Millian Liberalism and Colonial Oppression

References

• The End of “Isms”? 85 Bhikhu Parekh, ‘Decolonizing Liberalism,’ in ed. Alexander Stromas (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994), 85–103 (quotation from the abstract, p.). His ‘Liberalism and Colonialism: A Critique of Locke and Mill,’ in The Decolonization of Imagination, ed. Jan Nederveen and Bhikhu Parekh (London: Zed Books, 1995), 83–98, adds a few twists in coupling this account with that of Locke, and contains the clearest statement of the view I am questioning: “Mill's defence of colonialism was based on his theory of man as sketched above” (94).
   Google Scholar
• 1959 . The English Utilitarians and India Oxford : Oxford University Press . For example, the rich account of tangled British attitudes to India in the introductory chapter of Eric Stokes, should caution anyone trying to identify “nineteenth century liberalism.” On Stokes' assignment of a relatively minor role to the influence of John Mill, see Lynn Zastoupil, John Stuart Mill and India (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994), 3, 169–70.
   Google Scholar
• 1997 . The Racial Contract Ithaca : Cornell University Press . Charles Mills
   Google Scholar
• On Liberty chap. I, par. 10, in The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, gen. ed. John M. Robson, 33 vols. (Toronto: Toronto Universtiy Press, 1962–91) [cited hereafter as CW], XVIII 224.
   Google Scholar
• Zastoupil , Lynn . “ ‘J.S. Mill and Indian Education,’ ” . In Utilitas 3 (1991): 69–83. Here and in note 16 I cite two articles by Zastoupil, as they may be more available, and offer some more condensed statements of his view. These, however, are only fragments of the thoroughgoing and magisterial account given in his book (see note 2 above). That work seems to me to give also a balanced assessment of the shortcomings in Mill's view of India, and thereby judicious recognition of such truth as there is in Parekh's critique.
   Google Scholar
• Cited by Zastoupil, ‘J.S. Mill and Indian Education,’ 75–76, from J.S. Mill, ‘Recent Changes in Native Education,’ P.C. 1828, L/P&J/1/92, India Office Library and Records, British Museum, para. 13.
   Google Scholar
• Mill and India 44 Zastoupil, ‘J.S. Mill and Indian Education,’ 79, Mill para. 20; also cited in Zastoupil
   Google Scholar
• The Petition of the East India Company (1858), CW XXX 81.
   Google Scholar
• 1962 . Selected Works in Two Volumes Moscow : Foreign Languages Publishing House . ‘The British Rule in India’ and ‘The Future Results of British Rule in India’ [written in English], in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, 345–58, reprinted in The Marx-Engels Reader, 2d ed., ed. Robert Tucker (New York: Norton, 1978), 653–64; this passage 346–47 = 654–55.
   Google Scholar
• Ibid. 350–51 = 657–58.
   Google Scholar
• Ibid. 350 = 658.
   Google Scholar
• “ 3 ” . In The Listener For the record, the sequence seems to be: Alan Ryan, ‘John Stuart Mill's Art of Living,’ 74 (21 October 1965): 620–22, and The Philosophy of John Stuart Mill (London: Macmillan, 1970); D.P. Dryer, ‘Mill's Utilitarianism,’ introductory essay in CW X (1969); D.G. Brown, ‘Mill on Liberty and Morality,’ Philosophical Review 81 (1972): 133–58, and ‘Mill's Criterion of Wrong Conduct,’ Dialogue 21 (1982): 27–44; David Lyons, ‘Mill's Theory of Morality,’ Nous 10 (1976), 101–20; David Copp, ‘The Iterated Utilitarianism of J.S. Mill’ and L.W. Sumner, ‘The Good and the Right,’ both in Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Supplementary Volume V (1979): 75–98 and 99–114 resp.; Fred R. Berger, Happiness, Justice, and Freedom (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), chap.; John Gray, Mill on Liberty: A Defence (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1983), chap. 1 and 2; John Skorupski, John Stuart Mill (London: Routledge, 1989), chap. 9. The only recent dissent I have seen is by Roger Crisp, in J.S. Mill, Utilitarianism, ed. Roger Crisp (Oxford: Oxford University Press [Oxford Philosophical Texts], 1998), 140–42, and his Mill on Utilitarianism (London: Routledge, 1997), chap. 5; but I find his textual evidence unconvincing.
   Google Scholar
• Griffiths , P. , ed. Ethics: Philosophy Supplement For a fuller account see my articles referred to in note 12. John Skorupski reinvents this wheel in his ‘The Definition of Morality,’ in 35, ed. A. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 121–44. Unfortunately he follows Lyons in making guilt and blame central to the analysis, and his convoluted problems about blame are difficulties not for Mill's account but for Lyons' misinterpretation of Mill's text. Such psychologizing of moral criteria may have merit that escapes me, but has little as interpretation of Mill.
   Google Scholar
• Nidditch , P. , ed. Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals David Hume, Sec. IX, in Enquiries (Selby- Bigge), ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1974), 272.
   Google Scholar
• Brown , D. G. “ ‘Mill on Liberty and Morality,’ ” . In Philosophical Review 81 (1972): 158.
   Google Scholar
• Zastoupil , Lynn . “ ‘J.S. Mill and India,’ ” . In Victorian Studies 32 (1988): 31–54. Excerpts from 44–46.
   Google Scholar
• CW XVIII 119–47.
   Google Scholar
• Marx . Selected Works 323 [Tucker, 663].
   Google Scholar
• I am grateful for helpful comments on a draft of this paper from the editor and from Leonard Angel, Rodger Beehler, and Paul Russell.
   Google Scholar