*Apologies
to those who are not big fans of my more essay-like posts, but I’ve got this
crazy old brain just churning away and I gotta do something with these thoughts
before I loose them or they drive me mad.
I have written before
about the idea of freedom, especially as it finds itself on the tip of the
tongue of every politician (particularly within the United States, but
certainly not exclusively). Previously, my basic conclusion, one of which I was
admittedly unaware at the beginning of my efforts to synthesize my thoughts on
the topic, was that “freedom” is not as unqualified of a term as dogmatic
ideologies would hope. In other words, “freedom” is infinitely nuanced and
subtle, subject to just as much bias and corruption as any other aspect of
society. It is far from the innately good and righteous aspiration that popular
rhetoric might have us believe. Instead, it must be continually analyzed and
reanalyzed not for the sake of freedom itself, but for the greater aims of
creating a more just society. We must always ask ourselves ‘what freedoms?’ and
at ‘what costs?’ do we pursue such freedoms.
Of
course, this is far less convenient and far more cumbersome of a notion than
simply an emblazoned slogan on a gas-station t-shirt (Freedom Isn’t Free!—or something
along those lines), but without such qualification we would find ourselves in a
sort of Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged) dystopia. Most of us, under the guise of
absolute individual freedom, would in fact be completely un-free in any and all
significant senses of the word. Lucky for us, such appeals to “absolute
individual freedoms” (underhandedly touted by a shocking number of
conservatives) are ultimately incongruous with the construction of any sort of functioning
social fabric. As members of a society, we daily all offer up any number of ‘individual
freedoms’ in the name of greater ‘social freedoms’; this concept in itself--Rousseau’s “social contract”--is an innate part of social life and has been as
long as humans (and society) have existed.
An
obvious and yet illustrative example of this: all individuals in society have
surrendered their freedom to kill
other members of society at will so that, as a whole, society itself can gain
the freedom from needless and
untimely death or the threat of it. This exemplifies differences along a
spectrum of freedom, which ranges from freedoms to and freedoms from (or as they are more academically referred, positive and negative freedoms, respectively). The plane that lies between these
two poles along this spectrum is the space in which freedoms are negotiated and
resolved, a phenomenon that occurs through democratic processes that are ultimately
(hopefully, but perhaps also unavoidably) founded on social values and ethics. Again,
not cut-and-dry, as democracy tends to be a slow and arduous process—as Winston
Churchill once said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, but it’s
better than all the rest.” Still, the idea of a democratic negotiation of
freedoms and their relative importance is the cornerstone of any stable and
just society.
Even
so, as a society, how do we evaluate the freedoms that we, through democratic
choice, have come to guarantee? While democratic processes have generally proceeded
towards progress and equality, it has not been without considerable, sometimes dramatic
stutter-steps. It is quite true, and many events in history would substantiate
this claim, that democratic consensus is just as capable of yielding truly
heinous results as it is capable of perpetrating good ones. Many would claim that
democracy, therefore, is an imperfect process (agreed, but what aspects of
human nature are not) and would take such irresolute disillusionment as a cue
to adhere to ideological platforms instead. The human desire to hold certain
things as ‘absolute’ often causes a descent into the unverifiable abyss of
dogmatism, which to me almost universally seems to be a proxy for un-critical
and undemocratic group-think.
But
in the absence of ideology and the false absolutes that it promises, on what
basis can we honestly frame, reflect upon and critique our social contract?
From what moral perspective can the freedoms of society, in all their
complexity and subtlety, be interpreted so as to understand their shortcomings
and improve upon them? There are many lenses through which these freedoms can
be viewed. I propose the following:
Freedom cannot be
regarded as an ends within and of itself. It is a means toward achieving a more
equal, peaceful, compassionate and just society. Its value must be measured against
a metric of achieving these purposes, with the ultimate goal being not the
maximization of individual freedoms but the optimization of a human society
oriented toward harmony and the alleviation of suffering.
Freedoms must not
automatically be assumed to contain an inherent quality of goodness, especially
if its consequences themselves are ultimately inequitable or immoral. No
individual exists within a vacuum and therefore, freedom, as the ultimate
fulfillment of individual human agency, cannot either. Such “freedoms” should
only ever represent an indispensable tool to be used by a conscious,
compassionate society, not a weapon wielded by the strong to oppress the weak
and further injustice (and thanks to the economic cult of global neo-liberalism,
it is becoming clearer and clearer that such ‘absolute individual freedoms’
will yield exactly this—and I am choosing to ignore the fundamental hypocrisy
in our global economic order and it’s selfish understanding of ‘individual
freedom’).
At the same time,
such an idea must be regarded with caution. Those who pursue individual freedoms
for its own sake fail to understand the communal nature of life, but just as
well, those who curtail freedoms for purely utilitarian purposes fail to
understand the individual nature of the human experience. The optimization as
such through a democratic process will never be a linear process. While the
steady march of modernization may apply to certain aspect of civilization, democracy
will forever be imbued with the inherent imperfection of human nature. It is
both a curse and a blessing, affording us ample time for self-reflection and deeper
understanding.
The opportunities to
realize a greater global society have never been more abundant. Despite
unprecedented challenges, the age of communications and the freedom of
information (in itself a great question of negotiated freedoms) has infused a
new generation with the capacity and energy to engage in radical change, should
they choose to take advantage of it. Going forward, freedom must be as much of
an act of justice and compassion as it is an act of liberty. Otherwise, will
have once again stutter-stepped and allowed history to pass us by.
Oh yeah, and the US
should just fucking pass marriage equality already.
From Paraguay,
little hupo