C. L. Ten (ed.), Mill's On Liberty: A Critical Guide (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 243.

Abstract

Mill's On Liberty: A Critical Guide is a collection of ten essays and a substantial introduction by editor C. L. Ten. It is an early entry into a new series of 'Critical Guides' by Cambridge University Press, though it is unclear in what sense this collection is intended to fulfill its titular purpose. It is not a guide to criticism of Mill's greatest work-in fact, it does not often evaluate or even recount the longstanding debates in Mill scholarship-and it is not really particularly 'critical' in the sense of being a careful evaluation of the enduring puzzles found in On Liberty (OL). Nonetheless, students and scholars of Mill will find much of interest in these pages. The essays can be divided roughly into two groups-the first set addressing concerns arising from the text of OL itself, the second assessing the effectiveness of Mill's arguments in light of recent developments in political thought such as political liberalism, neo-republicanism, and multiculturalism. The first of the former is Henry West's 'Mill's case for liberty', which might, along with Ten's introductory chapter, serve as an instructive analytical guide to Mill's basic argument in OL. West skillfully considers several of the persistent ambiguities in Mill's argument, but the real value here is his insistence on linking Mill's account of liberty to his utilitarian desire to 'increase human happiness and decrease misery' (p. 37). David Brink's entry argues that Mill's defense of liberal rights extends from his defense of free expression. The two arguments against expressive paternalism developed in Chapter II of OL-what Brink calls the 'truth-tracking rationale' and the 'deliberative rationale'-direct the subsequent discussion of free action in Chapter III. The twist here is that the limits on freedom of action reflect back upon the discussion of expressive liberty. If some paternalism is justified with regard to action-here Brink points to Mill's prohibition on selling oneself into slavery (p. 56)-then, by the same logic, paternalism of the 'deliberation-enhancing' variety may be necessary in regards to expression. In 'Racism, blasphemy, and free speech', Jonathan Riley swaps the standard free-speech absolutism reading of OL for one of a 'general policy of laissez-faire' (p. 66) towards expression. According to Riley, Mill cannot and does not hold expression to be purely self-regarding and only therefore protected; rather, expression is best left alone because such an approach increases the general welfare to a greater extent than the opposite course. By this token, 'discussion'-the voluntary exchange of words-is sharply distinguished from presumably involuntary exchanges such as threats. Finally, in 'John Stuart Mill, Ronald Dworkin, and paternalism', Robert Young identifies and confronts four arguments against 'hard' paternalism developed by Mill in OL: first, that individuals typically know their interests better than others (including governments); second, that paternalistic guidelines seldom match up with on-the-ground realities; third, ...

Antecedents of organizational identification: implications for employee performance

“…SIT is the theoretical solid basis for understanding OID, which suggests that individuals describe themselves by using groups and enhance their self-worth by using their social status in the organization (Kramer, 1993). Turner (1982) believes that once an individual is identified in a group, he tends to be committed to that group and produce high-performance standards for achieving the goals and objectives associated with the respective group. Research has revealed that WI is a significant predictor of OID (Pearson & Porath, 2009).…”

What Makes Groups Emotional?

“…Individual emotions are experienced in response to situations that are relevant not only to individuals as separate entities but also to groups, which can be broadly defined as multiple individuals who share a common identity, belief, or goal (Turner, 1982). When emotions are experienced in group contexts, individuals may experience emotions in response to situations that are relevant to their group merely as a result of their perceived group membership (e.g., Americans who are feeling happiness for an American athlete who has just won a gold medal).…”