via Matthew Egan Three Definitions of Freedom Political theorist Isaiah Berlin in his essay titled Two Concepts of Liberty and Marxist humanist/Frankfurt School psychoanalyst Erich Fromm in his book Escape from Freedom hit upon the distinction between two definitions/types of freedom: freedom as non-interference (negative freedom or freedom from) and freedom as self-mastery (positive freedom or freedom to). The distinctions arent clear cut, but theyre good enough for analysis. Freedom as non-interference is central to the liberal conception of politics and has been since John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. Its not property rights nor voting rights, but non-interference from external constraint. As Thomas Hobbes, the author of Leviathan and pioneer of social contract theory, puts it, a free man is he that in those things which by his strength and wit he is able to do is not hindered to do what he hath the will to do. You are free to do what you capable of doing. Most Enlightenment philosophers saw things like this however mired by different metaphysical assumptions they must have been. An analogy—though not a particularly appropriate one—is that of the slave whose owner chooses to not interfere in his activities. I will come back to that analogy later in this text. This notion of freedom remained underground, so to speak, until it re-emerged in the seventeenth century. Freedom as self-mastery is opposite the notion of freedom as self-mastery. The best I can liken it to is fulfillment. It seems to me that constructive choice and ordered liberty would fall into this category. Constructive choice would mean having numerous options to choose from or a greater ability to act. Providing a child with an opportunity for education would be an example of constructive choice. Ordered liberty is that of the Puritans and it is one that deserves to be relegated to the dustbin. The Puritan conception is the freedom to take part in the Church and worship God—and nothing else. The Puritans idea of freedom is purely paternalistic and downright evil; its the liberty of Benito Mussolini. Isaiah Berlin was clear in his essay that conceptions of freedom were not limited to its negative (non-interference) and positive (self-mastery) notions. Philip Pettit, an Irish philosopher and political theorist, in his work on republicanism gave the definition of freedom as non-domination. This is important because the republicanism of the Romans was conceived as being against all forms of tyranny, from autocracy to pure democracy. John Lockes conception of freedom wasnt purely negative and rejected the notion that an individual could be free if they were subject to some arbitrary authority and so touched upon republican ideals. During the Age of Enlightenment when liberalism began to be constructed, the moral and political philosophers of the day were also busy in rediscovering the ideals of the Roman Republic. Indeed, republicanism was an important ideal for them. The German philosopher Immanuel Kant treated republicanism as one of four forms of government. Republican ideas were just as important to Americas Founding Fathers as liberal ones were. This third definition is not a halfway point between negative and positive freedom nor a syncretic construction of them, but is rather entirely orthogonal and irreducible.
Posted on: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 15:00:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015