Credit: Jay Vanbebber / Getty Images
In George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, the world is divided between three warring superstates: Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia. Each is governed by a totalitarian ideology: ‘IngSoc’ (English Socialism) in the case of Oceania and ‘Neo-Bolshevism’ in the case of Eurasia. Orwell tells us that the third ideology, that of Eastasia, is “called by a Chinese name usually translated as Death-worship, but perhaps better rendered as ‘Obliteration of the Self’”.
Those chilling words, the obliteration of the self, have stayed with me ever since I first read them as a teenager. They also came to mind when I read an essay by Graham Tomlin for Prospect magazine. Tomlin is an Anglican theologian and bishop. Not one to duck a challenge, he presents an argument against John Stuart Mill – specifically the Victorian philosopher’s influence on “our contemporary ideas of freedom”.
This is how Tomlin sums up those ideas:
“It is never justifiable to interfere with another person’s freedom to ensure their happiness, wisdom or well-being because that is to determine what that person’s well-being is. Freedom is defined as liberty of conscience, thought, feeling and opinion, as ‘liberty of tastes and pursuits … doing as we like … without impediment from our fellow creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them’.”
Liberals of Left and Right may differ among themselves as to how big a role the state should play in facilitating our freedom, but that’s a disagreement about means not ends.
Tomlin reminds us of “another, older view of freedom”:
“Found in classical literature, this version sees liberty not as freedom from the limitations and social expectations that stop us following our self-chosen desires, but freedom from the ‘passions’.”
Drawing upon both the classical and the Christian traditions, Tomlin’s definition of freedom is in sharp contrast to Mill’s:
“True liberty is, therefore, freedom from internal urges such as greed, laziness or pride that turn us in upon ourselves rather than outwards towards God and each other… It is not so much freedom for ourselves, but freedom from ourselves: freedom from self-centred desires, or the crippling self-absorption that makes us think only of our own interests. It is freedom to create the kind of society where we are more concerned with our neighbours’ well-being than our own.”
In the Gospels, Jesus is asked “who is my neighbour?” Tomlin argues that Mill’s philosophy implies the following answer: “[my neighbour is] at best a limitation; at worst a threat to my freedom.” In Tomlin’s view of freedom, however, “my neighbour becomes… a gift – someone without whom I cannot become someone capable of the primary virtue of love.”
The Bishop presents a powerful challenge, not just to Mill, but also to the way we live our lives today. On the whole I agree with it – and yet Orwell’s words continue to nag away at me.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe #MeToo movement is the scorned woman vengeance movement. There are so many cases piling up of men being accused and having a wrecking ball through their lives only to be exonerated when the allegations are tested in the proper forum of the courts. It is a WITCH HUNT
Jian Ghomeshi, Cardinal Pell and Steven Gallway are just 3 that spring to mind.
Ghomeshi was the highest profile man at CBC Canada and in the end the scathing findings of the judge found that all 3 women were liars and two had conspired out of spite. All were found to have continued an intimate relationship after the alleged assaults. Just like Weinstein.
Frank Pell did not handle sexual offenders in Australia well. Institutionally he followed procedure but I hope the lesson is that policy is not a replacement for integrity, morality or your individual responsibility. Regardless of those issues his own witch-hunt lead by ABC Australia was fatally flawed. All of the new laws surrounding the admisability of flimsy evidence was cast out unanimously by the 7-0 High Court of Australia ruling. But in the mean time he is personally eviscerated.
Steven Gallway was a professor at UBC in Vancouver Canada. His is the case that men rightly fear. He was not powerful by any measure. He had worked for a position and his merit had gained it. But it was shattered by a scorned women set on revenge for not being loved. The University signed him under extreme duress to commit to not having the ability to comment or defend himself publicly against the very public charges. His access to due process severely damaged by this act. This is the standard institutional requirement in ALL developed countries so the mantra “Women must be believed” becomes the norm. Only one problem he was completely innocent too. Margaret Atwood and many other authors wrote an open letter to UBC for Gallway: “Atwood’s op-ed rapidly became interwoven into a separate argument: the growing concern among some feminists that the #MeToo movement has developed into a “witch hunt,”
As far as Weinstein goes I believe that upon appeal the majority of the evidence against him will be seen as procedurally unfair in first allowing much of it and secondly the evidence that showed that many of the aggrieved continued relations with him will become relevant in the dismissal or reduction of charges and sentencing. The continuation of intimate relationship after alledged sexual assault supports a quid-pro-quo relationship of swapping sexual access for money and status.
Weinstein was no saint but the most relevant fact was that everyone knew exactly who he was. Don’t like your work environment or boss get another job.