Individuality. I. In the Autobiography Mill speaks of a "remarkable American," Josiah Warren, as being one of the pioneers of personal liberty. It was from him that he borrowed the phrase "the sovereignty of the individual." It is difficult to say just how much Mill knew about Josiah Warren, or how much influence the American had on the Englishman. But Warren is an interesting person for his own sake, and affords an interesting example of the kind of reaction that was taking place in the middle of the Nineteenth century against the various schemes of Utopian Socialism which had sprung up in such abundance just before. His experience was the sort which would further impress on Mill's mind the lesson of the importance of individual freedom. Josiah Warren had been a member of the community which Robert Owen started in 1826 at New Harmony, Indiana, on the banks of the Wabash. Owen's experiment failed ignominiously, because the people did not have sufficient thrift and industry to prosper under a communistic regime. Warren had all Owen's faith that a new system of social organization could be achieved, but, having learned a lesson from the failure at New Harmony, he tried another plan, and in 1851 founded the village of Modern Times on Long Island, based on the principle of individual sovereignty. Private property was * Autobiography, p. 179. |