The paradox of liberalism
Word Count:460
The article ‘The ruses of Liberty’1 discusses how British liberalism in the 19th
century was intertwined with imperialist expansion and the self-contradictions that
liberalism produced with colonial practices in its actual implementation.
Take Hong Kong as an example. At the national level, the British government,
based on ‘free trade’2, forced the Qing government to cede Hong Kong Island through
the First Opium War. Hong Kong became a base for trade with China. It is mentioned
in the article that the British Foreign Secretary Aberdeen defined this ‘freedom’ as the
expansion of Britain's market for manufactured goods and international trade in
immigrant labour. Then, Aberdeen favoured the decoupling of ‘free trade’ from
political sovereignty. He supported Britain's unfettered authority in treaty ports
including the power to legislate, tax, and police, thus ensuring Britain's actual control
over the colonies. Freedom was limited to the economic sphere and did not rise to the
political sphere so as not to threaten British imperial rule. His view reflects a
pragmatism that essentially applies a double standard to this ‘liberty’ which is British
‘liberty’ and serves the need for imperial control.
The article describes John Stuart Mill as a liberal thinker and apologist for
colonial rule, and the core of his argument is the dialectical combination of ‘liberty’
and ‘colony’ that provided the theoretical underpinning for British imperialism. Mill
argued that there was no contradiction between despotism and liberty, but was different
facets of the same liberal system of governance. Despotic rule over ‘uncivilised’
peoples was necessary to lead them to freedom. However, Mill's views are full of
contradictions. For example, while advocating individual liberty in On Liberty, Mill
defended colonial despotism in Representative Government, claiming that Indians were
‘unprepared to be free.’3 By describing colonial rule as a preparation for ‘freedom’, he
rationalised the dark side of the evils of colonial rule.
The topic of migrant labour reminds me of a film that sparked a debate in China
1
Lisa Lowe, “The Ruses of Liberty,” in The Intimacies of Four Continents (Durham:
Duke University Press, 2015).
2
Lowe, “The Ruses of Liberty,” pp.101-102.
3
Lowe, “The Ruses of Liberty,” pp.111-115.
two months ago because it was about the tragic history of 19th American migrant. Many
people think that migrants moved away from their hometown in search of opportunities
for a better life at that time. In fact, ‘tractable migrant labour’4 was often forced or
tricked into leaving the country for places like the United States and faced to unequal
treatment overseas. ‘Godkin and Chinese Labor’ 5 discusses Nation editor-in-chief
Godkin's ‘flexibile’ position on Chinese labour in the 19th century. Godkin describes
Chinese labourers as ‘debauch our politics by their ignorance and immorality’6. The
author therefore refers to this history and Godkin’s opinion as ‘A paradox in 19th
century liberalism,’ which is almost the same with Mill's idea that the underlying idea
of so-called ‘liberalism’ is still ‘superiority of the Anglo-Saxon type lay the hope of
civilisation.’7
4
Lowe, “The Ruses of Liberty,” p.121.
5
William M. Armstrong, “Godkin and Chinese Labor: A Paradox in 19th Century
Liberalism,” in The American Journal of Economics and Sociology (American
Journal of Economics and Sociology, Inc., 1962), pp. 91-102.
6
Armstrong, “Godkin and Chinese Labor”, p.94.
7
Armstrong, “Godkin and Chinese Labor”, p.102.
Bibliography
Armstrong, William M. “Godkin and Chinese Labor: A Paradox in 19th Century
Liberalism.” The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 21, no. 1
(1962): 91–102. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3484321.
Lowe, Lisa. “The Ruses of Liberty.” Essay. In The Intimacies of Four Continents,
101–33. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 2015.
https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822375647-004.