On Freedom

In our society, we often think of freedom in terms of political systems and our place in them. Seldom do we turn our attention to the question of identity and the extent to which "who we are" either expands or contracts our freedom.

First, we should probably work out what we mean when we say "freedom." We could take 20 paragraphs or more to work our way to a definition, but let me try a shortcut: Freedom is the ability to exercise choices regarding the nature and quality of our existence. (If you would like to challenge that definition, let's work it out in the comments.)

So, if I were truly free, I could make a series of choices that would determine all the circumstances of my life. Nothing would be beyond my control or outside the realm of social possibility. (Yes, for those of you paying attention, my use of italics indicates that I've introduced something potentially troublesome here. Pay attention!) I feel the need to say social possibility, because I'm assuming the absence of a magical ability to control physical possibility. For example, I am making the assumption that I cannot be free to float effortlessly 10 feet off the ground. The law of gravity says that an object with my mass within a certain proximity to the earth cannot do that, and there is no political or social mechanism I know of that will allow me to overturn or suspend enforcement of the law of gravity.

All of the non-physical things (I could draw an essential v. existential dichotomy here, but I won't. That would just beg a vicious critique from some world-renowned expert in phenomenology or existential philosophy, and I don't have the philosophical guns to endure that fight. Not that any such experts are reading this blog.), however, are in. I'm talking about whom I love and how I love them, whom I hate and how I hate them (if anyone, in either category) -- where I work, if I work at all, what I eat, what religion I observe, if I observe any at all, what clothes I wear, what car I drive, what name I call myself and others call me, how long I wear my hair, what sports I play, what music I listen to, what thoughts I have, what political philosopies (or other philosophies of a non-political nature) I espouse, if any, how I express myself, and to whom, if to anyone at all, etc., etc., etc.

Now, you might be saying to yourself, "Self, he hasn't dealt with issues of social mores or laws and their violation. Such as, does he mean by social freedom the ability to murder someone, with or without being held accountable and potentially punished for his actions?" I wouldn't blame you one bit for having had that thought. I had it myself. And then I had this one: "Ah, self, don't you see? The question of murder is just as contingent as the question of freedom, social or otherwise. It depends on context-specific definition. If I walk into my neighbor's house carrying my Glock 26 and pump 10 rounds into his head, it's murder. If I push the button that launches a Tomahawk cruise missile that kills 20 enemy combatants it's war. One act is worthy of life in prison or even execution, the other makes me a hero. Murder is in the eye of the beholder."

So, then in the middle of all this, what is this thing called freedom? We must return to my original contention that freedom has everything to do with identity -- which happens to have everything to do with the social construction of reality. But that's a very long conversation for another day. I know you all can hardly contain your eagerness for that next post.

UP NEXT: FREEDOM AND IDENTITY