Introduction
The term freedom has been used in many epochs and places to determine a condition under which an individual sees himself constrained or not to act in certain way. It is both a philosophical and a political concept, as it can be used to define a condition of the self, or a set of rules and conditions under which an individual or collection of individuals will act. The first part of this paper will discuss the origin and definitions of liberty, the second part will deal with the two modern conceptions of liberty, and the third part will analyze the political implications of both conceptions.
The term liberty has ancient roots and uses. The latin word “liber” was used to designate any individual who was naturally apt for procreation . Any young man who reached sexual maturity was called “liber” and could join its community as a responsible adult . Of course, this idea was contrasted with the condition of slavery, in which a slave was not available nor could he join the community nor acquire responsibilities .
These two opposing concepts, liberty and slavery, have given way to a long discussion about the limits and scope of liberty, establishing differing criteria for its definition . Liberty is generally conceived as self-determination, possibility of choice or absence of interference , and slavery is the exact opposite in every case. In any case, liberty is considered a valuable asset and something desirable by everyone in general, and is such an important notion that it has been equaled to values like goodness or happiness . Many people in history have fought in the name of freedom, even though not everyone gives it the same definition.
Two Angles of Liberty
As established before, the fact that the concept of liberty has been widely regarded as something desirable, does not mean that it has a unique meaning. The discussion has been going on for centuries, though there have been relatively recent attempts to at least reduce the different definitions of liberty to at least two categories. Political philosopher Isaiah Berlin established the difference between two conceptions of freedom that could even be considered as rivalling terms . The two notions of liberty are two faces of the same idea, as if it were looked from two different angles. The first notion is liberty to do something , as if one tried to measure all the potential actions an individual can take without being stopped by any obstacle. That notion is called negative liberty. The second conception is liberty from something , a conception that tries to find out who is in control of the actions of the individual, and is called positive liberty .
The ideas of positive and negative liberty can be better understood by giving an example of each and their implications assuming a modern society as a context. Typically, an individual has an array of possible actions available at any given moment, but there can be restrictions imposed by other individuals. For example a grocery store owner can sell tobacco to anyone except people who have not reached certain age. This is a restriction imposed by other people by law. The owner may or may not agree with it but he is certainly not free to sell tobacco to children or teenagers, so his options are reduced by a law imposed by other individuals. In order to increase his freedom in this respect, there would have to be an elimination of the restricting law. Maybe this particular owner would not sell tobacco to anyone underage even if there was no law against it, but he would have the freedom to choose whom to sell it to. This is called negative liberty and implies the absence of limits, or the elimination of restrictions in order to give more freedom to the individual.
The concept of negative liberty does not consider natural or accidental conditions as limitations of personal freedom. Only deliberate coaction, emanated from other human beings can oppress or limit the liberty of an individual . The fact that humans cannot breathe under water certainly limits the options of movement of any individual, but it only means that humans do not have that ability, it does not mean that someone deliberately and arbitrarily decided to close this possibility to all individuals thus limiting their liberty.
Positive liberty is a totally different concept that concentrates on the problem of who is in control of the actions of an individual, or who gets to choose between the options open for an individual . This conception assumes that the number of options open for an individual do not matter if a person is not able to make a voluntary choice. The factors that would affect the ability to choose can be internal or external . Consider a person who really likes video games, but has to study for a really hard test. He spends the whole day playing video games instead of studying because his impulses to play were stronger than his needs to study, even if studying would have given him more satisfaction in the long run. Giving this individual more positive liberty, would mean giving him the power to overcome the urge of playing video games. The underlying assumption is that there are internal factors that determine the behavior of people and people is not free if they are not totally in command of their actions. To give this individual more liberty would mean to give him the necessary tools to overcome the factors that restrain him from acting in a proper way.
The last concept includes the notion that something outside or inside the individual, including natural or accidental conditions, could take control of his actions and restrain his liberty. It is common to hear some people saying that women are to blame if they are abused , based on the belief that men cannot control their urges around women if they dress or behave in a certain way. Assuming this as a fact, it would necessarily lead to the conclusion that in order to give men freedom over their acts, women need to be forced to cover themselves or act according to a set of rules. This is of course a bad use of logic and a justification for irresponsibility. If it is assumed that there are at least two different and contradictory parts inside the human mind, being one rational and the other irrational, very much as it was stated by Freud , and the concept of positive liberty, it follows that if the irrational part of their minds is too strong, then people are not really free and cannot be blamed or awarded for any of their actions.
Political Implications
In many societies, the assumption that men are not free from their own impulses has served some as an excuse to become undisputable leaders of whole nations. The argument is that some wiser people, who have overcome their irrational impulses, are fit to dictate laws to the rest of society that would be in their own benefit even if they do not agree with it. The ignorant lot of the society would then be restricted, and often oppressed, by those laws in order to be freer from their own impulses . Such is the case of totalitarian governments based on socialism and communism.
Ideologies and activist groups have used the same line of reasoning against capitalism or consumerism to advance policies or sway public opinion. Some argue that advertising, violent TV shows or toys, determine the behavior of people, rendering them unfree to act, so they should be limited or banned. Others argue that poverty itself is a limit to freedom as well, and force all the individuals in a society to give money in the form of taxes in order to finance welfare programs. Although these can be considered fair and moderate measures, they all rely in the conception that the human is determined to act in certain ways, so it cannot be blamed or given any recognition for his actions . This paper subscribes to the idea that humans are condemned to be free, and that blaming others for their own misfortunes is irresponsible at best .
More liberal societies would try to develop the idea of negative freedom and try to guarantee that no individual or group of individuals put a limit to the actions of others. Of course, this refers only to arbitrary limits, given that a total absence of limits in society would bring it to the natural state described by Hobbes . So limits have to be convened beforehand between individuals, where they yield part of their liberties to grant freedom to others . Negative freedom is not perfect but it certainly gives tyrants less tools for oppressing people.
Bibliography
Berlin, I., 1969. Four Essays on Liberty. London: Oxford University Press.
Camber, R., 2010. Rape? It´s the fault of the victims, say 50% of Women. [Online] Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1251040/Rape-Its-fault-victims-say-50-women.html[Accessed 4 February 2014].
Carter, I., 2012. Positive and Negative Liberty. [Online] Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2012/entries/liberty-positive-negative[Accessed 3 February 2014].
Ferrater, J., 2004. Diccionario de Filosofía. 3rd ed. Barcelona: Ariel.
Freud, S., 1949. The Ego and the Id. London: The Hogarth Press.
Hobbes, T., 2011. Leviathan. Seattle: Pacific Publishing Studio.
Sartre, J. P., 1943. L´Être et le Néant. Paris: Gallimard.
Williams, R., 1983. Keywords; A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. New York: Oxford University Press.
