Arendt exposed ideological conformity, Gramsci revealed cultural capture, and Orwell diagnosed linguistic decay. Now, John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty (1859) offers a moral and philosophical counter to critical social constructivism’s (CSC) hostility toward open inquiry and individual conscience. Mill’s insistence that liberty of thought, speech, and character fuels social and moral progress stands as a principled rebuke to CSC’s attempts to bind individuality to collective dogma. Together, these thinkers—Arendt, Gramsci, Orwell, and Mill—equip us to resist CSC’s illiberal advance.
Mill argues that silencing expression harms not only the speaker but society as a whole, which is deprived of truth’s refinement through open contest (Mill, 1859, Ch. II). Even false opinions, he writes, may contain a kernel of truth; and true ones grow weak without opposition. CSC, meanwhile, appeals by promising equity through collective identity. Yet it treats dissent as a moral failure. Disagreement with DEI orthodoxy or critical race theory is labeled “harmful” or dismissed as “white fragility,” producing what Mill called “the tyranny of the prevailing opinion.” In 2024, University of Washington faculty guidelines equated merely questioning anti-racism initiatives with creating a “hostile environment,” thereby chilling discussion.
CSC’s moral coercion inverts Mill’s epistemic humility—his belief that all ideas deserve scrutiny, no matter how widely accepted. Mandatory DEI trainings, such as a 2024 policy at a major tech firm requiring employees to affirm “lived experience” as a primary form of knowledge, preclude rational dissent. In K–12 education, 2024 California curriculum guidance redefined “authenticity” as alignment with racial or gender identity groups, effectively suppressing individual thought. These tactics substitute ritual affirmation for genuine intellectual contest—exactly what Mill warned against.
Mill’s defense of individuality as a moral ideal—his celebration of “originality” and “nonconformity” (Ch. III)—clashes with CSC’s group-based scripts. By prioritizing identity categories over self-authorship, CSC undermines human flourishing. Mill does not reject social justice, but insists that no ideal justifies silencing dissent. His Enlightenment liberalism calls us to restore a culture of contestation and protect the individual as a source of moral insight.
Where Orwell showed how language is manipulated to close debate, Mill reveals why debate must remain open—because liberty depends on it. This series—Arendt’s pluralism, Gramsci’s cultural strategy, Orwell’s linguistic clarity, and Mill’s defense of liberty—forms a unified resistance to CSC’s totalizing ambitions.
Read Mill. Restore the contest of ideas. Reclaim individuality in classrooms, workplaces, and public life as the cornerstone of a free society.

Three Salient Points for Arguments Against Critical Social Constructivism
- Silencing Dissent Erodes Truth: CSC’s labeling of CRT critiques as “hostile,” as in 2024 campus policies, violates Mill’s warning that suppressing dissent impoverishes collective understanding.
- Moral Coercion Replaces Rational Persuasion: CSC’s mandates—like 2024 DEI affirmations in workplaces—replace Mill’s marketplace of ideas with conformity. Challenging these in policy debates restores reasoned inquiry.
- Individuality Is Suppressed by Group Identity: CSC’s identity scripts, seen in 2024 K–12 curricula, undermine Mill’s ideal of self-authorship. Promoting merit-based and pluralistic policies can counter this trend.
Reference
Mill, J. S. (1859). On Liberty. London: John W. Parker and Son.




6 comments
July 24, 2025 at 6:29 am
tildeb
A timely reminder of why Mill’s position on free speech is essential for supporting liberty here. Without that, we have no other fundamental freedoms.
LikeLiked by 1 person
July 24, 2025 at 1:44 pm
tildeb
From Greg Lukianoff today about AI:
“It’s been clear as far back as Socrates — certainly since John Stuart Mill — that truth doesn’t emerge from consensus, political balance, or ideological triangulation. Rather, it emerges through challenge — the repeated, structured confrontation with error. Science works because it institutionalizes correction. Liberal democracy works because it decentralizes power. Both of these systems are built on the foundational understanding that no single viewpoint is reliable enough to be trusted with a monopoly.” (Source)
This understanding (the core of liberalism) is the antithesis of today’s ‘progressive’, ‘woke’, Marxist/Maoist/Islamic power hierarchy of group identity ideology that is Critical Social Constructivism. Too many people call this ‘liberal’ when it is, in fact, its polar opposite. The malignant ideology has been taught throughout public education for over two decades and now infests law and governance. This is why the West – what used to be liberal democracies – is in managed decline; we’ve set aside the ‘liberal’ part and are left with the democratic core of mob rule by a strongman. This cannot end well.
LikeLike
July 25, 2025 at 9:20 am
The Arbourist
James Lindsay uses the image of holding a baseball bat on the flat of your hand as an image that represents how Liberal Democracy works. Sure, it is wobbly, but since power is not absolute or vested in any particular individual or group the hand cannot grasp the bad and use it to smash others in society. No one has the final say, and everything can be questioned.
I think we have to work on reforming, restoring, and making new institutions and norms that promote non-violent conflict resolution. I’m still puzzling out how that is going to work, but I know it cannot be like the absurd reconciliation bureaucracies we have now.
LikeLike
July 25, 2025 at 9:22 am
The Arbourist
Have you read “Kindly Inquisitors“? It’s and older book but highly related to many of the concerns mentioned in this post and blog series.
LikeLike
July 25, 2025 at 3:19 pm
tildeb
Nope. Thanks for the tip. I have read a bunch of stuff by Rauch over a bunch of years but usually commentary and articles.
LikeLike
November 6, 2025 at 5:02 am
History Hit – Antonio Gramsci and the Architecture of Cultural Power | Dead Wild Roses
[…] Mill’s On Liberty — a defence of intellectual freedom against the new orthodoxy. […]
LikeLike