John Stuart Mill, Individuality, and Participatory Democracy

2010 ◽  
pp. 200-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Zakaras
Author(s):  
Alan Ryan

This chapter examines some differences between rights-based and utilitarian defenses of democracy by referencing to John Stuart Mill and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Since the early 1960s, Mill and Rousseau have been regarded as theorists of “participatory democracy,” defenders of a classical ideal of citizen virtue and public spirit who could still teach us something about the point of democratic government. The chapter first explains a rights-based theory of democracy and its emphasis on questions of legitimacy and authority before considering how the account of Rousseau and Mill seem to be at odds with the account of the connection between rights and democracy, on the one hand, and between utility and democracy on the other. It suggests that Rousseau's ethics are fundamentally the ethics of natural rights, whereas Mill's ethics are fundamentally utilitarian.


1999 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Molnar

Freud's translation of J.S. Mill involved an encounter with the traditions of British empirical philosophy and associationist psychology, both of which go back to Locke and Hume. The translation of Mill's essay on Plato also brought Freud into contact with the philosophical controversy between the advocates of intuition and faith and the advocates of perception and reason. A comparison of source and translated texts demonstrates Freud's faithfulness to his author. A few significant deviations may be connected with Freud's ambiguous attitude to women's rights, as advocated in the essay The Enfranchisement of Women. Stylistically Freud had nothing to learn from Mill. His model in English was Macaulay, whom he was also reading at this period.


2011 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dinah Birch

The contested values associated with the term ‘Victorian’ call for fresh and informed consideration in the light of far-reaching changes brought about by the global economic downturn. Victorian writers engaged with public questions that were often associated with the issues we must now address, and their vigorously contentious responses reflect a drive to influence a wide audience with their ideas. Fiction of the period, including the sensation novels of the 1860s, provide telling examples of these developments in mid-Victorian writing; but non-fictional texts, including those of the philosopher and political economist John Stuart Mill and the critic John Ruskin, also question the foundations of social thought. As they challenged traditional genre boundaries through the innovative forms that emerged across a range of diverse works, many Victorian authors argued for closer links between the discourses of emotion and those of logic. These are difficult times for researchers and critics, but the stringencies we find ourselves confronting can provide opportunities to create connections of the kind that the Victorians chose to make, bringing together different genres of writing and disciplines of thought, and arguing for a more generous understanding of our responsibilities towards each other.


Author(s):  
Olga Mykhailоvna Ivanitskaya

The article is devoted to issues of ensuring transparency and ac- countability of authorities in the conditions of participatory democracy (democ- racy of participation). It is argued that the public should be guaranteed not only the right for access to information but also the prerequisites for expanding its par- ticipation in state governance. These prerequisites include: the adoption of clearly measurable macroeconomic and social goals and the provision of control of the processes of their compliance with the government by citizens of the country; ex- tension of the circle of subjects of legislative initiative due to realization of such rights by citizens and their groups; legislative definition of the forms of citizens’ participation in making publicly significant decisions, design of relevant orders and procedures, in particular participation in local referendum; outlining methods and procedures for taking into account social thought when making socially im- portant decisions. The need to disclose information about resources that are used by authorities to realize the goals is proved as well as key performance indicators that can be monitored by every citizen; the efforts made by governments of coun- tries to achieve these goals. It was noted that transparency in the conditions of representative democracy in its worst forms in a society where ignorance of the thought of society and its individual members is ignored does not in fact fulfill its main task — to establish an effective dialogue between the authorities and so- ciety. There is a distortion of the essence of transparency: instead of being heard, society is being asked to be informed — and passively accept the facts presented as due. In fact, transparency and accountability in this case are not instruments for the achievement of democracy in public administration, but by the form of a tacit agreement between the subjects of power and people, where the latter passes the participation of an “informed observer”.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document