Freedom is a Farce

Freedom is a Farce

(at least as we understand it)

“It’s my body and if I want to adorn it with rings and tattoos that is my business!”

“This is a free country.  Don’t tell me I have to wear a mask!”

“Don’t tell me to turn down the music.  I’ll listen to my music as loud as I want!”

“If I want to smoke in my own house, goddammit, I am going to do it!”

“What do you mean there’s a 20-minute limit on the machine?  Eat me!”

“Keep your hands off my guns.  I know my rights!”

These are all reactions based upon our prevailing and conventional understanding of freedom, namely, freedom from constraints.  When I highlight the word “freedom” and click on my word program’s thesaurus, the first synonym that comes up is “Liberty.”  This suggests that there is no meaningful distinction between the two.  Enlightenment principles were guiding foundational principles for this country, and much of what motivated the founding of this Nation was based on the concept of liberty.  “Give me liberty or give me death,” are words spoken by Patrick Henry at the Second Virginia Convention in 1775.  That convention was a major landmark on the path towards the American Revolution.  Immediately preceding these famous words, Henry equated liberty with the absence of slavery: “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?”  Interesting words from a man who actually owned 67 slaves at the time of his death. 

However, putting aside the pervasive hypocrisy of that time (which to some meaningful extent survives to this day), his words point to any number of difficulties with the words, liberty and freedom.  And these very concepts are those that we rely upon for another of this country’s purported founding principles, the principle of equality.  Each of these concepts is filled with contradictions and ambiguity.

One difficulty is that for most of our existence on this planet, depriving others of liberty was the only way to achieve personal liberty.  Having slaves was, in fact, the very basis of liberty for free men.  How can the very basis of liberty for one segment of the population represent the very basis of its absence for another? Look to the ancient Greeks as an example.  Free men had the liberty to engage in civic affairs because there were those – slaves, women, children – who took care of providing for life’s necessities.  Liberty for some was predicated on the oppression of others.  Freedom for the few was possible because of systemic subjugation of most.  Look only as far back as the pre-bellum South for a modern example of Greek-style liberty, a liberty founded on the oppressive regime of slavery.  Look beyond the Civil War and even though Blacks were nominally free, plans were underway soon after the Confederates lost the Civil War to make sure that Blacks were relegated to a condition analogous to slavery, only by another name.   Of course, industrial capitalism during this same period, fueled by subsistence wages, effectively operated on the same, though less facially offensive, principle given that “free labor, free soil” was a rallying cry at the time, a mantra filled with its own contradictions.  Given this history, our “democratic” country is not exceptional as a model of democracy.  In her recent book, How the South Won the Civil War, Heather Cox Richardson points to a basic operating principle of this country’s history, aptly viewed as the “American Paradox,” namely that “equality for all will end liberty.” This squarely places liberty and equality as opposing and contradictory notions.

So, what is the result if a nation is founded on the principles of universal liberty and equality?  This issue has tied our democracy’s apologists up in knots since the founding of our nation.  Does equality mean equality of outcome or equality of opportunity?  Does liberty mean liberty for all in every circumstance, except when that liberty extends to the point where it hurts others?  Does liberty only apply to those we want to recognize as citizens, even if those we choose to exclude are technically citizens under the law?  Does freedom simply mean the absence of constraints, or does it mean something more meaningful?  Is there such a thing as substantive freedom, which presumes that there are forms of freedom that amount to little more than symbolic and hollow concepts?

I belong to a group in Atlanta named Project South.  It is part of a larger movement called the Southern Movement Assembly.  Their motto (or one of them) is “we who believe in freedom cannot rest until it comes.”  Additionally, their second organizing principle is that “nobody is free until all of us are free.”  This principle resonates with humanistic beliefs throughout much of the modern age.  The principle of universal freedom as a predicate for individual freedom resonates with modern thinkers as diverse as the anarchist, Peter Kropotkin, the existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre, and the civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.  But is it enough as a stated principle?  The anarchists Michael Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin, echoing Karl Marx (in this regard if in little else), also believed that freedom and economics were inextricably tied together.  As Bakunin stated, “political liberty without economic equality…are lies.”  Kropotkin saw “economic freedom as the only secure basis for political freedom.”  Fast forward to more current thinking, and we can look to Angela Davis who talked about the only freedoms that have relevance in our lives, namely “substantive freedoms.”  Such freedoms would include such things as universal affordable housing, health care, and education, guaranteed employment, guaranteed living wages, and guaranteed food security. 

To elaborate on how we get from concepts of hypocritical expressions of equality and hollow forms of freedom to genuine equality and humanistic freedom, it helps to see equality as a condition that is implicit in prevailing systems of human organization, as opposed to a means to be achieved within whatever systems we live under.  Further, it helps to expand on the difference between positive and negative freedom. 

Equality – is this something that we aspire to, or is equality derived from established, over-arching culture?  To answer this question, I would suggest guidance from the writings of Dorothy Lee.  In her book Freedom and Culture, she writes that “Equality exists in the very nature of things, as a byproduct of the democratic structure of the culture itself, not as a principle to be applied.  In such societies, there is no attempt to achieve the goal of equality, and in fact there is no concept of equality.”  Yet, here we are, a nation built on the foundational principle of equality, as in “all men are created equal” and we are a nation divided, a nation of hierarchical extremes, a nation that invented “Whiteness” and “Blackness” precisely to establish the “nature of things” as something other than true nature, or true democracy for that matter.  Lee goes on to say that “the principle of equality is adequate to democracy only when it derives naturally from the tenet of the dignity of man, only when it is a by-product of the absolute and permeating respect for human worth.”  Well, therein lies the rub.  Whether we are considering the “worth” of human beings as servants and slaves, as mere factors of production, or as manipulated units of consumption, equality will always contradict itself underneath a façade of suggested expedience.  And whether that expedience is based upon theories of polygenesis, biblical curses, or pseudo-scientific racial classifications or on the basis of free markets and profit as representing the salvation of mankind and the ultimate return to Eden, it will always manifest in projections of general welfare and eventual equality, while creating inequality and destroying the possibility for a balanced ecological human existence.

What I would ask the reader to take away from this is that if we hold equality out as a goal, then we have already precluded it as an outcome.  It would be like arranging a classroom such that all the tallest students are in the front, with each row being filled behind them with progressively smaller students until the very smallest students were in the very last row.  The teacher may have as his or her stated goal that all students have an opportunity to learn, but that goal is hollow and meaningless given the configuration of the class. I agree with Dorothy Lee that equality is derived from a culture of universal human dignity and worth.  Such a culture would implicitly value inclusivity and would also implicitly manifest social relations in a manner that Murray Bookchin describes as an “equality of unequals,” and that finds its strength and purpose, to borrow from Hegel, in a kind of unity of diversity.  But all of this must be the product, not of formal education or legislation, but the product of acculturation.  In this way, these values are implicit in a way that resembles the Ubuntu philosophy of “I am because we are.”  Believing this and living this philosophy allows humanistic attributes to naturally follow, eliminating the need to fabricate the means for compliance and enforcement.

To achieve this kind of equality, an equality derived from a ubiquitous culture of non-hierarchical diversity, inclusiveness, and inter-connectedness, we need to break down the concept of freedom and then relate positive freedom to rational authority.

What are negative freedoms?  These are freedoms from constraint, as the quotes from the beginning of this essay represent.  As elaborated upon by John Locke, under the concept of negative freedom we should be totally free to do whatever we desire up until that point in which our actions hurt or negatively impact others.  In our current day and age, this kind of freedom seems to be all the rage.  I am free to associate as I please, use drugs, own guns, listen to my music, download what I want, disconnect from the world, buy what I want, choose whether or not to vaccinate my kids, do business with whom I want, state and have respected by gender identity, and not be discriminated against in housing, employment, health, or otherwise.  On the business side, I would also wish to be free from government regulation and oversight because of a stated belief that the market will correct any deficiencies and time will correct any temporary dislocations.  Government interference simply disrupts a smoothly running economy would be the mantra of business negative freedom. 

Right away, some contradictions in negative freedom are obvious.  If I am free not to vaccinate my kids, would I be endangering others?  If I overdose on drugs, who bears the cost for the public response to my emergency and subsequent health care?  If I want to be free from compulsory government regulation, what happens when an employer or landlord discriminates against me for my color, ethnic background, gender identity, sexual orientation, or other basis.  How can I run an ethical business, if I am in fervent competition with those whose only ethics is derived from exploitation and profit?  These are some of the problems that occur in a society where freedom is presumed to be based solely on negative freedoms that are in constant need of adjustment, remedial action and correction.

Positive freedom, on the other hand, is a composite of those freedoms that provide space for self-actualization within a society that is common to all, where inter-dependent bonds are a given, where there is a shared sense of purpose and acknowledged, mutually developed aspirations and shared work towards a common destiny.  In a system of positive freedom, we are free to be one with ourselves within the context of the environment we share with others.  As stated so eloquently by Nicola Chiaromonte in The Worm of Consciousness and Other Essays, “freedom of the individual is a fraud if the society in which he lives is not free, that is, if there is no free space…freedom is guaranteed by the feeling that has formed in a given society and has become common to all of its members; the awareness of a bond between the individual and the world, of a sense of human destiny that belongs to man.” 

So, instead of the facile assumptions underlying free market capitalism, that progress for one, is progress for all, the realization of self in the context of all aspects of human potentialities provides the basis for general welfare precisely because those potentialities were made possible within that enabling and self-enhancing context of a truly democratic society. 

But what of the seeming contradiction between the realization of self-actualized potentialities and the benefit to others?  That is the point.  Self-actualization, or individuation, would not be attempted as a function of hyper-individualism.  It would be a function of the context within which we develop as persons.  But what of Authority?  What about rules and regulations?  Are they any?

I am of a generation that seemed to believe with a passion (when of course we were supported by someone else) that freedom required the elimination of all rules and regulations.  Think of the Crosby, Still and Nash song, Chicago: “rules and regulations who needs them; throw them out the door.”

This brings us back to Dorothy Lee.  She provides an excellent example of how regulations, far from impeding freedom, actually facilitates freedom.  The example she cites is language.  Language is filled with rules and conventions, but without them we would not be free to associate with others in any productive or organized manner.  Without language there is no civilization.  Hegel believed that there is no freedom without laws.  Even Nietzsche believed that freedom can only operate within a politically defined space. It should be apparent that only commonly accepted rules, regulations and conventions can define space in that way, which brings us to the final point for this essay, the distinction between rational authority and irrational authority.

I believe that Fromm has been able to frame this issue well.  He posits that rational authority is competent authority and authority that operates to facilitate personal growth and collective well-being.  Irrational authority, on the other hand, may be competent or not, but regardless, such authority looks to facilitate submission, obedience, alienation, and the ultimate annihilation of the individual as an individual.  In other words, irrational authority promotes massification, alienation, insecurity, isolation, vulnerability, which in turn breeds totalitarianism.  Rational authority promotes individual growth, facilitates the development of every person’s potentialities, while providing a political context of inclusivity, diversity and non-hierarchical unity for the true expression of democracy. 

To conclude, as we struggle in this country with division, tribalism, and White Nationalism, those of us who care about democracy, humanistic culture and equality, positive freedom, and justice, need to work on building and enhancing communities, communities of commonality, inter-dependence and collective capacity, as the only true path to freedom as other than a farce.