Imagine you are driving a car through town, and you come to a fork in the road. You turn left, but no one was forcing you to go one way or the other. Next you come to a crossroads. You turn right, but no one was preventing you from going left or straight on. There is no traffic to speak of and there are no diversions or police roadblocks. So you seem, as a driver, to be completely free. But this picture of your situation might change quite dramatically if we consider that the reason you went left and then right is that you're addicted to cigarettes and you're desperate to get to the tobacconists before it closes. Rather than driving, you feel you are being driven, as your urge to smoke leads you uncontrollably to turn the wheel first to the left and then to the right. Moreover, you're perfectly aware that your turning right at the crossroads means you'll probably miss a train that was to take you to an appointment you care about very much. You long to be free of this irrational desire that is not only threatening your longevity but is also stopping you right now from doing what you think you ought to be doing.
This story gives us two contrasting ways of thinking of liberty. On the one hand, one can think of liberty as the absence of obstacles external to the agent. You are free if no one is stopping you from doing whatever you might want to do. In the above story you appear, in this sense, to be free. On the other hand, one can think of liberty as the presence of control on the part of the agent. To be free, you must be self-determined, which is to say that you must be able to control your own destiny in your own interests. In the above story you appear, in this sense, to be unfree: you are not in control of your own destiny, as you are failing to control a passion that you yourself would rather be rid of and which is preventing you from realizing what you recognize to be your true interests. One might say that while on the first view liberty is simply about how many doors are open to the agent, on the second view it is more about going through the right doors for the right reasons.
In a famous essay first published in 1958, Isaiah Berlin called these two concepts of liberty negative and positive respectively (Berlin 1969).[1] The reason for using these labels is that in the first case liberty seems to be a mere absence of something (i.e. of obstacles, barriers, constraints or interference from others), whereas in the second case it seems to require the presence of something (i.e. of control, self-mastery, self-determination or self-realization). In Berlin's words, we use the negative concept of liberty in attempting to answer the question What is the area within which the subject a person or group of persons is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons?, whereas we use the positive concept in attempting to answer the question What, or who, is the source of control or interference that can determine someone to do, or be, this rather than that? (1969, pp. 12122).
It is useful to think of the difference between the two concepts in terms of the difference between factors that are external and factors that are internal to the agent. While theorists of negative freedom are primarily interested in the degree to which individuals or groups suffer interference from external bodies, theorists of positive freedom are more attentive to the internal factors affecting the degree to which individuals or groups act autonomously. Given this difference, one might be tempted to think that a political philosopher should concentrate exclusively on negative freedom, a concern with positive freedom being more relevant to psychology or individual morality than to political and social institutions. This, however, would be premature, for among the most hotly debated issues in political philosophy are the following: Is the positive concept of freedom a political concept? Can individuals or groups achieve positive freedom through political action? Is it possible for the state to promote the positive freedom of citizens on their behalf? And if so, is it desirable for the state to do so? The classic texts in the history of western political thought are divided over how these questions should be answered: theorists in the classical liberal tradition, like Constant, Humboldt, Spencer and Mill, are typically classed as answering no and therefore as defending a negative concept of political freedom; theorists that are critical of this tradition, like Rousseau, Hegel, Marx and T.H. Green, are typically classed as answering yes and as defending a positive concept of political freedom.
In its political form, positive freedom has often been thought of as necessarily achieved through a collectivity. Perhaps the clearest case is that of Rousseau's theory of freedom, according to which individual freedom is achieved through participation in the process whereby one's community exercises collective control over its own affairs in accordance with the general will. Put in the simplest terms, one might say that a democratic society is a free society because it is a self-determined society, and that a member of that society is free to the extent that he or she participates in its democratic process. But there are also individualist applications of the concept of positive freedom. For example, it is sometimes said that a government should aim actively to create the conditions necessary for individuals to be self-sufficient or to achieve self-realization. The negative concept of freedom, on the other hand, is most commonly assumed in liberal defences of the constitutional liberties typical of liberal-democratic societies, such as freedom of movement, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, and in arguments against paternalist or moralist state intervention. It is also often invoked in defences of the right to private property, although some have contested the claim that private property necessarily enhances negative liberty (Cohen, 1991, 1995).
After Berlin, the most widely cited and best developed analyses of the negative concept of liberty include Hayek (1960), Day (1971), Oppenheim (1981), Miller (1983) and Steiner (1994). Among the most prominent contemporary analyses of the positive concept of liberty are Milne (1968), Gibbs (1976), C. Taylor (1979) and Christman (1991, 2005).
Many liberals, including Berlin, have suggested that the positive concept of liberty carries with it a danger of authoritarianism. Consider the fate of a permanent and oppressed minority. Because the members of this minority participate in a democratic process characterized by majority rule, they might be said to be free on the grounds that they are members of a society exercising self-control over its own affairs. But they are oppressed, and so are surely unfree. Moreover, it is not necessary to see a society as democratic in order to see it as self-controlled; one might instead adopt an organic conception of society, according to which the collectivity is to be thought of as a living organism, and one might believe that this organism will only act rationally, will only be in control of itself, when its various parts are brought into line with some rational plan devised by its wise governors (who, to extend the metaphor, might be thought of as the organism's brain). In this case, even the majority might be oppressed in the name of liberty.
Such justifications of oppression in the name of liberty are no mere products of the liberal imagination, for there are notorious historical examples of their endorsement by authoritarian political leaders. Berlin, himself a liberal and writing during the cold war, was clearly moved by the way in which the apparently noble ideal of freedom as self-mastery or self-realization had been twisted and distorted by the totalitarian dictators of the twentieth century most notably those of the Soviet Union so as to claim that they, rather than the liberal West, were the true champions of freedom. The slippery slope towards this paradoxical conclusion begins, according to Berlin, with the idea of a divided self. To illustrate: the smoker in our story provides a clear example of a divided self, for she is both a self that desires to get to an appointment and a self that desires to get to the tobacconists, and these two desires are in conflict. We can now enrich this story in a plausible way by adding that one of these selves the keeper of appointments is superior to the other: the self that is a keeper of appointments is thus a higher self, and the self that is a smoker is a lower self. The higher self is the rational, reflecting self, the self that is capable of moral action and of taking responsibility for what she does. This is the true self, for rational reflection and moral responsibility are the features of humans that mark them off from other animals. The lower self, on the other hand, is the self of the passions, of unreflecting desires and irrational impulses. One is free, then, when one's higher, rational self is in control and one is not a slave to one's passions or to one's merely empirical self. The next step down the slippery slope consists in pointing out that some individuals are more rational than others, and can therefore know best what is in their and others' rational interests. This allows them to say that by forcing people less rational than themselves to do the rational thing and thus to realize their true selves, they are in fact liberating them from their merely empirical desires. Occasionally, Berlin says, the defender of positive freedom will take an additional step that consists in conceiving of the self as wider than the individual and as represented by an organic social whole a tribe, a race, a church, a state, the great society of the living and the dead and the yet unborn. The true interests of the individual are to be identified with the interests of this whole, and individuals can and should be coerced into fulfilling these interests, for they would not resist coercion if they were as rational and wise as their coercers. Once I take this view, Berlin says, I am in a position to ignore the actual wishes of men or societies, to bully, oppress, torture in the name, and on behalf, of their real selves, in the secure knowledge that whatever is the true goal of man ... must be identical with his freedom (Berlin 1969, pp. 13233).
Those in the negative camp try to cut off this line of reasoning at the first step, by denying that there is any necessary relation between one's freedom and one's desires. Since one is free to the extent that one is externally unprevented from doing things, they say, one can be free to do what one does not desire to do. If being free meant being unprevented from realizing one's desires, then one could, again paradoxically, reduce one's unfreedom by coming to desire fewer of the things one is unfree to do. One could become free simply by contenting oneself with one's situation. A perfectly contented slave is perfectly free to realize all of her desires. Nevertheless, we tend to think of slavery as the opposite of freedom. More generally, freedom is not to be confused with happiness, for in logical terms there is nothing to stop a free person from being unhappy or an unfree person from being happy. The happy person might feel free, but whether they are free is another matter (Day, 1970). Negative theorists of freedom therefore tend to say not that having freedom means being unprevented from doing as one desires, but that it means being unprevented from doing whatever one might desire to do.
Some theorists of positive freedom bite the bullet and say that the contented slave is indeed free that in order to be free the individual must learn, not so much to dominate certain merely empirical desires, but to rid herself of them. She must, in other words, remove as many of her desires as possible. As Berlin puts it, if I have a wounded leg there are two methods of freeing myself from pain. One is to heal the wound. But if the cure is too difficult or uncertain, there is another method. I can get rid of the wound by cutting off my leg (1969, pp. 13536). This is the strategy of liberation adopted by ascetics, stoics and Buddhist sages. It involves a retreat into an inner citadel a soul or a purely noumenal self in which the individual is immune to any outside forces. But this state, even if it can be achieved, is not one that liberals would want to call one of freedom, for it again risks masking important forms of oppression. It is, after all, often in coming to terms with excessive external limitations in society that individuals retreat into themselves, pretending to themselves that they do not really desire the worldly goods or pleasures they have been denied. Moreover, the removal of desires may also be an effect of outside forces, such as brainwashing, which we should hardly want to call a realization of freedom.
Original post:
Positive and Negative Liberty (Stanford Encyclopedia of ...
- Information Overload - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Same-Sex Marriage Gains - Iowa, DC and Vermont - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Obama and the Muslim World - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Nordyke - Incorporation of the Second Amendment to Apply to the States - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Obama's First 100 Days - Reclaiming the Constitution* - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Education Reform - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Legalize (and Tax) Vice - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Obama World vs. Cheney World - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- National Rifle Association v. Chicago (McDonald v. Chicago) Oral Arguments* - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Reconciling Liberty and Progressive Government - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Obama in the Middle East - A Respectful, Rational Voice - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Second Amendment Incorporation Update - Seventh Circuit Decision - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Strong versus Weak Judging - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Drawing the Line on the Obama Administration's National Security Practices - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Supreme Court Amicus Brief in McDonald v. Chicago - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- McDonald v. Chicago Amicus Brief - Volokh Conspiracy Link - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Healthcare Reform - Voices of Reason from Senators Wyden & Bennett - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Time to Legalize Drugs - Sensible WaPo Article - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Article in William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal: Rescuing the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Just Do It - Obama Needs Backbone for Meaningful Healthcare Reform, a la FDR - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Nordyke v. King Rehearing - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Huge News - Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in McDonald v. Chicago re: Privileges or Immunities - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Obama Needs to Take Stands on Principle - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Kudos to Harry Reid for Including Public Option in Proposed Health Care Bill - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Free Radicals - Individual Efforts Can Change the World - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Destroy the Filibuster - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- McDonald v. Chicago - Petitioner's Brief - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- Something on Which We Can All Agree - Less Government in Criminal Justice - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- Obama Approach to Governing; Afghanistan Policy - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- McDonald v. Chicago - Law Professors' Amicus Brief - December 15th, 2009 [December 15th, 2009]
- Senate Passes Health Care Insurance Reform - Reflections - December 25th, 2009 [December 25th, 2009]
- "Radicals In Their Own TIme" - Introduction & Selected Excerpts - January 1st, 2010 [January 1st, 2010]
- Terrific WaPo Farewell Column by Ellen Goodman - January 2nd, 2010 [January 2nd, 2010]
- Same-Sex Marriage Case in California - January 20th, 2010 [January 20th, 2010]
- Health Care; Corporate Speech Case - January 23rd, 2010 [January 23rd, 2010]
- McDonald v. Chicago - Essay in Cardozo Law Review de novo Online Journal - January 29th, 2010 [January 29th, 2010]
- Another Response to Citizens United: Remove Supreme Court Appellate Jurisdiction - February 11th, 2010 [February 11th, 2010]
- Olympics Idealism - March 1st, 2010 [March 1st, 2010]
- Framers Believed in Virtuous (ie, Humane) Government - March 21st, 2010 [March 21st, 2010]
- McDonald v. Chicago - Yesterday's Oral Argument - March 22nd, 2010 [March 22nd, 2010]
- Radicals in Their Own Time: Four Hundred Years of Struggle for Liberty and Equal Justice in America - May 21st, 2010 [May 21st, 2010]
- McDonald v. Chicago decision - October 11th, 2010 [October 11th, 2010]
- OpEd on McDonald v Chicago Case - June/July 2010 - October 11th, 2010 [October 11th, 2010]
- New Blog Format - October 11th, 2010 [October 11th, 2010]
- New Book - Radicals in Their Own Time - February 14th, 2011 [February 14th, 2011]
- Liberty Property Trust Hosts First Quarter 2012 Results Conference Call - March 31st, 2012 [March 31st, 2012]
- Liberty Property Trust Announces First Quarter 2012 Results - April 25th, 2012 [April 25th, 2012]
- Liberty Energy Announces Creation of Advisory Board and Appointment of Its First Member - April 25th, 2012 [April 25th, 2012]
- Liberty Tire Recycling, Keep Atlanta Beautiful and City of Atlanta Tire Commission Join Forces for Large-Scale Tire ... - April 25th, 2012 [April 25th, 2012]
- Liberty Bowl set for afternoon kick New Year's Eve - April 25th, 2012 [April 25th, 2012]
- Liberty Bowl Announces Date and Time - April 25th, 2012 [April 25th, 2012]
- Liberty ship sinking remembered - April 25th, 2012 [April 25th, 2012]
- Liberty Union searching for girls basketball coach - April 25th, 2012 [April 25th, 2012]
- How to Do a Liberty - Video - April 30th, 2012 [April 30th, 2012]
- Review: The "Liberty I" Ultra Compact Compound Bow vs. "Razor Edge" and "Slingbow" - Video - April 30th, 2012 [April 30th, 2012]
- Heavy Rain in Liberty City: Episode 1 (Grand Theft Auto IV Machinima) - Video - April 30th, 2012 [April 30th, 2012]
- Jordan Page "Liberty" (Acoustic Version) - Video - April 30th, 2012 [April 30th, 2012]
- StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty - Cinematic Trailer - Video - April 30th, 2012 [April 30th, 2012]
- China 9 Liberty 37 - Video - April 30th, 2012 [April 30th, 2012]
- Liberty`s Kids: #05 "Midnight Ride" (1/2) - Video - April 30th, 2012 [April 30th, 2012]
- Madness - The Liberty of Norton Folgate Live - Video - April 30th, 2012 [April 30th, 2012]
- I Pledge to Join Young Americans for Liberty - Video - April 30th, 2012 [April 30th, 2012]
- Steve Vai - Liberty - Video - April 30th, 2012 [April 30th, 2012]
- North Liberty fire chief: Email blasting staff was meant to motivate - May 4th, 2012 [May 4th, 2012]
- FCC dismisses Liberty Media request for control of SiriusXM - May 5th, 2012 [May 5th, 2012]
- Liberty FCC Request to Control Sirius XM Radio Rejected - May 5th, 2012 [May 5th, 2012]
- FCC rejects Liberty Media bid for Sirius XM control - May 7th, 2012 [May 7th, 2012]
- Liberty Rocket Targets 2015 - May 10th, 2012 [May 10th, 2012]
- Liberty boosts SiriusXM stake above 45% - May 10th, 2012 [May 10th, 2012]
- One Liberty Properties, Inc. Reports First Quarter 2012 Results - May 10th, 2012 [May 10th, 2012]
- Liberty to boost stake in Sirius XM to 45 pct - May 10th, 2012 [May 10th, 2012]
- ATK Announces Complete Liberty System to Provide Commercial Crew Access - May 10th, 2012 [May 10th, 2012]
- Penn Liberty Wealth Advisors Expands - May 10th, 2012 [May 10th, 2012]
- Romney Woos Evangelicals at Liberty University - May 13th, 2012 [May 13th, 2012]
- Liberty opener moved to MSG due to hockey game - May 13th, 2012 [May 13th, 2012]
- Romney Defends Marriage and Faith in Liberty University Speech - May 13th, 2012 [May 13th, 2012]
- Romney Speaks At Anti-Gay Liberty University Alongside Baptist Billionaire - May 13th, 2012 [May 13th, 2012]
- Liberty Center girls, Archbold boys reign - May 13th, 2012 [May 13th, 2012]
- Romney Courts Christian Conservatives at Liberty U - May 13th, 2012 [May 13th, 2012]