Political Freedom: Unveiling the Dual Nature of Liberty

Introduction

Freedom is a fundamental human right. It is through having the freedom to make our own choices that we can realize our full potentials. Therefore, it is crucially important that governments guarantee a wide range of freedom in societies while minimizing undue constraints.

This essay presents key features of freedom, as outlined by the non-governmental organization Freedom House, revealing various conceptions of freedom across the political spectrum. In delving into the multifaceted dimensions of freedom, it seeks to analyze two opposing concepts of political freedom—positive freedom and negative freedom—, as postulated by the political theorist Isiah Berlin. In addition, it aims to clarify the complexity of political freedom by examining the various responses to Berlin’s dual concept, as articulated by different political thinkers, such as John Stuart Mill, Charles Taylor, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Finally, it discusses the ongoing debate between capitalism and freedom, in the context of Berlin’s dual concept.

The Key Features of Freedom

The independent research organization Freedom House conducts annual surveys to measure the levels of freedom in various countries. It highlights four fundamental aspects of freedom: (1) the ability to vote in free and fair multiparty elections; (2) having access to education and unfiltered information; (3) the right to express one’s thoughts openly (i.e., freedom of expression); and (4) the freedom of movement and association (O’Cain and Prokhovnik, 2015).

While Freedom House’s surveys provide insights into the degrees of political freedoms in different countries, it does not explicitly show which aspects of freedom are given higher priority. For example, both liberals and conservatives emphasize the significance of personal freedom and the ability of individuals to make their own economic decisions. On the other hand, socialists and social democrats argue that economic freedom favors wealthy families at the expense of poor ones, and advocate for political interventions to address these inequalities and structural disparities (O’Cain and Prokhovnik, 2015, p. 131). ??

Berlin’s Dual Concept of Liberty and their Political Implications

Isaiah Berlin (1909-1997), a highly influential political theorist, addressed these contentious issues in his essay Two concepts of liberty (1958). He presented two distinct interpretations of political freedom: negative freedom and positive freedom. Negative freedom, which Berlin considered the authentic form of freedom, can be defined as freedom from interference by others in an individual’s life, particularly from government intervention (The Open University, 2018a). Political liberty, for Berlin (1969, pp.15-16), is “simply the area within which a man can act unobstructed by others.”

On the other hand, Berlin rejected positive freedom as he thought that it could potentially lead to political oppression. Positive freedom can be defined as freedom to realize rational goals in ways that individuals on their own cannot (The Open University, 2018a). For Berlin, “[t]he answer to the question ‘Who governs me?’ is logically distinct from the question ‘How far does government interfere with me’” (Berlin, 1969, p. 22). It is this difference that constitutes the significant contrast between negative and positive freedom.?

Both opponents and proponents of negative and positive freedom span the entire political spectrum, from right to left. For example, liberals and conservatives (right and center) adopt the former conception of freedom owing to their belief in a free-market economy and individual accountability; the socialists and social democrats (left) advocate the latter conception of freedom, owing to their belief in the active role of governments in alleviating inequalities in society (O’Cain and Prokhovnik, 2015). ???

Mill’s Harm Principle: Balancing Freedom and Responsibility

Berlin’s strong advocacy for negative freedom can be linked to the ideas of the nineteenth-century philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). Mill, in his notable work On Liberty (1859), defended individual liberty and emphasized that “[t]he only purpose which power can be rightly exercised over any member of the civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (quoted in O’Cain and Prokhovnik, 2015, p. 136).

This principle, known as Mill’s harm principle, aims to restrain individuals whose actions could cause real harm, not just perceived harm, to others. An example illustrating this principle is the ban on smoking in public places enacted and implemented in many countries. This ban made it illegal to smoke in enclosed public spaces, such as pubs, bars, restaurants, and public buildings. Proponents of this regulatory measure contend that by prohibiting smoking in public places, the government safeguards people from passive smoking, thereby reducing the risk of them developing cancer. However, opponents of the law argue that “government interference in the private lives of citizens generally limits freedom and risks diminishing the public sphere” (The Open University, 2018b).

Clearly, Mill’s harm principle operates on a nuanced understanding of liberty, emphasizing that individual freedom is essential but not absolute. It is a delicate interplay between personal autonomy and the greater good of society, where intervention is warranted to prevent significant harm while safeguarding essential liberties.

Berlin’s Theory of Political Freedom: A Beacon of Liberty

Berlin’s theory of political freedom, often seen as a cornerstone on political philosophy, emphasizes individual liberty within a minimalistic “nightwatchman state”, tasked primarily with safeguarding life and property (Berlin, cited by O’Cain and Prokhovnik (2015 [1958], p. 135).

Berlin’s concept of negative freedom is deeply interconnected with the notion that ?individuals, as rational and self-determining agents, should be free from religious dogma and superstition, forming a critical aspect of a modern, enlightened society. This perspective encourages individuals to perceive themselves as free and be recognized as such by others. In addition, Berlin’s argument strongly upholds a fundamental principle of modern liberal ideology; namely, an assertion of freedom within the liberal tradition, validating the significance of freedom as a central tenet in contemporary political thought.

Berlin’s theory continues to influence discussions on political freedom, shedding light on the delicate balance between individual liberty and state intervention in governance.

Rethinking Freedom: Taylor’s Response to Berlin

The contemporary philosopher Charles Taylor (b. 1931) challenged Berlin’s dual conception of political freedom in his essay What’s wrong with negative liberty (1979). Taylor contended that there is no inherent contradiction between negative and positive freedom; rather, there is an overlap between the two. He argued that individuals must have the ability to govern their own lives to achieve their rational goals, but this requires distinguishing between the opportunity for freedom and the exercise of freedom (O’Cain and Prokhovnik, 2015, p. 144).

To illustrate this view, consider two young men growing up in a dysfunctional family where opportunities for self-realization are severely limited. One leads a troubled life due to recklessness, while the other immerses himself in philosophy, music, and art. We may ask: Which of the two would ultimately become a freer individual? For Berlin, hypothetical scenario like this hold no relevance in determining freedom. He rejects the notion that “to be free you need to be able to realize a particular goal” (The Open University, 2018c). Conversely, Taylor argues that “you are not free if you are motivated, through fear, inauthentically internalised standards, or false consciousness, to thwart your self-realization” ([1979], pp.146-47, quoted in O’Cain and Prokhovnik, 2015, p. 144). For Taylor, some individuals need the support or actions of others to help them overcome such obstacles to achieve true freedom.

Debating Freedom: Rousseau, Berlin, and the Essence of Liberty

Positive freedom, which Berlin strongly rejected, is heavily influenced by the writings of the eighteenth-century political thinker Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). In his work The Social Contract (1762), Rousseau associated freedom with self-realization and aimed to redefine political freedom with an emphasis on self-mastery. He believed that liberty is the essence of what it means to be human. However, his understanding of liberty was more focused on collective general liberty rather than on individual liberty in the way it is often understood in modern contexts. Once people form communities and abandon their natural state, Rousseau argued, they become members of a political entity where the interest of each individual becomes dependent on the interest of the whole community, or what he termed “the general will” (Rousseau, 1994 [1762]). Rousseau famously proclaimed that “if anyone refuses to obey the general will he will be compelled to do so by the whole body; which means nothing else than that he will be forced to be free” (1994 [1762]).

Berlin condemned Rousseau’s dictum, considering him “one of the most sinister and most formidable enemies of liberty” ([2003], quoted in O’Cain and Prokhovnik, 2015, p. 142). Sacrificing individual freedom for the community, Berlin argued, does not benefit anyone but can lead to totalitarianism. Critics of Rousseau share this concern, fearing that “positive freedom could be used to ‘force’ people to be free according to a particular interpretation of freedom” (The Open University, 2018d).?

Examining Economic Freedom: The Capitalist Perspective

The contentious relationship between negative and positive freedom is often featured in debates about the value of capitalism. Capitalism, defined as “a system of production grounded on the buying and selling of commodities in order that capitalists can actually make a profit” (The Open University, 2018e), aligns with negative freedom on the ground that it offers freedom of choice for everyone. Capitalists argue that in such a system, no one is forced to buy specific goods, work for particular companies, or abstain from becoming capitalists themselves.

However, critics of capitalism, particularly social democrats (advocates of positive theory), reject these claims. They highlight that most workers struggle to make ends meet and have limited bargaining power. In other words, they do not have the luxury of choosing a preferable employer, let alone engaging in investments (The Open University, 2018f). Social democrats argue that without regulation, capitalism can lead to exploitation, which is why there is a need for social provisions.

Conclusion

Whether seen as an individual or collective responsibility, freedom is crucial for achieving a rational or desired goal. By identifying the key features of political freedom and measuring them in each country, Freedom House has demonstrated that the level of political freedom varies from one country to another. Moreover, some features of political freedoms were prioritized over others, with proponents and opponents spanning the entire political spectrum. Isiah Berlin’s dichotomy of negative and positive freedom unleashed a rigorous debate about the political and moral legitimacy of both concepts, with prominent political thinkers and parties taking sides.

Perspectives from prominent thinkers like John Stuart Mill, Charles Taylor, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau offer unique views on the nature of freedom. Mill’s harm principles aligns with negative freedom, emphasizing individual liberty within societal bounds. Taylor challenges Berlin’s dichotomy, emphasizing the distinction between the opportunity and exercise of freedom. Rousseau’s emphasis on self-mastery and collective general liberty adds another dimension.

The discourse on capitalism underscores the interplay between negative and positive freedom. Capitalism aligns with negative freedom, promoting individual autonomy. Critics of capitalism stress on the need for regulation to address potential exploitation. This debate exemplifies how contentious this issue for both supporters and detractors of negative and positive freedom.

References

Berlin, I. (1969) Four Essays on Liberty, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Freedom House (2020) Global Freedom [Online]. Available at: https://freedomhouse.org/explore-the-map?type=fiw&year=2020 (Accessed: July 26, 2023).

O’Cain, A. and Prokhovnik, R. (2015) Freedom, in Andrews, G., Czajka, A., O’Cain, A., and Prokhovink, R. (eds.) Understanding Politics: Ideas and Institutions in the Modern World 1, Milton Keynes, The Open University.

The Open University (2018a) “2 A classic text on freedom” [Online], DD211 Understanding politics: ideas and institutions in the modern world. Available at: https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=1302795&section=3 (Accessed: December 8, 2018).

The Open University (2018b) “3 Smoking in public places and freedom” [Online], DD211 Understanding politics: ideas and institutions in the modern world. Available at: https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=1302795&section=4 ?(Accessed: December 11, 2018).

The Open University (2018c) “2.1?Summarising extracts from ‘Two concepts of liberty’” [Online], DD211 Understanding politics: ideas and institutions in the modern world. Available at: https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=1302795&section=3.1 (Accessed: December 11, 2018).

The Open University (2018d) “4.1?Review of Chapter 5” [Online], DD211 Understanding politics: ideas and institutions in the modern world. Available at: https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=1302795&section=5.1 (Accessed: December 11, 2018).

The Open University (2018e) “6 Capitalism and freedom” [Online], DD211 Understanding politics: ideas and institutions in the modern world. Available at: https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=1302795&section=7 ?(Accessed: December 12, 2018).

The Open University (2018f) “6 Capitalism and freedom” [Audio], DD211 Understanding politics: ideas and institutions in the modern world. Available at: https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=1302795&section=7 ?(Accessed: December 12, 2018).

Rousseau, J.J. (1994 [1762]) The Social Contract, NY, Oxford University Press.

Hashtags: #politicalfreedom #negativefreedom #positivefreedom # isiahberlin #johnstuartmill #jean-jacquesrousseau #charlestaylor