IB Prized Writing Sevenoaks School IB Prized Writing 2014 | Page 216

Emma Rixhon - Philosophy To what extent are acts of individual rebellion necessary for social progress? indirectly, as Mill suggests, people are viewed as a collective unit with worth only being  attributed  to  what  they  produce  as  a  whole.  When  people’s  achievements   are  measured  by  their  success  as  a  collective  group  and  not  by  each  individual’s   success,  people’s  self-worth decreases. Some people may work more than others, and rather than receiving more rewards, they receive the same amount as a person who may work much less than them. This leads to motivation decreasing over time and therefore society degrading as a whole. On the other hand, if everybody continually works at the same level and for the same gain, the society may be efficient economically, but there is no possibility of pride or flourishing. The whole community ends up being made up of herd-men who simply follow their duty but have no individual motivation. This may result in a successful society when it comes to productivity and equal rights for all, though in no way can it be said to be one where humans are actually valued. In this case, not only does a communitarian or communist approach to individual acts of rebellion not lead to social progress, it also completely disregards the possibility of any development inspired by an individual mind. Conclusion In determining to what extent acts of individual rebellion are necessary for social progress, it is important to note that there have been acts of individual rebellion at the forefront of each civil rights and independence movement.  Rosa  Parks’  refusal  to  stand up for a white man in a bus is an example of  this,  just  as  Gandhi’s  hunger  strikes  and  Emmeline  Pankhurst’s  suffragette   speeches are. However, these individual acts did not directly result in any progress, rather they provided a foundation to inspire more aware members of the masses to act. Mill valued geniuses as those who would provide the ideas for social improvement, not necessarily as those who would undertake it. Following with this, the individual acts of rebellion were incitements to lead others into action. Parks, Gandhi, Pankhurst, and other figureheads of civil rights movements are the geniuses who inspired the further action and progress that were available to society through its gradual acceptance of their ideas. For this reason, it is undeniable that revolutionary individuals are limited by the society 215 12