Reading Mill in Light of Hegel: Negative and Positive Liberty

Reading Mill in Light of Hegel: Negative and Positive Liberty

(Unrequired thought piece)

Although Mill’s and Hegel’s philosophies ground themselves in the idea that liberty is the end of history, these thinkers espouse diametrically opposed positions on the manner in which this liberty is realized. In order to understand the possible consequences and applications of Mill’s political theory, his ideas on liberty must be read in light of their radical break with Hegelian thought.

In his work The Philosophy of History, Hegel implements a positive concept of political freedom, positive liberty. He writes that “the History of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of Freedom” (19). Using Reason as the absolute measure of progress, he defines liberty as obedience to the law due to a realization that the law itself is rational. In other words, in the state of liberty, there is no possible conflict between the rational individual and the state. Hegel thus implements a positive concept of liberty in his writings, concluding that freedom can only be realized in the State through its public institutions: “Rather, we affirm, are Law, Morality, Government, and they alone, the positive reality and completion of Freedom” (38).

In his essay On Liberty, Mill inverts the positive liberty of Hegel and presents a negative concept of political freedom, negative liberty. He defines civil, or social liberty as “the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual” (3). In other words, Mill’s conception of liberty revolves around the protection of individual rights from the interference of society: “To individuality should belong the part of life in which it is chiefly the individual that is interested; to society, the part which chiefly interests society” (86). He divides the liberties of the individual that must be protected into three branches to demonstrate the necessary precautions for a free society: Liberty of Thought and Discussion, Individuality, Limits on the Authority of Society on the Individual. In contrast to Hegel, negative liberty is not a consequence of the State but a prerequisite for a State that will not succumb to despotism. But Mill seems to extend the protections of liberty from governmental affairs to social, cultural, and religious norms: “Even despotism does not produce its worst effects, so long as individuality exists under it; and whatever crushes individuality is despotism, by whatever name it may be called, and whether it professes to be enforcing the will of God or the injunctions of men” (73). This expansion of the realm of despotism leads to a wide range of possible applications of negative liberty.

If Mill’s proposed applications range from forced labor to support one’s children to privatization of education and public institutions, is this conception of liberty better than the positive liberty espoused by Hegel? Hegel’s notion of a teleological history acting through the cunning of reason leads us to an ideal State of peace, freedom, and morality. Where does Mill’s negative liberty lead us? Does it effectively defend against despotism and ensure peace and morality?

[498 words]