A Communitarian Reading of Liberal Feminism in the Thought of John Stuart Mill

Niksiar, Fariba; Mortazavi Asl, Seyed Khodayar; Mirzazade Ahmad Beiglo, Faramarz

doi:10.30465/os.2024.48453.1963

A Communitarian Reading of Liberal Feminism in the Thought of John Stuart Mill

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Fariba Niksiar ¹

Seyed Khodayar Mortazavi Asl ²

Faramarz Mirzazade Ahmad Beiglo ²

¹ PhD student of Political Thoughts, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

² Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science and International Relations, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

10.30465/os.2024.48453.1963

Abstract

Introduction and Statement of the Problem
Communitarianism is based on the critique of modernity and liberalism, and the liberal feminism is no exception in this regard. Therefore, by selecting four communitarians and through their readings, this study examines gender justice in the thought of John Stuart Mill, especially his views in the book “The Subjection of Women”. The purpose of this research is to find a link between communitarianism and liberalism to alleviate the challenges in traditional societies posed by liberalism.
Therefore, the question is; in his understanding of gender justice, Mill is close to which intellectual component of the selected communitarians and which aspect of his thought differs from them? The answer is; most of the communitarians in response to liberalism take a different path from Mill's attitude regarding categories such as individualism, neutrality of the state, ignoring culture and traditions of a specific society and universalism. But, because of his moral pluralism, Mill makes some exceptions. Furthermore, Mill and the selected communitarians have a consensus about the uniqueness of each person's personality, which leads to “the right to difference”

Method
The qualitative nature of the current research has led to use interpretative and hermeneutical methods. Therefore, the Quentin Skinner's pattern and his recommendations are used. Skinner ignores text-based approaches and is more interested in contextual approach, but he does not consider it enough and refers to the author’s intention.
Findings and disscusion
The focus of this study has been on the criticism of communitarians against liberalism including; to enshrine right over good, neutrality of the state, neglecting the traditions and universality. The right of the individual plays a central role in Mill’s theory of justice and the women’s rights which has been resulted from his idea of “equality in right” include equality of all people of all races, ethnicities, religions and genders. But most of the communitarians except Nussbaum give priority to individualism. Nussbaum has a different reading of Aristotle’s teachings. So, she thinks liberal individualism is better for women.
Communitarians unlike liberals allow government intervention in morality in order to guide people towards happiness and prosperity. Of course, Mill prefers the non- intervention of the government in social life, but he makes exceptions to this policy. In fact, Mill believes in governmental activities but not those activities that restrict freedom of the people.
While communitarians emphasize on the role of traditions in specific societies and the need for the individual to follow the cultural specifications formed throughout history, liberals like Mill see it as an obstacle in the way of personal development and prosperity of women. Nussbaum agrees with Mill and states; looking at the women’s lives helps us see the incompetence of traditional approaches.
Historically, universalism gave a powerful argument to liberals and early femininst thinkers to extend the principles of the Enlightenment period to women. John Stuart Mill, like other liberals prefers universality, but sometimes he criticizes the universality of human nature and emphasizes on the uniqueness of each person’s personality. Consequently, he believes in “the right to difference”. In this case, he agees with the communitarians but each one defines it in a different way. Mill's view on the right to be different is influenced by the romanticism of Rousseau and Herder, and communitarians consider Aristotelian practical wisdom and virtue ethics.
Therefore, by adhering to the principles of liberalism, Mill considers gender justice in individual freedom and equal rights for men and women in the government limited to law and non-traditional societies and so his attitude is not in line with the attitudes of the communitarians. But about the specificity of each person’s personality which leads to “the right to difference” is close to the views of the communitarians.
Conclusion
In general, John Stuart Mill's meaning of individuality is freedom and independence, not selfish individualism and generally his attitudes are not in line with the attitudes of the communitarians except Nussbaum. But, the views of Mill and the selected communitarians about the unique personality of each person which leads to “the right to difference” are compatible.
Another point is that, considering that feminism is an inductive theory and a way of seeing and making sense of things, it is expected that by becoming widespread all over the world, it will turn into a form that can not be easily dealt with by the Western experiences. This issue evokes particularism and situationalism of communitarianism. With this way of thinking, feminism which began with liberalism, must adhere to the meaning and concept of justice and rights that are specific and multiple at the level of societies.

Keywords

Communitarianism

John Stuart Mill

Gender justice

Liberty

The right to difference

Alipouriani, T. Nouri, M. (2019). Alasdir MacIntyre’s communitarianism Confrontation with the Liberal State of the Modern Era, Faslnameh-e Dolat Pazhouhi, 5 (18). [In Persian]

Annas, J., (1977). Mill and the Subjection of Women, Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, 52 (200).

Aristotle. (1998). Nikomakhos’a Etik. Translated by M. H. Lotfi, tarikhema.org [In Persian]

Barzun, C., (2021). Quentin Skinner v. Charles Taylor: Explanation and Practical Reasoning in History, Philosophy, and Law, Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, 31(2).

Bashirieh, H. (1998). History of political Ideas and Movements in the Twentieth Century-

Liberal Democratic Ideas, Etelat-e Siasi Eghtesadi, No. 95& 96. [In Persian]

Bhandary, A. “A Millian concept of care: What Mill’s Defense of the Common Arrangement Can Teach us about Care”, Social Theory and Practice, 2015.

Brilhante, A. A., Sales Rocha, F. J., (2015). Contemporary Commentators on J.S. Mill’s Account of Women’s Socio-Political Issues. Ethic, 14 (1): 128.

Chinichian, N., (2009). The pathology of Feminism, Etelat-e Hekmat va Marefat, 4 (5). [In Persian]

Gray, J. (2017). The Political Philosophy of Stuart Mill. Translated by Khashayar Deihimi, Amin Electronic Library [In Persian]

Grigore, F., (2016). The Concept of Justice (‘Dike’ and ‘Themis’) as It Is Revealed by the Teachings of Neagoe Basarab to His Son Theodosie, Agathos, 7, 1.

Hampton, J. (2014). Political Philosophy, Translated by Khashaiar Deihimi, Tehran: Tarhe No [In Persian]

Hashemi, K. (2008). A Comparative Comparison of the Dignity of Women in Feminist Theology and the Doctrine of Mahdism, Faslnameh-e Adian, Marefat va Erfan, Mashregh-e Mooud [In Persian]

Häyry, M., (2018). Doctrines and Dimensions of Justice: Their Historical Backgrounds and Ideological Underpinnings, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 27(2).

Hedaiatnia, F. (2013). Basics of Merit Justice Theory in Women’s Rights, Collection of Articles of the Second International Congress of Islamic Humanities, Tehran: Islamic Humanities Research Center [In Persian]

Hosseini Beheshti, S. A. (2016). Theoretical Foundations of Politics in Multicultural Societies, Tehran: Bogheh Publisher [In Persian]

Kadivar, M. (2011). Rereading Women’s Rights in Islam- Equality Justice instead of Meritorious Justice, www.kadivar.com [In Persian]

Kiss, E., (2000). Justice, In A. M. Jagger, I.M. Young (ed), A Companion to Feminist Philosophy, USA: Blackwell Publishing.

Mahmoudian, M. R. (1998). Diversity of Areas of Justice, A Look at the Political Philosophy of Michael Walzer, Etelat-e Siasi Eghtesadi, No. 131 &132. [In Persian]

MacIntyre, A., (2007). After Virtue, University of Notre Dame Press.

……………., (2016). Ethics in the Conflicts of Modernity, USA: Cambridge University Press.

Mahmoudi Raja, S. Z., Tavana, M. E. Hashemi Asl, S. E., Jaride, J. (2018). Discursive Critique of Justice Paradigms in Western Political Thought, Pazhuheshhai-e Ejtemaei Eslami, 23 (3) [In Persian]

Mann, H. Spinner-Halev, J., (2010). John Stuart Mill’s Feminism: On Progress, the State, and the Path to Justice, Polity. 42 (2).

Mill, J. S. (2009). On Liberty, Translated by Mahmoud Sanaei, Enlightenment and Women’s Studies Publisher, 23(3) [In Persian]

………….. (2018). Utilitarianism, Translated by Morteza Mardiha, Tehran: Ney Publisher [In Persian]

………….. (1999). The Subjection of Women, Translated by Nader Nourizade, Tehran: Ghasidesara [In Persian]

Morris, D., (2000). The Liberal-Communitarian Debate in Contemporary Political Philosophy and Its Significance for International Relations, Review of International Studies, 26 (2).

Nozari, H. (2010). Pourkhodagholi, Majid. The Methodology of Political Thought: Quentin Skinner’s Methodology, Faslnameh Oloum e Siasi, (11) [In Persian]

Nussbaum, M.C., (2004). Mill: Between Aristotle and Bentham, Daedalus, 133 (2).

...... ...................., (1999). Virtue Ethics: A Misleading Category, The Journal of Ethics, 3 (3).

………………..., (2000). Women and Human Development - The Capability Approach, USA: Chicago University Press.

………………, (2007). Liberty of Conscience: The Attack on Equal Respect, Journal of Human Development, Vol. 8, No. 3.

………………., (2010). John Stuart Mill – Thought and Influence- The Saint of Rationalism, In Varouxakis G., Kelly P., USA: Routledge Publication.

………………, (2002). Capabilities and Social Justice, International Relations and the New Inequality, 4 (2).

Okin, S. M., (1989). Justice, Gender and the Family, USA: Basic Books.

Parekh, B. (2020). Anthropology of John Stuart Mill, Translated by Monir Sadat Madarshahi, Etemad Newspaper [In Persian]

Schneewind, J. B., (2002). An Introduction to John Stuart Mill, Basic Writings of John Stuart Mill, USA: Random House.

Shadi, H. (1998). Thoughts and Opinions of Charles Taylor in moral Philosophy, Nameh-e Farhang, No. 53 [In Persian]

Skinner, Q. (2002). Visions of Politics -Volume. 1: Regarding Method. Translated by Fariborz Majidi, Tehran: Farhange Javid [In Persian]

Smitz, K., (2004). John Stuart Mill and the Social Construction of Identity, History of Political Thought, 25 (2).

Sullivan, N. (2009). Political Theory in transition, Translated by Hassan Abniki, Tehran: Kavir Publisher [In Persian]

Tajik Neshatieh, N. (2006). Justice in the Thought of John Stuart Mill, Tehran: Institute for Research and Development in Humanities [In Persian]

Taylor, C., (1989). Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. USA, Harvard University Press.

…………, (1994). Multiculturalism, USA: Princeton University Press.

Thilly, F., (2019). The Individualism of John Stuart Mill, The Philosophical Review, 32 (1).

Urmson, J.O.” The Interpretation of the Moral Philosophy of J. S. Mill” in J.B Schneewind (ed), Mill: A Collection of Critical Essays. Notre Dame, Indiana, Notre Dame University Press, 1969.

Walzer, M. (2015). Spheres of Justice, A Defense of Pluralism and Equality, Translated by S. Najafi, Tehran: Sales Publisher [In Persian]

………….. (2019). Thick and Thin, Translated by Sadegh Haghighat and Morteza Bahrani, Tehran: Research Institute of Cultural and Social Studies [In Persian]

Warberton, N. (2016). Freedom, Translated by Yashar Jeirani, Tehran: Contemporary Look [In Persian]