1618426343755exam Guide MPP 6 Sem Final April 21

EXAM GUIDE
POL SC HELP MODERN POLITICAL

PHILOSOPHY
BA Hons Semester 6
• Chapter wise Key points and

Model Answers to Past Year’s
Questions
• 3 sets of Sample Papers with

answer Hints
• Tips for Writing Essay Type

Answers in University Exam
By the Author of
POL SC HELP
Pol Sc Help Exam Guide Modern Political Philosophy 2021 Edition
PLEASE SPARE FEW MINUTES TO READ THIS
Dear students…WELCOME BACK!

This guide is intended to be like a cheat code (oh no ! not cheating, like the cheat code of
winning the computer game) for your semester exams!
What it contains?
• Key points on each of topics/theme of the revised CBCS Syllabus.
• Theme/topic wise Answer templates to past year’s questions (taken from DU) and other
important questions.
• 3 sets of sample question papers with Answer Hints.
• Answer writing tips and tricks for OBE.
What is Answer Template?
• Answer written in a particular way (Intro, Body, Conclusion) as expected against essay
type questions in university exam.
• I have given you a template(format/structure). You may add or delete contents to make
the answer as your own.
How to use the Guide for the best results?
• For best results, this guide must be used with Pol Sc Help Videos on You Tube.
• First, watch the videos on the theme/topic from POL SC HELP- at least 4-5 times, first in
normal speed, later on with faster speed and selectively. Final watching shouldn’t take
more than 5 min.
• Second, read the key points on the theme/topic very carefully. In fact, even if you only
remember the key points you can write answers in the exam.
• Third, read the answers of past year questions, at least 5 times. Again, the final reading
may not take more than 5-10 minutes.
o I have chosen the questions to cover the entire syllabus.
o Note the key phrases repeated, made bold underlined, and in violet colour in the
answers. You should remember and reproduce them in your answers. Violet bold
are most important phrases. You should google them for further understanding.
o Also, note the standard (academic or legal) words I have used in the answer. Their
easier meaning/synonyms are given in bracket.
• Fourth, read carefully the sample question papers (3 sets). I have given hints to those
questions, too. Read them carefully.
• Finally, read the answer writing tips; use them in the exam.
GOOD WISHES!
All rights reserved @polschelp.in 2 [email protected]

SECTION 1
Chapter Wise
Key Points
and
ANSWERS
Past Year
Questions
THEME 1: MODERNITY AND ITS DISCOURSES
1.A: CBCS Syllabus

• Concept and discourse on modernity
• Enlightenment and its impact on the discourse of modernity and modern political
philosophy
• Critical evaluation of discourse on modernity
1.B: KEY POINTS:
• The word Modern symbolizes recentness, current, just now, in recent memory, etc. It
comes from the Latin word modernus, meaning “just recently.” Thus, being modern
implies break from the past, up-to-date, current.
• The word ‘discourse’ has varied meaning and connotation. But for our purpose it means
how a ‘word’ (such as modernity) is given a specific meaning by use of language, sign,
symbol, and manufacturing general consent about the meaning and understanding of that
word. It is a claim about the meaning of certain word, not simply describing its meaning.
It is prescriptive.
• Thus, discourse on modernity means the way meaning of modernity has been constructed
by western philosophers by using certain linguistic and communicative devices.
• Though literal meaning of modernity relates to time, and therefore it denotes a temporal
phenomenon, discourse on modernity is the specific way in which the word is understood.
As a discourse modernity is progress and development of human civilization which is
positive, good, which made human life better, more comfortable, enriched, more fulfilled.
• Thus, modernity became a value loaded term. It not only demoted ahead or modern in
temporal sense but also ahead in human progress, both intellectual and material. Thus, it
denoted civilizational progress towards betterment.
• Interestingly, when used first time in 16th century, ‘modern’ had negative connotations,
someone/something ‘different’ not conforming to established tradition. Calling someone
modern would be offending. Only after few centuries it acquired positive connotations.
Thus, discourse (narrative) on modernity itself changed in modern period!

• In political philosophy, Modernity implies normative values such as Individualism,

Humanism, Secularism, primacy to science, reason, rationality, critical thinking. It also
denoted materialism, industrialization and urbanization, progress and development.
Normative political values of Justice, liberty, equality, rights are also got linked to
Modernity.
• Many factors, phenomena, and movements in Europe, starting since 14th century,
contributed to the modernity project. Some of the most important of them were
Renaissance movement (15-16th century), Reformation movement ( 16th century), scientific
revolution( 16th-17th century), Enlightenment movement( 18th century), and industrial
revolution( 19th-20th century).
• American and French revolution also contributed significantly in bringing modernity.
• However, Enlightenment was perhaps the single most important contributor to the
modernity project.
• Enlightenment was a European intellectual movement in the 18th centuries (roughly from
1725 to 1775), cantered in Paris France. Ideas concerning God, religion, politics, reason,
nature, and humanity, etc. were re-formulated and understood in entirely new way,
breaking from past, during the Enlightenment period.
• It gave new framework of ideas about man. society and nature, which challenged existing
conceptions rooted in a traditional world-view, dominated by religion.
• The Enlightenment movement helped revolutionary developments in all walks of life-
art, philosophy, and politics. Most of the phenomena and normative values associated with
Modernity came from the Enlightenment movement.
• Modernity and Enlightenment share almost similar paradigm. Reason, rationality, science,
individuality, secularism, humanism, toleration, liberalism, normative values of liberty,
justice, equality, rights, etc all came directly or were linked to the Enlightenment tradition.
Thus, it would be no exaggeration to say that Enlightenment was the prime engine of the
modernity Juggernaut(stream-roller).
• Enlightenment also contributed immensely towards Modern political philosophy. Ideas,
concepts, and values associated with Modern political philosophy, such as social contract,
liberty, justice, rights, equality, secularism, individualism, etc. have come out from the
Enlightenment tradition.
• Most prominent Enlightenment philosophers were Baron de Montesquieu, Voltaire, David
Hume, Adam Ferguson, Emmanuel Kant, Rousseau, and Mary Wollstonecraft

• Critique of Enlightenment and discourse on modernity:

o Many post-Enlightenment thinkers were critical of the excessive focus on reason,
rationality, science and logic which undermined feeling, emotion, aesthetic, and
empathy.
o Romanticism, which attempted to restore feeling, emotion, aesthetic in political
thoughts, rose in late 18th century as a movement against Enlightenment traditions.
o Many post-Enlightenment political philosophers such as J.S.Mill,
Friedrich Nietzsche, Hegel, etc. were not entirely comfortable with ideas/concepts
of Enlightenment tradition.
o Even some of the Enlightenment era philosophers, such as Rousseau and David
Hume, were not happy with excessive focus of reason/rationality, science, the core
theme of the Enlightenment.
o Rousseau asserted that Enlightenment and progress in human civilisation has
actually debased human nature. David Hume attempted to restore the importance
of feeling, emotions in political philosophy of Enlightenment tradition.
o Many modern and post-modern thinkers have been very critical of the modernity
discourse. They rue (regret) excessive individualism, Excess reason/rationality,
Excess materialism, Competition, vanity, egoism, jealousness, enmity, Violence,
Oppression and Exclusion, all of these becoming part of the modern civilization.
o Some of these thinkers are : C.B.Macpherson ( ‘Possessive Individualism’),
Friedrich Nietzsche (‘The Gay Science’), Jürgen Habermas( ‘The
Philosophical Discourse of Modernity’), Friedrich Hegel(‘Philosophy of Right’),
J.S.Mill ( ‘Utilitarianism’), Post- Modernists- Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault,
Jean-François Lyotard, Heidegger, etc. In India, Gandhiji was an ardent (fiery)
critic of western concept of modernity.
o We should also note that narrative and discourse on modernity has been overtly
Eurocentric and Ethnocentric. It was defining modernity from the perspective of
‘Europe’ and western culture. Events, phenomena, movements happening
elsewhere, in India, Asia, Africa, Latin America, were not included in the discourse
on modernity.
o The paradigm of Enlightenment and modernity was essentially European or
western. They used the language, symbols, signs, and worldview of western culture
to define what they meant by modernity. Hence, modernity, as described by western
philosophers should be called western discourse on modernity.

1. C: ANSWER TEMPLATE OF PAST YEAR’S AND OTHER

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS
Q.1: Explain the concept of modernity. How was it influenced by the

enlightenment traditions?
Answer Template
Introduction:
The word Modern symbolizes recentness, current, just now, in recent memory, etc. It
comes from the Latin word modernus, meaning “just recently.” Most of the
time, modern simply refers to something related to the present or recent past, as opposed
to the past or the distant past. Thus, modernity has a temporal (related to time) connotation.
However, in the context of human civilization, Modernity is a value loaded term. It denotes
being up-to-date, current, progressive, developed, better off, etc. Thus, Modernity is
considered positive condition. Interestingly, when used first time in 16th century, it had
negative connotations, someone/something ‘different’ not conforming to established
tradition. Calling someone modern would be offending. Only after few centuries it acquired
positive connotations. Thus, discourse (narrative) on modernity itself changed in modern
period!
In political philosophy, Modernity implies normative values such as Individualism,
Humanism, Secularism, primacy to science, reason, rationality, critical thinking. It also
denoted materialism, industrialization and urbanization, progress and development.
Normative political values of Justice, liberty, equality, rights are also got linked to
Modernity.
Enlightenment was a European intellectual movement in the 18th centuries (roughly from
1725 to 1775), centered in Paris (France). Ideas concerning God, religion, politics, society,
reason, nature, and humanity, etc. were re-formulated and understood in entirely new way,
breaking from past, as part of the Enlightenment movement. It gave new framework of
ideas about individual, society and nature, and science which challenged existing
conceptions rooted in a traditional world-view, dominated by religion during the medieval
period.

The Enlightenment movement helped revolutionary developments in all walks of life-

art, philosophy, science & technology, and of course, politics. Most of the phenomena and
normative values associated with Modernity came from the Enlightenment movement.
Hence, Enlightenment played a crucial role in the modernity project. It also contributed
immensely towards Modern political philosophy. Ideas, concepts, and values associated
with Modern political philosophy, such as social contract, liberty, justice, rights, equality,
secularism, individualism, etc. have come out from the Enlightenment tradition.
In the next part of the answer, I will attempt to explain the features of modernity and vital role
played by the Enlightenment movement in bringing Modernity.
Characteristic features of modernity:
Following are some of the defining features and elements of Modernity:
• Individualism
• Individual having absolute autonomy on his body, mind, and possessions.
• Free will of an individual, autonomous self
• Conception of Society as individual construction for furthering individual’s rights,
interests, and preferences; society as aggregate of wills of individuals.
• Universalism: equal worth of each individual, universal human nature
• Humanism
• human agency, informed by enlightened self-knowledge, can master both natural
and social world
• Secularism
• Reason NOT religion as basis of understanding natural and social phenomena
• Nature as machine, which can be mastered by science & reason- no divine
intervention needed
• Society is human creation, nothing divine about it;
• Kings have no divine rights to rule
• Universal moral values can be understood and applied separate from religion
• Primacy to science, reason, rationality, critical thinking
• In place of religious dogma, superstition, ritualism, fatalism

• Materialism
• Empiricism: observation and experience derived from senses as basis of knowledge
• Conceiving everything in terms of matter, for example, human as bundle of matter
in motion
• Derive happiness from material possessions
• Capitalism- market mediated relationships
• Industrialization and urbanization
• Rapid industrialization and more and more people living in cities.
• Rise of professional and working class and industrial mass society.
• Universal normative political values
• Justice, liberty, equality, rights
• Progress and development
• Conditions of natural and social worlds can be continuously improved by human
agencies, with application of science and reason to make human life better
• Economic prosperity, better condition of human life.
How Enlightenment tradition influenced Modernity?

Almost everything associated with Modernity, as stated above, were associated and came out from
the Enlightenment movement. Following are some of contributions of Enlightenment tradition in
the Modernity project:
• The discourse on Modernity, that is how narrative on Modernity was built, how the idea of
Modernity was developed by using language, has distinct imprint of Enlightenment
traditions. The paradigm of Modernity was defined by Enlightenment tradition.
• Primacy to Science, reason, rationality, critical thinking, idea of progress, individuality,
humanism, secularism, materialism, etc are part of the modernity discourse which came
directly from Enlightenment movement
• Using science and technology to solve social problems, integral modern belief, came from
• A belief in the pre-eminence of empirical, scientific method of enquiry and knowledge of
both natural and social phenomena, hallmark of modern philosophy, originated from the
Enlightenment traditions
• An enthusiasm for technological and medical progress: scientists, inventors, doctors- to
make life better is integral Enlightenment thought.

• A desire for legal and constitutional reform: which resulted into spread of liberal
democracy, constitutional Govt, citizenship rights, political equality and rights, etc are also
originated from Enlightenment movement.
• All the modern political normative values- justice, liberty, rights, equality- were
conceptualized and defined as part of the Enlightenment tradition. Enlightenment
philosophers, such as Immanuel Kant, Locke, Rousseau, David Hume, had crucial role in
making these concepts as universal political values of all modern political regimes.
• Enlightenment helped emancipation of man from the ties of religious superstition, dogma,
ignorance, and feudal hierarchical social relationships; this became important aspect of
modernity.
• Enlightenment's concept of progress, the idea that through the application of reason and
empirically based knowledge social institution could be created which will make man
happier, make human life better, and free them from injustice, oppression, despotisms, etc
define progress and development in modern period.
Discussion and Conclusion:

By doing closer and critical examination one may feel that contribution of Enlightenment
in bringing Modernity is perhaps overemphasized. Of course, Enlightenment was new way
of thinking, with reason/rationality but it hardly advocated for bringing new socio-political
order which we associate with modernity. Enlightenment philosophers came from
privileged class, were status quoist about socio-political order. They praised absolute
monarchy and made a feeble attempt towards constitutionalism and granting some political
rights to the bourgeois class. They excluded women, landless masses, and slaves from
socio-political equality and rights.
In fact, growing inequality between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’, a defining feature of
modern civilization has its roots in Enlightenment. liberal capitalist society, privileged
class of the Enlightenment tradition, is dependent upon social hierarchies and class
privilege; equality at the top presupposes inequalities below.
Many ideas and values associated with Modernity, such as democracy, republicanism, de-
colonization, multi-culturalism, Liberty, socio-political equality & social justice, human
rights, etc. emerged only after the Enlightenment and they are not directly linked to
In sum, we may concede that Enlightenment played crucial role in bringing Modernity, but
its contributions in constructing the discourse on modernity may be overemphasized. Many
of the features associated to Modernity has definite Enlightenment imprint on them. Most
of the normative political values we associate with Modernity- liberty, justice, equality,
rights- were re-defined in new ways during the Enlightenment movement. But many other

features and phenomena- democratization, multi-culturalism, socio-political equality,

social justice, human rights, etc.- which are integral part of Modernity are not directly
related to Enlightenment movement. Also, we must not forget the limited role of
Enlightenment in changing the socio-political order, and its somewhat negative influence
on perpetuating or rather increasing the inequality, class hierarchies, discrimination based
on race, civilization, colour, and lip service to equality and justice.
Q2: What was the Enlightenment movement? How it contributed to Modern

political philosophy
Similar question:
Q: write a critical essay on contribution of the enlightenment traditions to discourse on modernity
in western Europe.
Answer Template:
Introduction:
Enlightenment was a European intellectual movement in the 18th centuries (roughly from
1725 to 1775), centered in Paris (France). Ideas concerning God, religion, politics, society,
reason, nature, and humanity, etc. were synthesized in entirely new way, breaking from
past, as part of the Enlightenment movement. It gave new framework of ideas about
individual, society and nature, and science which challenged existing conceptions rooted
in a traditional world-view, dominated by religion during the feudal social order during
medieval period.
Enlightenment movement was led by intellectuals and free thinkers, who were called
philosophes (French) or philosophers. Some of most prominent among the Enlightenment
philosophers were Baron de Montesquieu, Voltaire, and Rousseau (all from France), David
Hume and Adam Ferguson (both from Scotland), Mary Wollstonecraft (England),
Emmanuel Kant (German). Political thoughts of Hobbes, Locke and Philosophy of René
Descartes, scientific discoveries of Newton greatly influenced the thoughts of
Enlightenment philosophers.
Enlightenment was considered as 'Light of reason', shining brightly into all the dark recess
of, ignorance, superstition, prejudice and intolerance of the pre-modern period. Judging
everything on reason and rationality without accepting them as religious belief was the
essence of Enlightenment. Scientific enquiry using empirical methods, individualism,
universalism, secularism, progress and development defined the paradigm of
Enlightenment. Free thinking by individuals using sense of reason, rationality and acting
independently on one’s decision and owning the success and failure of those acts was the

essence of the Enlightenment. René Descartes’ famous quote - “I think, therefore I am”
and Emmanuel Kant’s “ dare to know” summed up the spirit of Enlightenment.
The Enlightenment movement helped revolutionary developments in all walks of life-
art, philosophy, science & technology, and of course, politics. Most of the phenomena and
normative values associated with Modernity came from the Enlightenment movement.
Hence, Enlightenment played a crucial role in the modernity project. It also contributed
immensely towards Modern political philosophy. Ideas, concepts, and values associated
with Modern political philosophy, such as social contract, liberty, justice, rights, equality,
secularism, individualism, etc. have come out from the Enlightenment tradition.
However, many of the post-enlightenment political thinkers, such as J.S.Mill, rued
(lamented- didn’t like) excessive focus of reason, rationality, science which undermined
feeling, emotions, aesthetic, and empathy, which are vital for fulfilled and good human
life. Many other modern political philosophers, such as Friedrich Nietzsche,
Friedrich Hegel, C.B.Macpherson, T.H.Green, etc. were critical of the enlightenment
movement and its excessive focus of individualism, reason, and science. Many of them
were part and favoured the ‘Romanticism’ which arose as a movement against the
enlightenment in late 18th century. Romanticism attempted to bring back the focus on
feeling, emotion, and aesthetic.
Thus, modern political philosophy has elements of both enlightenment, Romanticism, and
many other normative values and concepts, such as social justice, human rights, socio-
economic equality, democracy, etc. of 19th and 20th century.
In the next section of the answer, I will try to further explain the meaning and paradigm of
enlightenment and its contribution to modern political philosophy.
Meaning of enlightenment as given by Immanuel Kant:

In an essay in 1784, Immanuel Kant, the great German political philosopher and one of the most
prominent enlightenment thinkers explained the meaning of enlightenment. Following are the gist
of how Kant explained the meaning of enlightenment:
• Enlightenment was man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity was
the inability to use one’s understanding using innate sense of reason without guidance from
other.
• Sapere Aude! [in German meaning ‘dare to know’] "Have courage to use your own
understanding!"–was the motto of enlightenment. It meant acting independently on the
basis of reasoned decisions and courage to own the consequences of one’s actions.
• Enlightenment was individuals realizing his/her potential through the use of his/her mind
and inherent sense of reason and rationality.

• Thinking rationally, with reason, independently, without being bound by ritualistic and
dogmatic rules/regulations; everyone free to use his own reason in all matters of
conscience.
• Enlightenment implied freedom to use reason publicly in all matters of social life.
• Enlightenment also entailed (demanded) change in political order based on
reason/rationality, human dignity, equality, freedom of thought/expression. It advocated
end of despotisms, oppression, and tyranny.
Contribution of Enlightenment traditions to Modern Political Philosophy:

Many of the Ideas, concepts, and normative values associated with Modern political philosophy,
such as social contract, liberty, justice, rights, equality, secularism, individualism, scientific
enquiry, empiricism, etc. have come out from the Enlightenment tradition.
Following are the brief explanation of the ideas/concepts/values associated with Modern Political
Philosophy and contribution of Enlightenment traditions to them:
Individualism:
• The concept that the individual is the starting point for all knowledge and action, and that
individual reason cannot be subjected to a higher authority. Individuals have the liberty of
free thinking and free will. Society is aggregation of wills of individuals and created by the
human agency for protecting and promoting liberty and rights of the individuals. All these
ideas of individualism are core of modern political philosophy and they all originated from
the Enlightenment movement.
Secularism:
• Secularism is another pillar of modern political philosophy. Shifting basis of knowledge
from religious to secular domain, non-religious foundation of morality and ethics as given
by Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative, Bentham’s Utilitarianism, etc, and separation
of politics/statecraft from religion, etc. all were part of the Enlightenment tradition.
Scientific enquiry and Empirical method:
• For theory building and hypothesis testing, modern political philosophy invariably adopt
the empirical ( fact/observation based) method based on the principles of scientific enquiry.
During the behavioural revolution in 1950s scientific empirical method reached to its peak.
Thereafter, balance of facts and value in political theory was preferred. Scientific enquiry
and Empirical method for theory building in social sciences has direct link to the
Enlightenment movement.
Normative values of Liberty, Justice, equality, and Rights:

• Enlightenment philosophers were staunch supporter of individual freedom and rights. John
Locke gave the principles of natural rights of life, liberty, property. Immanuel Kant and
Voltaire were also the champions of Liberty and free thinking. Kant also developed
universal moral principle, calling it ‘categorical imperatives’, which was not based on
religion. Normative values of liberty, equality, and fraternity became the credo of French
revolution which was influenced by the enlightenment movement. American Republic set
up after the American revolution was also inspired by the enlightenment movement. The
new republic ensured fundamental rights to its citizen. Liberalism, one the most important
ideology as part of modern political philosophy, consider liberty Justice, equality, and
Rights as most valuable normative values.
• It was during the enlightenment movement that these normative political values started to
get into the mainstream of public discourse. All the subsequent modern philosophers, such
as J.S.Mill, John Rawl, Robert Nozick, etc. who promoted these normative values were
deeply influenced by the Enlightenment tradition. Hence, enlightenment movement
significantly contributed in defining and promoting these normative political values which
became core of the modern political philosophy.
Many other concepts and ideas such as multi-culturalism, toleration, progress/development,
modernization, etc. which we associate with modern political philosophy, all were part of the
Enlightenment tradition. Hence, modern political philosophy has been deeply influenced by the
European Enlightenment tradition.
Discussion and conclusion:

While highlighting contribution of Enlightenment tradition to modern political philosophy,
we should not lose another aspect of the issue. This was critical evaluation of the
Enlightenment tradition by many modern political philosophers. Many of them were
critical of the excessive focus on reason, rationality, science and logic which undermined
feeling, emotion, aesthetic, and empathy. Romanticism, which attempted to restore feeling,
emotion, aesthetic in political thoughts, rose in late 18th century as a movement against
Enlightenment traditions.
Many post-Enlightenment political philosophers such as J.S.Mill, Friedrich Nietzsche,
Hegel, etc. were not entirely comfortable with ideas/concepts of Enlightenment tradition.
Mill tried to balance the Enlightenment and Romantic traditions in reformulating the
principles of utility of Bentham who was influenced by the Enlightenment tradition.
Nietzsche criticized the excessive rationalism, egotistical individualism, shallow optimism
of the Enlightenment tradition. He lamented Enlightenment as ‘killer of God’ due to its
excessive focus on reason and rationality. Hegel derided( sharply criticized) excessive
individualism and propounded the organic theory of society. Max Weber and Karl Marx

propounded their path breaking theories taking separate path than entirely depending on
Enlightenment traditions.
We should also note that notion or narrative of modern political philosophy is overtly
Eurocentric. Modern philosophy developed in India and other 3rd world countries are not
considered its integral part. Political philosophers during modern period in India and
elsewhere were are also influenced by the enlightenment tradition, for example, Raja Ram
Mohan Rai in India. But many non-European modern philosophers developed their thought
and propounded political theories very different from the enlightenment tradition;
Mahatma Gandhi being one of them. Hence, we should realize the Eurocentric overtone
while emphasizing influence of enlightenment tradition on discourse on modernity.
In Sum, Enlightenment was an intellectual movement in Europe during 18th century which
redefined meaning of the political ideas, concepts, and values which became core of the
modern political philosophy. Enlightenment contributed significantly towards the
modernity project. The modern political philosophy, if we consider the European modern
political philosophy, was deeply influenced by the enlightenment tradition. The post-
enlightenment modern philosophers such as J.S.Mill, Nietzsche, Hegel, Weber, etc tried to
reconcile enlightenment with romanticism and took a middle ground. Many modern
political thinkers were very critical of the enlightenment traditions. Despite this, the core
of modern western political philosophy was integrally linked to the enlightenment
tradition. But modern political philosophy elsewhere in world, including India, developed
somewhat independently of enlightenment tradition and they are equally valuable and
integral part of the modern philosophy.
Q3: Discuss various factors which contributed towards formation of modernity

in the west.
Answer Template:
Introduction:
Period in European history since about 16th century is called the modern period. Modernity,
whereas, is a discourse, narrative, a condition with positive connotations associated with
the modern period. Individualism, Humanism, Secularism, primacy to science, reason,
rationality, critical thinking, etc are considered essential features of the modernity
discourse. Modernity also implies materialism, industrialization and urbanization,
progress, modernization and development. Normative political values of Justice, liberty,
equality, rights., etc. also got linked to Modernity. Thus, modernity was conceptualized,
defined and presented as best, up-to-date, progressive ideas, concepts, thoughts and

systems of human life. It was narrated as end of progress of human civilization from ancient
past.
Many events, phenomena, and movements helped bring the modernity in Europe. Most
important of these were Renaissance movement, scientific revolution, reformation
movement (protestant movement), Enlightenment movement, and industrial revolution.
Discourse on Modernity was constructed by a large number of free-thinking intellectuals
or philosophers. Some of the prominent political philosophers whose ideas formed the
discourse on modernity are: René Descartes, Newton, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke,
Montesquieu, Voltaire, Rousseau, David Hume, Mary Wollstonecraft, Adam Ferguson,
Emmanuel Kant, Bentham, J.S.Mill, Hegel, Nietzsche, Weber, John Rawl, etc.
Out of all these movement, Enlightenment movement contributed the most in forming
modernity discourse in western world. Enlightenment was an intellectual movement in
Western Europe, cantered in France, during 18th century, which brought fundamental
changes in socio-political and scientific fields, most of which we associate with modernity.
Many post-enlightenment concepts/ideas and phenomena also shaped the discourse on
modernity. Democratisation, de-colonisation, nation-state, nationalism, human, rights,
social justice, substantive equality, liberty, etc. were added into the discourse on modernity.
Thus, there are multiple factors, phenomena, and movements which brought modernity in
the west.
In the next section of the answer, I will try to explain some of the most important factors,
phenomena, and movements which contributed towards the modernity project in the western
world.
Following are the defining social phenomena and movements which contributed in the
Modernity Project:
• Renaissance movement:
• Renaissance was re-awakening in arts, crafts, literature, thinking, attitude by
reinventing classical ancient Greek/Roman knowledge.
• It started in Italy, which was its center, during14th-15th century and 16-17th in
rest of Europe
• Leonardo da Vinci’, Michelangelo, Raphael, Titian, Sandro Botticelli, Machiavelli
in politics are the major artists/philosophers of the Renaissance era.
• Great innovations- paper, printing press, the mariner’s compass, and gunpowder,
etc.
• In political thought, Machiavelli, who stressed separation of politics from religion,
conventional morality, and ethics, is considered the first proto-modern political
thinker.

• Protestant reformation movement

• Revolution that took place in the Western church in the 16th century. Its greatest
leaders were Martin Luther and John Calvin.
• The movement help separation of church from state, secularization, and thoughts
based on reason and rationality.
• Weber highlighted how Protestant ethics helped evolution of capitalism and liberal
democracy.
• Reformation movement unlocked the spiritual capital of the European people which
gave rise to the Enlightenment movement and hence became integral part of the
modernity project.
• Scientific Revolution
• Replacing common sense by abstract reasoning became the motto, which became
integral feature of the modernity.
• 16th-17th century: science had replaced Christianity as the focal point of European
civilization.
• Copernicus- 15th century- ‘sun at the centre of the universe’; Galileo Galilei ,
Kepler. They all challenged false knowledge about the natural world through logic
of science.
• French philosopher René Descartes,17th century- matter & motion; Blaise Pascal-
numerical calculator, Newton- classical mechanics, gravity, etc. late 17th century.
• Scientific enquiry, empiricism, testing hypothesis by scientific methods became the
defining features of theory building in the modern period. Science joined reason
and rationality as the basis of all knowledge, of both natural and social world.
• The modern belief that social problems can be solved by science is the greatest
contribution of the scientific revolution in forming the modernity discourse.
• Enlightenment
• Enlightenment was a European intellectual movement in the 18th centuries
(roughly from 1725 to 1775), cantered in Paris France.
• Ideas concerning God, religion, politics, reason, nature, and humanity, etc. were
synthesized in entirely new way, breaking from past, during the Enlightenment
period. It gave new framework of ideas about man. society and nature, which
challenged existing conceptions rooted in a traditional world-view, dominated by
religion.
• The Enlightenment movement helped revolutionary developments in all walks of
life-art, philosophy, and politics. Most of the phenomena and normative values

associated with Modernity- individualism, secularism, humanism, focus on reason,

rationality, science, liberty, justice, rights, equality- came from the Enlightenment
movement.
• Hence, Enlightenment played a crucial role in the modernity project. It also
contributed immensely towards Modern political philosophy. Ideas, concepts, and
values associated with Modern political philosophy have come out from the
• Industrial revolution
• 18-19th century ; great invention and application of science for making life better.
• James Watt, James James Hargreaves, Richard Arkwright, Samuel Crompton,
Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Wright Brothers, etc. are some of the prominent
inventors of the Industrial revolution.
• Industrialisation propelled urbanisation and gave rise to industrial society, which
re-defined the meaning of modern social system. New discipline of Sociology-
science of social system and arrangement- emerged because of fundamental
changes in the nature of new industrial society.
• Industrialisation also denoted progress, economic prosperity, and improvement in
human life. All these became part of the modernity discourse.
• French and American revolution:
• American Revolution in 1773 and French revolution in 1789 were culmination of
the Enlightenment movement. American revolution established American republic
which became the harbinger of liberal democracy and free market capitalism, both
becoming mainstream features of modernity. In fact, American lifestyle became the
archetypical modern life for which people of other nations aspired for.
• French revolution made liberty, equality, fraternity realizable political values all
across the globe. It inspired subsequent generations of people, especially in 3rd
world nations. French revolution gave modern normative political values of liberty,
justice, rights, equality. Thus, it became an important factor in formation of the
modernity discourse.
Conclusion:
The modernity project in western Europe had been a long journey of many centuries
comprising of multiple movements, revolutions, development and acceptance of many new
concepts, ideas, and values, which were very different from the past. Modernity was

different way to think, understand, and approach natural and social phenomena. Thinking
based on reason not religion, science not common sense, and individual not society became
the defining features of modernity. In Europe, modern period is considered since 16th
century, after the renaissance period in Italy. However, the modernity project continued for
next few centuries and may still be continuing in many parts of the world.
Many important factors, phenomena, and movements contributed to the modernity project.
Some of the most important of them explained in brief above were Renaissance movement,
Reformation movement, Scientific revolution, Enlightenment movement, and Industrial
revolution. American and French revolution also contributed significantly in bringing
modernity. However, Enlightenment was perhaps the single most important contributor to
the modernity project. Modernity and Enlightenment share almost similar paradigm.
Reason, rationality, science, individuality, secularism, humanism, toleration, liberalism,
normative values of liberty, justice, equality, rights, etc all came directly or were linked to
the Enlightenment tradition. Thus, it would be no exaggeration to say that Enlightenment
was the prime engine of the modernity train.
Many post Enlightenment concepts, ideas, and values also contributed towards the
modernity project in the recent past. These are democratisation, de-colonisation,
nationalism, nation-state, urbanisation, and normative values of social justice, substantive
equality (fair equality of opportunity), human rights, etc. Thus, the modernity project is an
ongoing venture, which may be considered to be continuing even in present time. The 21st
century phenomena and events such as rapid globalisation, internet revolution, rise of
social media and virtual society on internet (twitter, Facebook, etc), crypto currencies,
artificial intelligence, etc are redefining the discourse on modernity in current times.

THEME 2: JEAN JAQUAS ROUSSEAU
2.A: CBCS Syllabus:

• General Will
• Local or direct democracy
• Self-government
• Origin of inequality
3. B: Key Points:
Brief Life sketch:
• Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)- born in Geneva(Switzerland) as son of watchmaker

• His mother died due to complication of his birth, this made his childhood lonely and
relation bit estranged with his father
• In 1742, he moved to Paris as widely travelled and read but not formally educated men ;
there he became part of the ‘Enlightenment’ ‘philosophes’ group- wrote articles for ‘
‘Encyclopedia’ of Diderot, ‘Discourse on political economy’ being most important
• Two essays changed his life
• 1. 1749: “whether restoration of science and arts contributed to the purification of
morals?”
• 2.1754: what is the origin of inequality and is it authenticated by nature?
• His two essays called “discourse on science and arts “ and “discourse on origin of
inequality “
• 1762: he published ‘ Social Contract’ ; same year Emile, or On Education published
• His autobiography “The Confessions” was published after his death in 1782
• Lived life of fugitive and loneliness in last years, abandoned by friends, haunted by ‘the
powers’, he became paranoid.
• Paradox surrounds his life & writings
• Immensely talented, hugely influential, but very controversial and largely misunderstood

Following are the gist of his political thought:
Human nature:
• Positive views of human nature. Man by nature only have two emotions or feelings-
self-love and pity (compassion for others).
• But human nature was corrupted by modern civilization.
• Man lived as noble savage before the advent of modern civilization. He lived in
peace with himself and others. Neither enmity nor friendship.
State of nature:
• In the state of nature man lived life of ‘noble savage’- pre-social human living
before emergence of civil society.
• It was asocial, amoral, isolated living; man lived for himself, he was not bothered
about what others think of him.
• Everyone was judge only for himself.
• Life in state of nature was frugal, lazy, contended, peaceful, and isolated
His Theory of social contract:
• People as equal entered into contract with others and with all to form ‘Community’
–Republic or ‘Body Politic’- a political community
• Individuals subsume (merge) their power, rights, possessions, identity to the
community, become its indivisible part
• But they gain common force for protection, equal citizenship, sovereignty, civil
liberty, moral freedom, identity, forum for just & moral act
• The community and each of its members are directed by ‘General Will’ – ‘Common
Good’
• By obeying laws flowing from General Will, members are obeying themselves as
they gave themselves those laws, which are just, moral and serve common good-
they gain moral freedom
Nature of Govt:
• Sovereignty is vested in and exercised by the community which has
absolute, unlimited, indivisible, alienable power. Community is supreme.

• Legislative function, law making, is carried by the community as a whole

by following the principles of general will.
• Executive functions, that is, Government by elected Aristocracy
• Community is permanent, organic whole, executive is temporary
Political Obligation:
• By obeying law, people are obeying themselves; Law reflect general Will of
the people. Hence, Political Obligation to community is moral responsibility
of its members.
Popular sovereignty:
• Sovereignty resides in the community, and NOT in the govt/ruler/executive.

• Sovereignty of the community is absolute, unlimited, indivisible, alienable
(cannot be shared)
Direct democracy in his thoughts:
• His idea of popular sovereignty, community itself making law by following

general will indicates his support for direct democracy and self-Governance.
• He criticized representative democracy by stating that people of England are
free only on the day of voting. Thus, he was supporter of direct democracy.
• But for the executive functions or day to day governance, he preferred elected
aristocracy. Perhaps he felt that executive functions required expertise and
experience, which common people may lack. But he put executive below
legislature. Executive was subordinate to the legislature. The community could
dismiss and change executive.
• Thus, in many ways, Rousseau seemed to be favouring a form of direct
democracy and local self-Government.

Overall impact of his political thoughts:
• Very Influential, but controversial.
• His ideas influenced French revolution.
• But most of his ideas were against the enlightenment spirit and classical
liberalism
• His idea of general will gave rise to idea of positive liberty. This was used by
the Fascist as well as the totalitarian States to justify their regimes.
Critique of Rousseau’s political thoughts:
• Utopic- not feasible for large, complex modern nation-states

• Vague and ambiguous concept of General Will
• His idea of general will led to the conception of positive liberty which was
misused for setting up totalitarian regimes.
• Idea of homogenous community as organic whole of which individuals is an
indivisible part; this undermines individual autonomy
• Choosing ‘elective aristocracy’ over direct democratic government
• Too much importance to emotion & feeling over reason and rationality
• Paternalistic view of state; state knowing what is good for individual.

6. C: MODEL ANSWER TEMPLATES TO QUESTIONS ASKED AND

OTHER IMPORTANT QUESTIONS:
Q1: Discuss main aspects of Rousseau’s Social Contract.
Similar Question:
Q: Compare Rousseau’s Social Contract theory with those of Hobbes and Locke.
Introduction:
In the chain of modern social contractian thinkers, Rousseau was the latest. Like the social
contract of Hobbes and Locke Rousseau’s social contract was also a logical imagination or
imaginative construct. But in many respects, it was very different from the social contract
of Hobbes and Locke. To him, state of nature, that is the human life without political
authority, was a kind of bliss in which the man lived as noble savage. It was isolated living
of human without language, society, and private property. The Savage man had only two
feelings- self-love/ self-preservation and pity for other. The man was living in himself
following the laws of nature. He was happy with whatever he could get to survive and
enjoy the life. As there was no civilization and society there was no concept of morality or
any other social conventions. Thus, in the state of nature, life was frugal, lazy, contended,
peaceful, amoral, and asocial.
However, with the progress of civilization, settled life, society, and private property, the
bliss of life in state of nature was lost. Those having more natural abilities and luck
accumulated more property. This created inequality in society. Those having property
dominated those without property. Dominant class made laws of society to protect private
property. Man started living in the opinion of others. People developed social classes,
competition, vanity, egoism, jealousness, enmities. Thus, man lost both political and
personal liberty. Politically subjugated by few propertied and dominant people and
personally living in opinion of others. Thus, civilization corrupted the blissful life of man
in state of nature, it de-based human nature. It took away both political and personal liberty
of man.
To Rousseau, challenge was how to reform society and political order to regain the
blissfulness of noble savage in modern age? How both political and personal liberty can be
regained with authority and order? How noble savageness can coexist with material
comforts of modern civilisation? How reason and feeling, justice and utility, and modern
live with nobility and virtuosity of past can be reconciled?

His social contract was the solution to this social challenge!

In the next part of the answer, I will try to explain in brief the social contract of Rousseau, its
features, and critique. I will also try to present a quick comparison of Rousseau’s social contract
with those of Hobbes and Locke.
Gist of social contract of Rousseau:

• People come out of state of nature by forming a sovereign political community
through social contract. Each man as equal entered into contract with others and
with all to form ‘Community’ –Republic or ‘Body Politic’- a Sovereign political
community.
• Individuals subsumed their power, rights, possessions, identity to the community,
become its indivisible part.
• By joining the community, they lost natural freedom but they gained civic and
moral freedom.
• As equal part of the sovereign community each member got common force for
protection, equal citizenship, sovereignty, civil liberty, moral freedom, identity,
forum for just & moral act.
• The community and each of its members are directed by the ‘General Will’, which
is synthesis of the ‘real’ wills of all those joining the community through social
contract. General Will represent the ‘real’ will and sovereignty of the political
community. It is directed towards common interest and ‘Common Good’ of the
community. General will reflect the combined goodness, virtuosity of the ‘higher
self’ of members of the community.
• All laws and policies flow from the general will of the community. By obeying
laws flowing from General Will, members are obeying themselves as they gave
themselves those laws, which are just, moral and serve common good-
• Thus, by obeying laws emanating (originating) from the general will, they gain
moral freedom. Since they are not obeying anyone else but themselves, they also
gain political freedom. People self-govern themselves. They become equal citizen
of the republic. The community is sovereign, which is vested in each member in
equal amount.
• This way, as per Rousseau, his social contract solves the social challenge of
reconciling bliss of noble savagery with modern civilisation. It reconciled Freedom
with Authority, reason with feeling, Justice with Utility, and modern life with
nobility and virtuosity of past.

Features of the ‘Social Contract’ of Rousseau:

• Not a real event: Social contract is ‘Logical Imagination’ and ‘Imaginative Construct’.
It was not any real event in the history of human civilization.
• Not one time but constant process: It is not a one-time event but a continuous process.
Members of the community need to work continuously to strengthen the essence and spirit
of the social contract.
• Popular Sovereignty: The community is sovereign. Each of its member(citizen) own
equal fraction of that sovereignty. Thus, the sovereignty is vested in people.
• Direct democracy: the community legislate- form laws and policies- as a political
sovereign power. Legislative power is not delegated to any other body. Thus, the popular
sovereignty is not transferred or delegated. People directly govern themselves.
• Individuals acting as citizen guided by their higher self and invoking their ‘real will’ arrive
at general will through deliberations and communication.
• Laws and policies flow from the general will of the community. General will is the
synthesis of ‘real’ will of all its citizens and is directed towards common interest and
common good of the community.
• However, for executive and judicial functions, the community may delegate these functions
to an ‘elective aristocracy’, the wise, virtuous, and experienced persons.
• As citizen of the sovereign political community, one gets back both Political and Personal
Liberty.
• Political Liberty: not dominated by any other’s power; obeys only himself; people
self-govern themselves.
• Personal Liberty: as Citizen, an individual develops love for other, community,
guided by his higher self. He, therefore, acquire self- self-mastery, self-realization
and inner moral freedom.
• Thus Rousseau’s social contract claims to unite liberty with authority, reason with feeling,
morality with rationality, and public interest ( justice) with self-interest( utility).
Critique of Rousseau’s Social Contract:

• First and foremost, his concept of general will is criticized for being abstract utopic
idea almost impossible to realise in real politics. His division of individual ‘self’
into ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ self, will into ‘real’ and ‘actual’ wills are criticized for
their abstractness and totalitarian tendencies. Experience in recent pasts has shown
the misuse of his idea of general will for enforcing totalitarian regimes.

• His idea of direct democracy, in which the community as a whole does the
legislative function is not feasible for large, complex modern nation-states.
• His idea of homogenous community as organic whole of which individuals is an
indivisible part undermine individual autonomy. In fact, the notion of general will
subsume individual interest/preferences into societal common interest.
• Another criticism is Rousseau’s suggestion of carrying executive functions, that is
Government and Governance, by an ‘elective aristocracy’. This, to many,
undermine Rousseau’s belief in direct democracy.
• In sum, social contract of Rousseau is more radical, democratic, and emancipatory
in comparison to those of Locke and Hobbes. But it is also much more difficult to
realise on ground. Also, it focuses more on normative values- morality, ethics,
feeling, emotions, will, etc. They are like abstract ideas, not reasoned or rational
scheme. His conception of positive liberty as self-mastery and general will carry
seeds of totalitarian tendencies.
A quick comparison of social contract of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau:

The table below presents comparison of the main aspects of the social contracts of Hobbes, Locke,
and Rousseau.
Comparison Hobbes Locke Rousseau

theme
Nature of Pessimistic and Somewhat positive Positive view: Innate( by

man negative views- view: enlightened Self- birth) good nature- self-love
Selfish, egoist, interested; has God and pity, which is corrupted
competitive, fearful, gifted sense of reason by modern civilization
driven by desire and to live somewhat "perfectibility": ability in
passion peacefully human to make his/her nature
perfect by cultivating his/her
sense of reason.
State of Extremely miserable- Somewhat peaceful, Life as noble savage: frugal,

nature war of all against all. but fragile peace, lazy, contended, peaceful,
Life of man, solitary, inconvenient, constant amoral, asocial isolated
poor, nasty, brutish danger of living
confrontation
and short.

The social Single step process to 2 step process, 1st set continuous process of people
contract set up a political up a community by forming and maintaining a
community and the transferring only some sovereign political
sovereign, a 3rd party of the natural rights, community. Direct
to which they 2nd step: set up a democracy for legislative
surrendered all their representative Govt functions and elected
rights and powers aristocracy for executive
functions.
Democratic Ruler as Absolute Popular sovereignty Undivided, undelegated

spirit sovereign, very but representative popular sovereignty. But
limited rights to Govt. executive function( Govt.)
people. by ‘elective aristocracy’.
Conclusion:
No doubt, in comparison to the social contract of Hobbes and Locke which came earlier,
social contract of Rousseau has much more radicalism, romanticism, and emancipatory
vision in it. It was based on a positive view of nature of man in the state of nature. To
Rousseau, the man’s life without political authority in pre civilizational age was like a
noble savage. Man lived a blissful but isolated life. He lived in himself with the nature. But
the modern civilization and competition for material possession corrupted the human
nature which became selfish, egoist, and competitive. Private property and resultant
inequality between ‘have’ and ‘have nots’ snatched both his political and personal freedom.
Rousseau’s social contract was an attempt to regain the political and personal liberty with
material comforts of the modern life. But in this process of reconciliation, his social
contract became much more abstract, normative, and idealistic. It is very difficult to realise
them on ground. Hence, Rousseau was criticised for having given a radical, utopic, and
idealistic theory of social contract. In particular, his idea of general will, though very
innovative and radical, had seeds of totalitarianism in it. The history has proved this fear
right. Many of the totalitarian regimes in recent pasts took inspiration from the notion of
general will of Rousseau. Despite this, his conception of the social contract, popular
sovereignty, direct democracy, self-governance, liberty as self-mastery, and general will as
the embodiment of the real will of the citizen were truly original, innovative, and radical
ideas of his time.

Q2. Critically analyze the concept of General Will of Rousseau.

Similar question:
Q: Rousseau idea of General Will has inspired both Democrats and Authoritarians; Do you agree?
Give reasons
Introduction;
General will is one of the most innovative as well as controversial idea of Rousseau.
General will represent collective will of a sovereign political community. It is just, moral,
and for the purpose of common interest and common good of the community/society.
Individuals may have private will in his/her self-interest/preference, but same individual
acting as citizen will arrive at General will which will be in the common interest and
promote common good. As citizen, the individual is guided by their higher self which guide
them to think for others, common interest, common good. Process of formation of General
will through deliberation, communication among equal citizen is morally emancipating, as
it takes out the moral virtuous altruist citizen from an individual. The individual becomes
maker of the laws, flowing from General will. By obeying those laws, one is obeying none
but himself. Thus, one gets moral and civic freedom in the process of framing General will,
framing laws based on the general will and obeying those laws.
General will may be considered as guiding principle for public policy decisions. It is neither
an abstract idea nor empirical utilitarian principle. General Will is not mere aggregation of
‘particular’ or ‘Private’ wills of individuals. It is not based on greatest good of greatest
number, as in utilitarianism. It is ‘real’ will of the sovereign community when each member
act as citizen guided by their ‘real’ will. Rousseau claimed that General will may reconcile
natural freedom in the state of nature to the reasoned/rational modern life. By arriving at
General will by subsuming their will into wills of all, individual may lose natural freedom
but gain higher civic and moral freedom as well as all the incident benefits of equal member
of a Sovereign political community.
Despite such novelty (originality) and emancipatory power in the idea of general will,
Rousseau has been criticised on many counts for his idea of general will. Some of these
criticisms I will try to discuss as part of the conclusion; before that following are some of
the characteristics or features of Rousseau’s conception of the General Will.
Features of the General Will :
• General will is not for promoting particular interest of any individual or group. It is in
common interest, in the interest of all. It promotes common good.

• Individual in private domain may have private/particular will in his self-

interest/preference. But as citizen he has general interest, thinks about others, for all. Thus,
there is a difference in ‘will’ when individual act as ‘private person’ and ‘citizen’.
• Individuals, acting as citizen, arrive at General will by agreeing on common interest and
cancelling out their many small differences. In this sense General will is like highest
common factor of agreement among the members of the political community.
• Citizen arrive at General will by their reason/rationality, invoking their altruist and higher
self, adopting ethical principles, and accommodating reasons and views of fellow citizen.
• General will represent collective will of the community. It is just, impartial, treat each one
equal, moral, and for the purpose of Common interest and common Good.
• General will is ‘always right’ - 'voice of all' for the 'good of all'; hence, it cannot be wrong.
• General will as “supreme direction” to which each one submits his person and power- to
become an indivisible part of the whole
• General will reconcile individual good/interest to common good/interest. It is in the interest
of one and all.
• General Will is not aggregation of ‘particular’ or ‘Private’ wills of community members.
It is neither based on utility principle- greatest good of greatest number. It represents ‘Real’
will of the community, when its members act as citizen, guided by their higher self, and
‘real will’.
• The General Will is not determined on the basis of number of votes, but is determined on
the basis of common interest uniting all. Voting to decide General will only when members
acting as citizen, not as ‘private person.
• Thus, even if all members, acting as ‘‘private person’ vote for a decision, it may not reflect
the General will. Only when the members arrive at a decision/law acting as citizen, guided
by their higher self, ‘real will, those decisions/laws may reflect General will of the
community.
• General will is the political expression of ‘noble savage’- life of bliss in state of nature in
which man had only two feelings- self-love and natural pity for others.
• General will represent the Sovereignty of the political community. Constitution and laws
of the state should flow from its general will.
• Individual are author/maker of the laws flowing from General will. Hence, individuals gain
moral freedom by obeying the laws because one is obeying to its real(higher) self by
obeying the laws which originates from the general will.
• Thus, obeying Laws as collective law maker is obeying no other but oneself. This is true
freedom- freedom of self-mastery, self-realization.

• Thus, General will give individual civic and moral freedom.

• If anyone refuses to obey the general will he may be compelled to do so by the community
by its common force;
• this may be justified as not obeying General will may harm common interest of
community and by obeying General will, one is obeying his higher self, and gaining
moral freedom. Hence, one may be forced to be free in the common interest.
Critiques of Rousseau’s idea of general will:

• Despite being novel concept of radical democracy, ensuring equality and liberty to
all, Rousseau’s idea of general will has been criticized on many counts. First and
foremost is difficulty in realising the idea in real politics. It is natural for individuals
to act in self- interest in common decision making. Man cannot suddenly become
citizen guided by his higher self as assumed by Rousseau. To him, this is possible
by invoking sense of reason, ethical principles, and with the help of an expert
‘legislator. But in practice common decision based on general will seems very
idealistic.
• Second problem is how to arrive at the general will if there is no agreement after
deliberations among members of the community? Voting maybe a way out but what
is the guarantee that members participating in voting act as citizen and guided by
their higher self ( real will) and not by their private self ( actual will) in their own
self-interest? In latter case the general will be simply aggregation of the private will
and leads to the same result as utilitarianism- greatest good of greatest number.
• Critics also question how general will is always right? On what basis, rightness of
general will can be tested? A political community in arriving at general will may
be morally wrong even if it is in common interest of a political community. For
example, if a political community decides to drop bomb on another community in
the name of general will can we say that it is right and morally good? This raises
the issue of moral/ethical relativity. moral goodness of different political
communities may not be same.
• Another criticism is totalitarian tendency in the concept of general will. First, the
minority who do not agree to the general will may be compelled in the name of
common interest to comply to the general will. Rousseau has advocated forcing
compliance to general will as it is forcing one to be guided by their higher self and
therefore morally free. Thus, one may be forced to be free! This is the very same
idea on which totalitarian state were based. In the name of guiding the individual
to obey their higher self, the state controlled all aspects of personal life of the
individual. Instead of freedom, the totalitarian states stifled liberty and individual
autonomy.
Conclusion:
General will is the ‘real’ will of a sovereign political community. General will ensures
common interest and promote common good. Members of community arrive at general
will by acting as citizen, guided by their higher self and through deliberations and
communication, accommodating other’s view points. Laws/policies originating from
general will embody the ‘real’ will of the community. Thus, individuals become the author
of laws, and by obeying them he is obeying himself. Also, he gains moral freedom by
obeying laws, as he is guided by his higher self in doing so. General will contain the spirit
of radical democracy in which equality, liberty, and dignity of individuals are ensured with
fraternity and social solidarity.
However, in view of many critiques explained above, the entire idea of general will of
Rousseau seems to be a kind of moral perfectionism and utopic idealism, which is very
difficult to realise in real political situation. History has shown that the ideas of general
will and higher-self provided ideological base to totalitarian regimes. Also, the idea of
general will definitely undermine individual liberty and autonomy. It subsumes interest
and preference of individual to that of a vague and indeterminate common interest. It also
negates pluralism and co-existence of multiples values in any society. It is not tolerant
towards minority rights. In sum, it negates pluralism, multi-culturalism, tolerance, and
diversity.
Idea of general bills seems to have inspired both Democrats and Authoritarians. In
principle, it is radically democratic but its realisation has been more in the form of
authoritarianism and totalitarianism.
Q3: Rousseau’s theory of general will is an attempt to differentiate real wills

from actual wills. Explain
(Answer to this question is same as answer to Q.1 above. Only add the following:)
To understand how Rousseau differentiate real wills from actual wills, let us first discuss the
meaning and different types of ‘will’.
Following are the literal meaning of ‘will’.
• Will is Inner mechanism to choose among desires, want, wish, craving.

• Inner mechanism to choose among desires, want, wish, craving.

• It is the positive force for controlling and channelizing one’s instinctual drives.
• It is motivating factors in human behaviour.
For example, one may choose one from many desires such as watching movie, talking to
friends, reading novel by using one’s will. In normative sense, will guides one to choose
actions which is morally good for oneself and for the society. Empirically, it is value-
neutral. Will is simply a psychological and cognitive mechanism to choose among many
possible desires.
Types of Will:
• Real or true Will: will of our higher self which is rational, authentic, virtuous,
‘true’ self.
• For example, if instead of watching movie, one chooses to read classics, he
is guided by his higher self and invoking his real will.
• Of course, the idea of real will is normative, and value-laden.
• Actual Will: will of our lower self: irrational, impulsive, lustful, empirical belief
and desire. This represents our empirical self. Whatever gives us immediate and
bodily pleasure we instantly choose them.
• In doing so, we are guided by our lower self and invoking the actual will.
• Private or Individual Will: reflect self-interest of one individual or firm/entity.
• Corporate Will: reflect self-interest of a group. For example, Corporate Will of
farmers group, group of traders, etc.
• General Will: Represent collective ‘real will’ of a political community. It is
‘always right’ -just, moral, serve the common interest and for the purpose of
Common Good.
• General Will is the synthesis of real wills of all the members of a sovereign
political community. It is embodiment of altruism. It represents sovereignty
of the political community formed by the social contract
How the idea of general will differentiate real wills from actual wills?
Individuals in private domain acts in their self-interest to maximise their
interest/preferences. In doing so they invoke their actual will. But as citizen of the
political community, which the individual has formed through social contract, he is
guided by his higher self, invoking his real will. Therefore, in arriving at the general
will, the individuals act as citizen and not as ‘private person’. The general will is
the synthesis of real wills of the members of the community. It represents the
sovereignty of the community, serve its common interest, is always right, just,

egalitarian, and emancipatory. It gives civic and moral freedom to the citizen, for
as author of the laws originating from general will they are obeying none but their
higher self.
This way, general will differentiate between ‘private person’ and citizen; the
‘private person’ is guided by his lower self and actual will whereas the citizen
invokes his real will to form general will of the community. As citizen he becomes
author of the laws. In process of forming general will and making and obeying laws
emanating from general will, he gains civic and moral freedom. Hence, the idea of
general will differentiate real wills from actual wills.
Q. 4 : Write a short Note on Rousseau’s views on inequality.
( Hint: if full questions are asked, the note can be extended by adding Rousseau’s solution in form
of his social contract to end inequality and regain both political and personal liberty.)
Rousseau’s thoughts on inequality are contained in his essay “Discourse on the Origin and
Basis of Inequality Among Men” which was published in 1755. To Rousseau, inequality in
resources (socio-economic inequality) is not natural but feature of modern civil society. In
the ‘State of Nature’, natural physical inequality didn’t matter. First, it evened out in
combination of other natural talents. Second, man lived in isolation, in himself. He was not
bothered about other human being. There was no society, private property, and concept of
rich and poor, good or evil. In words of Rousseau, life was frugal, lazy, contended,
peaceful. In the absence of society and social conventions, man’s life in state of nature was
also amoral (not anti-moral) and asocial (not anti-social). Thus, man lived a life of noble
savage.
All this changes with the advent of civilizational progress, rise of society, and private
property. Individuals possessing superior natural abilities acquired more material
resources, stopped other using them (claiming them as his private property), causing socio-
economic inequality. Society became divided in social classes- ‘have’ and ‘have nots’.
Those who possessed more property became the dominant class and started subjugating
(dominating) those having less or no property. Soon the dominant class captured the
political power. Powerful/resourceful dominant class framed laws legitimizing private
property- This legitimized inequality and made it legal. In words of Rousseau “Ownership
of property is the performance of inequality and protection of private property rights is
enshrinement of inequality by the state”

Thus, to Rousseau, private property is the root cause of inequality. Liberal state based on
individual rights and negative liberty legitimize, support and perpetuate (continue)
inequality. Wealth, rank, power, personal merit, and giving too much value to money are
dimensions of inequality in modern society.
Not only there is socio-economic inequality in modern society, there is also moral
inequality. Modern civilization and private property corrupted human nature. Instead of
‘self-love’ as noble savage, people started living in the opinion of others, drawing
happiness in having more in comparison to others. This developed competition, ego,
passion, desire, jealousy, enmity- corrupting effects of civilization. Man lost his personal
freedom. Instead of exercising his ‘real or true’ Will guided by his ‘higher self’, man
expressed their ‘actual will’ guided by their lower self. This inhibited man having control
over his passion/desire- self-mastery and self-realization. This made man unfree. Thus,
man lost both his political and personal freedom in the modern society. Inequality became
the root cause of such state of un-freedom.
Q 5: Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains”; discuss this quote of

Rousseau.
(Instead of normal template of Introduction, Body, and Conclusion, an essay in forms of
paragraphs is better suited to this question.)
Answer Template
“Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains” the opening sentence of Rousseau’s
book ‘the Social Contract’ summarises his entire philosophical thoughts about nature and
fate of man (women as well) in modern society.
This quote of Rousseau re-affirms his views expressed in his two discourses; first
discourse on Science and Arts and second discourse on originality of inequality. In those
discourses, Rousseau held the view that modern civilization, the science, literature, civil
society, and private property have actually corrupted and de-based the nobility and purity
of human nature. They had the effect to make man competitive, egoistic, selfish, jealous,
cruel, and immoral. Man lost both his political and personal liberty in modern society.
Man is born as free and equal soul. He is neither rich not poor, neither man or woman
(yes! sex is different from being man/women), neither master or slave, neither black or
white. But as he grows and gain his consciousness and frame his identity, he feels the
chain of bondage everywhere. His identity and status, privileges and rights, his entire
existence is determined by social conventions about gender, colour, race, religion,
language, nationality, wealth, success, etc. Man finds himself dominated by fellow man.
He is denied equal rights, resources, privileges, opportunities. He found himself bound

by the chains of oppressive laws not of his own making. Those laws are made by someone
else to keep him in chains.
Not only in political domain he found himself in chains but also in private domain, in
the civil society- marriages, family, even in interpersonal relations- the man find himself
in chains. In marriage, women are subjected in the name of sex. Inequality, dominance
and restrictions are part of family life. Some of these restrictions are nothing less than
the chain. Even the interpersonal relations in modern society becomes market mediated
relation based on exchange value of man. Interpersonal relationship, instead of being the
source of joy, becomes another chain for him.
In a nutshell, Rousseau’s account from man’s losing his freedom in modern society goes
like this. As a natural creation man has a free soul. In the state of nature, before the advent
of civil society, he lived in bliss having only two feelings of self-love/ self-preservation
and pity for others. He had the capability of perfectibility and through that made his life
better and better. He lived in himself in the lap of nature. He had no obligation or rights
in respect of others. Hence, there was no competition, no ego, no enmity. The life of man
in state of nature as noble savage was simple, frugal, contended and peaceful. Man
enjoyed complete freedom.
But all this changed with the advent of civilizational progress, rise of society, and private
property. Individuals possessing superior natural abilities acquired more material
resources, stopped others using them, claiming them as his private property. This caused
socio-economic inequality. Society became divided in social classes- ‘have’ and ‘have
nots’. Those who possessed more property became the dominant class and started
subjugating (dominating) those having less or no property. Domination based on property
also extended to inequality and subjugation based on sex, colour, race, nationality. Soon
the dominant class captured the political power. Powerful/resourceful dominant class
framed laws legitimizing private property- This legitimized inequality and made it legal.
By laws and many social conventions, they denied property rights and equal rights &
opportunities to fellow man based on sex, colour, class. Thus, modern society took away
both political, personal and moral freedom from the man.
In his social contract, Rousseau not only identify and reveal the bondage of man in
modern society but also provide a solution in the form of his device of social contract
and general will. To him, when man enters into a social contract with one and all to form
a sovereign political community, he develops from a man to citizen. When he participates
in deliberations and communication with fellow citizen to frame the general will, he is
exercising his ‘real’ or ‘true’ will guided by his ‘higher self’. The general will so formed
is in the common interest and common good of the society. Laws and policies flowing
from general will are just, right, and egalitarian. The man, by obeying those laws is
gaining moral freedom as he is obeying none other than himself as author of those laws.
Thus, through the general will he regain his moral and personal freedom. As an equal

member of the sovereign political community, he is not dominated or ruled by any other
than himself. Hence, he also regains his political freedom.
Thus, by the innovative device of Rousseau’s social contract and general will the man
regain both his political and personal freedom along with the material comforts and
civilisational advancements of the modern society. Rousseau claimed to have reconciled
the greatest dialectic( contradiction) of the human life, that is, the contradiction between
natural freedom and civic life in modern society.
In conclusion, the famous quote of Rousseau depicts the dilemma of human condition in
modern society. Man born as free and equal soul is segregated, branded, normalised and
identified on the basis of sex, colour, nationality, material possessions, success and all
other parameters socially constructed to give privilege and domination to few over the
unfortunate many. Hence, the man who is born free finds himself everywhere
constrained, differentiated, dominated, denied equal rights and liberty. Thus, he found
himself everywhere in chains. Those chains are not natural but social. Man has chained
other man. This is the tragedy of modern civilization and Society. Despite its tremendous
material progression, it has failed to give back the freedom to men as was his right as a
free and equal soul when he was born.

THEME 3: MARY WOLLSTONECRAFT
3. A: CBCS Syllabus:
• Women and paternalism;
• Critique of Rousseau’s idea of education;
• Legal rights to women
3. B: Key Points:
• Mary Wollstonecraft (1759 – 1797) was an English Enlightenment and Romantic moral
and political thinker, and is considered mother of feminist movement.
• Her seminal (important) creation was the novel ‘A Vindication of the Rights of Woman’
published in 1792.
• Through her ‘Vindication…’ she gave her views on miserable condition of women of her
time in Europe and her arguments and suggestions to improve upon women’s condition
and their subjection.
• Some of her ideas were radical and revolutionary for her time.
• Gist of her views and suggestions are:
• By nature, men and women have equal moral and intellectual capabilities- equal
God’s gift of reason. But innate (in born) reason needs cultivation/development by
proper learning and education.
• However, men monopolized learning and developed their sense of reason but
denied the same to women.
• Wrong social conditioning and faulty education hindered women cultivating
reason, they developed false consciousness, identity, expectation, role, need, and
goal; They became ‘faulty person’ unfit to fulfil their duties in both private and
public domains.
• Gender notions of masculinity and femininity is not natural; they are artificially
created and stereotyped by society and maintained by socio-cultural conditioning,
social norms, habits, and social institutions.
• Socially constructed ‘female manners’- tenderness, delicacy, beauty, sensuality,
etc- have made women feeble, frivolous, mean, dependent, subordinated.

• Marriage and family are the ‘private arena’ where women are denied liberty,
equality, and rights and treated as servant/slave, children, minor; subordinated,
subjected.
• The institution of Patriarchy, Aristocracy, Church, and Army have helped
perpetuate women’s subjection. The mainstream literature, arts, and paintings also
helped strengthen the faulty social norms and stereotyping of sex and gender
notions.
• Revolution in female manners is required to develop women as autonomous,
spiritual, rational being, equal partner to men in marriage and family, active citizen
having equal legal, political, economic rights.
• For this to happen the society needs to be re-constituted, social norms re-formulated
and education, especially women’s education, reformed.
• Same education should be given to men and women in a co-educational system.
Universal Education should be the prime responsibility of Govt.
• Aim of education should be to develop women as autonomous rational being. If
man treat woman as equal partner and independent rational being, woman would
become better mother, wife, sister, daughters. Family would be abode of love and
harmony and societal progress would be fast, as half of humankind’s resources
would join the productive forces.
• The separation of ‘private’- marriage and family- from the ‘public’- political affairs
is artificially created to keep women away from the public domain.
• Liberty and equality in ‘Private’ will translate into rights and equality in ‘Public’.
Only if women are liberated in private domain, she can get civil and political rights
in public domain. Also, then only the spirit and idea of democracy and
republicanism is meaningful.
• For this, society need to re-constituted, social norms/order re-formulated, and
education system reformed.

3. C: ANSWER TEMPLATES TO PAST YEAR’S AND OTHER

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS:
Q.1: According to Mary Wollstonecraft what are the main factors responsible
for women’s subordination in society? Discuss.
Similar Question:
1.“According to Mary Wollstonecraft liberation of women is to found in home and the family.
Critically examine this view of Mary Wollstonecraft.
2. Discuss the key ideas of Mary Wollstonecraft on women’s subordination in family and society.
Answer Template
Introduction:
For Mary Wollstonecraft main factors responsible for women’s subordination were faulty
socio-cultural conditioning and wrong education of women. By nature, men and women
have equal moral and intellectual capabilities. Both sexes have equal ‘sense of reason’
given by God. There are no natural masculine and feminine manners/attributes. These are
socio-cultural constructs, that is masculinity and femininity were created by social norms,
traditions, myth, belief, and worldview. Women were taught, through socialization and
education, to have feminine manners, that is, they should be feeble, delicate, beautiful,
sensuous, submissive, caring, nurturing, and all those manners associated with being
women. To Mary Wollstonecraft, therefore, women are not born women but are made by
deliberate socio-cultural conditioning and wrong education & training.
Because of above factors, women were not allowed to cultivate (develop) their God gifted
Sense of Reason. This made them ‘faulty person’. They developed false
consciousness/identity, seeking wrong roles, needs and goals. They developed false
expectations from herself and others, and became unfit to fulfil their duties to themselves,
‘women’s duties’ in family, and societal expectations. Women developed artificial
‘feminine manners’, false sense of power of beauty, attractiveness, sensuality. Since they
had little real power, they developed ‘women’s follies’, that is, vices such as cunningness,
meanness, manipulation, etc; all these helped maintain their subordination and subjection.

Mary Wollstonecraft also accounted for many other factors which helped and perpetuated
their subjection in society. Prime factor was the institutions of patriarchy, marriage, and
family. Marriage became master-servant relation between male and female. Instead of bond
of love, it became property relationship and arena of vicious power relationship. In
marriage and family, women had no liberty, equality and property, legal, inheritance,
custody (of children) rights. Thus, the ‘Private’, that is, marriage and family, became the
arena of women’s subordination and subjection.
Institutions of Aristocracy, Church, Army, Education system, mainstream literature, etc
also contributed in women’s subjection in society. Marriage laws against women, denial of
voting rights and rights of representation, right to legal equality, etc. were also the factors
behind women’s miserable condition in society. Finally, women had no economic
opportunities, they could not get paid jobs, were denied property rights, and hence were
entirely dependent on their husband for subsistence. They were also denied civil and
political rights available to men.
Thus, Mary Wollstonecraft accounted for several factors responsible for women’s
subordination in society. However, to her, the prime factors were faulty social conditioning
and wrong education of women which made a weak, frivolous, dependent, submissive
women out of the female. Women developed artificial ‘female manners’ which became
chief factor for their subjugation and subjection.
In the next section of the answer, I will try to enlist some of the factors of women’s subjection as
accounted for by Mary Wollstonecraft, pointers to which have been stated above. Next, as part of
the conclusion I will also discuss criticism of her assessment of women’s conditions and factors
responsible for them.
Factors responsible for women’s subordination in society:

• Wrong socio-cultural conditioning and socialisation of women:
o Notions of masculinity and Femininity are socio-cultural construct, not natural or
God given. Both sexes may have these attributes. But in the name of social
traditions, customs, norms, and habits, Femininity was attached to female sex.
Through this attachment, female gender was artificially created out of female sex.
Then, gender stereotyping was done. Women were socialized, that is, socially
trained to develop female manners of delicacy, fragility, docility, beauty, and
sensuousness. Such wrong socialisation made women weak, submissive, as mere
object of desire and became main factor behind women’s subordination and
subjection.

• Faulty Education of Women:

o Equally responsible were wrong and faulty pedagogy and education to women.
Instead of cultivation of their sense of reason, women’s education taught them
developing their artificial female manners. This made them ‘faulty person’. They
developed false consciousness/identity, false expectations (from themselves and
from others), seeking wrong roles, needs and goals, and became unfit to fulfil their
duties to themselves, ‘women’s duties’ in family, and societal expectations. Thus,
faulty education became second most important factors in women’s subjection in
view of Mary Wollstonecraft.
• Institutions of Patriarchy, Aristocracy, Church, and class hierarchies:
o These traditional institutions supported and helped women’s subordination. Norms
of Patriarchy denied women property rights in marriage and family and many other
rights and equality. Aristocracy, that is rule by rich and wise, were men’s world and
kept women confined to the ‘Private’ domain of household. The church, by
religious dictates, helped in gender stereotyping, gave it divine sanction. The class
hierarchy supported superiority of men as a class. They made women an inferior
class without property, rights, equality, liberty. Women’s conditions became even
worse than the slave.
• Prevailing laws and rules related to marriage, property rights, and voting:
o All these were heavily stacked against women. By law, married women were
denied any independent legal status in civil matters, they were denied property
rights. On separation from husband, they had no custody rights of children. All
these injustices were as per the prevailing laws.
o By law, they were denied equality before law, civil and political rights. They had
no voting rights. Neither they had any rights of representation in the representative
democracy in England at that time. Thus, women’s subjection was maintained
through formal laws and rules.
• Prevailing art and literature- Novel, poem, stories, paintings, etc
o Mary Wollstonecraft viewed Prevailing art and literature helping women’s
subjection by strengthening the gender stereotyping, cherishing the ‘female
manners’, their beauty, delicacy, sensuality, and projecting them as object of desire
for men. She cited Rousseau’s novel ‘Emile’, in which he stated that women were
made for men’s delight. In poems, paintings women’s physical beauty and
sensuality were aggravated and presented as women’s assets. Whereas to Mary
Wollstonecraft, artificial and faulty ‘female manners’ was the main source of
women’s miserable condition. This way, Prevailing art and literature helped in
women’s subjection.

• Women themselves:
o Mary Wollstonecraft considered women as one the causes of their own follies. First,
women did not exert to develop their God gifted sense of reason. They blindly
accepted the false identity imposed over them by gender stereotyping. Second, they
ridiculed fellow women who rejected ‘female manners’, showed manliness, and
behaved rationally. Third, women became happy and complacent in physical
comfort in the confines of household, developed narrow focus on trifles (small
things), falsely took her beauty and sensuality as power. Finally, by not developing
their rational and autonomous self, women failed in their prime duty towards
themselves and became unfit to fulfil other familial and social duties. Thus, women
themselves contributed towards their subjection.
In sum, as per Mary Wollstonecraft main factors behind women's subjection were wrong
socio-cultural conditioning and socialization of women which created gender stereotyping
, faulty education of women which didn’t allow women to cultivate their sense of reason,
institutions of patriarchy, aristocracy, church, army, and hierarchical social order which
denied equality, liberty, and rights to women in both private and public domain, prevailing
laws and rules of marriage, property and representation, and prevailing art and literature
which mainstreamed artificial ‘female manners’ as natural. She also considered women
themselves as a factor behind subjection of women.
Mary Wollstonecraft very rightly diagnosed most of the factors behind women's subjection
but we can still find some inconsistencies in her approach to women's condition. First, she
praised masculinity and manliness. In her view, women would be better off behaving as
men. This is debatable as later feminist stressed on differences in women’s attributes and
cherishing those differences. Second, her diagnosis of women's condition was specific to
middle class women (the Bourgeois class) in late 18th century England. It did not apply to
women from poor working class even in her society and definitely not to women of other
nations and societies of her time. Finally, she focused too much on ‘female manners’ and
revolutionising those manners. she did not say much about the civil, legal, and political
rights of women and denial of these rights as their cause of subjection. Her focus was
marriage and family, that is, the private domain.
Despite this, one cannot deny that her ideas and views about women’s conditions were very
radical and farsighted. Most of them are still very relevant. Mary Wollstonecraft was
pioneer in visualising women's condition, diagnosing the factors behind their miserable
condition and suggesting in revolutionizing the female manners and re-constituting society,
re-formulating the social norms, traditions, customs, and habits, and revamping the
education system to end women’s subordination and subjection. Truly, she was the mother
of modern feminist movement.

Q.2: Analyze Mary Wollstonecraft’s critique of the private-public dichotomy.
Introduction:
Mary Wollstonecraft was perhaps the first feminist thinker to have broken the
dichotomy between the ‘Private’, that is, marriage and family and the ‘Public’, that
is, Political affairs, through her radical and rational arguments in late 18th century
England. Since beginning, the philosophers, such as Aristotle, separated ‘Private’
from ‘Public’. To them, different norms, values, and rules should govern Private
and Public domains. They also confined women in the private domain, declaring
them unfit to participate in public affairs.
Liberalism, which emerged from John Locke’s idea in 17th century England
continued or rather strengthened the separation between the ‘private’ and the
‘public’. Liberalism was premised on the public- private dichotomy. The market,
civil society, family, marriage all were treated as ‘private’ and kept away from
interference of the liberal state. The liberal political values of liberty, equality, right,
etc were not directly applicable in the private domain. Thus, equality in political
domain was based on inequality in private domain.
But Mary Wollstonecraft questioned the private-public dichotomy, declaring it as
false, artificial, and illogical. She gave many logical arguments against the
dichotomy. To her, both the private and the public affect and interfere each other’s
domain. One who is not able to fulfil one’s duties in private domain cannot fulfil
his/her duty of citizen in public domain. Civil and political rights in public domain
are meaningless if there is no liberty, equality, and independence in marriage and
family. Institutions, laws, rules in public domain determine the structure, function,
and relationship in private domain.
For example, the laws on marriage which denied equal legal status to wives affected
the power relationship in marriage. Similarly, the private in many ways affect the
public. The values and training given to children in family determine next
generation of citizens. Democracy as association of free and equal people and
republicanism as self-rule and independence are meaningful only when there is
liberty, equality, independence in the private domain.
Mary Wollstonecraft not only criticized the private-public dichotomy but also
advocated breaking the glass ceiling between the private and the public to bring
real democracy and republicanism which guarantee liberty, equality, and fraternity
to all, disregarding class and gender, in both public and private domain.

In the next section of the answer, I will try to further explain some of the arguments Mary
Wollstonecraft gave against the separation between private and public domain and how
this separation caused women’s subordination and subjection.
Mary Wollstonecraft argued that both the private and the public affect each other, interfere
in each other’s domain and hence are not separate.
Following are, in very brief, her arguments:
• How the ‘Private’ affects the ‘Public?
• Inequality, dominance, subjection in marriage and family- the private domain-
corrupt nature & character of both men and women and stop them developing their
civic virtues and duties as citizens in public domain.
• Only those fulfilling their private duties, such as parental duties, can fulfil their
public duties.
• Inequality, injustice, and tyranny in private, especially in marriage, undermines
political virtue and active citizenship.
• Denial of liberty, equality, and justice in family inculcate wrong values in next
generation of citizen who may emulate (follow) subordinated mother or tyrant
father.
• Both the idea of democracy as political association of free citizen based on liberty,
equality, fraternity and Republicanism as independence and self-rule are
undermined by inequality, injustice, and tyranny in family.
• Civil and political rights meaningless if no liberty and independence in
marriage/family.
• How ‘Public’ affect ‘Private?

• Public education, training, and socialisation determine gender identity, role,
responsibilities, rights & privileges in marriage & family.
• Laws on marriages, property, inheritance, suffrage, civil & political rights, etc
affect the structure, functions, and relationships in ‘the private’-marriage & family.
• There are two dimensions of right of men as per liberal ideology. First dimension
is right to liberty and equality of all men in public domain, whereas 2nd dimension
of liberal conception of ‘Rights’ is right of men to subordinate women in private
domain. Such conception of rights, equality, and liberty is unethical and immoral.
• Public institutions- Aristocracy, Church, Public schools, and Army- all help
perpetuate master-subordinate relation of men and women in marriage/family.
They all have masculine overtone. They help sustain gender norms.

• Public education, job market, social norms, habits, and social discourse determine
structure, function, and features of the marriage/family.
• Mainstream art, literature, paintings, media, all in public domain, help maintain the
gender stereotype and help perpetuate inequality in private domain.
• How she advocated breaking the dichotomy?

• Only an equal, just, and virtuous ‘Private’ can make equal, just, and virtuous
‘Public’.
• Hence, both the private and the personal domain should be guided and governed by
same norms, values, and rules.
• Women should not be confined to the private domain. They should be allowed to
participate in public domain as active citizen.
• Reforming education, especially women’s education, re- constituting and re-
ordering social norms, values, habits to allow women inculcate her reason and
develop as autonomous, spiritual, rational being, as strong, independent equal
partner and friend to the men in marriage/family.
• Protection of civil laws, right to property, inheritance, custody of child, civil &
political rights, voting rights, right to have separate representation, career rights,
economic independence, etc.
Conclusion:
Mary Wollstonecraft viewed keeping ‘private’ and ‘public’ separate as a hypocrisy
of liberal political values and a design to perpetuate women’s subjection in society.
Not only the dichotomy confined (limited) women in household or domestic affairs
but also denied them rights available to men in public domain. She argued strongly
against the dichotomy of public-private. To her, the dichotomy was false, artificial,
and unjust. Her main argument was that both ‘private’ and ‘public’ affect and
interfere in each other’s domain and therefore cannot be said to be separate. She
advocated breaking the dichotomy to allow full citizenship and rights to women in
both private and public domain.
Her arguments to break the dichotomy became the rallying point of modern
feminist movements which gave the slogan ‘Personal Is Political’ which echoed
the arguments of Mary Wollstonecraft as explained in the body of the answer.

Q.3: According to Mary Wollstonecraft, liberation of women is to be found within the

home and family; critically examine the statement.
Introduction:
According to Mary Wollstonecraft root cause of women’s subjection
(subordination/subjugation) were faulty socio-cultural conditioning and wrong
education of women. The former (socio-cultural conditioning) artificially created
gender stereotype of femininity and female manners. By socialisation, women were
trained to be tender, delicate, attractive, submissive, emotional, caring, all
everything else related to female manners. The latter (education to women), instead
of developing women’s sense of reason, taught them how to be obedient wife,
dutiful mother, and affectionate daughter, sister, etc. Due to this, women could not
develop herself as independent rational being. They became ‘faulty person’ having
false consciousness/identity, seeking wrong roles, needs and goals, false
expectations, and unfit to fulfil their duties to themselves, ‘women’s duties’ in
family, and socio-political duties in public life.
Also, marriage and family were the arena of women’s subjection. As a girl child,
they were socialized by their parents to be a proper ‘woman’, having proper ‘female
manners’, not to behave as their brothers or other males. Family taught them early
in life that they don’t have same rights as their brothers. They had no property and
inheritance right, no liberty, and equality. They were also made to understand and
accept that beyond marriage women don’t have any other economic and social
standing. They could hardly work outside home, get decent wage employment, and
live independently as single lady.
Marriage, instead of bond of love and equal partnership of two adults, became
master-servant relation between male and female. By marriage laws, married
women were denied independent legal status, property and inheritance rights, and
custody of children in case of divorce/separation.
Thus, marriage and family became the chief institutions for subordination and
subjection of women. First, by social norms/traditions they had no socio-economic
opportunity beyond marriage and family and second, they were denied liberty,
equality, and rights within these institutions. In fact, they became the prime arena
for women’s subjection. Condition of women in marriage and family was even
worse than slave.
Hence, Mary Wollstonecraft focused on marriage and family and advocated
revolution in women’s manners to end women’s subjection. To her, civil and
political rights to women were meaningless if there were no liberty, equality and
independence in marriage and family. To regain independent socio-economic

standing, full citizenship and political rights, women would have to first liberate
them in marriage and family. They would have to get their way out of those false
identities associated with femininity and female manners. Women would have to
take ownership of themselves to become fully autonomous rational spiritual beings,
gain liberty and independence in marriage and family, that would ultimately allow
them to perform a civic role in society, and give them citizenship, legal and political
rights.
Mary Wollstonecraft gave the following arguments for liberation of women in
‘private’ domain of marriage and family for their legal and political liberation and
rights.
• Inequality, dominance, subjection in marriage and family corrupt nature &
character of women and stop them developing their civic virtues and duties as
citizen. In family, as a girl child they are taught to obey and submit to decisions of
males of the family. They are not allowed to argue, to develop their sense of reason.
Since they don’t have any other power, women start using beauty, attractiveness,
and sensuality as their weapon/power. They also developed vices of being mean,
cunning, manipulative, hypocrisy. To Mary Wollstonecraft, anyone given no rights
and subjugated develop such vices. Society, then call these as natural ‘women’s
follies’, whereas these are artificially created due to their wrong social conditioning
in family.
• Thus, denial of liberty, equality, rights, and opportunity for self-development in
family/marriage, women develop as a ‘faulty and unfit person’, incapable of
fulfilling either the familial or social responsibilities. Ironically, on this very
ground, that is, they lack capability for public duties, they are denied legal and
political rights!
• To Mary Wollstonecraft, only those fulfilling their private duties can fulfil their
public duties. Hence, first women would have to become a good wife, mother,
sister, daughter. And for this, men must treat women as equal rational human being
in marriage and family.
• Tyranny of men in marriage and family undermines political virtue and active
citizenship. They also make ideas of democracy and republicanism meaningless.
• Subjection of women in marriage and family inculcate wrong values in next
generation of citizen who may emulate subordinated mother or tyrant father- both
lacking in virtue.
• Women’s liberation in marriage and family would require re-constitution of
society, re-formulation of social norms, traditions, social habits, and reformation of

education system. Once these changes are made in social order, women will get full
citizenship, legal and political rights.
• On the other hand, civil and political rights are meaningless if there are no liberty
and independence in marriage/family. This is because a subjugated woman without
any rights and liberty in family/marriage can hardly enjoy those legal and political
rights.
Conclusion:
To Mary Wollstonecraft, marriage and family are the arena where actual subjection
of women is carried out. These are the institutions where women are denied liberty,
equality, and independent status as a rational human being. Not only that, these are
the Institutions where women are developed as a ‘faulty person’ and they accept
their fate as subordinate to men and lose their self-esteem and dignity. Hence,
without reforming the status of women in marriage and family there is no meaning
of granting them legal and political rights. Therefore, she advocated for revolution
in female manners, complete liberation of women in marriage and family.
To her, if women are allowed to develop their sense of reason, their self-
development as autonomous rational being and if man treat them as equal partner
in marriage and family, women will become a good wife, mother, sister, and
daughter. Once they are able to fulfil their familial or private Duties, they would be
fit to take up the public duty. Only then, if they are given legal and political rights,
those will be meaningful, for women would be actually able to use them. Hence,
according to Mary Wollstonecraft, liberation of women in marriage and family is
the first requirement for their liberation in socio-political life.
Q.4: Discuss Mary Wollstonecraft views on women’s education.
Introduction:
According to Mary Wollstonecraft faulty education system was one of the prime factors
behind women’s subordination and subjection. She held the view that both male and female
have been given sense of reason in equal measure by the God- the creator of both the sexes.
But sense of reason needs development, cultivation, and perfection by learning, training,
and practice done under a proper education system. However, men have monopolised the
learning and development of sense of reason. They themselves developed their sense of
reason but denied development of reason in women by imposing a faulty education system
on them.

The current education given to women, instead of developing the sense of reason in
women, teaches them to develop false and artificial ‘female manners. The prevailing
education and learnings guide them in wrong direction. It teaches them that their place is
household in which they are supposed to live under the guidance of men. It also teaches
them to develop proper female manners of being feeble, delicate, beautiful, soft spoken,
attractive, emotional, caring, and all which is stereotyped as being women. They attempt
to prepare women for household duties. But a ‘faulty person’, having false consciousness
and identity is not fit for any duty be it in private or public domain.
In her view, total revamping of the education system is required to improve upon the
miserable condition of women. Women need to un- learn or forget whatever wrongly have
been taught to them for generations and they need to re-learn through right education to
bring about social changes and reforms both in private and public affairs.
She went into detail and proposed a detailed system of reformed education and learning
system to both men and women of all classes- rich and poor in same school with same
teacher, same dress and curriculum. Thus, her system of education was based on radical
egalitarianism.
In the next section of the answer, I will further try to elaborate upon her views on education,
especially education to women, aim and features of system of education suggested by her. As part
of the conclusion, I will also discuss in brief her critique of Rousseau’s views on education.
Mary Wollstonecraft views on education of women:

• Along with wrong socio-cultural condition of women, faulty education to women was the
main factor behind miserable condition of women in society.
• Education to women, instead of developing their innate (by birth) sense of reason,
developed faulty ‘female manners’, false subjectivity, false identity, wrong expectations,
wrong needs, roles, and goals, and all these made women feeble, frivolous, servile,
dependent, subordinated.
• Current education needs complete revamping. Society, especially women, need to un learn
and then re-learn through right education to bring social changes and reforms both in
‘Private’ and ‘Public’ affairs.
• Aims of Education should be:
• Cultivation of reason to develop autonomous, rational human being
• To have well balanced and fit minds in strong and healthy bodies
• Develop ‘inner resources’, self-mastery, self-realization
• Prepare to face the inevitable physical and emotional hardships of life

• However, she had somewhat pessimistic view about the reforms in education system for
women. She held the opinion that unless social norms and social orders are re-formulated,
society is re-constituted, even right education system can achieve little in ending subjection
of women.
Features of her Vision of Education System:
• National Education plan: Govt. should undertake responsibility of universal education to
all class of children- rich as well as poor.
• Co-educational education: separate education to men and women creates vices in them.
• Strict egalitarianism: Same dress, same discipline, same teacher, same curriculum for both
male and female, for rich and poor student.
• Compulsory, free education for all classes of students up to 9 years; thereafter, selection
process to separate mechanically minded students from those with logical abilities;
• After the compulsory elementary education, poor students may pursue education with
work/trade.
• Education to ensure fitness of body & mind: students to play, go to gym after an hour of
sitting learnings.
• Right Pedagogy (instruction method): Interesting stories, explanations, examples in
primary classes; Socratic method of dialogue, questions in secondary classes.
• Emphasize thinking, formation of character to enable children develop into good
citizen- prepare them to fulfil their ‘private’ and ‘public’ duties.
• History, politics, morality, spirituality, sex education should be taught to all students.
• 3 R – Reading, Writing, Arithmetic must be ensured as part of learning.
• Each student has unique abilities and talent. Hence, personalized attention based on
individual talent, abilities, and aptitude.
• Students could choose their punishments for non-performance. This would develop sense
of justice and self-governing in them.
• Committee to choose teachers who would be accountable for their performance

In sum, for Mary Wollstonecraft education reform should be aimed towards developing
innate sense of reason in women so as to develop them as independent, rational being.
Right education would help revolutionise the ‘female manners’. Women, instead of
nurturing their faulty female manners of delicacy, tenderness, beauty, and sensuality,
would cultivate their reason, develop ‘inner resources’, self-mastery, and self-realization.

This will make them better person capable of fulfilling their duties in both private and
public domains. Right education, therefore would go a long way in improving condition of
women and ending their subordination and subjection.
She advocated for co-educational compulsory and free education for both male and female
for all classes. Her suggestions were much ahead of her time. Her suggestion for sex
education in late 18th century would be nothing sort of radical revolution. In fact, it shocked
people then. Many of her suggestions are still relevant.
Mary Wollstonecraft was the strong critique of Rousseau’s views on women’s education
as contained in his educational treaties ‘Emile’. She criticized Rousseau to had declared
men and women had natural differences in qualities, capabilities, reason, and morality. She
also criticized Rousseau’s suggestion of separate education to male and female. In her
‘Vindication of Rights of Women’ Mary put forward many arguments against Rousseau’s
views on women, especially on their education.
Thus, Mary Wollstonecraft views on education, especially women’s education, were
radically reformist for her time. She viewed right education as most potent mean to
revolutionize the female manners to make women an autonomous rational self. This, in her
view, would bring social reform and help end women’s subjection.
Q.5: Discuss Mary Wollstonecraft’s critique of Rousseau’s idea of education.

Introduction:
Rousseau, one the greatest French philosopher of 18th Century, published his
educational treaties named ‘Emile’. Emile was the male and Sophie was the female
protagonist of the novel. In the novel, Rousseau expressed his views on nature of
the male and female sex, their role and relationship. For Rousseau difference in
men and women, both physical and intellectual/mental, is natural. He said”
everything man and woman have in common belongs to the human species, and ...
everything which distinguishes them belongs to the sex". To him, men and women
should be different and complementary to each other. Then only their union would
be morally perfect. If women behave as men, it would be morally corrupting and
will disturb social order.
Book five of the novel talked about education of Sophie, and through her education
of women. To him, aim of education should be to make ‘perfect women’ and
‘perfect men’. Since women need to develop different qualities and skills than those
of men, hence their education should also be different. They should be taught and
trained to develop appropriate female virtues, domestic skills, and household
management. In a way Rousseau expressed the prevailing social view on women’s
education in 18th century Europe.

Mary Wollstonecraft launched severe criticism of Rousseau’s views on nature of

women, sex and gender roles, and women’s education through her novel
‘Vindication of Rights of Women’. To her, brilliant philosophers and writers like
Rousseau have contributed towards miserable condition of women and their
subjection. She attacked Rousseau’s view that by nature men and women are
different in their mental capabilities and attributes. To her, except physical
superiority of men, none of difference between men and women were natural. The
differences in the name of femininity and masculinity were created artificially by
the society. Women were socialized and taught, through faulty education, to
develop false ‘female manners’ of being feeble, delicate, beautiful, sensuous, and
all what is associated with being a typical stereotype woman.
She opposed Rousseau’s scheme of separate education to women. Instead, she
suggested co-educational schooling in which student of both sexes wear same dress,
have same curriculum, and are taught by same teachers. She also cut Rousseau’s
view that aim of education is to make perfect men and perfect women. To her, aim
of education is to make both men and women an autonomous rational being. There
is nothing like ‘perfect men’ and ‘perfect women’. There is only perfect human
being. And perfectibility can only attain by perfecting the sense of reason, which
have given to both the sexes in equal measure by God. She also cut Rousseau’s idea
of separate male and female virtues. To her, virtue is perfectness of character and
is sex neutral. Both men and women attain same virtue. Thus, Mary Wollstonecraft
launched a fearless attack on conservative ideas of Rousseau about women in
general and women’s education in particular.
In the next section of answer, I will discuss How Rousseau viewed men-women relation,
and women’s education? Thereafter, I will list out some of the arguments and critique of
Mary Wollstonecraft against the views of Rousseau.
Following are, in very brief, the views of Rousseau on women’s education:

• There is natural difference in men and women’s abilities, qualities, needs, and
desires.
• Men and women- make one moral unit; They are complementary to each other.
Men are physically strong but week in controlling his passion. Women are
physically weak but emotionally strong; can control their passions.
• Women hold power over men by controlling his pleasure, through her beauty,
sensuality; women have power over men’s heart but subjecting herself to men’s
power over her person!
• Their common aim is met only when both contribute equally but differently to the
common aim.
• Hence, natural scheme of difference in sexes need to be perfected through education

and training to make ‘perfect men’ and ‘perfect women’.
• hence, there should be different education to men and women; same education to
both sexes would be morally degrading and disturb social order.
• Women, therefore, should be educated to develop women’s virtues, be skilled in
domestic tasks and household duties. They should be taught to please men, to assist
him, be faithful mother of their children, and obey their guidance!
Following are the arguments and critiques of Mary Wollstonecraft against
Rousseau’s views on Women’s education:
• No natural difference in quality, capabilities, reason, and morality between sexes.
God has given equal measure of reason to both sexes.
• However, men monopolized learnings and hence, could develop their sense of
reason. They denied women the opportunity to cultivate their sense of reason. This
was done through faulty education to women, which taught them to develop false
‘female manners’.
• Rousseau took the false and artificial female manners as natural attributes of
women. Hence, Rousseau mixed natural with artificial.
• What Rousseau said women’s power - beauty, tenderness, sensuality, and
suppressed passion, etc. are artificially created, gave false sense of power to
women, and helped in confining women in golden cage!
• Such false identity, consciousness, roles, needs, desire of women were created and
maintained by writing and thoughts such as of Rousseau.
• She Used Rousseau against himself, He told ‘it is a farce to call any being virtuous
whose virtues do not result from the exercise of its own reason’. She extended it to
women! Unless women cultivated her own reason, she cannot develop her virtues,
she contended.
• She cut Rousseau’s idea of ‘Perfect men’ and ‘perfect women’. She contended that
there is only one perfect human being; and perfectibility in human character can be
brought by perfection of reason.
• She also rejected Rousseau’s ideas of different male and female virtues. To her, by
proper and common education, same virtues can be inculcated in both men and
women.
• Against Rousseau’s ideas, she contended that denial of liberty, equality and rights
to women is morally degrading, and yes existing social order need to be disturbed
for ending women’s subordination and subjection.
Conclusion:

Rousseau’s idea on nature of men and women, their role, relationship, and education
reflected the prevailing social norms and worldview of 18th century Europe. He had the
same idea which Mary Wollstonecraft rose to oppose and hence it was very natural that
whatsoever Rousseau viewed about women and their education would be criticised by her.
Some of those criticism I have listed out and explained in brief in the introduction and body
of the answer.
Here we may acknowledge that there was a fundamental difference between Rousseau’s
view on nature and role of men and women and those of Mary Wollstonecraft. Rousseau
cherished the difference in qualities, capabilities and attributes in men and women. To him,
union of men and women were like opposite poles coming together to make a perfect union.
He, therefore, opposed any suggestion of similarity in nature and behaviour of men and
women, for in his view those would have been more morally corrupting and would have
defeated the common aim of the union. To him, the union would be perfect if man and
women are perfect. Hence, he suggested different education to men and women to make
them ‘perfect men’ and ‘perfect women’.
On the contrary Mary Wollstonecraft rejected natural difference between men and women.
She advocated revolution in female manners. She urged women to come out of the false
consciousness, and artificial notion of femininity associated with women. In her view
women should acquire manliness, become and behave like a man! For this, she advocated
for same education to both men and women in co-educational school, by same teacher. To
her, aim of women’s education should be to develop their God gifted sense of reason and
make them an autonomous rational being.
Which of these views about women and their education are correct and more socially
productive is debatable. But it was very courageous on part of Mary Wollstonecraft to have
taken opposite stand against such powerful male philosopher as Rousseau and cut to pieces
his views on women and their education through her forceful and logical arguments.
An offbeat question:
Q: Discuss how in views of Mary Wollstonecraft societal paternalism is responsible of

women’s miserable condition?
Answer Hint: this is very offbeat Question, not likely to be asked. But in essence this
question is same as question 1 at page 40; you simply need to explain how Mary
Wollstonecraft thought that wrong socialisation of women for developing so called ‘female
manners and faulty education system, which taught women how to become good mother,
wife, homemaker, were the main factors behind women’s miserable condition. Both these

reflect paternalistic attitude of society towards women. That is, women lack independent
sense of reason, they need guidance, and proper socialisation, training as how to become
a proper woman and perform ‘women’s duties’. Paternalism also reflected in treating
women as children, not an independent, autonomous rational adult human being.
Elaborate these points.

THEME 4: J.S.MILL
4. A CBCS Syllabus:
• Mill’s hedonistic principle of utility
• Difference from classical utilitarian
• Mill’s defense of Liberty
• Mill’s views on Democracy and Suffrage
• Mill’s defense of rights of minorities
• Mill’s views on subjection of women
4. B: Key Points:
Brief Life Sketch:

• John Stuart Mill (1806–73), was born in London (England); his father James Mill was a
close associate of Jeremy Bentham. James Mill worked for East India Company in India.
He wrote ‘History of British India’.
• J.S.Mill is considered one of the greatest Political philosopher of 19th Century along with
Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche. Mill was also an Economist, Logician, Civil Servant
(worked for for East India Company), and Parliamentarian (served as MP in British
Parliament).
• On the basis of his political thoughts, he is considered as Liberal utilitarian, champion of
Liberty, reluctant democrat, liberal feminist, and cooperative socialist.
• He was specially trained by his father and Jeremy Bentham to become a utilitarian
philosopher in the same mold as the Enlightenment philosophers.
• However, as a political philosopher he took up many elements from ‘Romanticism’(an
intellectual movement in reaction to Enlightenment’s excessive focus of reason, science)
and even from Socialism. Thus, he combined beautifully the spirits of Enlightenment,
Romanticism, and Socialism in his political thoughts.
• Some of the prominent creations of Mill:
• A System of Logic (1843), Principles of Political Economy (1848)
• The essay On Liberty (1859), Utilitarianism (1863)
• Considerations on Representative Government (1861),

• The Subjection of Women (1869), co-authored with his wife Harriet Taylor Mill
Gist of his political thought:

• Mill as champion of liberty and individual autonomy.
• In his ‘On Liberty ‘Mill argued that liberty and individual autonomy increases
intellectual vitality and resources of the society and is required for civilisational
progress. Minority voice/opinion, even held by a single person, in opposition to
majority view should not be suppressed.
• In defence of Liberty, he gave the ‘harm principle’: “the only purpose for which
power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community,
against his will, is to prevent harm to others”
• Utilitarianism is normative moral/ethical theory, developed by late 18th century English
political Philosopher Jeremy Bentham, according to which an act is morally right if it tends
to promote happiness or pleasure and wrong if it tends to produce unhappiness or pain—
not just for the performer of the action but also for everyone else affected by it.
• Mill belonged to utilitarian school of thought. But he differed significantly from classical
utilitarianism of Bentham. First, he differentiated between higher and lower pleasure and
second, he seems to have differentiated between happiness and pleasure, equating
happiness to some select higher pleasures which enable self-realization.
• By making a difference between pleasures, Mill actually diluted the very essence of
utilitarianism. The beauty of utilitarianism was that it did not require any other standard or
any other help in evaluating pleasures. All pleasures were equally valuable and desirable.
They varied only in in their quantity which could be determined mathematically. But he
made utilitarianism more moral, ethical, and humane and therefore more acceptable as
basis for policy decisions.
• Mill was a liberal feminist. In his ‘Subjection of Women’ he diagnosed the reasons behind
women’s oppression and suggested to end the subjection by having ‘perfect equality’
between men and women, marriage as ‘spousal friendship’ and equal partnership, and
change in education system, training, re-formulation of opinion about gender, change in
social habits and family life.
• He advocated for legal rights for women in marriage (rights to property/inheritance,
custody of children, etc), voting rights, equal and fair opportunities in education,
profession, employment, political participation, access to public life.
• Mill is considered as reluctant democrat. Though he believed that democracy is best
form of Govt to protect the liberty and individual autonomy, yet he was apprehensive about

the populist and majoritarian tendencies in democracy which, in his view, stifle
(throttle/choke) minority voice/opinion.
• Hence, Mill supported representative democracy with checks and balances to protect the
minority views/opinion/rights.
• In Mill’s model of representative democracy, people elect their representatives, some of
them who are expert and experienced govern and remaining control the Govt on behalf of
people. He also suggested Proportional representation ( PR) by single transferable vote(
STV) electoral system, Plural voting- more voting rights to educated and intellectual class,
and second chamber of virtuous, meritorious, experienced leaders and professionals to
temper( moderate) the populism of directly elected chamber of parliament.
Mill as liberal socialist:

• He was influenced by socialist thoughts of Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, and Robert
Owen. But despite being contemporary to Karl Marx, he seemed not be aware of him or
his writings.
• In his autobiography, in 1873, he referred himself as a qualified socialist.
• He supported worker’s participation in management, distribution of profit between workers
and managers, decent wages to workers, and worker’s cooperatives.
• He advocated distribution of lands of big landlords to landless tillers, diffusion of wealth,
laws for limit on inheritance, inheritance and wealth tax, labour unions, and decent wages
to workers
• In fact, he was big supporter of cooperatives- farmer’s cooperative, consumer cooperative,
worker’s cooperatives.
• Cooperatives- economic organization based on communal ownership of property- in his
view was antidote (remedy, solution) against ill effects of private property.
• But we favoured cooperatives outside of the state, not under its control, as in communist
states.
• For him, socialism demanded even higher moral & intellectual level of the people than
capitalism.
• For him, without economic freedom, political freedom is meaningless.
• State should intervene in the market to ensure economic justice, and equal distribution of
wealth/income.
• Thus, he supported a welfare state which takes care of old, disable, unemployed, and
marginalised.

• But he was against the central planning (as in USSR), wholesale nationalisation of private
property/enterprise, totalitarian tendencies in socialism, and effort to homogenise the
people (at the loss of individuality, uniqueness, and liberty) in the socialist/communist
society.
• He was also against bringing up socialism through social revolution. He was in favour of
gradual change without the interference of state/Government.
• To Mill, an economically all-powerful state cannot remain politically liberal in relation to
individual.
• Mill was champion of liberty. For him either liberalism or socialism is preferred whichever
gives more liberty and spontaneity (free-flowing, without any obstacle).
• For him, ideal socio-economic system was one which combined maximum of individual
liberty with maximum of economic justice.
• Thus, in many ways, Mills was a liberal socialist. Today’s social democracies seems to be
heavily influenced by Mill’s socialistic thoughts.
Some of the famous quotes by J.S.Mill:

• “the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in
interfering with the liberty of action of any of their member, is self-protection. That
the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of
a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”
• “If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the
contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person,
than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
• “In mass society, curtain-twitching judgmentalism and whispered smear-
campaigns can be more dangerously controlling than formal acts of tyranny,
“penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself”
• “however true the existing idea/opinion may be, if it is not fully, frequently, and
fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth.”
• “the truth is “many-sided”, multi-dimensional. Most well-thought-out
views/opinions contain part of the truth. Individuals are rarely in the position to
see the “whole truth” for themselves, and the only way for it to emerge is by
therefore by “the reconciling and combining of opposites
• “Human nature is not a machine to be built after a model, and set to do exactly
the work prescribed for it, but a tree, which requires to grow and develop itself on

all sides, according to the tendency of the inward forces which make it a living
thing.”
• “it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, it is better to be
Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied and if the fool or the Pig is of a different
opinion it is because they only know their own side of the question the other party
in comparison knows both sides.”

4. C: ANSWER TEMPLATES OF PAST YEAR’S AND OTHER

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS
Q1. Critically analyse J.S. Mills defence of Liberty
Similar Questions:
1. Discus J.S. Mills idea on Liberty
2. Do you see J.S. Mills as champion of Liberty? Discuss.
Answer Template:
Introduction:
J.S. Mill’s defence of Liberty was both innovative and interesting. He linked individual
Liberty to societal and civilizational progress. Mill gave utilitarianism logic in defence of
liberty and individual autonomy. Mill asserted that Liberty creates the condition in which
an individual can attain optimum intellectual flourishment and therefore liberty increases
the intellectual capital of the society. Availability of more intellectual resources, by
guaranteeing liberty, would help civilizational progress.
Mill further argued that individual autonomy help personal growth and self-realisation. It
allows diversity in culture and character. Such diversity makes the society more resilient
(strong, robust) and act as a defence against changing environment and contexts. Individual
autonomy increases intellectual diversity in the society which help survival and growth of
society in a similar way as genetic diversity help survival and growth of a species.
Thus, we can see that Mill defended both liberty and individual autonomy by applying his
utility principle. However, this linkage of liberty and utility principle became somewhat
uneasy and seemed to cut each other at some points, which I will try to discuss while
evaluating Mill’s defence of liberty in later part of the answer.
Mill identified three liberties- Liberty of thought, opinion, expression, liberty of action,
and liberty of self-realization (individual autonomy-person of one’s own making).
Mill visualised two sources of threats to individual liberty. first, from state/Govt. and
second, from the mass society (the industrial and urban society). For him the threat from
society/community was much greater than that of state/government.

In defence of the liberty of thought and expression, he gave a very interesting logical
argument. The opinion/thought under question may be true, false, or partially true. He
proved that in either of these conditions (true, false, or partially true), suppressing the
thought/opinion will harm societal interest.
For liberty of action, he gave a simple principle, called the harm principle. He said that the
only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized
community, against his will, is to prevent harm to other. Mill defined harm as infringement
of one’s vital interests (like life), rights and obligations and not merely minor irritation and
small discomforts such as ridicule, negative publicity, strong criticism, etc.
Finally, he defended the freedom of individuality and self-realization by asserting that
diversity of character and culture provides the engine of productive tension that drives a
society/community/nation forward.
Thus, he defended all three liberties by using his utilitarian principles. But he also used his
logical acumen, and liberal vision in putting forward one of strongest defense of liberty.
In the next part of the answer, I will try to explain in brief Mill’s arguments in defence of the three
kinds of liberty and will discuss some of the critique of his defence to liberty.
How Mill defended Liberty of thought/opinion?

His basic premise is that civilization progresses only when new ideas arrive regularly at
the ‘marketplace of ideas’ and compete with other ideas freely and fairly.
Mill defended Liberty of thought/opinion by following logic:
• For any opinion ‘O’ which is a candidate for suppression, ‘O’ must be either:
(i) true, (ii) false, or (iii) partially true.
• If ‘O’ is true, society’s interests are harmed by suppressing it because society would
not be benefitted by the new and true idea and will be left to live with false one.
Mill asserted that even if a single person hold idea different from all other in society,
that idea may be true and, therefore, valuable and help the intellectual progress of
society. For example, Copernicus held the opinion that the Sun (and not Earth) was
at the center of the solar system, when everyone else held opposite opinion. But his
opinion was true!
• If ‘O’ is false, it helps maintain the vitality of existing truth
• Mill stated “however true the existing idea/opinion may be, if it is not fully,
frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a
living truth.”

• Hence, even the false idea/opinion help maintain the liveliness of existing
idea/opinion. Therefore, even if ‘O’ is false, it need not be suppressed.
• If ‘O’ is partially true, it help develop the whole truth
• Mill stated “the truth is “many-sided”, multi-dimensional. Most well-
thought-out views/opinions contain part of the truth. Individuals are rarely
in the position to see the “whole truth” for themselves, and the only way for
it to emerge is by therefore by “the reconciling and combining of opposites”
• Hence, new opinion as half-truths helps synthesize the complete truth and
therefore help intellectual progress of civilization. Therefore, even if ‘O’ is
partially true, it need not be suppressed
• Thus, Mill by his logic, proved that by allowing ‘O’ to enter the ‘marketplace of
ideas’ will be useful for discovering and maintaining the truth—and hence, help
social progress. Hence, ‘O’ needs to be defended.
How Mill defended Liberty of Action?
• In defense of liberty of action, Mill gave the ‘harm principle’- the only purpose for which
power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his
will, is to prevent harm to others
• Mill further separated Self-regarding from other-regarding actions
• Self-regarding conduct/actions are those impact of which is only on the individual
doing that act, and which does not violate his obligation to anyone. Thus, as per his
harm principle, self-regrading actions need not be interfered with.
• For examples: drinking in private without harming the interest of one’s family may
be self-regarding but drunken driving may be other-regarding and need to be
controlled.
How Mill defended Liberty of development of self-character, individuality?
• Mill asserted that each one is entitled to personal liberty expressed through
'experiments in living’, developing unique personality, character, and self-culture
• Each individual is entitled to decide his/her own conception of good life.
• A “diversity of character and culture” provides the engine of productive tension that
drives a society/community/nation forward.
• It is same as genetic diversity protect survival of the species.
• Idiosyncratic( different from others), non-conforming, unique, and strong personality
are defense against the wave of conformation and homogenization by the mass society.

• Hence, individuality and liberty to develop one’s own person/character is good for the
individual and for the society. Therefore, the liberty to develop self-character,
uniqueness of one’s personality, to do ‘experiments in living’, etc. need to be defended.
Critical evaluation of Mill’s defence of Liberty:

Mill used very novel logic to defend 3 liberties. But critiques find many contradictions in
his logic as well as conception of his version of liberty. Some of these criticisms are
summarized below:
• Moral totalitarianism: supreme commitment to liberty of thought, expression,
and 'experiments in living' underpin his ideal of 'individuality', this ideal is
simply one 'particular' moral view that is to be imposed on everyone else. Such
illiberal or perfectionist moral ideal undermines a genuine tolerance of different
choices and beliefs.
• His harm principle seems to cut the Hedonism and Utilitarian principle (Greatest
Happiness Principle)
• His statement that best life will involve the cultivation and exercise of our
intelligence and creativity in the arts, literature, science, philosophy, ethics,
and politics, undermine hedonism which does not differentiate between
different types of pleasures. Mill couldn’t explain why liberty is more
pleasurable than any other desirable things.
• Also, liberal values, such as rights and freedom are undermined by judgements
of utility. They are valuable in themselves without any utility value.
• Boundary of self-regarding actions are difficult to fix. Meaning of ‘Harm’ is vague.
• Class bias, Ethnocentrism: Mill’s Liberty is limited to Bourgeois class of developed
nation. Lower/working class and ‘uncivilised people/nation’ were not entitled to have
such liberty.
Conclusion:
In sum, Mill’s idea on liberty and need for its protection was thought provoking, radical,
and supported by very reasoned and rational arguments and logic. His assertion that
individual liberty faces more dangers from conforming tendencies of mass society was far
ahead of his time. Today when populism is on rise his thoughts seems to be prophetic
(visionary, far sighted).

He defended liberty and individuality by using his principles of utility. For him, liberty
creates conditions of optimum intellectual flourishment and hence increases the intellectual
resources of society. Intellectual resources are the raw material for civilizational progress.
Despite such novel arguments and strong logic, his very idea of liberty and individuality,
its limited application, and his methodology in its defence are criticized by many political
thinkers. Crux of these criticism are failure of Mill to justify why his version of liberty is
so much valuable and pleasurable?, why one should have his version of liberty to be happy?
Critique such as Maurice Cowling and Joseph Hamburger charged Mill being illiberal
liberal and promoting moral totalitarianism. Also, his harm principle and utility principle
seem to cut each other. His hedonistic utilitarianism and liberal principles seem to
contradict each other.
Q.2 : Discuss J.S. Mills views on representative Government.
Similar Question:
1. “J.S.Mill was a reluctant democrat” Do you agree? Discuss by highlighting his views on
democracy, government, suffrage, and electoral system.
2. Mill was not comfortable with unchecked or unbridled (uncontrolled) democracy” Do you
agree? Give arguments in support of your views.
Answer Template:
Introduction:
On democracy, Mill seems to be torn between his liberal utilitarian views on one side and
his commitment to protection of liberty and individual autonomy on the other side. As a
liberal utilitarian, he asserted that happiness and human excellence is best achieved in a
free society governed by the principle of liberty. Democracy allows political participation
and encourage free thinking, and hence, most suited for liberty and individual autonomy.
Participation in politics and public affair help free thinking, moral and intellectual
development in individuals and hence useful for progress of society. Popular (direct)
democracy is best in doing so. Whereas, Despotisms is worse because it demands
obedience, compliance, and passivity from the subjects, and therefore stifle(suffocate) free
thinking and individual liberty.
But his moral elitisms, conviction that mental and intellectual resources are must for
societal and civilisational progress, and his apprehensions about mass society stifling

liberty and individual autonomy, forced him to take somewhat guarded and conservative
views about democracy. He also seems to be influenced by the troika of great ancient Greek
philosophers- Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle- who considered democracy as perverted form
of rule! Plato, in particular advocated rule by wise men-philosopher kings. Mill took
somewhat middle ground. He recommended representative Democracy, and a kind of
indirect democracy, in which the educated and wise citizen get more voting rights.
Mill considered governance complex task requiring skill, experience, and expertise. Hence,
he differentiated between governing and controlling. For him, only some of the directly
elected representatives may be fit to govern, remaining should control the Govt by asking
questions and keeping watch over Govt’s action. Thus, he suggested 2-stage shifted
democracy. First shift from direct democracy is when people don’t rule themselves, they
merely vote and choose the representative to rule. 2nd shift occurs when only few of the
representative are allowed to govern.
To guard against the populism and majoritarianism inherent in democracy, Mill suggested
Proportional representation (PR) by single transferable vote (STV), and plural voting
system in which educated and meritorious voters are given more voting rights, and a
Second Chamber of parliament consisting of experienced leaders and professionals.
From his apprehensions of unchecked democracy and his suggestions of
tempering(moderating) democracy by rule by educated, wise, and experienced people, he
definitely seems to be a reluctant democrat.
In the next part of the answer, I will try to present in brief Mill’s views on democracy, his form of
representative Democracy and his views on suffrage and electoral system.
Mill’s views about Democracy and its role in protecting and promoting Liberty:
• Democracy allows political participation and encourage free thinking, and hence, most
suited for liberty and individual autonomy. Participation in politics and public affairs help
free thinking, moral and intellectual development in individuals and hence useful for
societal progress.
• State/govt. not only should protect but also promote liberty and intellectual and moral
excellence in its citizen.
• Popular(direct) democracy is best in doing so. Whereas Despotisms is worse because it
demands obedience, compliance, and passivity from the subjects. Despotic rule stifle free
thinking, suppress individual liberty, and therefore, make society stagnant.
• But direct democracy requires small states, whereas larger states are required for
civilizational progress. Also, direct democracy may turn into rule by unskilled and non-
experts and tyranny of the majority.

• Hence, the best compromise is representative Democracy, in which people chose their
representative who govern and control the govt.
Mill’s version of Representative Democracy/Govt:
• As stated above, Mill’s representative Democracy was 2 stage shifted democracy
• 1st shift: people don’t rule directly, their representatives’ rule
• 2nd shifting: only select few of the representatives govern, remaining control Govt
by asking questions, debate, keeping watch, and holding Govt accountable.
• Governing vs controlling
• For Mill, governing is specialized activity requiring skill and expertise
• Govt. should be run by expert Bureaucracy under the control and guidance of
political leaders, who are select few from the representatives.
• Remaining representative should control Government; controlling does not require
any specialized knowledge or expertise.
• Representatives are not merely people’s delegate. They are entitled to independent
opinion in the general interest of people, not limited to their constituency.
• Ethnocentric bias: Mill asserted that Democracy is suitable only for the ‘civilized’ people,
who have attained a level of intellectual maturity, and NOT for ‘uncivilized’ or ‘barbaric’
people/nation, who require benevolent despotism till they become ‘civilized’.
Mill’s views on Suffrage and Electoral system:
• He advocated extension of voting rights to working class and women.
• He disliked First Past the Post (FPTP) system, which in his view, mis represent and dis-
enfranchise the voters
• Mis-representation: voter’s favourite candidates not nominated by political party.
• Dis-enfranchisement: those voters who vote for losing candidate are effectively
dis-enfranchised. Their votes don’t count !
• He favoured Proportional representation ( PR) by single transferable vote( STV), also
called Hare system of Proportional representation.
• Suggested plural voting system in which educated and meritorious citizens are given more
voting rights- they have more than one vote! Thus, he rejected political equality- one person
one vote principle.
• Mill advocated of Second Chamber of parliament, modelled on Roman Senate, consisting
of experienced and distinguished leaders and professionals such as. Judges, Civil servants,
Army commanders, ex- legislatures, cabinet ministers, distinguished intellectuals, etc.

• The second chamber would be check and balance on popular representative body by a
prudent and wise body.
• His views on electoral system, plural voting, and second chamber further establish him as
sulking( not very happy with) and reluctant democrat.
Conclusion:
Mills held a guarded and conservative views about democracy. A tension between his
liberal utilitarian principles and his conviction about nature of governance and mass society
is clearly visible in his thoughts on representative Democracy. This also reflects his
dilemma between his preference for negative liberty, which is better protected in liberalism
and his intellectual inclination for positive freedom, which democracy is better able to
secure.
Mill was convinced that democracy is the best form of government in protecting and
promoting liberty and individual autonomy. He was also sure about positive role of
political participation in moral and intellectual development of individuals. But he was
equally concerned about populism, majoritarianism, mediocrity, and tyranny of the
majority as negatives of unchecked democracy. Hence, he took a middle ground.
Mill supported representative Democracy, in which those representatives who are expert
and experienced govern and remaining control the Govt on behalf of people.
Representatives are like trustee to people’s will and entitled to independent opinion in the
general interest of people, not limited to their constituency. To check the ailments of
democracy, Mill suggested proportional representation, plural voting system, and second
chamber of parliament consisting of expert and experienced leaders and professionals.
Mill is criticized for rejecting political equality, holding ethnocentric bias against non-
European people of 3rd world, and being a sulking and reluctant democrat.

Q.3: Discuss Mill as liberal feminist on the basis of his ‘Subjection of Women’.
Similar Question:
Q1: Critically evaluate J.S. Mill as liberal feminist on the basis of his ‘Subjection of Women’.
Q2: “Mill’s refusal to question the traditional family and its demands on women set the limits of
his liberal feminism”( Susan Okin); Discuss the statement on the basis of Mill’s ‘Subjection of
Women’.
Introduction:
Mill’s views on issues of women and his suggestions to improve upon their conditions are
contained in his book ‘Subjection of Women’ co-authored with his wife Harriet Taylor
Mill. The book was a radical, indeed scandalous, document for its day, rejecting moral and
intellectual inferiority of women and advocating 'perfect equality' between men and
women. It was most influential book entirely devoted to women’s issue after the
‘A Vindication of the Rights of Woman’ by Mary Wollstonecraft. For this, Mill was called
a liberal feminist.
Mill asserted that Women’s subjection by men has its origin in physical superiority of men.
Thereafter it became a tradition, custom, and universal/mainstream social practice. There
is no logical or rational basis of women’s subjection. Moral goodness and intellectual
excellence are same in a woman as in a man. Women’s Subjection was mainstreamed and
maintained through the institution of patriarchy, marriage, and family and by
manufacturing consent of the women by education, training, and socialisation
Mill viewed Marriage as the chief institution of Subjection. It was like legalised
bondage. It was a life-long unequal relation between the spouses. Condition of married
women in family was worse than slave.
Mill also regretted no voting rights, inequal opportunity for education and employment, no
legal rights and equality in socio-economic public life, no liberty to think freely, self-
development, and freedom of choice to women of his time.
To improve upon women’s condition and end their subjection, Mill put forward many
suggestions backed with logical arguments linking them to his utility and liberty principles.
He advocated ‘perfect equality’ in all respect between men and women, voting rights, equal
and fair opportunities in education, profession, employment, political participation, access
to public life. For him, marriage should be ‘spousal friendship’, equal partnership.
Married women should get legal rights to property/inheritance/custody of children, free
choice between domesticity and career.

Despite such radical and positive views on women’s issue, Mill is fiercely criticized by
contemporary feminist for his liberal utilitarian methodology, mis-understanding, lack of
radical vision, political incompleteness, and class biases in his feminist views.
I will try to explain some of these criticism in later part of the answer. Before that I will present
Mill’s views and suggestions to end women’s subjection in bit more detail.
Mill’s views on women’s subjections:

• Women’s subjection by men might have its origin in physical superiority of men. But
thereafter it became a social tradition, custom, and universal/mainstream social practice.
• There is no logical or rational basis of women’s subjection.
• Subjection was mainstreamed and maintained through the institution of patriarchy,
marriage, and family and also by manufacturing consent of the women by education,
training, and socialisation.
• Thus, women themselves accepted their inferiority as real & natural and became the means
through which women’s subjection was made a social habit and tradition.
• Marriage has been the chief institution of Subjection of women.
• By law, married women had no right to property, inheritance, legal personhood,
custody of children after separation from her husband.
• Marriage denoted vicious power-relationship of dominance and subordination,
unequal and unjust division of labour- women were assigned unvalued domestic
chores, were denied opportunity outside family life. They also faced domestic
oppression and physical violence.
• Women had no identity, social standing, economic security outside marriage
• Preparation for and participation in such unequal partnerships caused women to
develop constrained, artificial, and submissive personalities, which was taken as
their natural inferiority.
• Thus, condition of women in married life was of legalised bondage, worse than
slave.
• Women had no voting rights, inequal opportunity for education and employment, no legal
rights and equality in socio-economic public life, no liberty to think freely, self-
development, and freedom of chose their life options.
In a nutshell, Mill considered women’s condition in his time deplorable (terrible). They were
denied basic human rights and treated worse than a slave. He questioned basis of such
subjection and rejected natural inferiority of women in any respect. For him, the subjection is
a social construction and hence can be ended by change in education, training and social habits.

Mill’s Suggestions to End Women’s Subjections:

• ‘Perfect equality’ between men and women in all respect- legal, social, political and
economic. Between men and women there should not be any power or privilege on one
side, nor disability on the other.
• Marriage should be taken as ‘spousal friendship’ and equal partnership. Married women
should be given legal rights to property/inheritance/custody of children, free choice
between domesticity and wage employment outside family.
• Women should get voting rights, equal and fair opportunities in education, profession,
employment, political participation, access to public life.
• Women should have total liberty for intellectual flourishment, self-development, freedom
of choice- live life as per their conception of Good life.
• Subjection of women to be ended not only by law but also by proper education, training,
opinion, changes in family life and social habits.
Critical Evaluation of Mill’s liberal Feminism:

Contemporary feminist, while acknowledging his contribution as one of the earliest mainstream
feminist thinkers, are critical of Mill’s liberal feminism on many counts. Following are in brief
some of the criticism labelled against Mill’s views and suggestion on women’s issue:
• Contemporary feminists, such as Susan Okin and Jean Bethke Elstain, question Mill’s
liberal utilitarian methodology, mixing conventional role of women as natural, lack of
vision transcending his time, political incompleteness of his suggestions, and class biases
in his feminist views.
• Susan Okin questions his empiricist methodology, which didn’t allow him to defend the
potential of women’s capabilities. This was because Mill could only account for whatever
Women could actually do, he couldn’t visualize what women could have done had they not
been constrained.
• Mill took traditional role of women in family as natural. He opined that when a woman
marries, she makes choice of the management of a household, and the bringing up of a
family, as her prime job. Above assertions of Mill became the rallying point of criticism of
his liberal feminism. He was charged of mistaking a social convention as natural condition.
• Mary Lyndon Shanley and Carole Pateman felt that accepting conventional role of women
in family contradicted his advocacy of ‘Spousal Friendship’. Susan Okin said “his refusal
to question the traditional family and its demands on women set the limits of his liberal
feminism”

• He could not maintain the empirical utility of freeing women and letting them define the
terms of both their own needs and the needs of society. Instead, Mill seems to change
women’s role according to specifications of his own choosing, for the benefit of society in
men’s term.
• Thus, Mill’s Liberal feminism views equality for women in terms of a male-defined model:
women can, and should, achieve all the public benefits and privileges of men’s world at
men’s terms & conditions
• His thought, though radical for his time, couldn’t transcend the societal conventions of
women as homemaker, mother and wife.
• Hence, Mill’s liberal feminism was certainly inadequate as a vehicle for liberating women
from their traditional subjection to the institutionalized patriarchy of liberal democratic
society.
• Mill didn’t propose any affirmative action such as reservation for women in education and
job. He simply proposed removing laws that restrict women's choices in life.
• Mill overlooked the concerns of single women, women outside marriage- daughter, sisters,
unmarried women, single mother, etc.
• Finally, his feminist idea suffers from class bias and was ethnocentric: his views were only
for middle- and upper-class women (bourgeois family), not for lower/working class, and
certainly not for women of ‘undeveloped civilization’.
Conclusion:
Mill’s liberal feminism was extension of his liberal utilitarianism. He linked equality, liberty,
and individual autonomy to women to overall societal progress. To him, subjection of women
resulted into under-utilization of the brainpower and talents of half the human race. This was
huge utility loss to society as women’s contribution would double the intellectual resources of
the society.
He rightly diagnosed the factors behind women’s subjection. His views that women have same
moral and intellectual capabilities as men and their inferiority is not natural but social
construction was radical for his time. In that conviction he dared to challenge the prevailing
wisdom, upheld by Western political philosophers from Aristotle to Rousseau, that the moral
and intellectual qualities required in women are different from those required in men.
His suggestions to end women’s subjection were reasoned, logical and practical. He advocated
and worked for voting rights, legal and socio-economic equality, liberty and individual
autonomy to women. His suggestion for taking marriage as ‘spousal friendship’ and equal
partnership was very progressive.
But his acceptance of conventional role of women in family as natural and one which women
chose as their prime job voluntarily became the rallying point for criticism of his liberal

feminism. He was charged in failing to imagine beyond the societal conventions of women as
homemaker, mother and wife. His liberal feminism was also criticized for merely allowing
women to avail equal opportunity in men’s world at the terms and conditions set by men. He
couldn’t visualize women’s freedom to make world of their choosing, freedom to define their
need and need for the society in their terms. He is also accused of carrying the class bias and
being ethnocentric in his views on subjection of women.
Despite such criticism, J.S.Mill contributed significantly in raising the issue of women’s
subjection and giving voice to feminist thoughts and ideas. He not only thought but also acted
effectively to provide rights and equality to women. His thoughts and actions went a long way
in improving the conditions of women in modern era. He was indeed a very worthy liberal
feminist.
Q.4: Do you see J.S. Mills champion of minority rights? Give your views .
Introduction:
Mill’s concern, throughout ‘On Liberty’, is to preserve and protect the rights of minority,
those who think freely and hold opinion different from the mainstream opinion in the
society/community. Mill held the view that even If all mankind minus one, were of one
opinion, and only one person was of the contrary opinion, mankind would not be justified
in silencing that one person. To him minority opinions were vital for moral and intellectual
progress of the society. Diversity of character and culture make society resilient ( robust,
tough) against fast changing environment and circumstances. Thus, liberty and individual
autonomy, which implied minority rights, against the conforming and
homogenizing(making all same, uniform)) tendencies of mass society, are having
significant utility for societal interests and civilizational progress.
Mill was uncomfortable with direct and unchecked democracy, which in his view, may
turn into tyranny of the majority. To protect the liberty and rights of the educated and
intellectual class, which always remains minority in democracy, Mill rejected direct
democracy, supported representative democracy, governance/rule by experts, proportional
representation electoral system, plural voting to give more voting rights to
educated/intellectual citizen, and second chamber of parliament consisting of
expert/experienced leaders and professionals. All these suggestions were directed towards
protection of rights of the minority against the wave of majority in the democratic regime.
From above it is evident that Mill was champion of minority rights. But we must
understand his notion of the minority. To him, the educated, intellectual, free thinking
people were the minority. He didn’t directly advocate for the rights of religious, ethnic,
racial, and linguistic minorities. Also, his ‘minorities’ were rising middle class of
professionals in 19th century Europe (the Bourgeois class). He didn’t allow right to liberty
and individual autonomy to working/lower class and people of ‘uncivilized nations’(India

and other 3rd world nations). Thus, Mill’s views on minority rights suffered from class bias
and were Eurocentric and ethnocentric.
Despite this, the logic and arguments Mill gave for protection of his conception of minority
can very well be applied to all kinds of minorities in all other nation/society. Core of Mill’s
argument that minority voice/opinion help maintain intellectual vitality of the society and
useful for civilizational progress can be used to protect the rights of all kinds of minorities
in every other democratic regime. This way, Mill has done a great favour to the minorities
anywhere in world in any age.
In the next section of the answer, I will try to elaborate the points stated above to discuss what was
Mill’s conception of the minority and how he defended their rights?
Who Mill considered as Minority?
• For Mill, whosoever hold thought/opinion different from the generally accepted
(prevailing) mainstream opinion in society is a minority. For example, Copernicus
who held the opinion that Sun, and not the Earth was in centre of social system,
was a minority against the majority of which was just opposite to what he thought.
• On each of the vital matter/issue concerning the community/society, there would
be minority and majority views/opinion. Therefore, minority are that group of
people/citizen, smaller in number, who hold views different from the majority
views.
• But Mill’s conception of minority was not only based on contrary views of any
issue, it was also linked to class. To him, in any society the educated and intellectual
class generally hold views different from the uneducated masses. Also, numbers of
educated and intellectual people would be much less than those of the uneducated
masses. Thus, free thinking intellectuals would be minority.
• In Mill’s time, that is second half of 19th century, the rising middle class of
professionals (Bourgeois class) were the minority Mill was talking about.
• Therefore, Mill was not specifically concerned about the religious, ethnic, racial,
and linguistic minorities, as we know currently. His minority were privileged social
class of intellectuals who were numerically less and hence were minority.
• Since, they were person of knowledge and intellect, they generally held
views/opinion different from the prevailing mainstream view in the society. Mill,
through his liberty principle, put forward strong logic and arguments in support of
protecting the rights and liberty of those minorities.
How Mill defended the rights to liberty of the Minority?
• Mill’s concern, throughout On Liberty, is to preserve the rights of minority, those who
think freely and hold opinion different from the mainstream opinion.

• For him, the greatest danger to individual liberty and therefore minority rights are not from
state/govt. but from the mass society, which may, through the mechanism of
Majoritarianism, stifle (constrain/throttle/choke) liberty and free thinking by small
minority. Mill termed it ‘Tyranny of Majority’.
• His famous quote ““If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person
were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one
person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” Very
forcefully assert the right of minority, even a single person, to think freely and hold opinion
contrary to the majority view.
• His harm principle, which he stated like this: “the sole end for which mankind are
warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of
their member, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully
exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm
to others.” was another very strong argument for protection of rights of minority.
• Mill also defended diversity in character and culture on the basis of its utility for maintain
the vitality of the society/community. To him, diversity of character and culture provides
the engine of productive tension that drives a society/community/nation forward.
• Mill was uneasy with the idea of direct democracy or unchecked popular democracy, which
in his view, may turn into Populism, Majoritarianism, and tyranny of Majority.
• Hence, he supported representative democracy with lots of checks and balances against
majoritarian tendencies. This was another contribution of Mill towards protection of
minority rights.
• To protect the minority voice and their rights, especially right to liberty, in democratic
regime, Mill proposed Proportional representation electoral system, Plural voting- more
voting rights to educated and intellectual class, and Second chamber of virtuous,
meritorious, experienced leaders and professionals.
Thus, we can see how Mill’s entire idea of liberty and representative democracy was oriented
towards the concerns of protecting the rights of the minority against the popular or majority
views/opinion.
Mill’s ‘On Liberty’ and ‘Consideration on Representative Government’ are specifically
intended towards protection of views/opinion/voice of few against the many. In ‘On
Liberty’ Mill assert that opinion of even a single person contrary to view of all other must
not be suppressed. This was one of the most forceful arguments in support of right to liberty
and individual autonomy. He was termed as reluctant democrat, for he feared suppression
of minority voice and rights by the majority in unchecked popular democracy. He
suggested many checks and constraints in his model of representative democracy to protect

minority rights. Some of the ways in which put forward his arguments in defense of
minority rights, especially their right to liberty, both in his ‘On Liberty’ and ‘Consideration
on Representative Government’ have been outlined in brief in the body of the answer.
Here we must acknowledge that Mill’s conception of minority was different from what we
think of minority in contemporary democracies. For him, a small number of learned and
intellectual middle-class professionals (the Bourgeois class) were the minority, whose free
thinking and right to liberty were in danger from the uneducated masses who by their virtue
of being in majority, might suppress the views/opinions of this minority. Mill was perhaps
not thinking about the religious, ethnic, racial, and linguistic minorities while defending
their rights in his ‘on liberty’ and ‘Consideration on Representative Government’.
However, his idea of right to liberty and his forceful arguments for protection of minority
views can very well be applied to protect the minority rights in contemporary democracy.
The idea remains the same, that the views/opinions of the few, even if they are different
than the many who are in majority, should not be suppressed because it is harmful for the
societal interest. Minority views/opinions and unique and different personalities give
cultural and character diversity to the society which makes it strong and resilient against
changing circumstances. Hence, Mill’s ideas of minority right and his very convincing
arguments in defence of those rights can very well be applied in protecting the rights of
religious, ethnic, racial, and linguistic minorities anywhere in world even in contemporary
times. Hence, it would not be wrong to accept J.S.Mill as champion of minority rights.
Q.5: Discuss Mill’s hedonistic principle of utility. How was it different from
classical utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham?
Similar question:
1. Discuss J.S.Mill as liberal utilitarian political thinker.
2. Discuss J.S.Mill’s utilitarian principles.
Introduction:
Utilitarianism is normative moral/ethical theory, developed by late 18th century English
political Philosopher Jeremy Bentham, according to which an act is morally right if it tends
to promote happiness or pleasure and wrong if it tends to produce unhappiness or pain—
not just for the performer of the action but also for everyone else affected by it. Thus, as
per utilitarianism, one should choose those acts which brings maximum pleasure and
minimum pain, that is, maximum net pleasure.
Mill was certainly a utilitarian philosopher. His arguments for individual liberty are based
on his principles of utility. Of course, his utilitarianism, like the classical utilitarianism,

emanate (originate) from Hedonism, a school of thought since ancient times that argues
seeking pleasure and avoiding pain as basis of choosing act/conduct. As per the hedonistic
principle, we should choose those acts which brings maximum pleasure and least pain.
Following the hedonistic principle, Mill claimed “happiness is the sole end of human
action, and the promotion of it the test by which to judge of all human conduct”. He gave
his famous proportionality principle of utility by stating “Actions are right in proportion
as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness”.
Thus, Mill put forward his principle of utility which was based on hedonistic doctrine.
But Mill’s principle of utility differed from classical utilitarianism of Bentham on many
counts. First and foremost, Mill differentiated between higher and lower pleasure. He
added quality to the quantitative approach of Bentham in evaluating the value of pleasure.
To him, mental or intellectual pleasure are more valuable and desirable than physical or
sensual pleasure. Second, mill seems also to differentiate between happiness and pleasure.
By ‘happiness’, Mill seems not to mean sensual pleasure, but rather the mental flourishing
that is achieved in the realization of an ideal human character- virtuous, flourishing, good
life. This was similar to Aristotle’s concept of ‘Eudemonia’, roughly translated in English
as ‘flourishing’.
Above stated two differences in Mill’s principle of utility from the classical utilitarianism
are so profound (deep/significant) that many critics charge Mill of abandoning hedonism
and therefore diluting the very core of the utilitarianism. This is because hedonism as well
as classical utilitarianism do not differentiate between pleasures. To them, all pleasures are
equally valuable and desirable. Pleasures vary only on quantity, measured mainly by their
intensity and time. The critics question the standard for deciding higher or lower pleasure.
And if those standards are different than quantity of pleasure than effectively Mill’s
principle of utility cannot be said to be based on hedonism.
In the next part of the answer, I will explain in brief the points outlined above before
concluding.
Mill’s Principle of Utility:

• Mills claimed that happiness was the sole end of human action, and the promotion of it the
test by which to judge of all human conduct. Here is clearly following the hedonistic
doctrine which assert that pleasure is the ultimate goal of human life.
• Mill’s ‘proof’ of the principle of utility.
• He argued by way of following three subclaims.
• Desirability: happiness is valuable or desirable as an end/goal of all human actions.
• Exhaustiveness: nothing but happiness is desirable as an end of all human action

• Impartiality: each person’s happiness is equally desirable.

• By logic, Mill claimed that all desirable things or actions are desirable either for the
pleasure inherent in themselves (that is they directly give pleasure), or they become means
to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain. For example: Take ‘doing good
in exams’. This act (of doing good in exams) becomes the means to get good job, which in
turn is the means to acquire material comforts- house, car, AC, etc., which finally may give
pleasure. We may, similarly, trace all other actions or things to find that either they directly
give pleasure or becomes the means to promote pleasure.
• Mill gave the proportionality principle of utility: “Actions are right in proportion as they
tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness”. Here
we must acknowledge that happiness or pleasure is for all those who are affected by that
action, and not only the person who is doing that act.
How Mill’s Utilitarianism differed from classical Utilitarianism?
• Mill started with the position that Happiness is same as Pleasure. He said: “By
happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and
the privation of pleasure”
• But, later on, it seems that by ‘happiness’, Mill does not mean sensual pleasure, but
rather the flourishing that is achieved in the realization of an ideal human character-
virtuous, flourishing, good life. Here Mill seems to be influenced by Aristotle, who
asserted that final cause of human life is ‘Eudemonia’, a Greek word, roughly
translated in English as ‘Flourishing’.
• Thus, it seems that Mill differentiated between happiness and pleasure, former
associated with self-realization, flourishment of character and latter mere sensual
or physical pleasure.
• Mill also departed from the Benthamite account, which holds that if two experiences/acts
contain equal quantities of pleasure, then they are thereby equally valuable. Mill said:
• “It would be absurd that while, in estimating all other things, quality is considered
as well as quantity, the estimation of pleasures should be supposed to depend on
quantity alone.”
• Mill held that pleasures “of the intellect, of the feelings and imagination, and of the moral
sentiments”- mental/intellectual pleasures- are amongst the higher pleasures, whereas
physical or sensual pleasures are lower pleasures. Among physical pleasures, pleasures
gained in activity are of a higher quality than those gained passively.
• Thus, for Mill, pleasure by reading good literature or poem is higher pleasure than pleasure
obtained by drinking alcohol.

• He insisted that human beings were capable of intellectual and moral pleasures which was
superior to the physical one that they shared with animals. His famous quote given below
clearly explains his views on this:
• “it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, it is better to be
Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied and if the fool or the Pig is of a different
opinion it is because they only know their own side of the question the other party
in comparison knows both sides.”
Mill, in this approach, seems to propose help of a moral expert in judging the quality of pleasure.
This became rallying point for criticism of his principles of utility, some of which I am trying to
discuss below.
Critical evaluation of Mill’s Utilitarianism:
• Critics charge Mill abandoning hedonism and therefore weakening the very foundation of
Utilitarianism. Hedonism does not differentiate between pleasure. All pleasures are equally
valuable, Pleasures vary only in quantity( its intensity and time). But Mill differentiated
between higher and lower pleasure. Therefore, this charge by his critics.
• Many critics claimed that Mill moved towards a Eudaimonistic or perfectionist account of
happiness as given by Aristotle. By ‘happiness’, they claim, Mill does not mean sensual
pleasure, but rather the flourishing that is achieved in the realization of an ideal human
character- virtuous, flourishing, good life. Thus, he further weakened the hedonistic
underpinnings (foundations) of utilitarianism.
• Critic question the method and standard by which quality of pleasures would be decided.
Mill seems to suggest help and guidance of Moral experts as competent judges, who have
tested both types of pleasure being compared. But then, Mill seems to completely abandon
the utilitarianism principle, which does not need any other standard to judge the pleasure,
except its quantity, which can be empirically (by mathematical calculation) determined.
• Mill’s utility principle seems to contradict his Liberty principle (the harm principle). Critics
question the following:
• How liberty and individual autonomy is not infringed by dictate of higher pleasure?
For example, if anyone wants to drink wine, why should he be expected to indulge
into novel reading instead of drinking? Is it not interference in his liberty?
• How absolute liberty in the sphere of self-regarding actions not dilute overall
utility? This is reverse of above situation. Now by drinking an individual is not
acting as per the utilitarianism, for the action is not bringing greatest happiness to
greatest number of people (GHP principle). GHP principle would have been
satisfied had the individual been reading and sharing knowledge instead of
drinking.

• Critics also question as to why liberty & individuality such vital human interests that none
should harm it? Do they give utmost pleasure? Doesn’t it contradict his basic tenet of
utilitarianism?
• Nudging (gently pushing, guiding) individuals towards ‘higher’ pleasure is paternalistic,
undermine autonomy/choice, and may lead to slippery slope of state/society guiding
individuals to attain self-mastery, enjoy higher pleasure, guided by their higher-self. This
may lead to totalitarian society/state.
Conclusion:
Mill was liberal utilitarian philosopher. He very much agreed to the utilitarianism of
Jeremy Bentham, which in turn was based upon the ancient doctrine of hedonism. Mill
himself asserted that happiness or pleasure is the ultimate goal of any human action and
actions are right in the proportion to which they increase the happiness or pleasure and
decrease the unhappiness or pain.
However, mill deferred significantly from Benthamite account of classical utilitarianism.
First, he differentiated between higher and lower pleasure and second, he seems to have
differentiated between happiness and pleasure, equating happiness to some select higher
pleasures which enable self-realization.
By making a difference between pleasures, Mill actually diluted the very essence of
utilitarianism. The beauty of utilitarianism was that it did not require any other standard or
any other help in evaluating pleasures. All pleasures were equally valuable and desirable.
They varied only in in their quantity which could be determined mathematically. Mill, by
adding the element of quality to the quantity of pleasure, had cut the very essence of
classical utilitarianism. In Mill’s version of utilitarianism, a moral expert may be required
to judge the quality of the pleasure. Hence, it not only diluted utilitarianism but also
weekend the hedonistic underpinnings( bases) of utilitarianism.
Despite such criticism, Mill is also credited to have made utilitarianism more moral,
ethical, and humane. By including quality as an assessment of pleasure and suggesting
desirability of higher pleasures, he made utilitarianism more palatable and acceptable as a
moral principle of choosing right actions.
An offbeat question:
Q: Discuss Mill as liberal socialist.
Answer Hint: this is very offbeat Question, not likely to be asked. But if asked you may explain the
points given under ‘Key Points’ at page 58. Just elaborate those points.

THEME 5: KARL MARX
5. A: Syllabus:
• Marx as radical political thinker
• Alienation;
• Materialism of Marx: difference with other kinds of materialism;
• Class Struggle
5. B: Key Points:
• Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) born into a middle class family in Trier in Germany in 1818,
was a German philosopher, economist, sociologist, historian, journalist, and revolutionary
socialist.
• From his university days in Bonn and Berlin, he developed radical ideas on social
arrangements in association with young Hegelians (young radical scholars who idolized
Hegel but critically assessed his thoughts in the changing context in Germany)
• Due to his radical socialist ideas, he had to leave Germany in 1843, moved to Paris,
expelled from there, moved to Brussels, and finally took shelter in England, where he lived
in exile till his death
• He developed lifelong friendship and scholarly partnership with Frederick Engels, a
German Philosopher settled in England. Most of Marx’s creations were with Engels, who
also financially supported him.
• German Philosopher Friedrich Hegel had a great influence on Marx. Economists Adam
Smith, David Ricardo, Ludwig Feuerbach (a young Hegelian) also influenced his thoughts.
• He, along with Engels, played a leading role in the International Working Men's
Association from 1864 to 1872
• His main creations:
• Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts (1844)- Early Marx- which contained his
theory of Alienation.
• The German Ideology (1845), with Engels- in which he propounded materialistic
conception of history; published only in 1932. Considered as interlude (break)
between early and matured Marx.

• The Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) : with Engels- contained his ideas of
class struggle, conflict in capitalist society, social revolution, etc. The book had the
famous quote "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class
struggles “
• Das Kapital (Capital)- 1967, later volumes published by Engels after death of
Marx.- contained dissection of Capitalism, its contradiction, destructive tendencies.
Gist of his thoughts

• Materialism: Material condition of life determine our consciousness, idea, identity
• “Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by Life.” (Karl Marx
and Engels)
• Dialectical Materialism: Progression (change towards better/higher) dialectically- by
constant struggle between two contradictory elements present in the thing
• Example: Seed destroyed to give plant which destroys to give many seeds
• Historical Materialism: History as progression through changes in mode of production
due to class contradiction and class struggle.
• Mode of production consists of forces of production (factory, machines, technology,
tools) and relation of production- how those producing these products relate socially-the
class system
• Theory of Surplus Labour Value: Capitalist Class does not pay a part of values generated
by labour-power; which is called profit, but for Marx, it was theft.
• Theory of Alienation: Capitalist mode of production and resultant social arrangements
alienate workers from their product of labour, from the act of production, from species-
being (from essence of being human), and from fellow human being, from himself
• His conception of Freedom: Human emancipation through revolutionary changes in
social production (mode of production) in which each individual contributes freely as per
his ability, without any compulsion, constrain, coercion and relate to fellow man as equal.
• Mere political emancipation, by political equality and rights, will not lead to human
emancipation.
• His conception of State: State is part of the society’s superstructure corresponding to
specific mode of production of that society.
• Entire superstructure, including State, further (promote) the interest of the dominant
class - state is the organ of class dominance. “the executive of the modern state is
but a committee for managing the common affairs of the bourgeoisie”

• True human emancipation only in Stateless, and class less society.

• His theory of Revolution: Human emancipation can be brought only by social revolution
by the working class by overthrowing the existing capitalist mode of production.
• The revolution would be in accordance with the progression through dialectical
process.
• At a certain stage of development in mode of production, the forces of production
come into conflict with existing relations of production. Then, through social
revolution higher level of mode of production are brought in.
Critique of Marx’s thought:
• Karl Popper (in his ‘Open Society and Its Enemies’) criticized Marx on several counts
• His theories not scientific as they couldn’t be falsified- they were like ideologies
• No universal grand theory can explain and predict human history
• His social engineering by revolution negated natural social progression
• His ideas of socialism/communism undermined individual autonomy
• Isiah Berlin- multiple conception of good life and multiple values may co-exist in society-
Marx negated this by superimposing his way of societal Good and universal value
• Most of his predictions failed; couldn’t foresee totalitarianism in Socialism/communism,
resilience(flexibility) of capitalism, power of democracy and welfare state
• Couldn’t provide finer details of his communist society- like a good physician to diagnose
the illness but poor in prescribing medicines
• To many critics, he dissected the deficiencies and contradictions of 19th century capitalism;
those are of little relevance in today’s globalized world.
• Other criticism: Economic determinism, undermining the ‘superstructure’- politics, art,
culture, utopic radical ideas, excessive focus on class- Undermined other identities- race,
Gender, caste, disability, sexuality; suffered from Eurocentrism

5.C: ANSWER TEMPLATES TO PAST YEAR’S AND OTHER

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS:
Q.1: Critically examine Marx theory of historical materialism
Similar Question: How Karl Marx’s materialism is different from other types of materialism?
Elaborate.
Answer Template
Introduction:
Materialism is a philosophical doctrine in which preference is given to matter over idea,
thought, and consciousness. Our physical body and existence represent matter. Hence,
under materialism, the body and physical existence is given preference over immaterial
soul or consciousness. Thus, in materialistic doctrine, our bodily or physical existence
determine our consciousness, idea, thought. The opposite doctrine is Idealism which asserts
that idea, thought, and consciousness are prior to matter and our material existence.
Philosophers such as Plato, Rene Descartes, Immanuel Kant, Hegel, etc may be treated as
idealist whereas Marx along with Aristotle, Kautilya, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Feuerbach, etc.
are considered materialist thinkers.
However, materialism of Marx was different from other materialism especially on two
counts. First, he propounded dialectical conception of matter/object/entity. Any material
being develops to higher level through a dialectical process, that is, by constant struggle
between two contradictory elements naturally present in that thing. Second, Marx
visualised history as progression in mode of material production through dialectical process
and on this basis, he propounded law of historical progression and also predicted the future
mode of production and resultant social arrangements.
In sum, Marx’s materialism denoted empiricism (understanding phenomena from
observations through our senses), the use of scientific method to enquire social phenomena,
realism or pragmatism, naturalism or dis-belief in supernaturalism, and denial of soul-body
dualism. But essentially it deferred from other materialism in two ways; First, his
conception of dialectical materialism and second his idea of historical materialism.

In the next section of the answer, I will try to explain and critically assess Marx's idea of dialectical
and historical materialism.
Dialectical Materialism of Marx:

• Everything exists and defined in contradictory relation to something else. Hence,
everything has inbuilt or inherent contradictory or dialectical element in it.
• Example: servant gets its meaning only in relation to master; employee-employer;
poor-rich, light-darkness, etc.
• Light has element of darkness, peace has element of conflict, and so on
• Everything is in constant flux/motion. It appears, develops/changes, decays
• Progression (change towards better/higher) happens dialectically, that is, by constant
struggle between two contradictory elements (one dominant/manifested and other
dormant) present in the thing
• Example: Seed destroyed to give plant (progress from seed) which destroys to give
many seeds (further progress). Seed in itself contain forces of its destruction.
• Therefore, the progression by dialectical process can be represented by
‘Affirmation’(being)- ‘Negation’(opposite or dialectic of being)- ‘Negation of Negation’(
two opposites make positive at higher level)
• Can be compared to progression of ideas
• Thesis (original idea) –Antithesis (negation of the idea)-Synthesis (new
idea at higher level)
• Mathematical example: a (being/affirmation), multiplied by -1 (negation)= -a
multiplied by –a (negation of negation) =a² (progression at higher level)
• To Marx, Dialectic is the universal law of nature, history, and thought. All development
occurs on this pattern.
• He applied the dialectical process to historical progression in its mode of production and
associated social arrangements.
Historical dialectical materialism of Marx is explained below:
Historical Materialism of Marx:

• Humanity is defined, and therefore differentiated from animals, by conscious/rational
social production.

• Man’s rationality or consciousness (for social production) is derived from his material
condition of life and economic relations of production.
• Individual consciousness and identity, therefore, is formed within specific relations of
production in society.
• Socio-cultural system at any stage of human civilization is determined by prevailing mode
of production of that period.
• Mode of production includes forces of production and relations of production. Forces of
production- Tools, technology, methods, means of production - determine how products
get produced. Relation of production denote how those producing these products relate
socially, that is the class system.
• Human history is progression in stages of different modes of material production through
the dialectical process.
• At a certain stage of development in mode of production, the forces of production come
into conflict with existing relations of production. This produces class-struggle. This
struggle (dialectical process) changes the modes of production and takes it to at a higher
level.
• Changes in modes of production quickly brings changes in the social ‘superstructure’- the
political, legal system, art, culture, social structure, etc.
• Examples: In ancient period: Primitive mode of production- low level of forces of
production (handmade tools, low technology), master-slave relation of production
• Medieval period: Feudal mode of production- more developed forces of production
(sophisticated agriculture, irrigation, arts/crafts); feudal lord-serf relation of
production
• Modern period: Capitalist mode of production- high level of forces of production
(big factories, Machine tools, assembly line, scientific methods, etc.); Capitalist-
worker (Bourgeois-Proletariat) relation of production
• Dialectical progression of civilisation/history through class struggle-two classes in
opposition; class struggle brings change/progress in modes of production and associated
social arrangements (societal superstructure).
• Famous quote of Marx “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class
struggles.” sums up his conception of Dialectical historical materialism.

Critique of Marx’s materialism:
• Karl Popper (in his ‘Open Society and Its Enemies’) criticized Marx on several counts.
Some of them were directed towards his materialism. To Popper, no universal grand theory
can explain and predict human history, which is too complex and requires multiples causal
relationships to be dealt in by a single theory. Also, to Popper, Marx’s theory of historical
materialism is not scientific as they couldn’t be falsified- they were like ideologies.
• Most of his historical predictions failed. He predicted demise of capitalism, coming up of
socialism and communism. But he couldn’t foresee totalitarianism in
Socialism/communism, resilience of capitalism, power of liberal democracy and welfare
state.
• He gave too much importance to economic structure of society, hence charged of Economic
determinism. He undermined socio-cultural dimensions of society- politics, art, culture- by
treating them as mere adjunct(secondary) to the economic base (mode of production).
• His historical materialism and laws of history had utopic radical ideas. He had excessive
focus on class, undermined other identities- race, gender, caste, disability, sexuality.
• And finally, his historical materialism suffered from both Eurocentrism and Ethnocentrism.
His history was limited to Western Europe, leaving Asia and other parts of the globe from
scope of his law of history. He treated non-European society as stagnant and devoid of
history.
Conclusion:
No doubt Marx was a materialist thinker. His materialism is manifested in his preference
to empiricism, the use of scientific methods of enquiry to understand social phenomena,
realism and pragmatism, naturalism, and his denial of soul-body dualism. Despite this, his
materialism was different from any other materialist doctrine before him. He took the
dialectic idealism of Hegel and turned that upside down to frame his dialectical
materialism. This was development of any being/entity to higher level through the process
of contradiction and opposition between two divergent elements in-built in that
being/thing.
Secondly, he propounded law of history through his conception of historical materialism.
To him, human history and civilization was progression in stages through the dialectical
processes in which the mode of production changed successively to higher level by the
contradictions between forces and relations of production. This contradiction is denoted by
class struggle, which becomes the engine of historical progression.

Marx’s materialism, therefore, was very innovative and novel. He used his materialism not
only to propound a grand theory of historical progression but also used it to predict the
history. Perhaps greatness of Marx as political thinker was his successful formulation of
dialectical and historical materialism.
However, Marx's materialism has been criticized by many subsequent political analysts
and thinkers. Karl Popper charged his grand theory of history as mere ideology and not a
scientific theory. Many of his predictions, as per his law of history, failed. He is also
charged of economic determinism, undermining the socio-cultural aspects, treating them
as mere superstructure or adjunct to the economic base. His historical materialism was
radical and utopic. He had excessive focus on class undermining other identities such as
race, gender caste, etc. He is also criticised for Eurocentric and Ethnocentric overtones in
his historical materialism.
Despite this, Marx’s genius is fully reflected in formulation of the conception of historical
progression through dialectical process represented by class struggle. No other theoretical
concept than his historical materialism, affected the real politics and social arrangements
on ground to such an extent. And here lies the greatness as well as the uniqueness of his
materialism.
Q.2: Define Alienation. Discuss different types of Alienation as outlined by

Marx.
Introduction:
Conception of Alienation as a condition of oppression arising from loss of control over
productive activity reflect radical humanism of early Marx. His theory of alienation is
contained mainly in his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. Literarily,
Alienation means condition of disaffection, estrangement (separation), and viewing
anything as alien. If we are not able to relate positively to anything, we are alienated from
that thing.
For Marx, Alienation reflect the human condition in the capitalist mode of production.
Essence of being human is the ability of conscious, rational social production. Product is
extension of man’s existence, his flourishment, release of energy, cultivation of reason. In
fact, the producer see himself in his product. But exploitative relation of production and
oppressive process of production rob all the pleasure and fulfillment from the producers-
the workers.

For them their product becomes alien to them. They cannot relate to their products. Thus,
they are alienated from the product. Not only that, workers are alienated also from the
production process, fellow workers, and from himself. Capitalist mode of production
reduce worker as small part of a giant machine- cog in the wheel. Such de-humanization
alienates him from his sense of being human.
It is not that only workers face the condition of alienation, capitalist class, too, experience
alienation. Market mediated exchange relationships alienate them from themselves, their
family, and larger social ecosystem. Marx explained how even marriages, family, and
social relationships for capitalist class reduces to being means to further their economic
interest. However, they are able to cope up with feeling of alienation because of belonging
to the dominant class, passion of generating profit and wealth, and other materialistic
possessions.
In the next section of the answer, I will explain in brief Marx’s conception of alienation and four
types of alienations outlined by him.
How Capitalist Mode of Production Alienate Working Class?
• In pre-capitalist mode of production, producer owned and controlled the produce; he could
relate to his produce. Dominant class, the feudal lords, used to take away his produce
politically (tax) or by force/violence. But this did not alienate the producer from his
product. Also, he had social bond of obligation and rights with the dominant class. In case
of any emergency, the feudal lord was expected to help the peasant. In return the peasant
was to fulfil his obligations of subordination and consent to the lord.
• Thus, in pre-capitalist mode of production, the producers were integral part of the
productive system and also had some control over the production process. They also had
social bond with their exploiters, the dominant class.
• Because of this, the producers were neither alienated from their produce/product nor from
the production process. They had antagonist relation with the dominant class, but they were
not alienated.
• In capitalism, worker has no social bond of obligation with the capitalist class; he is free to
sell his labour to anyone; except paying market determined wages, capitalist class has no
obligation to labour class.
• Labourer sell his labour power at market rate to the capitalist. Thereafter, his labour power
and products produced from those labour powers are owned by the capitalist.
• In capitalist mode of production, laouberer/worker becomes a commodity, as his loabour-
power is purchased at exchange value of labour. Also, he loses ownership of his labour and
products produced by embodying his labour.

• Thus, capitalist own the labour, extract more value from it than he paid (use value of labour
more than its exchange value), do not pay part of the labour and keep them as profit.
Therefore, exploitation of labour is done economically.
• Because division of labour, specialisation, worker loses sense of his product. For example,
a worker in car assembly line fitting a part of the car cannot relate with the car in which his
labour is embodied. He becomes alienated from his product.
• Alienation from his product increases because most of the time the worker is not able to
afford to purchase his own product at exchange rate. He no more is able to see himself in
his product. The product becomes alien, unknown to him.
• Producing for someone else, on other’s terms & condition, oppressive production process
on which he has little control, all these de-humanize the labour. The man becomes
machine- cog in the wheel. This condition alienate worker from the production process.
• Labourer becomes commodity, exchangeable, easily displaced, compete with fellow
workers to get job. This alienates workers from fellow workers.
• Thus, capitalist mode of production alienates workers from his product, production
process, fellow workers, and from himself.
4 Types of Alienation outlined by Marx:
Following are the four types of alienation identified and outlined by Marx:
1. Alienation from product of labour
• Product belongs not to the worker but to the employer.
• Worker produces small part of product, cannot relate with the whole product.
• Cannot afford to own the product made by him.
• All this alienate worker from his product.
2. Alienation from the act of production, labour process
• worker feels free and of his own only in eating, drinking, sleeping, which are
functions common to all animals.
• Productive work at the work place, which is essence of his human function,
becomes forced labour, bondage and is experienced by the worker as suffering.
3. Alienation from species-being (Gattungswesen in German)
• De-humanization of the worker- man becoming machine

• Capitalist production system denies them something which is their due as human
beings
4. Alienation of man from man
• Market mediated Human relation
• All relation for instrumental value, people as object, as means to gain economic
benefits.
• This alienates worker from his fellow workers, from his relatives, and ultimately
from himself.
Conclusion:
The theory of alienation represents the radical humanism in the thoughts of early Marx.
His ultimate aim was freedom of human from the bondage of social arrangements arising
from his material condition of life. Alienation outlined by Marx is one of the major social
ailments in the capitalist society. later on, Emile Durkheim explained the similar social
problem by his concept of ‘anomie’- a sense of loss, value and normlessness.
Alienation to Marx is a social problem in which the worker/producer is not able to relate
to his product, the production process, his fellow workers, and to himself. It is loss of the
sense of being human. The worker is dehumanized in the capitalist mode of production.
The alienation also indicates market mediated social relation and materialistic human
relationship which convert the society into assemblage of self-interested rational economic
being. To Marx, unless there is fraternity, social solidarity, equality, and dignity in social
production process, human emancipation is not possible. Alienation represented bondage,
oppression, and unfreedom inherent in capitalist mode of production, which inhibit human
emancipation.
Q.3: Analyze Marx view on the State.
Introduction
Marx’s view about state was radically different from the prevailing notion of State in his
time. To him, State is part of the society’s superstructure corresponding to specific mode
of production of that society. Entire superstructure, that is, State, politics, laws, art, culture,
etc., further (promote) the interest of the dominant class, the class which dominate the
economic base- the mode of production; the class who owns the means of production and
therefore control the mode of production.

Marx considered the Superstructure as socio-political arrangement corresponding to the

prevailing mode of production, which to him was the economic structure or
base/foundation of the society. Naturally, the superstructure was to support and help
maintain the ‘base’. Therefore, the State, political and legal system, art and culture, ideas,
etc. all were to support the interest of the dominant class in the ‘base’.
Thus, in view of Marx, state is the organ and instrument of class dominance. The instrument
of the state like law, government, police, military, and bureaucracy serve the interest of the
dominant economic class and not the whole society. Political power, represented by state,
is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. In words of Marx “the
executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the
whole bourgeoisie”. Force of state is used to maintain peace and order and suppress any
opposition by the working class to the capitalist class. Thus, the state becomes a political
tool to protect the interest of the capitalist class.
If such is the status of the state, naturally, state would have no autonomy, not free to act.
Its actions are controlled by the dominant class. State becomes a mere puppet, whose
strings are in the hands of the capitalist class.
Therefore, the society as a whole and working class in particular, should not expect
anything good from the capitalist state. Human freedom is possible only when the state die,
giving way to stateless society. In that case, civil society and political system will merge.
Liberty, rights, and equality will be available to all both in the domain of political system
and civil society, as both are now one. In the current system, political freedom co-exists
with bondage and oppression in civil society. This duality would end in the stateless
society.
Thus, in Marx’s view, the state was the unnecessary evil. Its existence only benefits the
dominant class, not the whole society. Hence, state should be abolished through the social
revolution, which shall bring socialism.
For a transition period, till classless, stateless society is established, state would exist but
under the ‘dictatorship of Proletariat’. But this socialist state would work for the interest of
entire society, not only for the capitalist class. Ultimately, the socialist state will also wither
way (die), giving rise to stateless society. Then only true human emancipation would be
possible.
Of course, Marx’s view on nature, role, and functions of state was radical. But it had
profound impact on developing alternate conception of state. Many modern thinkers in 3rd
world countries, including India related to Marxist views on modern capitalist state. Even
in present days, Marxists view state, in any society/nation, with suspicion.
In the next part of the answer, I will try to explain in brief three types or models of State in the
capitalist society outlined by Marx on the basis of relative autonomy of the state. Some of the
critique of his conception of state shall also be discussed as part of the conclusion.

Three Types or model of States in Capitalist Society:

1. the “Instrumental” model: State having no autonomy:
Above description of the state was one in which it had no autonomy. The dominant
class fully controls it. State merely becomes organised force to suppress any
rebellion of the working class against the capitalist class, to maintain the prevailing
order and economic arrangements. Thus, state becomes mere puppet in the hands
of the capitalist class. State becomes an instrument to promote the long-term
interests of the bourgeoisie as a whole.
Marx is usually said to endorse the instrumental account of the state in
the Communist Manifesto, where he and Engels insist that “the executive of the
modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole
bourgeoisie”
2. The “Class Balance” model: State has autonomy to act in its own interest:
In exceptional situations where the social power of the two opposing classes -
capitalists and workers—are very nearly balanced, the political state can gain
independence from both, exploiting class conflict in order to promote its own
interests
The state now competes with capitalists and proletarians (and is not merely the tool
of the capitalist class), and by promising each of the classes to protect it against the
other, the government/state can rule independently. Thus, state gains autonomy
under this model.
Marx called such state as Bonapartist state, in the name of absolute state established
by Napoleon III after the failed French revolution of 1848. Such state becomes
absolute and authoritarian.
3. the “Abdication” model:
In this model, the capitalist class (Bourgeois), in their economic interests, stay away from
the direct exercise of political power. Thus, they are willingly abdicating, that is, leaving
the direct control of politics and state. Instead, they play an indirect role.
Why the capitalist class abstain from directly controlling the state and politics? Marx’s
reply is to protect their economic interest. In his words “in order to save its purse, the
bourgeoisie must forfeit the crown”.
This situation may arise when the capitalist class feels that it is too costly or too risky to
indulge directly into the politics. Then, the bourgeoisie abdicate or withdraw from direct
political rule in order to avoid the troubles and dangers of ruling.

Marx views that the state in the ‘abdication model’ is independent of direct capitalist
control, but its main structures and policies are ultimately guided by the interests of the
capitalist class.
Discussion and conclusion:

Marx held a very negative and pessimistic view of the political state in capitalist society.
For him, the politics, including the state, is merely a part of the societal superstructure
which is formed as per the economic base or mode of production. And, therefore, the entire
superstructure works to maintain and promote the interest of the class who dominate the
prevailing mode of production. Since the mode of production in capitalist society is
dominated by the capitalist class, the superstructure, including the state, acts as an
instrument to promote the interests of the capitalist class.
But such critical views of Marx about the state is criticized by many subsequent thinkers.
Marx could not foresee the welfare state which ensures the interest of all segment of
society. He also could not visualise the power of democratic state in modern times. The
liberal democratic state is functioning with adequate autonomy in the interest of entire
society/nation. This is very different from Marx's account of the capitalist state.
His alternative to the political state was not clear. He talked about a transitional phase in
which state will exist under the ‘dictatorship of proletariat’. But the role, functions, and
structure of such state was not clear. The socialist state coming up after the Russian
Revolution were totalitarian state, not one which could ensure human emancipation.
In sum, Marx was successful in dissecting the contradictions and limitations of the
capitalist state but was not successful in providing concrete views about the alternate
political structure consistent with his vision of human emancipation. This may be one
factor why the socialist state could not become a role model for modern state in
contemporary times. Ultimately, the liberal democratic state is gaining more and more
ground in contemporary world.
Q.4: Critically analyse Marx’s conception of Freedom.
Introduction:
In his own way, Karl Marx was the champion of human freedom. His entire political
philosophy was aimed to achieve freedom of individual in social arrangement in which
social production bind society together and liberate the individual. This in his view was
essence of human emancipation, that is, true freedom. To him, human emancipation can be

achieved in social production in which each individual contributes freely as per his ability
without any compulsion, constrain, coercion and is able to relate to fellow man as equal.
Marx finds human emancipation in the arena of economic structure or base of the society.
To him, political freedom in the arena of superstructure is neither possible nor meaningful
without freedom in the social production process, that is, the mode of production which he
called the ‘Base’ of the society. In nutshell, freedom in social production will bring political
freedom.
In many ways, such conception of freedom by Marx was very innovative and novel in
comparison to prevailing notions of Liberty in the liberal doctrine. He created a conceptual
dualism between political freedom and human freedom. He located the human freedom or
emancipation in freedom in material condition of life. To him, the liberty or freedom in
liberalism is a façade (disguise) or false freedom because liberalism promise to grant
political freedom by way of equality, liberty, and right in political arena but continue to
sustain oppressive, exploitative, unjust and in-equal arena of civil society represented by
market, marriage, family, and associated social arrangements. True freedom can only be
achieved by eliminating the duality between politics and civil society. This is possible in
the stateless and classless society. This was a very different way to conceptualize the notion
of freedom.
In the next section of the answer, I will try to outline some of the characteristic features of Marx's
conception of freedom. I will also attempt to discuss, as part of the conclusion, some of the critique
of his idea of freedom.
Features of Marx’s idea of Freedom:

• Political vs Human emancipation:
• To him, Politics/state is part of superstructure, which is created to work for the
interest of the dominant class in the economic structure (the base/foundation) of the
society. Hence, political freedom in the arena of superstructure is meaningless, as
it would be false and meaningless freedom.
• Human emancipation can be achieved only by changing the economic base-mode of
production, to bring such social production in which each individual contributes freely as
per his ability, without any compulsion, constrain, coercion and relate to fellow man as
equal.
• Such emancipatory social production will have its own supporting superstructure- politics,
law, art, culture, idea- which will further enhance human freedom
• Root of human freedom lies in the material condition of life. Just and equal social
production is the key to human freedom.

• Different from notion of freedom in liberal doctrine: In liberalism, liberty in political life
but subjugation, exploitation in private domain- market and civil society. True freedom is
one which makes human spirit free in all domains.
• Working class are the agent of universal human emancipation. Through social revolution
led by the working class, new social arrangement will come which will achieve human
emancipation for all classes.
• True freedom will be based on Fraternity (each one relates to other as equal) and social
Solidarity (individual contribute in social production as per his ability). Free development
of each is the condition of the free development of all.
• Freedom is regaining human essence of social creativity, that is, man contributing in social
production to realise essence of being human, act of self-realization. Following famous
quote of Marx illustrate his idea of freedom:
• “it will be possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in
the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner,
doing just that which gives me pleasure without ever becoming a hunter, fisherman,
shepherd or critic. This will be the real state of freedom for man from alienation
and exploitation”
• Marx’s freedom is not limited to individual liberty and autonomy. Rather freedom is
achieved only by contributing meaningfully in social production process. Thus, human
emancipation denote freedom of all in association. This is the essence of fraternity and
solidarity.
• His freedom is for all class, all sexes, all divisions in society. Thus, freedom of women in
marriage, family, and civil society is also part of the human freedom.
• True human freedom is possible only when duality of political and civil society is
eliminated. For this, the society should be classless, and stateless.

No doubt Marx’s view on Freedom was very innovative and different from the prevailing
notion of freedom in liberal doctrine. Despite this, he has been criticized on many counts
for his conception of human freedom. Karl Popper in his ‘Open society and its enemy’
criticised Marx’s conception of freedom for having totalitarian tendencies and undermining
individual autonomy. His freedom subordinate individual interest to those of the society.
Isiah Berlin, another liberal thinker, has criticised his conception of freedom as
superimposing his way of societal Good and universal value. To Berlin, liberty means
freedom to live life as per one’s own conception of good life and coexistence of multiple
values in society (pluralism).

The way his conception of freedom was understood and implemented in the communist
state after the communist revolution in Russia also made his idea of freedom controversial.
The communist state in the name of human freedom interfered in in almost all aspects of
individual’s life. This was manifested in form of totalitarian state, which actually stifled
(reduced, muted) the individual liberty without any matching increase in overall societal
freedom or emancipation.
Another criticism of Marx’s conception of freedom is that he focused too much on
economic structure. To him, the true freedom means freedom of a worker in the social
production process. This was charged as economic determinism. Marx undermined many
other aspects and sources of liberty, especially the socio-cultural aspects.
Despite all this criticism, Marx’s conception of freedom was entirely different, innovative,
and novel way to conceptualize freedom and it had a profound impact on the discourse of
liberty and freedom in subsequent periods in all parts of world.
Q.5: Discuss Marxist theory of Revolution

Introduction:
In Marx’s view, history progresses through changes in successive mode of production at
higher level. Event of change from one mode of production to other is like social
revolution. For example, feudal society progressed to capitalist society by change in mode
of production. This was like a social revolution brought in by capitalist forces.
The change in mode of production comes through dialectical process. Contradictory
elements in the existing mode of production, at some point of time, reach to such a point
that the existing relations of production becomes a barrier in the further development in the
forces of production. And at that point of time, through a social revolution, the mode of
production is changed to bring back the forces and relation of production in harmony.
Once the mode of production, that is, the economic ‘base’ of the society changes, the entire
superstructure- state, civil society, law, politics, culture –are rapidly changed to support the
new mode of production. Thus, the changes in mode of production change the entire social
arrangements.
Marx predicted that capitalist mode of production shall be changed to socialist mode of
production and socialist/communist social order through a social revolution. However, this
revolution would be different from previous ones. This is because in previous changes, the
class which was the harbinger of change and led the social revolution was economically
and politically strong class. They were in numerical minority who were on rise. For

example, feudalism gave way to capitalism because the rising bourgeois class which was
economically strong class but numerically in minority. Whereas the social Revolution to
change the capitalist mode of production will be led by the working class who are in
numerical majority but economically and politically much weaker than the capitalist class.
Hence this revolution maybe violent as capitalist class may forcefully resist the change.
To Marx, the aim of the social revolution is human emancipation, which is not possible in
the existing capitalist mode of production. Though the revolution would be led by the
proletariats, but it would bring emancipation to all classes, including the capitalist class.
In the next section of the answer, I will try to outline some of the characteristic features of Marx's
conception of revolution. I will also attempt to discuss, as part of the conclusion, some of the
critique of his idea of revolution.
Features of Marx’s idea of revolution:

• First time in history, the revolution shall be led by majority but poor class. All previous
revolutions were led by the minority but well off classes.
• This would be final revolution as it will eliminate the class antagonism in society.
• Aim of the revolution is human emancipation. The revolution will lead to stateless, class-
less society, in which human essence of social creativity/production shall be regained. In
the socialist mode of production and socialist/communist society everyone will contribute
as per his ability and will receive as per his need.
• Revolution is not an option but necessary for human emancipation. Modification and
improvement in the capitalist system are not possible. It can only be replaced by a new
system. Hence, revolution is not an option but a necessity.
• This revolution would be brought in by the proletariat class. But through this social
Revolution, not only the working class but also the entire humanity including the capitalist
class would be emancipated.
• The social revolution is a natural dielectric process. The existing capitalist mode of
production has inbuilt contradictions.
o The existing capitalist mode of production has inbuilt contradictory elements in
the forms of forces and relation of production. When this contradiction become
unsustainable than revolution will take place to change the mode of production
which will remove the contradiction between forces and relations of production.
o Hence, the revolution only indicates progression and development through
dialectical process.

• Outcome of the revolution would be a transitional period in which through dictatorship of

proletariat ground will be prepared for classless and stateless social order.

In sum, Marx’s theory of revolution is an extension to his historical dialectical materialism.
To him, the society and history progress through changes in modes of production through
a dialectical process. Changes in mode of production in turn changes the associated
superstructure (social arrangements), that is, law, politics, civil society, art & Culture,
Ideas, etc. He predicted that the capitalist mode of production because of its inherent
contradictions between the forces and relations of production will be overturned by a new
socialist mode of production. This will happen through a social revolution led by the
working class. The ultimate aim of this social revolution would be human emancipation.
To him, human emancipation means having a social production process in which each one
contributes as per his ability and receive as per his need. Also, each one relates to other
man as equal. Thus, human emancipation is consistent with fraternity and social solidarity.
Marx claimed that his laws of history and prediction of social change by revolution are
scientific. Despite this, his theory of revolution has been criticized on many counts. First
Karl Popper in his book ‘Open Society and Its Enemies’ has questioned narrating the entire
history and predicting future through a single grand theory by Marx. To Popper, Marx's
theory of revolution like his other theories are like ideologies. They are not scientific as
they cannot be falsified.
His prediction of change of capitalist society into a socialist society through revolution
proved almost wrong. As per his prediction the communist revolution should have been
happened first in the developed capitalist nations of western Europe. In reality, the
communist revolution happened in industrially backward Russia. Also, instead of workers
leading the revolution in Russian revolution, it was the peasant commune which were at
the forefront of the revolution.
The outcome of Communist revolution was not one what Marx predicted. Instead of
Human emancipation, it gave oppressive totalitarian state. Marx is also criticized for his
inability to foresee the resilience and scope of improvement in the capitalist system.
Against his assertion that capitalist system cannot be improved towards betterment, in
reality, many of the shortcomings of the 19th Century capitalism have been rectified in the
contemporary liberal capitalism. In fact, Marx's claim that only through revolution and not
through gradual change the human freedom can be achieved also proved almost wrong.
Social democracy, Fabian socialism, and liberal democracy with welfare state, all these
have provided liberty, equality, and rights to individual to a great extent within the
overarching framework of the capitalist system.

Despite such shortcomings, Marx's idea of social change through revolution was very
original and radical idea of his time. To his credit his idea of revolution was one actually
realized on ground. It was another matter that imperfect outcome of those revolutions
somewhat took the shine off Marx’s theory of revolution.

THEME 6: ALEXANDRA KOLLONTAI
6.A: CBCS Syllabus

Alexandra Kollontai:
• Winged and wingless Eros
• Proletarian woman
• Socialization of housework
• Disagreement with Lenin
6. B: Key points:
Brief Life Sketch:

• Was born in 1872, as Alexandra Mikhailovna Domontovich at Saint Petersburg, Russia
in a aristocratic but liberal landowning family.
• Her father was army general; mother belonged to landowning class of Finland.
• Education: good education in history, politics, economics. Knew Russian, English,
German, French, Finnish, and many other languages
• Was Influenced by the political thoughts of Marx, Engels and August Bebel ( German
socialist thinker)
• In 1993 married Vladimir Kollontai, her cousin. 1998, left him and later on married
Pavel Dybenko, a fellow Bolshevik revolutionary and military officer. But she kept
her title ‘Kollontai’.
• Her working life can be divided into 3 parts: Revolutionary phase, Political Career,
Diplomatic career.
• Revolutionary phase: 1899-1917
• 1899: returned Russia, joined Russian Social Democratic Labour Labour Party
(RSDLP);
• 1906: joined Menshevik faction of RSDLP

• 1908: exiled to Germany, 1915: she broke with the Mensheviks and joined the
Bolsheviks
• 1917: returned to Russia, had a short but very influential political career in
Soviet Govt.
• Political Career: 1917-21
• 1917: Central Committee member of Bolshevik party- the Communist Party
• 1917-18 Commissar (minister) of social welfare in the 1st communist Govt.
• 1920: director of Zhenotdel- women’s department of the Communist Party
• Political outcast, Diplomatic career: 1922-45
• 1922: sent on diplomatic ‘exile’ after falling out with Lenin on many issues
• 1925-26: briefly returned to Russia in 1925-26 to oppose new marriage code
• From 1923 to 1945 served as diplomat and ambassador to Norway, Mexico,
Sweden; died in 1952
• Books:
• ‘Social bases of women's question’; ‘Sexual relation and the class
struggle’;
• The family and the Communist State,
• Free Love; A Great Love; Love of the Worker’s Bee
• The Autobiography of a Sexually Emancipated Communist Woman.
Main themes of her Marxist Feminism:

• Class dimension to Feminism: Not men, but class structure and private property is
the main culprit for Women’s misery
• Working class women share more of her problems with working class men than the
Bourgeoise feminism
• Opposed Bourgeoise or liberal Feminism, as to her, they were fighting for political
rights(voting) and socio-economic rights within the capitalist social order.
• Doubted liberal feminist would raise issues of working-class women once their
limited purpose of getting equality within the capitalist social order is achieved
• Working class women fighting both against class exploitation (with male) in public
domain and inequal rights (against men) in private domains.

• She believed that there can be no socialism without women’s liberation and no
women’s liberation without socialism.
• Her Solution for women’s liberation:
• Socialization or collectivization of Motherhood, Child rearing, and
household duties;
• Phycological and emotional freedom to women- not dependent of marriage,
family, husband for emotional and economic support.
Her thought about the Proletarian Women:

• Triple burden of working-class/ proletarian women as worker, housewife, and
mother
• Issues and problems of proletarian women are different from those of the Bourgeois
women
• For proletarian women, men are not the main culprit, rather they are the fellow
comrade in the class struggle. For proletarian women, the capitalist class structure
and private property are the main evils for their miseries.
• Proletarian women shall get true liberation only in the communist society. They
will get economic independence, state would take care of problems of motherhood,
child rearing, and household chores. They will also get emotional freedom from the
bondage of marriage & family structured(built/constructed) on capitalist ideology.
Socialization of housework:
• Socialization or collectivization of Motherhood, Child rearing, and household
duties:
• State/society should take care of the pregnant women, provide maternity
relief, and provide for public facilities for household chores- communal
facilities for cooking, dining, laundry, maternity, child care!
• In essence she advocated collectivisation or nationalisation of nucleus
family. In the communist society the family will lose its significance. This
would set women free. Proletarian women would be free from the bondage
of marriage, economic & emotional support of Husband, and burden of
domestic jobs.
Her Conception of Winged & Wingless Eros:
It was historical psycho-sociological analysis of love relationship.
• Winged Eros

• Multi-faceted, multi-dimensional love relationship between two person who

respect (adore) each other
• Spiritual love, love which require and generate emotional energy
• Wingless Eros
• Unadorned (plain) physical relationship for sensual pleasure
• Physical Love, which does not require and generate emotional energy
• Her vision was directing the emotional energy of Winged Eros away from couples
(male-female relation) towards multi-faceted and multi-dimensional love- relationships
among the members of the communist society so as to develop Love-comradeship;
this would strengthen the community/collective.
• It would also give the women emotional and psychological freedom. They would not
depend on her husband and family for emotional support.

6. C: ANSWER TEMPLATES TO IMPORTANT QUESTIONS
Q.1: Discuss the Marxist Feminism of Alexandra Kollontai.
Similar Question:
Q: Discuss Alexandra Kollontai’s views on gender equality, highlighting her focus on working
women and critique of liberal feminism.
Answer Template
Introduction:
Alexandra Kollontai was one of the most prominent Marxist feminists in the early days of
Bolshevik revolution in Russia. As a Revolutionary socialist leader, she had a major
contribution in the revolution. She was the only women member in the central committee
of Russian communist party. She became Commissar (minister) of social welfare in the
communist Govt set up after the revolution. She also headed Zhenotdel, the women’s
department in the party. She was also a novelist, political activist, and distinguished
diplomat.
She was deeply influenced by the historical materialism of Karl Marx. Fredrich Engles’
views on origin of family and status of women in capitalist family, and August Beble’s
writing on women's question also influenced her thoughts. Despite being Marxist feminist,
her thought on women's question went much ahead of Marxism and its focus on economic
structure of the society. She analysed deeper psychological and sociological dimensions of
love relationships, marriages, and family to come out with the conclusion that it is equally
important for women is to get psychological and emotional freedom in relationship with
male within or without marriages.
As Marxist feminist, she focussed on problems of proletarian or working-class women.
She clearly differentiated Marxist feminist from the liberal or bourgeois feminism. She
believed that problem of proletarian women is different from bourgeoisie or capitalist class
woman. Root cause of working women's misery is not the male but the class structure, and
private property in the capitalist social order. She criticised liberal feminism by
highlighting the class division between females. To her, unless there is socialism women's
liberation is not possible. In her view the liberal feminist had a limited agenda of getting
political and socio-economic rights in the existing capitalist social order. Whereas the aim
of Marxist feminism is to eliminate the capitalist social order and to establish classless,

property-less society. Female and males are comrades in the class struggle, which is
weakened by liberal feminism.
She strongly believed that socialist society will take care of women's issue. Those would
not be left to the institution of family. Triple burden of working-class women as worker,
housewife, and mother, all can be shared by the socialist state/society. State/society will
take care of women’s motherhood problems and burden of domestic works by socializing
them. Thus, state would take care of pregnant women, and infant and child rearing. There
would be community dining hall, communal kitchen, laundry facilities, nurseries, crèches,
etc. With socialization of these burdens, Institution of family will lose it significance in in
communist society. Working women would be free of the burdens of child rearing, and
domestic chores.
In communist society women will not only economically independent but also free to
develop multi-dimensional love relationships with members of the collectives on equal
terms. For this, she gave her theory of winged and wingless Eros. To her family in capitalist
society is an institution to protect private property and capital. Capitalist family is based
on egoism, possessiveness, and inequality. In the socialist or communist society, such
family will cease to exist. Men and women will enter into true friendship and love-
relationship on perfectly equal terms, mutual respect, and appreciation of each other’s
separate and independent personality and needs. She termed such love relationship as love-
comradeship.
Thus, her Marxist feminism had a vision of complete liberation of women, both economic
independence and psychological and emotional independence. Of course, such views were
utopic and hard to realise. But as commissar of social welfare in the first communist Govt.,
she worked hard to realise her vision and was able to achieve some of them.
In the next section of the answer, I will try to explain in brief the essential features of Alexandra
Kollontai’s Marxist feminism and how it was different from liberal feminism.
Features of Radical Socialist Feminism of Alexandra Kollontai:

She was heavily influenced by Marxism and theory of historical materialism. She viewed women’s
question from the class lens. Following are the features of her Marxist Feminism:
• Class dimension to Feminism: Not men but class structure is the main culprit for
Women’s misery
• Triple burden of working-class women as worker, housewife, and mother
• Working class women share more of her problems with working class men than the
Bourgeoise feminism

• “For the majority of women of the proletariat, equal rights with men would
mean only an equal share in inequality.”( Kollontai)
• Critique of bourgeoise feminism: In her view, they were fighting for political rights
(voting) and socio-economic rights within the capitalist social order.
• Doubted liberal feminist will raise issues of working-class women once
their limited purpose of getting equality within the capital social order is
achieved
• Working class women fighting both against class exploitation (with male) in public
domain and inequal rights (against men) in private domains.
• She believed in the famous statement of Inessa Armand “There can be no socialism
without women’s liberation and no women’s liberation without socialism”
• Her Solution:
• Socialization or collectivization of Motherhood, Child rearing, and household
duties; state/society taking care of these burden’s of domestic chores.
• Phycological and emotional freedom to women- not dependent of marriage,
family, husband
Vision of Women’s getting Workplace Rights, and freedom from burdens of Motherhood,
child rearing, and Domestic Works
• Not only perfect equality at workplace but also special facilities for women workers
• no night shift, less surveillance, rest periods, rest rooms, maternity relief, crèche,
communal canteen
• Public facility to lessen Domestic chores
• State providing communal housing, public laundry, canteen, communal kitchen,
crèche, nurseries, etc
• As ‘commissar of social welfare’ she did a lot in this respect:
• Single women were given equal facility as married woman. Divorce and Abortion
rights, homosexuality was de-criminalized, protection to children out of marriage,
etc.
• The state had the responsibility to set up crèches, milk kitchens, Maternity
provisions at workplace, consultation centers for pregnant women
• Motherhood:
• Marriage and sex were personal affairs; but motherhood was a social concern

• State/community should take care of proper welfare of prospective mothers and

child rearing
• Separated child bearing from child rearing: not necessary that mother only should
rear the child
• Liberating women from marriage, family, domestic chores:
• No domestic bondage, no burden of child rearing, no fear of being left out and
separated from children, no dependence on husband- Society/state will take care of
women’s issue
• Socialization of maternity & child care, collectivising domestic burden; actually
collectivisation or nationalisation of nucleus family- communal facilities for eating,
laundry, maternity, child care!
• Vision of women’s obtaining psychological and emotional freedom:
• Monogamous marriage is feature of capitalist society. It is egoistic, inequal, and
possessive - wife as male’s property
• Bourgeoise ‘Marriage-love’ is hypocrisy- sham (false, bogus)
• Women should have psychological freedom to develop mutually respectful and equal
relationship with all members of the collective
• Women should be free from relations based on economic considerations/calculations
• Relationship between men & women should have 3 conditions
1. Equality : an end to masculine egoism and the slavish suppression of the female
personality
2. Mutual recognition of the rights of the other, of the fact that one does not own
the heart and soul of the other
3. Comradely sensitivity, the ability to listen and understand the inner feelings of
the loved person
• Men-women love relationship is subordinate to the more powerful emotion of love-
duty to the collective - Love-comradeship
1. “Bourgeois morality demanded all for the loved one. The morality of the
proletariat demands all for the collective.”(Kollontai)

Difference between Kollontai’s Feminism and Liberal Feminism:
Basis of Kollontai’s Feminism Liberal Feminism

difference
Political Marxism Liberalism

Ideology
Notion of Not required Very important institution

family
State’s role State should take care of women’s State has limited role in private
burden of motherhood, and domestic affairs of family
chores
Demand Complete liberation of women- both Voting rights, socio-economic

economic Independence as well as equality with men
psychological and emotional freedom.
Love- women should be free to develop Love should be confined

relationship multifaceted and multi-dimensional love between married couple. Love
relationship with members of the outside marriage is sin.
collective on equal terms both within and
outside marriages.
Domestic Socialisation of domestic work. Men and women both should

jobs and State/society should provide communal share the domestic work. But
women’s kitchens, laundry, cleaning, nurseries, women have a natural role in
role crèche, etc household management
Motherhood Not a private but social affair. State Motherhood is sacred and
should take care of burdens of natural function of women.
motherhood and child rearing Family should take care of the
burdens of motherhood and
child rearing.

Private vs Personal is political Separation of private and

public public domain.
Conclusion:
Definitely Kollontai had a very radical thoughts about out women’s problem and feminism.
She was deeply influenced by Marxism and held a vision of a class-less, property-less,
communist society. To her, issues and problems of working-class women cannot be solved
by the liberal feminists who only struggled for limited rights in capitalist social order. True
liberation of women, especially working-class woman, will only the possible when
capitalist order social order is replaced by a communist society.
She visualized that working women had 3 basic problems. First, problem of bearing
children and rearing them; second, performing household jobs which are unending and
unremunerative, and third, inequality and problems at their workplaces. Her solutions to
these three problems were a perfect communist state/society. She imagined that in
communist state there will be perfect equality between male and female workers. Not only
equality, but women workers will be provided with special facilities at workplace to take
care of their special needs, such as, maternity relief, crèche, communal canteen, milk
kitchens, etc.
She advocated that all the domestic household jobs should be socialized or nationalized,
that is, the state should take care of cooking, cleaning, mending, and washing by building
public facilities for them. State should also take care of pregnant woman and infant & child
rearing. Her logic was that since women by bearing child is providing labour to the
communist society, it is the moral responsibility of the society/ state to take care of the
burden of motherhood and child rearing. She hoped that by these measures, the working
women would be free of the burdens of motherhood, domestic care, and problems at
workplace.
But she did not stop here. She went much ahead of it to search for psychological and
emotional liberation of women in relationships and marriages. To her, women should be
free to develop multifaceted and multi-dimensional love relationship with members of the
collective on equal terms both within and outside marriages. Of course, this proposal of
her became very controversial. Many criticized her to promote free sex and immorality.
There can be debate on this but there was no doubt that her thoughts were very radical,
much ahead of her times. Through her brand of feminism, Kollontai gave the vision of
complete freedom to women, especially working-class women, both economic
Independence as well as psychological and emotional freedom.

Q.2: Write a short note on Kollontai’s conception of winged and wingless Eros.
Answer Template:
Conception of winged ad wingless Eros was very radical views on love-relationships

by Kollontai. It was an historical analysis of love as a socio-psychological factor in
successive human societies. To her, each society has its own conception of love and
love-relationship, which provide stability and progress to that society. For example,
in tribal societies love was seen as a kinship attachment (love between sisters and
brothers, love for parents). Whereas in pre-Christian ancient societies in Europe,
love-friendship was placed above all other kinds of love-relationships. This way she
went on analysing the conception of love in feudal and capitalist societies. On the
basis of her historical analysis of love-relationship she proposed her conception of
love and love-relationship most suited to the proletarian society. She termed it love-
comradeship.
In the next part of the note, I will explain in brief her historical analysis of love-
relationship and conception of love-comradeship. But here it would be useful to
understand her purpose behind such analysis and conception of winged and wingless
eros. It had two purposes.
First was to provide psychological and emotional freedom to proletarian women in
relationship with male partners and second purpose was to use the emotional energy of
love to generate social solidarity among the equal members of the proletarian( communist)
society.
Kollontai explained her conception of winged and wingless Eros in in a piece of article
published in 1923 which was titled “make way for winged Eros: a letter to working youth”.
In this article she explained love at the socio psychological factor. To her, love is an
emotion that unites and is, therefore, has an organising character.
She defined winged Eros as multifaceted, multi-dimensional love relationship between two
persons who respect and adore ( great admiration) each other. Whereas wingless Eros is
plain or Bland physical relationship for or sensual pleasure. Winged Eros involve a great
amount of emotional energy which is not present in wingless Eros. Her aim was to redirect
the emotional energy of winged Eros from relationship between couples to multi-
dimensional relationships between equal members of the communist society. She called it

love-comradeship. Love-comradeship involved the recognition of the rights and integrity

of other’s personality, solid mutual support, sensitive sympathy, and responsiveness to
other’s need. She advocated that the love relationship based on winged Eros (which
involves emotional life energy) should not be confined only to relationship with chosen
one (like husband-wife) but in relation to all members of the collective/community.
Before further discussing her conception of Love-comradeship based on life energy of
winged eros, let us discuss her historical analysis of love-relationships and their relation
with stability and progress of those societies.
Historical and Class Account of Winged and Wingless Eros:
• Tribal Society:
• love was seen as a kinship attachment (love between sisters and brothers,
love for parents). Love relationship between wife-husband was placed much
below the kinship love.
• Such conception of love helped in stability and progress of tribal society
which was based on kinship ties.
• The Ancient Society (pre-Christian period in Europe)
• Placed love-friendship above all else.
• Ancient society was communitarian; one required help of friends. Hence
love-friendship helped social stability and progress.
• Feudal Society:
• Love in marriage- wingless Eros, that is, plain physical relationship for
biological needs.
• Idealized platonic love between members of the opposite sex outside
marriage- Winged Eros; example: Knight and his lady love
• Such imaginary or platonic love helped the feudal class men to achieve
impossible tasks. Hence, such platonic love was cherished and promoted.
• Capitalist Society:
• Mixed winged & wingless eros into marriage-love
• monogamous marital love helped to solve the problems of atomistic society,
inner loneliness of individualism, have stable family, protect capital, clear
inheritance, etc

• Thus, marriage-love is very important for stability and progress of the

capitalist society. It keeps the nucleus family intact and protect the capital
of the family.
• But capitalist family is egoistic, inequal, and possessive - wife as male’s
property. It is all consuming and exclusive. Wives are supposed to giver her
everything to the husband, but the same is not applicable on the husbands,
On the basis of her historical analysis of love relationships, she proposed ideal love-
relationship for the proletarian society. She called it Love-comradeship. Essential
features of which are as below:
Winged Eros in Communist Social Order:

• Love-comradeship
• The ideal of love-comradeship – multi faceted love relationship among
equal members of the collective.
• Involves the recognition of the rights and integrity of the other’s personality,
a solid mutual support and sensitive sympathy, and responsiveness to the
other’s needs.
• The aim of proletarian ideology is that men and women should develop these
qualities not only in relation to the chosen one but in relation to all the members of
the collective.
• The proletarian class is not concerned as to which shades and nuances (finer
varieties) of feeling predominate in winged Eros.
• The many threads bringing men and women into close emotional and intellectual
contact will develop and feelings will emerge from the private into the public
sphere.
• love-solidarity will become the lever for development of proletarian community as
competition and self-love were in the bourgeois system.
• Reformed winged eros in proletarian society will eliminate(remove) male egoism,
inequality, possessiveness, complacency of male partner, and self-renunciation of
the woman.
• The only stipulation is that these emotions facilitate the development and
strengthening of comradeship and social-solidarity.
• In a nutshell, directing the emotional energy of Winged Eros away from couples
towards strengthening the community/collective.

Kollontai believed that her above conception of Love-comradeship based on reformed

winged Eros would solve both the problems of women’s liberation and social-solidarity. It
would have given psychological and emotional freedom to women in relationship with
man. Since women could develop multifaceted love relationship with members of the
collective, she was not dependent all on all-consuming, possessive, and inequal
relationship with her chosen partner. The emotional energy of the reformed winged Eros
would have also provided social solidarity in the form of Love-comradeship to strengthen
the communist/proletarian society. Love-comradeship would work as a liver for progress
and development of the proletarian society.
We should appreciate that she was advocating a different morality on the issue of love
relationship and marriages. It was very radical idea, much ahead of her times. It was like
socialization of love relationships. Naturally, it would have broken the marriages and
family. But for Kollontai breaking the marriage and family was required to liberate women
from the subjection and domination of men, because to her the marriage and family were
the prime sites for women’s exploitations. Also, she believed that in the communist society
family will wither away (will lose its role) as state/society would take care of motherhood,
child rearing, and domestic jobs of cleaning, washing, cooking, mending.
Naturally, her conception of winged and wingless Eros generated shock and criticism.
Many termed it as her advocacy for free sex, and spreading immorality in the communist
society. in fact, her ideas on love, sexual relations, marriages, and family became the main
reason for her elimination from the Marxist history. She was forgotten as a great socialist
revolutionary leader who contributed significantly with Lenin in October revolution. She
paid a heavy price for having a very unconventional and radical views on love relationships
through her conception of winged and wingless Eros.
Q.3: Write a short note on Alexandra Kollontai’s main disagreements with

Lenin.
Answer Template:
Alexandra Kollontai shared a hot and cold relationship with Lenin. During the
communist revolution in October 1917, she was one of the strongest supporters and
confident of Lenin. Before the revolution, she was the only supporter of Lenin in
the party on his ‘April Thesis’ which proposed not working with the provisional
Govt, and early revolution. During his exile in Switzerland, Lenin, in 1917 sent 4
letters, ‘Letters from Afar’, to Kollontai, to be published in ‘Pravada’. She was the
only woman member in the central committee of the Bolshevik party. Lenin made

her People’s Commissar (minister) of social welfare. On her suggestion, Lenin

agreed to open women’s department in the communist party called Zhenotdel. In
1920 she became director of Zhenotdel. This was the peak of her political career.
Before this, she had a long relation with Lenin as fellow comrade in the socialist
revolutionary movement. Kollontai started her political career by joining Russian
Social Democratic Labour Labour Party (RSDLP) in 1899. In 1906 after the
revolution of 1905, the RSDLP was divided into two factions- Menshevik and
Bolshevik. She first sided with Menshevik. But only because of Lenin and his
support for women’s question she joined Bolshevik in 1915.
In fact, since beginning she had to fight with the powers in the RSDLP on putting
women's question at the centre stage of the socialist revolution. For the party,
feminism, by creating conflict between men and women, would have weekend the
struggle of the working class against the capitalist social order. Thus, in the view
of the Communist Party, feminism would weaken the class struggle. Therefore,
Kollontai got little support from the party in her efforts to highlight women's
question during the socialist revolution. But in Lenin she got a big support for her
views on women's question. Lenin agreed to her views that without including
women’s issue true socialist revolution would not be possible. Lenin gave a free
hand to Kollontai to frame women’s issues and formulate program to improve upon
the condition of working women under the new communist regime after the
revolution. As first Commissar of social welfare, Kollontai could do many things
for improving the conditions of working women. During her tenure, the communist
state had the responsibility to set up crèches, milk kitchens, maternity provisions at
workplace, consultation centres for pregnant women. She also started communal
dining halls, public laundry facilities, nurseries, and other arrangements for child
care.
But by 1921 she was standing against Lenin on many issues. First issue for
difference was the New Economic Policy-1921, which, she believed, diluted
socialist agenda, disillusioned workers, favoured peasants, promoted private
property, and petty Bourgeois. She also questioned dilution in socialist commitment
to socialize the of household duties. She felt that Lenin’s commitment towards
women’s question is weakening. Other issues on which she differed with Lenin
were lack of inner-party democracy, control of the economy by trade unions and
more left oriented economic policies. Before al these, she also differed with Lenin
on the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk-1918, which in her view was very harsh and
humiliating treaty for the communist Russia.
However, her main disagreement with Lenin was on dilution in Party’s
commitment to collective care of household duties and freeing women from
dependence on men.
Worker’s opposition movement in 1921 became another issue for her differences
with Lenin. Worker’s opposition movement was led by trade unions for genuine
control of proletarian state by the workers, right to dissent in the party, and more
intra-party democracy. Kollontai became the movement’s mentor and advocate.
This angered Lenin, who thought that Worker’s opposition movement is
destabilizing the communist Govt in the middle of ongoing civil war post October
revolution.
She also supported the ‘left opposition’- a faction within the Russian Communist
Party, de-facto headed by Leon Trotsky. The Left Opposition opposed New
Economic Policy by contending that it had weakened the Soviet Union by allowing
the private sector to achieve an increasingly important position in the Soviet
economy while the centrally planned, socialized sector of the economy languished
Her association with Worker’s opposition and left opposition directly put her
opposite to Lenin, who believed that a country torn by civil war required less
idealism and more control over from above.
After falling out with Lenin, she narrowly escaped expulsion from the party for
factionalism and later on was sent on Diplomatic ‘Exile’ in 1922. Her active
political career came to an abrupt end.
After Lenin died in 1924 and Stalin rose to power with even more abusive and
authoritarian system of party leadership, she was side-lined from mainstream
communist politics. She was sent on diplomatic mission to Norway in 1923. She
returned to Moscow in 1925-26 to agitate against repressive changes in marriage
laws. But she was questioned for her role in ‘workers opposition’ as part of Stalin's
purge (remove/clean) movement of the old Bolshevik leaders. Luckily for her she
escaped from a full trial and possible death but her life as a central figure in Soviet
politics was over.
Thus, her differences with Lenin cost her the very successful political career. Not
only that, she was virtually wiped out from the Marxist history as revolutionary
socialist leader, Marxist feminist, and main leader of the Bolshevik revolution.

SECTION 2
SAMPLE
PAPERS

SAMPLE PAPERS
SET 1
Total 6 questions. Attempt any four questions:
1. Explain the concept of modernity. Assess the achievements and shortcomings of the
Western Modernity project.
(Hint: 1st part straightforward question; refer to answer at page 7; for 2nd part, for achievements
take the points from features of modernity at page 8; for shortcoming, refer to critiques of
modernity discourse under key points at page 6)
2. Critically analyze Rousseau’s theory of General Will, underlining the totalitarian

tendencies inherent in it.
(Hint: In addition to explaining all aspects of general will, highlight how it leads to conception of
divided self- higher and lower, positive freedom, forcing people to be free, and how all these have
totalitarian tendencies, that is, the state/society knows better what is good for its citizen, hence
state can interfere in private life of citizen to help him/her be positively free. In other words,
citizens can be forced to be free! This is what Rousseau suggested in his social contract while
explaining general will. Refer to answer at page 29 )
3. According to Mary Wollstonecraft what were the main factors responsible for women’s
miserable conditions? What were her solutions? Discuss.
(Hint: refer to answer at page 40 and 47; take points from the answers.)
4. Discuss J. S. Mill’s contribution to liberal doctrine, especially his idea on liberty and
revision of classical utilitarianism.
(Hint: refer to answers at page 62 and 77; take points from both the answers)

5. The theory of class-struggle is central to Marxist Philosophy; Discuss.

(Hint: This is a paraphrased question, essentially you need to explain Marx’s theory historical
materialism which is same as his theory of class struggle through which civilization progresses.
refer to answer at page 85)
6. Discuss Alexandra Kollontai’s views on feminism and gender equality. How was it
different from the liberal feminism?
(Hint: refer to answer at page 106)

SAMPLE PAPERS
SET 2
1. Examine the roles of key movements and revolutions which contributed towards shaping
the discourse on modernity in western Europe.
(Hint: straightforward question; refer to answer at page 15)
2. “Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains”; discuss this quote of Rousseau relating
it to his social contract theory.
(Hint: straightforward question; refer to answer at page 35)
3. To improve upon women's conditions Mary Wollstonecraft focussed more on rights and
equality in private domain than legal rights in public domain; discuss
4. Discuss J. S. Mill’s views on representative democracy. Do you think that he was not
comfortable with democracy as rule of majority? Give reasons.
5. Discuss how Karl Marx dissected and pointed out the deficiencies and contradictions of
capitalism.
(Hint: Marx’s entire theorisation revolves around dissecting and revealing exploitative and
contradictory nature of capitalism. To wire the answer to this question explain his theory of
surplus labour value ( how capitalism is a kind of theft), his alienation theory ( how capitalism
alienates worker from his/her product, production process, from his/her fellow workers, and
from himself/herself), class struggle ( how a minority capitalist class act and operate against a
majority working class), how it is unjust, inequal, exploitative, and rob freedom of individuals.
Also add and elaborate the following points:
• Dialectic nature: In built contradiction in the capitalism

• Over production. Products can be purchased by workers only if they get better
pay, but capitalist class, in order to book more profit, gives lowest possible pay.
• This creates contradiction. Low pay to workers- low demand of capitalist
products- lower profit.
• Contradiction of liberal democracy and free market economy

• Liberty and equality in political domain but inequality and exploitation in private
domain- family and civil society.
• Equal treatment to unequal by market: increases inequality
• Separation of political and economic spheres;

• Political sphere- public domain- liberal democracy- equality, liberty, rights
• Economic sphere: market- private domain- inequality, exploitation
• Political and economic exploitation of masses are done by separate institutions
and set of people, unlike in feudal society, in which both exploitations were by
same class.
• Separation of two moments of exploitation; make capitalism inherently unstable)
6. Alexandra Kollontai went much ahead of socio economic and legal equality to women;
she advocated for psychological and emotional freedom to women also. Discuss this
statement in the light of her conception of winged and wingless Eros.

SAMPLE PAPERS
SET 3
1. Critically examine the contribution of enlightenment traditions in the discourse on

modernity in western world.
(Hint: straightforward question; refer to answer at page 11; note whether contribution to modern
political philosophy or discourse on modernity is asked, you need to explain almost the same
points.)
2. How Rousseau’s theory of social contract, especially his conception of general will, inspire
both Democrats and Authoritarians?
(Hint: refer to answer at page 29; note the main question at that page and paraphrased similar
question which is same as this question. You need to highlight how Rousseau’s general will is very
democratic, as it entails decision by discussion, deliberation, and consensus. It is like direct
democracy. People making laws based on general will are self-governing themselves. But on the
other hand, general will denotes dividing individual self into higher and lower self, positive
freedom as actions guided by higher self, and that individuals may be forced to obey the general
will, that is same as being forced to be free. All these features of general will contain seeds of
authoritarianism and totalitarianism.)
3. How Mary Wollstonecraft contributed towards breaking the separation of private and
public in liberal doctrine?
4. Discuss how J. S. Mill can be said to be the champion of minority right?
5. Examine the Marxist theory of freedom and alienation
(Hint: refer to answers at page 89 and 95)
6. discuss the issues which created differences between Kollontai and Lenin; what were the
repercussions of this for Kollontai?

SECTION 3
ANSWER
WRITING TIPS &
TRICKS

Scoring Answer Writing Tips
How to Write Best Answers in Open Book

University Exam?
BA Hons Pol Sc Exam Help
• Yes, one may score better marks by writing strategically. Essay type answers require
different skills than MCQs. Structure (Template), organization, flow, and style matter in
essay types of answers. Here are my Tips:
• OBE require few different strategies than normal memory based exams.

STRATGIES FOR OBE
• Unlike memory-based exam you are allowed access to books, notes, guides.
• Instead of 8 questions, you get only 6 questions; 4 are to be answered
• You need to focus more, as you are appearing from your home.
• Strategies:
1. Do extensive study- don’t leave any theme/topic, as only 6 questions are asked.
2. Questions may be off-beat, different than previous years, as the question setter feels
that you have access to books!
o To tackle off beat question, read them at least 5 times, very slowly, with full
attention. You will find the crux of the question. Then find the similar answers in
this guide or your notes/books. Get some relevant points quickly and build an
answer around those points.
o You should note that off beat questions are good marks fetching! Yes ! Why?
o Because they are tough for all; hence overall quality of answer decreases. If you
have included some good points, as explained above, you will get good marks.
o Another strategy is watching Pol Sc Help videos very carefully, multiple times.
As they are made after an extensive research and cover much more than usual
syllabus, you have better chance of cracking the odd, off beat questions.

OTHER ANSWER WRITING TIPS:
1ST Tip: use the question as answer clue!
Answers are
Attentively read Provide standard
expansion of ideas,
question at least 3 Answers to twisted
issues stated in the
times, yes 3 times! questions
questions
• Answers are hidden in the Questions!
• While framing the question, the examiner is thinking about the answer. Hence, by carefully
and on multiple reading you can visualize the answer hidden in the question.
• And, yes, also read the Hindi translation of the question. Sometime, you may not know
exact meaning of the key word in the question. Hindi translation may give the meaning.
Also, many a times, wording of Hindi question disclose more about the hidden answer.
This is due to translation issue. Take advantage of questions in two languages.

2nd Tips: cleverly organise your answers
Write 1st answer on your best Choose 2nd best topic as last
prepared topic question
Because examiners pay more

Least prepared topics as 2nd attention to your first
and 3rd answers; Why? question, then the last, and
least to middle answers…yes!
• Yes, examiners actually browse through your answer, they don’t read word by word.
• Also, they assess your standard by your 1st answer. 2nd and 3rd answer may not change
your assessment. They assign you marks in range in accordance with the bracketing they
do in the 1st answer.
• Hence, write your best prepared topic as 1st answer. 2nd best as last, why? Because
examiner try to put some attention while browsing your last answer. Make use of his
attention. He may revise the marks bracket he decided while reading your 1st answer.

3rd Tip : Strategic writing?
How many words per

question? No fixed rule- Use standard answer
Normally, 800-1200 words structure (template)
(4-6 pages)
Numbered or bulleted Sprinkle and underline key

points in ‘Body’ phrases
• How many words to write?

• Actually, it shouldn’t matter. But unfortunately, in our country it does matter.
• Average writing speed is 25 words per minute. In a 180 minute (3 hour) exam, one may
write for about 160 minute, leaving 20 minutes for reading paper and organizing thoughts.
Therefore, in 160 minutes, maximum 4000 words can be written. This comes to 1000 words
per question.
• Write in bigger font, maximum 200 words in one page. Use bullets/number and
indenting. Leave good space between paragraph. They consume space.
• Examiners are used to see answers written in a particular template(structure). Follow them.
Carefully observe how I have tried to write in a fixed structure. I have given a standard
structure in next slide.
• Yes, insert standard phrases in your answer, sprinkle (scatter) them across your answer.
Why? Examiners are interested in seeing the key words/phrases in your answer, this help
them quickly browsing your answer. If the found them they assume that rest of your answer
is also okay.

• And finally, repeat key phrases. Yes! You may write the key phrase in Introduction, in
body and in the conclusion. Why? Simple, because examiners are compelled to note the
key phrase/concept in your answer even if he is browsing through the answer. Hence, don’t
hesitate to repeat. It pays.
• Points, bullets or paragraph? No fixed rule! You may choose any one or mix them, even
in same answer. You may also insert tables, and flow chart. These days examiners don’t
mind them.

1618426343755exam Guide MPP 6 Sem Final April 21

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1618426343755exam Guide MPP 6 Sem Final April 21

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1618426343755exam Guide MPP 6 Sem Final April 21

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EXAM GUIDE

POL SC HELP MODERN POLITICAL

• Chapter wise Key points and

• 3 sets of Sample Papers with

• Tips for Writing Essay Type

PLEASE SPARE FEW MINUTES TO READ THIS

Dear students…WELCOME BACK!

All rights reserved @polschelp.in 2 [email protected]

THEME 1: MODERNITY AND ITS DISCOURSES

1.A: CBCS Syllabus

1.B: KEY POINTS:

All rights reserved @polschelp.in 4 [email protected]

• In political philosophy, Modernity implies normative values such as Individualism,

All rights reserved @polschelp.in 5 [email protected]

• Critique of Enlightenment and discourse on modernity:

All rights reserved @polschelp.in 6 [email protected]

1. C: ANSWER TEMPLATE OF PAST YEAR’S AND OTHER

Q.1: Explain the concept of modernity. How was it influenced by the

All rights reserved @polschelp.in 7 [email protected]

The Enlightenment movement helped revolutionary developments in all walks of life-

Characteristic features of modernity:

Following are some of the defining features and elements of Modernity:

All rights reserved @polschelp.in 8 [email protected]

How Enlightenment tradition influenced Modernity?

All rights reserved @polschelp.in 9 [email protected]

Discussion and Conclusion:

All rights reserved @polschelp.in 10 [email protected]

features and phenomena- democratization, multi-culturalism, socio-political equality,

Q2: What was the Enlightenment movement? How it contributed to Modern

All rights reserved @polschelp.in 11 [email protected]

Meaning of enlightenment as given by Immanuel Kant:

All rights reserved @polschelp.in 12 [email protected]

Contribution of Enlightenment traditions to Modern Political Philosophy:

All rights reserved @polschelp.in 13 [email protected]

Discussion and conclusion:

All rights reserved @polschelp.in 14 [email protected]

Q3: Discuss various factors which contributed towards formation of modernity

All rights reserved @polschelp.in 15 [email protected]

All rights reserved @polschelp.in 16 [email protected]

• Protestant reformation movement

All rights reserved @polschelp.in 17 [email protected]

associated with Modernity- individualism, secularism, humanism, focus on reason,

All rights reserved @polschelp.in 18 [email protected]

All rights reserved @polschelp.in 19 [email protected]

THEME 2: JEAN JAQUAS ROUSSEAU

2.A: CBCS Syllabus:

Brief Life sketch:

• Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)- born in Geneva(Switzerland) as son of watchmaker

All rights reserved @polschelp.in 20 [email protected]

Following are the gist of his political thought:

His Theory of social contract:

All rights reserved @polschelp.in 21 [email protected]

• Legislative function, law making, is carried by the community as a whole

• Sovereignty resides in the community, and NOT in the govt/ruler/executive.

Direct democracy in his thoughts:

• His idea of popular sovereignty, community itself making law by following

All rights reserved @polschelp.in 22 [email protected]

Overall impact of his political thoughts:

• Very Influential, but controversial.