What does liberate mean?
PUBLISHED December 05, 2021
‘Freedom‘ and ‘Freedom‘ are the two keywords of 20th century, after decolonistation started globally especially for the gGlobal South (the Non-industrialized “nation-states”). In the current global scenario triggered by awareness of Covid-19 from February 2020, the world has changed quickly and dramatically. Actions taken independently before To VSovid-19, both at the individual and collective level are now governed by the way in which the terms ‘Freedom‘ and ‘Freedom‘ are interpreted globally by citizens and Internet users. The idea of Ifreedom in the GGlobal North (the Industrialized “nation-states”), because the identity of an individual or collective group (s) goes back at least to Kantian philosophy. This idea has since been examined by many researchers., and negative and positive freedom become buzzwords from 20e century in particular within the framework of the Cold War in a Bipolar Global Scenario.
‘Negative freedom‘ Normally understood as an absence of obstacles, barriers and constraints. Can we have mnegative Ifreedom in the measure of its available actions in the negative sense. ‘Positive freedom‘ on the other hand, is more about being able to take action – to take control of your life and achieve your basic goals. Negative Ifreedom is usually given to individual agents while ppositive Ifreedom granted to individuals belonging to a collective or to the collective itself. Both terms relate to the context of political and social philosophy, aand the two terms are distinct but often related to the philosophical discourse on ‘Free will‘. Former British scholar Isiah Berlin has done extensive work on mnegative and ppositive Ifreedom, and defended his arguments that the two freedoms mnegative and ppositive can be seen as rivals, incompatible interpretations of the same political ideal. Very few would claim to be against freedom, but when the term is interpreted and defined it can have important political implications.
Berlin underlines in its founding work ‘Positive and negative freedom‘ (First published in 2003; substantive review 2016), “Political liberalism tends to assume a negative definition of freedom: liberals generally claim that if individual freedom is to be promoted, strong limitations should be placed on the activities of the state. Critics of liberalism often dispute this implication by contesting the negative definition of freedom: they argue that the pursuit of freedom understood as self-actualization or as self-determination (whether of the individual or the collectivity) can require state intervention of a type not normally permitted by liberals.
Many political and social writers continue to use negative and positive “freedom” which may be a matter of style and the terms “”Ifreedom ‘and’Freedom ‘continue to be used interchangeably in most political and social discourse. The idea of differentiating between “liberty” and “liberty” has not gained the ground it deserves and this may be due to linguistics as most European languages such as Latin and Germanic traditions have only one term (eg freedom, Freiheit) while English contains both.
The two notions of Ifreedom
There are several examples that give us two opposite ways of thinking about freedom. We can think of freedom as the absence of obstacles external to the agent. We are free if no one prevents him from doing what we want to do. On the other hand, one can consider freedom as the presence of control on the part of the agent. To be free, you must be self-determined, that is, you must be able to control your own destiny for your own sake. If, for example, you are a regular smoker and run out of tobacco on your way to an important job interview and decide to take a detour to buy tobacco before you get to destination, risking to miss or be late for the job interview, then the person is not free. The person in question does not have control of his Where his destiny because the person cannot control a passion that must be let go and which prevents him from achieving what he is Where she recognizes their true interest. We can safely conclude that freedom is just about how many doors an agent has open, on second thought, it’s about going through the right doors for the right reasons.
These two concepts of freedom are what Isiah Berlin calls ‘notnegative‘ and ‘ppositive‘ respectively. In the first case, freedom seems to be a simple absence of certain elements (For example, obstacles, barriers, constraints, external interference, etc.) while in the second case it requires the presence of elements (For example, control, self-control, self-determination and / or self-realization). Negative concept of freedom, explains Berlin, in an attempt to answer the question “What is the area in which the agent Where subject – a person or group of people is or should be left to do or be what that person Where group of people are able to exist without interference from anyone? In the positive concept, we try to answer, “What, who is the source of control or interference that might determine someone to do or be this rather than that?”
In either case, it is always useful to think about the difference between the two concepts in terms of different factors external and internal to the agent. Negative freedom Where freedom theorists are primarily interested in the extent to which individuals or groups experience interference from external sources, while positive freedom theorists focus more on internal factors affecting the degree of autonomy of individuals or groups. groups. Faced with this difference between the two, one is tempted to think that a political philosopher should be concerned exclusively with negative freedom. The concern for positive freedom is more relevant for psychology or individual morality than for political and social institutions.
In other words, a democratic society is a free society by definition because it is considered a self-determined society and a member of a democratic society is considered free to the extent that the person participates in the democratic process. The individualistic applications of the concept of positive freedom should not be ignored. A good example is that of a welfare state in which it is believed that the government should aim to actively create the lasting conditions necessary for individuals to be self-sufficient or to achieve self-fulfillment. The welfare state argument is sometimes defended on this criterion, as is the idea of a universal basic income in many democratic societies. The negative concept of freedom, on the other hand, is more often than not concerned with the defense of liberal constitutional values typical of liberal democratic societies such as freedom of movement, religion, expression and arguments against all forms of freedom. Paternalistic, condescending or moralistic state. intervention. It is frequently invoked in the right to private property. A contentious point where some researchers dispute the claim that private property strengthens negative freedom and others claim that “negative freedom can found a form of egalitarianism.“
It would be premature to come to a conclusive argument concerning the two forms of freedoms. The most passionate debateD in Western scholars of political and social philosophy for nearly half a century is whether the positive concept of freedom is a political conception? Can individuals or even groups achieve positive freedom through political action? Is it desirable for a state to promote the positive freedom of citizens on their behalf? Historically, scholars of Western political and social thought have been divided over how to answer these questions. The response of classical liberal traditionalists is a categorical “no”. Critical theorists of this tradition like Rousseau, Hegel, Marx are typically classified as answering “yes” while defending a positive concept of political and social freedom.
Positive freedom in its political form is often taken for granted through a collective form. Perhaps Rousseau’s theory of freedom clearly articulates this concept according to which individual freedom depends on a process of participation while the commune exercises collective control over its own affairs according to a ‘general will‘.
After Isiah Berlin’s foundational work, many scholars have developed analyzes of the negative concept of freedom since the 1960s. A further explanation of the paradox of the positive form of liberty and liberty as a triadic tradition is explained in separate writings.
The writer is the former head of media sciences at SZABIST.