Commentary on Mill’s “Of Individuality”

Question: If custom does not develop the qualities of a human being then how do we account for the social morality that develops directly from these customs?

 

The outline on “Of Individuality” holds a premise that custom doth not educate and develop the “distinctive” human being (p 56). Therefore the customary imitation is destructive to the development of the individual. Though Mill is critical of imitation in regards to the individual, we must concede that through customary imitation a large portion of our morality is learned and transferred (p 56). Humans being the social animals that we are will inevitably lean towards customary experiential learning especially in regards to social morality. It is the very nature of learning these moral traits that imitation is of necessity. 

Mill emphasizes that the individual’s most important work is the perfection of the self (p 56). However, no person can contain “perfection” as a solitary endeavor. Mill desires to free the prime human specimen of imitation and conformity while under-valuing these social tools that help to maintain a structure that allows one to pursue a “perfection”.  Mill seems to forget that although the human species has no prescribed “model” set for it; its development on the single unit of the individual depends wholly on the collective entity of the mass of which the individual belongs (p 57).

The fact is that Mill, in his pursuit of the individual perfection throws a negative light on the social imitation that is present in all society since time immemorial and is necessary not only for the societies survival but as well for the individual’s development.

However, Mill may agree with this point entirely and say that no doubt the use of custom and imitation in development of the societal whole is a necessary agent. Here, though,
I  believe that he would pause and state that all though custom is a necessary step it has in recent age usurp the rights of the individual and a case must be made to allow the individual to regain some of its authority over itself (p 58). 

The balance between the individual and the masses is a sticky one and it seems that they are in ways opposed and yet this opposition seems needed for social “progress”. I think Mill would agree that a society must allow the freedom of the individual spirit as it is often the calculated and intelligent individual that challenges the social institution and pushes human morality and value beyond a point of which it once knew (p 59).