REPROACHES WITHIN FOUNDATION

Human beings born in different ages, possess distinct characteristics that made them different dictated by the eras they were born. Being raised and influenced by the customs, prevailing thoughts and beliefs commonly result to the unique theme forwarded by the prominent thinkers of a particular era, thus making the era distinct. 16th century marked the beginning of the modern period and lasted until the half of 20 th century. After bequeathing a great contribution to different subject matters, remarkably to political thought, modern period was shadowed by the beginning of another era on the latter part of the 20th century, known as the postmodern period. These two themes greatly vary from each other, especially to their foundation (Pulkkinen, 1997:88). Modernity having the advantage of being primarily perceived, it was characterized as having an emphasis for the search for basis or a core for the subject of the study (Pulkkinen, 1997:88). The scholars under this period are always going to the in-depth study of their focus to provide a new groundwork. On the other hand, the postmodernity was said to be the critic of modernity. They put emphasis not on establishing foundations but on contesting them to find more essence (Pulkkinen, 1997:88). They does not give credit in the core, instead they explore works of others, specifically the works of the scholars under modernity, to arrive or to generate a new concept without establishing any groundwork. Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mil are two of the many scholars that are classified under modernity. These two are known for their adherence to liberty. As he discussed America during his time, Alexis de Tocqueville put emphasis on the sovereignty or democracy that the people of America are experiencing. There are many factors which contributed to the adaption of democracy in America, some of these, as discussed by Tocqueville was their forefathers, influence of religion and its law. He argues in his work that there is an advantage of having a democratic government despite of the criticisms. To support this basis of his, he compares the republic of America to that of France. America having a republican democratic state which gives importance to the equality of its citizens as oppose to the monarchial state of France which only support minimal equality among its citizens just to strengthen their monarch (Tocqueville, 1981: 309 ). Tocqueville bares his own foundation through focusing on the democracy that was adapted by the Americans, and its entire tenets based on the application in America. Another modern scholar who forwarded a foundation during his time was John Stuart Mill. He forwarded his foundation by discussing about the civil liberty focusing on individual liberty. But before he delved into the discussion of individual liberty, he stated first the meaning of liberty. According to him, liberty denoted protection against tyrannical rulers (Mill, 1993: 3) He argued that authorities of the society cannot and should not interfere to mans interests, except during times that these interests are having effect on others (Mill, 1993: 18). It is evidently seen through the works of Mill his emphasis on individuals. He does not want anything or anyone by any means interfere to mans independence. Mill believes that allowing individuals to live on their own will

drive them to search on truth and this will be beneficial to the society. However, the government may interfere to this freedom when regulation and morality is concerned. He discusses different kinds of liberties: the individuals right s regarding thought and conscience, individuals right to action and the right of groups (Mill, 1993: 17). These two scholars have a common idea that they share in their primary works. The tyranny of the majority was first seen on the work of Tocqueville where he claimed that the will of majority is dangerous as it was considered to be powerful (Tocqueville, 1981: 149). This was also became one of the argument of Mill. They both maintained that the majority of the people can oppress the minority (Tocqueville, 1981: 153) (Mill, 1993: 8). They both want to prevent this, which is the reason behind their proposal to control the public thought, as for Tocqueville (1945) and to control the public opinion, as for Mill (1993). The justification is that the truth that the majority believed in is not necessarily right, and the minority does not have the capacity to contest them because they might be oppressed. The tendency is all the citizens might believe what the majority have thought the truth and what they have been expressed through their opinions regardless if it is right or otherwise. Aside from tyranny of the majority, Tocqueville and Mill gave stress on individualism. However, they discussed it through different approach. Individualism for Tocqueville is the detachment from society (Tocqueville, 1981: 395). An individual tends to isolate himself and limit his interests. This was branded by Tocqueville as dangerous to democracy because it may result to selfishness (Tocqueville, 1981: 395). This may affect the individuals relation to others, and may cause him not to think of others interest. On the other hand, Mills individuality was different to that of Tocqueville. For him, individuality was living in a different atmosphere, a different pattern (Mill, 1993: 73). He considered this as the best way to live a life, for a person owns his choice and through this, he can develop and can reach their potentials, because for him, there is no single form of life, people need to experience variations on lifes pattern to help them expand. Being known for not putting an emphasis on foundation of a study, postmodernity is characterized by the acknowledgment of the works in the modern, and of a refusal to follow or to adhere with it (Pulkkinen, 1997: 88). The works of the postmodern scholars patterned their work on the foundations being forwarded by the modern thinkers, following the criticisms they laid in order to create their own propositions. Hannah Arendt and Jrgen Habermas are classified into postmodernity for they share a common entity that can be found in their work: their criticisms concerning the modern thinkers. The criticisms of the political philosophy of Marx, is one of the themes in Hannah Arendts The Human Condition. She asserted that it is a threatening mistake to identify political action as making (the activity she calls work) (Arendt, 1998). She argued it is the craftsmen who do the making, and they do this by compelling a raw material to conform to his model. The human beings dont have a voice when they are being used in creating a new society, just as the raw materials in the process. (Arendt, 1998). Arendt observed that Marx has considered this misconception of politics.

Arendt focuses on proposal on establishing the situations of conceivable political experience as opposed to human activitys sphere. She wants to offer a variety of aspects of human activity which can affect political existence. She put an emphasis on the notion that human action incorporates politics (Arendt, 1998: 7). She also mentioned the vita activa which was comprises by the three fundamental activities of the human life, the labor, work and action (Arendt, 1998: 7). These actions were arranged hierarchically depending on their significance. Labor was characterized as a neverending character for it creates nothing of permanence. Arendt considered this as opposing to freedom since the activity was directed by necessity and since the human laborers is the equivalent of slave (Arendt, 1998: 12). Arendt had a portion on her work where she discusses the public and private realm. According to her private sphere of life corresponds to the household while the public sphere of life corresponds to political realm. And the rise of the city-states greatly affects the private realm of families and household (Arendt, 1998: 38). In his work, Jrgen Habermas mostly deals with challenging realm of public sphere tackling public life distinct to private domain, unlike Arendt; the focus of his work revolves with this topic. Public sphere was formed and influenced by the public use of reason or opinion by the bourgeois (Habermas, 1991: 28). The private realm changed its nature when the bourgeois society risen. And this private domain, according to Habermas, was specified outside state affairs, and he refers to home or family. With this exclusion, the family or home was left as the basis of being private while the work field grew out to be more public. The press played a vital role in the public sphere; it became their media (Habermas, 1991: 73). And places like theatres, parks, museums, operas and especially coffee-houses served as a venue where the people from different classes meet on equal footing. In line with his argument, he criticized Marx for he denounced public opinion as false consciousness and those conditions that permitted it to function. He argued that if not for public opinion, there will be no public sphere; all the affairs will be purely private. To sum it up, it is apparent that there is a complete break in the issues and frameworks followed by the authors classified under each general theme of modernity and postmodernity. The works of Tocqueville and Mill were evidently fall under modernity as they set a foundation or a basis for new subject of the study. These two thinkers are known for their adherence to liberty. Tocqueville as he talked about the sovereignty of America, he set groundwork about democracy, having it discussed based on an actual situation. This groundwork on the argument of Tocqueville having America being compared to France, also the advantages lay down by him. As for Mill, he successfully offered his foundation of liberty pertaining to individuals freedom. His in-depth discussion and emphasis on individuals liberty made him qualify under modernity. It can be considered as a foundation of a new subject of the study. Arendt and Habermas can be adequately classified under postmodernity. It materializes to their work that they adapt the notion of those who are in modernity and successfully criticized them to arrive at new ideas. Arendt, having criticized Marx, became fruitful at arriving regarding work and labor, effectively arrives at her argument that labor is no

good for political existence as it resists freedom. On the other hand, Habermas criticism of that of Marx, aided him to arrive at vivid discussion of public sphere. The thinkers of the postmodern did not forwarded any foundation or basis for a new subject of study, instead, they patterned their work to the ideas furthered by the modern thinkers not without criticisms. The concepts offered by the modern thinkers can be found to the works of these two such as liberty and public opinion, but they altered it conforming to their own approaches.

Bibliography

Arendt, H. (1998). The Human Condition (2nd ed.). London: University of Chicago Press. Habermas, J. (1991). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: an inquiry into a category of Bourgeois society. Cambridge: MIT Press. Mill, J. S. (1993). On Liberty (Bantam Classic Edition ed.). New York: Bantam Dell. Pulkkinen, Tuija 1997. The Postmodern Moment in Political Thought. In Finnish Yearbook of Political Thought. Volume 1, 87-94. Tocqueville, A. d. (1981). Democracy in America (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.