第39章

Mill’s(24*)lamentationoverthepettinessofmodernEnglishstatesmenisfamiliar。Whatisreallyimplied？England，asMillthedemocratwouldhavesaid，wasonceacountryofcastes：thepriest，thenoble，themerchant，thepeasant，representeddistincttypes。Eachclasswasboundbyanunalterablecustomandconformstoinheritedtraditions；each，again，dischargedsomesimpleorgeneralfunctionnowdistributedamongmanyminorclasses。Inlaterphrase，modernEnglandhasbeenmadebyprocessesof’differentiation’and’integration。’Theoldclasslineshavedisappeared，thebarriersofcustomhavebeenbrokendown，theoldfunctionshavebeenspecialised，andinsteadofindependentindividualaction，thewholesystemoflifedependsupontheelaborateandindefinitelyramifiedsystemsofco-operation，deliberateorunconscious。Theobviousresultisagrowthoforganicunity，accompaniedbyanequaldevelopmentofdiversity。Eachunitcanbeassignedtoamorespecialfunction，becauseotherfunctionsareassignedtoco-operatingunits，andgreatermutualdependenceisimpliedinthegreatervarietyofcareersandactivities。Inhisdemocraticphase，Millblessesthisprocessaltogether；heapprovesthedestructionofprivilegeandcastedistinctions；heapprovesthe’divisionoflabour，’theincreaseddiversityofoccupation，andtheconsequentgrowthofco-operation；hedesiresthefullerresponsibilityoftherulingclassorthecloserdependenceofgovernmentuponthepeople。Butinthelaterphase，whenheemphasisestheevilsofdemocracy，doeshenotcondemnwhatisanecessaryimplicationintheveryprocesswhichheapproves？Thedivisionoflabour，henowobserves，narrowsaman’slifeandinterests；thenecessityofco-operationnarrowsthesphereof’individuality’；andtheprocesswhichgivesdiversitytosocietyasawholeimpliescertainuniformitiesinthesocialatoms。Thelessthevarietyintheunits，thegreateristhefacilityofarrangingthemindifferentconfigurations。Theeccentricmanisacross-grainedpieceoftimberwhichcannotbeworkedintothestate。

’Individuality’issofarahindrancetothepowerofenteringintoanindefinitenumberofcombinations。Andyetsofaras’individuality’diminishes，theresponsibilityofgovernmentmeansthesubordinationofrulerstotheaveragecommonplacestupidity。What，then，isthe’individuality’whichmaybecalledunconditionallygood？Howarewetodefinethedangersoastoavoidcondemningtheconformitywhichisanecessaryimplicationofprogress？Howarewetomanage’differentiation’attheexpenseof’integration’；toexaltsuch’individuality’asisincompatiblewith’sociality’；andtoregard’eccentricity’and’antagonism’andcontradictionasvaluableinthemselvesinsteadofaccidentalresultsinparticularcasesoforiginalitywhichinsomesenseispriceless？Here，Ithink，istherealdifficulty。

Havewetodealwithforcesnecessarily’counteracting’eachother，inMill’sphrase，orwithforceswhichcanbecombinedinahealthyorganism？Millundoubtedlysupposesthatsomeconciliationispossible。Thehistoricalviewhasshowntheevil。

Wehavenowtoconsidertheremedytobeappliedtothevariousformsinwhichitaffectseconomic，political，andethicalconditions。Thegeneralprinciplehasbeengiven。

’Self-protection’istheonlyjustificationfortheinterferenceofsocietywiththeindividual。Althoughabsolutelibertywouldmeananarchy，wemaystilldemandamaximumofliberty，andsuppresssuchauseoflibertybyonemanaswouldinfactrestrainthelibertyofanother。Mill，likeBentham，holdstothepurelyempiricalview。Interferenceisbadwhentheharmcausedbythecoercionisnotcounterbalancedbythegood。

Bentham’sdoctrineisnotonlyplausiblebut，withinacertainsphere，pointstooneofthemostobviousandessentialconditionsofusefullegislation。TheUtilitarianswerealwaysaffectedbythelegalprinciplesfromwhichtheystarted。Inthecaseofcriminallaw，Mill’sprin