Would Rousseau agree? Would Mill agree? Do you agree?
It is commonly understood that the thoughts in our minds can easily materialize into actions and outward expression. I, for one, was taught the proverb ‘thoughts are seeds’ by my parents. This analogy showed me that even the smallest of thoughts could sometimes result in huge consequences whether they are wanted or not, just like an acorn gradually growing to the size of an oak tree. However, what I believe is more impactful is the exact opposite: most of our thoughts never become what we say or do. Although my parents had taught me that proverb intending to prevent me from thinking in a way that harmed me, I learnt the importance of ignoring the thoughts that I deemed unhelpful themselves. This was because I realized the inevitability of negative thoughts. After all, it is human nature to have both morally good and evil thoughts, no matter what kind of person we are. Therefore, my viewpoint stresses the value and necessity of being our own governors, instead of allowing ourselves to primarily live our lives based on how we are governed by others.
To be able to become our own governors, we must first understand what that term means. Governors in the political world exist to serve the people they have authority over through their legislative power(although this unfortunately isn’t always the case). Just like how they aim to better the area they lead, being our own governors means that we should better ourselves morally, physically, psychologically and so on. To further expand on this, we can look to Jordan Peterson’s book, 12 Rules for Life, where one of the chapters is powerfully titled ‘set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world’. Peterson explains how people often fall into a Mephistophelean manner of thinking, which is a way of thinking that results in us becoming vengeful, malevolent and quick to curse the world’s problems by blaming others. What this shows is that when faced with difficult situations that bring us to the brink of all these destructive emotions, we sometimes attempt to solve them by choosing to turn elsewhere, rather than looking within ourselves. Not only is this futile, but it also brings further discontent and hatred into the world. If told to find an article in the news about a governor that blamed others for the problems they had the responsibility to solve, it would be far too easy. However, finding someone who solved their problems by adopting this mindset would be very difficult. Therefore, governing ourselves is essential to finding meaning. It is a personal journey that only stops when we decide to, but has the ability to lead to our own sense of fulfilment and true happiness. In essence, it enables us to explore what it really means to be our own, unique selves.
However, in modern society today, it is evident that we are heavily influenced by the governance of others in the form of social norms that subtly control us, both willingly and unwillingly. These norms create expectations of us to affiliate with the views and morals of the majority, or the rightly termed 'mob mentality'. The reason for the majority’s success in our world today can not always be explained by the correctness of what they say, instead, it is more often than not the lack of importance that we place on having the individual ability to think for ourselves. Rather than forming our own opinions on things through careful thought processes, we find convenience in agreeing with those around us, as it grants us the freedom of not having to think and be prepared to disagree. I have used the word freedom here to highlight the irony of the supposed ‘freedom’ that people find in placing more importance and trust in being governed by others. Choosing not to govern ourselves based on our morals and opinions actually confines our minds-it makes us unable to pursue our own truth and understanding of who we are.
Governing ourselves in our daily lives is undoubtedly hard work, but it possesses an enlightening quality that can never be found in blindly following others and their governance. In addition, one can say that it exposes all of our faults whether it is dishonesty, ignorance, selfishness or even the fallacious arguments that we believe so strongly in. It forces us to recognise and address these when they could easily be ignored. The realisation of our faults are daunting and fill us with guilt because we like to think of ourselves as inherently good people, but people fail to see the blessing that it can be for us. Knowing and accepting our faults is the first step to the purpose of governing ourselves, as it allows us to then take action to change, which is the purpose of why we should do it.
John Stuart Mill also placed incredible value on the freedom that governing ourselves provides. According to Mill in his most famous book, On Liberty, “The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs.” It is clear that he encourages the individualism that results from the freedom to essentially be ourselves as long as others are not harmed or have their own freedom infringed upon. For Mill, freedom was of utmost importance as he believed that individuals knew what a good and meaningful life meant to them. Only they could be the true judges to assess their lives and only they could know what they wanted for themselves based on who they were. Consequently, Mill believed that freedom of speech and expression was crucial to allowing people to have the freedom to govern themselves. Diversity in belief and character was Mill’s long-term solution to social stagnation, a problem that humanity needed to actively and constantly prevent from happening. He explains that this freedom has the capability of making us consider the truth or correctness of a nonconformist opinion. Furthermore, even if we were to believe that it was wrong, being aware of it would allow people to strengthen their understanding of their own opinions. Therefore, Mill advocated for people to comprehend the importance of self-governance and its widespread benefit to society in preventing the peer pressure of social intolerance(which he believed to be a formidable threat).
Mill wanted a society where the government had no power over the opinions of people by imposing or even forcing their views on them. His belief that people should be able to live how they wanted as long as they did not harm others by doing so was resolute. This firm stance resulted in strong criticism of his idea of self-governance, which failed to address the moral implications of one’s individual actions because others argued that certain actions would always be sinful and immoral regardless of whether they negatively affected others. A widely discussed example of where others argue that this has happened is private sexual activity, as many understand that not all of it is excusable even if it is behind closed doors. His view on self-governance assumed that someone’s personal judgement on whether to carry out an action or not would be always right if the person believed that it was in their own best interest. This can be seen as deeply flawed due to the fact that self-governance should be used to improve our personal selves, but according to Mill, any free action that does not affect others should be left alone, even if it is perceived as unethical by others. Because of his faith in the harm principle, his idea of self-governance was one that was completely liberated from the constraints of government and social norms. His defence for this was the explanation that being governed by others would gradually lead to the "tyranny of the majority".
Rousseau, however, believed in the reinforcing power of being governed by others. He knew that the individual freedom of everyone was something that needed to be upheld, but took one step further to argue that the sovereign would unify the ‘general will’ of its individual citizens. To Rousseau, the sovereign was defined as the collective group of people who consensually entered a society, rather than a singular position of power such as a monarch that held dominion over it. This sovereign would represent the general will of the people within it, in the pursuit of the 'common good'. However, in The Social Contract, he struggles to clearly identify how it would function. This idea was obviously theoretical, as his definition of a civil society had not been achieved in the real world, and perhaps this is why many believe that it would not be possible due to its unproven nature.
Another flaw with the concept of this ‘general will’ is that Rousseau assumes that it would properly represent the public. He fails to factor in the government’s temptations to utilise the immense power that it could grant them if they were to push their agenda in order to turn majorities against minorities. We can see how this idea can easily breed subtle tyrannical ruling and indoctrination by the government if used in conjunction with the outreach of government-influenced media. In addition, one can argue that it is incredibly difficult for the ‘general will’ to unify a society where individual opinions need to be respected simultaneously. Therefore, his contradictory claims ironically show the pragmatic value of self-governance which can benefit the individual greatly due to its personal impacts. Self-governance does not attempt to better general society by solving its wider issues, rather it advances society through the betterment of individuals within it. Not only does this result in a rich diversity of thought, but it also strives to make people more virtuous and truly satisfied with their lives.
On the contrary, another argument he provides for placing value on being governed focuses on individual people instead of the general majority. In this argument, Rousseau claims that it is not enough to achieve a sense of self-satisfaction through autonomy. The subjective value we find in ourselves through self-governance could mean nothing to others. Achieving recognition in the eyes of others around you in conjunction with this allows for the true establishment of purpose in someone’s life. The case he provides here seems far more compelling, and the reason for that is that it has nothing to do with the majority, but with the people around us. This group can consist of people such as family, friends and colleagues-those who are important to us and vice versa. Only because of this mutual importance can being governed by others have a valuable impact on our lives.
After the consideration of these two philosophers, it is unquestionably true that both self-governance and being governed by others are able to be of value. However, the subjective and personal aspect of the former is what makes it more useful to the individual. It gives us the power to determine the satisfaction and success of our lives that the latter can not. This, therefore, enables us to discover what it truly means to be our own selves.
Although we are far from perfection, we are also irreplaceable.