POLITICAL SCIENCE 41

Hirschmann, The Subject of Liberty:Idealized masculinity

"Bleeds into materialism" Ideology can become a real obstacle to freedom Has real/material implications for women when police fail to arrest/courts fail to convict Men are supposed to be assertive, dominant Women- passive, coy, docile, submission ^this all has an effect "Provides discursive context for batterers' anger and frustration, remorse, appeals to sympathy, and shifting of blame" 128 Very recognizable type of masculinity that is attractive to women and men because it is part of a cultural script The way this idealized script plays out → men aggressive and emotional and can lead to violence and the women are supposed to care and nurture him emotionally, she has responsibility over his emotions → this causes the women and others to blame the woman for when the relationship goes array These cultural scripts of the responsibility of men and women have implications for how one interprets a situation and that has implications for the woman (ex. Police) Background assumptions of gender bias have very real material consequences when it comes to a Women's freedom

Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844: Of the worker from product of labor

"Objectication of labor"- material embodiment "Loss of reality" for the worker (Chinese factory workers) "Falls under dominion of the object" Once on an assembly line the relationship between the man and his product ruptured and he no longer owns what is produced → it is appropriated by the factory owner When shoe was created by an artisan it was their work and they knew everything about production → not true now what emerges at the end unknown how to produce it → the end result is surprising/amazing to you Fails to recognize relationship between workers/objects of production (The products the labourer produces are not for them, they are for the benefit of the capitalist, there is no sense of ownership) Wealth produced is inaccessible to working class

Mill, On Liberty: The harm principle

"That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection" Only purpose power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others One principle to clarify the limits of what political and social life should be I can't compel you to do stuff because it's in your benefit → only to prevent you from harming others Can't impose a certain morality on others If you think someone is making terrible choices you can try to reason and persuade but cannot force Can only use force to stop someone from harming others Over himself the individual is sovereign Free society should guarantee: Freedom of thought, Freedom of pursuit (live how you please), and Freedom to unite/association

Mill, On Liberty: Two ways of limiting government power

1. Establishing certain individual rights (Bill of rights) breach of power to infringe If he does infringe rebellion is justifiable 2. Constitutional checks/constraints Gov. designed to not put all power in one section of government and constitutional checks (ex. Elections, triadic gov. Like the U.S., state govs.)

Mill, On Liberty: Two kinds of censorship

1. Legal censorship → Institutional censorship, laws 2. Informal censorship → arises when people with idiosyncratic (different) opinions are shunned, made to feel unwelcome or shunned for believing/ saying certain things People silence themselves The brightest minds become warped because they cannot explore unpopular beliefs

Mill, On Liberty:Application III: childbirth

A lot of people think giving birth to a child is a liberty to have absolutely Not true → if you don't have the resources to care for the child it has impact on the child and society Not beyond the legislative scope of the state to restrict childbirth → can regulate because it affects society

Mill, On Liberty: The illusion of infallibility

All silencing of opinions rest on an assumption of infallibility If you believe your opinion is infallible (sure you are right) you are delusional (Humans are never 100% sure about anything) Must allow all opinions to be expressed Most of our beliefs are uncontested and just passed down/hereditary Every single time a broad consensus in society was thought to be true, it is now shown to be mistaken → it happens to every age in history → if this is true how can we be so sure that we are currently true People cling desperately to their beliefs because they provide meaning to their worlds → wouldn't know what to do without them, not because they have studied them rigorously Assume their own infallibility passively and for bad reasons

Mill, On Liberty: Mill's skepticism about big government

Asks → should the state provide for citizens in areas they could in principle provide for themselves 1. There are things the people can do better than if done by the state 2. Even if the government does things just as well or better than the people, it is still preferable for people to do it for educational purposes Less danger of a passive public → decentralization Citizens can shape/involve ? 3. The great evil of adding unnecessarily to government power Can have as democratic a society as you want, but if gov. Controls most the economy so much that the people are dependent on the state for $/living then they aren't really free (People won't criticize government if dependent on it)

Mill, On Liberty: The psychological origins of intolerance

Believes intolerance will always manifest itself in human communities. Humans have a tendency to impose their beliefs on other To make meaning we develop customs and rituals and we come to mistake these customs and rituals as the right way of doing things May try to impose on others to enlighten them Desperately want to believe that their life has meaning Constantly mistakes custom as nature Once one believes this hard to resist the impulse to destroy other ways that are different or seen to threaten theirs Always going to be dominant belief systems and it will always make life difficult for dissenters Liberalism and democracy stand in a permanent conflict → if don't impose limits on what majority can do then whoever is in power will demand society to conform to their ways

Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto: Its utter newness in history

Bourgeois society is moving forward at a greater speed than any other previous one Whole industries rise/collapse Who's rich and who's not changes rapidly Often rapid boom/bust cycles for the economy Much uncertainty This form of society is utterly new, has vast productive force but is not controlled, which leads to financial crisis, oil bust/boom and the capitalist society is subject to uncertainty

Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto: The bourgeoisie

Bourgeoisie- ownership class/capitalists/employers of labor and professionals that serve Proletariat- everyone else Capitalism is more honest than other dominations No more embellishments that clothes inequality

Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto: The abolition of private property

Concerned mostly about means of production If to private hands the benefit goes to them Petty artisans vs massive accumulated capital of the capitalists So much of humanity doesn't own anything, but a small portion owns vast majority of natural resources Mass inequality/alienation of laborer No bargaining power, only owns labor and forced to sell it, no land to go to Take all gains and massive wealth/productive powers and use it to better people's lives and give people their needs This means of production must be owned by the state (democratic and answers to everyone equally) Matter of debate on how to put productivity power to use

Patrick Devlin, Mill on Liberty and Morals: Infallibility

Devlin's not persuaded by Mill's argument of the wrongness of the majority There are cases when majority is right, but sometimes they're wrong Infallibility shouldn't stand in the way when the majority is right May be times when majority is wrong and bold individuals may have to stand up and reform/overturn laws If law is truly tyrannical, change will happen and minority will win over the majority

Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844: -Of man from man

Distinctive feature of capitalist society is vast class inequality: the owning class and those struggling to get by What distinguishes upper class from lower class is ownership Allows owner to control means of production and contributes to the worker's alienation from product of labor Does not just need better payment for the slave, needs to challenge the ownership laws

Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto: History as class struggle

Divisions of class have to do economic struggle of ownership over means of production "Oppressor and oppressed" in opposition with each other Economic divisions in society In each stage there's dominant and oppressed Source of power of dominant class "Merely political emancipation" is NOT enough to ensure human freedom Reforming political institutions/political change won't get very far Dominant class also won't allow for change because they have control Need for fundamental redesign for economy and private property to get to root of problem/get meaningful change

Mill, On Liberty: The role of virtue

Does not believe that truth will always win out against falsehoods when there is a true society/free expression People will always disregard others arguments In a free society there's polarization, group rivalries Cost to living in free society You must consider opinions open/honestly If they turn out wrong, be honest about where the errors lie How do people form true real opinions? Not enough to live in a free society → if we actually want to use the free society to our advantage to become wise the only way is to look closely and honestly consider all opinions and understand the fallacy and truths of these opinions

Mill, On Liberty:Free expression, second justification (if the opinion is false).

Even if you knew 100% that the opinion is false, we need the challenge to our opinions to have a real understanding of our opinion and why it is true Subject your inherent dogmas to self-examination Great deal of value to being exposed to false opinions If you believe something as true, but you don't know why it is essentially a prejudice Being a critical thinker is critically challenging your own views P. 38 He thinks Christianity is full of radical beliefs, yet most Christians support military/capitalism Religions become adaptable Not only in religion, true with politics too Don't hold the same morality/vitality Good reason for false opinions to be expressed fully Most opinions are not entirely true or false, but is actually a combo of the two

Mill, On Liberty:Polygamy

Example of Mormonism What right do majorities have to disrupt ways of life of minorities because they don't think they're acceptable No community has a right to force another to be civilized Many Americans did not like mormonism → think of it as an attack on Christianity, believe it hurts women, and is moral retrograde, etc. If these are relationships between consenting adults then allowed All women pressured to get married in society Not our right to force Mormons to conform to the majority's values

Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific: Why now (the timing of the revolution)?

Have sufficient productive capacities to produce enough to fulfill everyone's needs Real question is distribution Can't have communism without this massive productivity

Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844: Alienation (aka "estrangement")

Hollowing out of human being Capitalism alienates The Worker from their families, their relationships, and their "distinct human capacities" (talents, feelings) Capable of rationality, creativity, alienation disallows for these to be expressed. No time for independent thinking/education bc they working all the time

Marx, The German Ideology: Historical materialism

Human beings have needs or they die Must question how society meets basic needs History defined by how people fulfill needs to sustain life; History can be understood through looking at the means of production What really matters is *mode of production* Most important to decide and shape what society looks like, culture, intelligence To understand culture you must know who owns the land, means of production, and how production of goods is organized/exchange of things produced Ex. capitalists that exchange goods, fast paced change/innovation Determines forms of social organization Ex. history of feminism, keeping women out of the workforce hurts productivity so capitalists want them competing for jobs

Hirschmann, The Subject of Liberty: IPV as "interference" and as domination

IPV (Intimate Partner violence) an acute threat to individual liberty → this shows up as interference and domination "Interference"- physical, sexual, property related Only small part of IPV "Domination" - psychological One forces others to live with expectation of violence/danger Live with expectation and dread Battered physically, abused sexually, property damaged obvious interference with freedom Being exposed to a constant threat of violence can be powerfully disabling to their freedom If focus on physical abuse alone/incidents reported miss other cases (ex him punching the wall saying next time I won't miss) If exposed to this threat all the time- its disabling! The liberal States Job is to protect personal freedom, and they often fail to do this in cases of IPV

Mill, On Liberty:Can speech be harmful?

If speech can be harmful then does the harm principle allow for some restrictions on speech (ex. Hate speech, psychological damage) Being offended/ psychologically injured does not count as being harmed Living in a free society we will always come across beliefs we disagree with? Restrictions can get us in trouble fast People can get offended by many different things Psychological injury a highly subjective category Not enough/ valid harm to warrant restrictions

Patrick Devlin, Mill on Liberty and Morals: Immorality as harm (the 90 and the 10)

If the 90 acting virtuous and the 10 acting immoral it can cause harm to the rest of society (the 90) If 10 always getting drunk in public → example set is harmful to kids and the broader community If it was a private club the 90 could just expel them, but political communities are not like that → the rest of society must live with these folks The majority must have some recourse

Mill, On Liberty:Two justifications of the harm principle

Individuality- Right to express yourself and choose your own lifestyle Leave others alone if actions only affect themselves Cannot impose own morality on others Think it's degrading to those whose private lives are interfered with Prevents them from living free/autonomously Because telling people how to live their life is treating them like children, people are happiest when given the freedom to live how they want People must be free Do what's right for them, follow own intuitions, express own values, take risks/face consequences Whole part of liberal environment Truly live free lives, become who they're capable of being Highest value= worth of each individual given opportunity to fulfill capacity in society, unfold talents, decide for themselves (Compare: Marx) Each human full of unrealized potential and each is unique in their capacities → to become what one is capable of becoming is individuality In order to realize their full potential and personality, they must have the freedom to live their life the way they want The whole point of politics is to create an environment where individuals are free enough and safe enough to realize one's own individualities Error- Skepticism about government When it comes to deciding what's best to do with your own life you know what's best for you individually, NOT the state When the state/ public does interfere it mostly gets it wrong Ex. Christians imposing a sabbath, Muslim society banning pork consumption Only states business to interfere if it is causing harm to others ERROR → state should not interfere in this way, interferes with own interest

Mill, On Liberty: Paternalism and legal moralism

Legal moralism: making something illegal because majority thinks it's morally wrong i.e. prostitution- can't legislate against moral standards unless it's preventing harm Paternalism - restricting your liberty for your own good (Goes back to Individualism) Paternalism and legal moralism ruled out by the harm principle If nobody is being harmed directly, cannot legislate moral standards

Mill, On Liberty: The conflict between liberty and authority

Mill holds the 'Liberal' ideal of limited state power As you have centralized authority, the state has oppressive power, and can become tyrannical Limiting government power so it does not become oppressive

Mill, On Liberty: Free expression, first full justification (if the opinion is true).

Mill says NO to censorship of minority opinions because that opinion may possibly be true!! Free speech is vital for a free society Lets assume gov. Is not going to use censorship unless will of the majority → still wrong If just one person dissents from the opinion of the majority it is still not okay to force them to conform The opinion which they are attempting to suppress by authority may be true

Patrick Devlin, Mill on Liberty and Morals: Mill's mistake: the narrowness of Mill's harm principle

Mill's principle is very restrictive → only harm if there's physical damage There are other ways to harm people → this explained through the 90 and the 10

Hirschmann, The Subject of Liberty: Internal barriers

P. 127 "internalization of blame leads to beliefs that if she has provoked the violence, then she should be able to prevent it by changing her behavior" Deeply damaging Psychological consequences from being repeatedly subject to domestic abuse Learned hopelessness- repeatedly defend the man's actions- "that's not really him", then honeymoon periods of admiration, continue to hope he will change Learned helplessness- internalization of blame/guilt from the abuse Own self perception shaped by oppression Self shaped → come to accept violence as a consequence for something THEY did Not only abused when doing things , but now not even considering doing them anymore This is a profound form of unfreedom, when your own understanding of your sense of self/purpose/ is warped to become passive, they can't even imagine life for themselves as a free individual

Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844:-Of the worker from activity of production

P. 76, "The animal is it's life activity" Primed to do something, no choice of pathway Not conscious, or distinguished We choose where to invest our energy, have a choice This conscious life activity distinguishes us from animals Worked is connected with freedom In Capitalism, we find labor is experienced as a necessity, to perpetuate our mere existence Capitalism is supposed to be liberating, to open opportunities and maximize control We accept/rationalize because of volume of productivity Human cost is immense For so many that mythology does not equal reality We have desire for labor to reflect what we are be a space for creativity Most of what we consume is factory-produced with poor working conditions with no space of creativity; (The labourer on a factory line is nothing like a master shoemaker who takes pride in every single step of the process) No ownership, pride, reflection of character Activity of production isn't something you practice any control over as the laborer, soul destroying Worker feels himself outside of work and feels outside of himself at work "Labor is not voluntary, it's forced labor" Desperation and compulsion No longer feels himself anything but animal Liberal sees freedom, Marx sees bondage

Mill, On Liberty:Mill's idea of liberty

People ought to be free from interference to live their own lives and think their own thoughts Allows people to unfold their capacities Doing what you want → the best way state can allow people to live their own life is get out of the way Except education can be funded/subsidized by the government Private freedom → Part in politics is to protect own freedoms but freedom is doing what you want in private life

Mill, On Liberty: Tyranny of the majority: political and social

People perceived democracy as "self-government" and "the power of the people over themselves", but that was not the true case. "Will of the people" is actually the will of the most numerous or most active part of the people The dominance of one majority group over minority groups Majorities can be just as oppressive even in democracies 1. Political - Can pass discriminatory laws, minorities can be forced to comply to the will of the majority 2. Social - Can intimidate minorities, prejudice and discrimination, treat minorities like dirt (While minorities could have formal freedoms (laws) society restricts their freedom through prejudice

Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific: The abolition of the state

Politics through most of history is the domination of one class over others Dominant state and forces others to live by their rule Organized domination of minority over majority Without the domination, politics as we know it disappears There would one class and everyone works so they don't get paid Economic decisions on how everyone benefits Once proletariat (the global majority coming into power) seize power, class conflict ceases Class conflict ceases, everyone is a producer State and politics as it has always been disappears Everyone sees themselves as the same party/class so there's no class antagonisms

Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto: The uniqueness of the proletariat

Proletariat- working class Will bring about death to capitalism, different than other exploited classes because: Organized and concentrated unlike scattered surfs Constantly around one another, view each other as victims Open despotism is so obvious proletarians are written out of business system and do not stand to gain Can see through bullshit Possibility of global action because globalization Can think of themselves as global class with shared consciousness of working class Thinks bureaucracy class of intellectuals who recognizes exploitation and suffering will break away and join the proletariat Bourgeoisie now unfit to rule

Hirschmann, The Subject of Liberty: Enforcement failures

Protecting people from IPV seems to be function of the state → how can the state do this Police consider domestic abuse a "private affair" and often fail to arrest Judges dismiss as private affair as well Prevents women from seeking help because of interference with liberty Laws only part of the answer, just passing laws is not enough, problem is not solved If the laws are going to protect against IPV they need to be impartially interpreted and enforced (Most of the time they aren't, wether by police or judges that still hold patriarchal ideals) If certain attitudes- "enabling social trends" - exist that tacitly condone IPV, then the problems haven't been solved despite the laws being passed If there is a set of certain attitudes in society and held by police → have real implications that a law can't comprehend (There are attitudes in our society that allow domestic battery to continue... Ideology becomes a material obstruction of freedom!)

Hirschmann, The Subject of Liberty: Mandatory arrest laws

Require police to arrest offender when there's probable cause for domestic violence Even if women doesn't want to press charges So worried about consequences to them that they are afraid of pressing charges Becomes problematic because it's disempowering the women b'c no choice Importance of long-term shelters to "reconstruct self-agency" Battered women running shelters

Patrick Devlin, Mill on Liberty and Morals: The truth about non-conformists (versus Mill's optimism)

Says Mill wrong because there needs to be recourse greater than trying to reason with them → Mill goes too far in one direction Says Mill gets this wrong because Mill's bold experimenter (or an innovator who wants to move society forward) are people who are principally moral, but are just pushing the boundary → but most people who do not conform are not like that, they are often doing things they know are wrong Not great to suppress bold innovators, but gain something from restricting those who know they are doing wrong (deviants) The majority has the right to police their own moral standards Mill thinks these challenges make people reflect on their beliefs and it will make them stronger Actually need to worry about upholding norms of the society → people will not emerge stronger they will succumb to the pressures

Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844: -Of man from his "species being"

Species Being - human nature human potentials Marx way of explaining human nature The ability to be creative and the power to reflect and consciously choose how to invest their work/energy Admires those who recognize whole species as valuable and do things that are valuable for others The story of capitalism tells about who we are says we are rational, self-interested creatures → in order to direct their self-interest in a way that won't hurt others Capacity for free creativity and morality → 2 aspects of human nature When scrambling for survival will act egotistically Capitalism stunts our capacities for these by: Private ownership of land, mineral resources, technology, the means of production → gives capitalist society structure This makes us competitive, taught this and tries to tell us this is natural Capitalism becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy Supposed to be selfish, self-interested, and ruthless

Patrick Devlin, Mill on Liberty and Morals: Tangible and intangible harms

Tangible immoral/self-destructive behavior spreading and become cost to society Cumulative effect harms society (ex. Opioid epidemic) If opioid addiction becomes a widely spread issue, society is harmed and weakened as people become less productive citizens; this weakens society as a whole If a bunch of people become an ill to society then of course society will be harmed As more act this way, eventual harm will occur Intangible Gradual erosion of shared moral standards Not important that morality is true/right, but it's important to have some shared moral compass, cohesion Cannot substitute one morality for another If one who is against the standard trying to usher a new moral belief it can be harmful to society, no assurance others will adopt new belief

Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto: Its several accomplishments

The destruction of feudal order and vail of inequality Massive increase in productivity Marx not looking backwards and appreciates capitalist productivity but needs to be tamed/controlled so we can benefit without poverty/misery This is important stage in progression of history, productivity is prereq for communist society Creating an internationalization of the economy So long as people think of themselves as different groups, proletariat would not be able to achieve international solidarity among working class

Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific :Freedom, individual and collective

The economy controls us, we don't control us It is alien?

Mill, On Liberty: Applications I: poisons

Trade is a social act, not simply self-regarding Can't outright forbid purchase of poison Some room for regulation, but cannot be outright prohibited Must record name/address of purchaser It's merely potential for harm, has legitimate uses as well If poisons were only ever used to inflict harm them it could be restricted but it is not Could require preventative labels warning of its danger State has the right to try and prevent crime or harm to others Because poison can cause harm to others it can be regulated to try and prevent this harm

Patrick Devlin, Mill on Liberty and Morals: Morality as a "web" of beliefs

Trying to change a shared sense of social norms within the "web" of beliefs is dangerous because there are consequences and you may not be able to get the same sense of morality back When you chip away (divorce, social promiscuity) leads to consequence and disintegration of social norms Well accepted norms/shared morality need to be protected and will lead to bad consequences if disassembled Ex. porn/prostitution

Marx, The German Ideology: Marx's Utopia

We have achieved massive productivity gains that can meet human need over Why are we so advanced but so many millions have no gotten emancipation We have production technology for needs to be met and people to diversify labors Negative of division of labor "Do one thing today and another tomorrow" p.160 To fish or hunt without being "fisherman" or "hunter"

Mill, On Liberty:"Distinct and assignable obligation"

What counts as harm to others? No person is an island → as any harm to yourself can be impactible to others When you harm yourself you end up harming others i.e. friends, family, workplace Mill responds that, "I fully admit that the mischief which a person does to himself, may seriously affect, both through their sympathies and their interests, those nearly connected with him, and in a minor degree, society at large" "No person ought to be punished simply for being drunk, but a soldier or a policeman should be punished for being drunk on duty" If you violate certain legal obligations (ex. Neglect raising a child) can cause harm to others → society can get involved (78-79?) "Whenever, in short, there is definite damage, or a definite risk of damage, either to an individual or to the public, the case is taken out of the province of liberty and placed in that of morality or law"

Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844: The worker as commodity

Worker only has a worth as long as they're useful If injured, they come useless, temporary, replaceable Commodity - an object that is produced to satisfy human needs and sold and traded on the free market Entry-level factory workers are replaceable Workers receive little wage, dangerous conditions Not until democratic government steps in and enforces constraints that capitalists either change their ways or change location (China → Bangladesh) i.e health codes, minimum wage laws

Mill, On Liberty:Applications II: gambling

You can't prohibit gambling/prostitution Consensual agreement among adults Not harming anyone else Can obviously restrict children from it Can prohibit brothels/casinos State knows it causes negative outcomes Induces other people in behavior the state knows is harmful Can prevent it from being advertised Force people to really seek it out if they want it People won't be seduced into