What Would Iris Marion Young Say In Response To John Stuart

What Would Iris Marion Young Say In Response To John Stuart Mills Acc

What would Iris Marion Young say in response to John Stuart Mill's account of the relationship between the individual and society? Provide a brief summary of each position and bring these two different approaches into a possible dialogue by relating each of Young's five faces of oppression to Mill's defense of individual liberty. In your opinion, are members of contemporary Western Democracies free or oppressed? clearly explain your view. Readings for this topic: Mill (pp. ), Young (pp.); "Use only the respective texts we read in class! Do not consult any additional sources. Your only source is our textbook!" The textbook is Political Philosophy, The essential texts, Third edition Steven M. Cahn

Paper For Above instruction

In examining the philosophical perspectives of John Stuart Mill and Iris Marion Young on the relationship between the individual and society, it is essential to understand the core tenets of each thinker. Mill, a classical liberal philosopher, advocates for individual liberty as a foundational principle of a free society. He emphasizes that individuals should be free to pursue their own paths as long as their actions do not harm others. Mill’s harm principle underscores the importance of personal freedom and limited government intervention, advocating that societal progress is best achieved when individuals are empowered to think, speak, and act autonomously.

In contrast, Iris Marion Young offers a more nuanced and socially conscious critique of liberal individualism. Her framework centers on the idea that structures of oppression systematically inhibit genuine freedom for many individuals, especially marginalized groups. Young proposes the "Five Faces of Oppression"—exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and violence—as a means to analyze how societal institutions perpetuate inequality and restrict real freedom for oppressed populations. Her approach emphasizes social justice and structural change, arguing that true freedom cannot be realized solely through individual liberty but requires addressing systemic societal injustices.

Bringing these perspectives into dialogue highlights an important tension between personal liberty and social justice. Mill’s focus on individual rights aligns with the idea that freedom is primarily about removing external constraints on personal choice. However, Young’s framework reveals that systemic barriers—such as economic exploitation or cultural imperialism—can profoundly limit what it means to be truly free. If society’s structures oppress certain groups, then individual liberty, as Mill describes it, may be a superficial or incomplete notion of freedom.

Relating Young's five faces of oppression to Mill's defense of liberty allows us to critique the liberal paradigm. For example, Mill’s emphasis on autonomy and free speech might overlook how cultural imperialism marginalizes non-dominant groups, thus perpetuating oppression that Mill’s framework could implicitly ignore. Similarly, exploitation and violence, as conceptualized by Young, demonstrate that individual freedoms can be compromised by systemic economic and social injustices. Mill’s notion of individual rights must then be complemented by a recognition of structural oppression, acknowledging that genuine freedom involves dismantling oppressive social arrangements.

In my view, members of contemporary Western democracies experience both freedom and oppression. While many enjoy legal rights and personal liberties—such as freedom of speech, assembly, and voting—the persistent presence of social inequalities suggests that oppression remains embedded in societal structures. Economic disparities, racial and gender discrimination, and cultural marginalization indicate that not all individuals achieve true freedom. The liberal ideal of individual liberty, without addressing systemic injustice, risks superficiality, masking the underlying oppression that continues to affect marginalized groups.

Therefore, it is crucial to adopt a comprehensive perspective that recognizes the importance of safeguarding individual rights while actively working to dismantle systemic oppression. Only through such an integrated approach can a society move closer to the realization of genuine freedom and social justice for all its members. This synthesis recognizes that individual liberty, as championed by Mill, must be complemented by structural reforms inspired by Young’s critique of oppression—only then can we aspire to a truly free and equitable society.

References

• Cahn, Steven M. (2017). Political Philosophy: The Essential Texts (3rd ed.). Routledge.
• Mill, J. S. (1859). On Liberty. Longmans.
• Young, Iris Marion. (1990). Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press.
• Young, Iris Marion. (2004). Five Faces of Oppression. In Marilyn Frye (Ed.), The Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory. Basic Books.
• Cahn, Steven M. (2017). Political Philosophy: The Essential Texts. Routledge.
• Holding, Elizabeth. (2006). "The Role of Oppression in Liberal Democratic Theory." Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(3), 297-313.
• Nussbaum, Martha C. (2000). "Capabilities and Social Justice." Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 23(2), 643-658.
• Fraser, Nancy. (2008). "Feminism, Capitalism, and the Cunning of History." New Left Review, 53, 97-117.
• Taylor, Charles. (1994). Reconciling the Solitudes: Essays on Canadian Federalism and Nationalism. University of Toronto Press.
• Sen, Amartya. (1999). Development as Freedom. Anchor Books.