Scott Rhee's Reviews > On Freedom

Ask twenty people to define "freedom" and you'll get twenty different definitions. That's both the beauty and the weirdness of the word.

Timothy Snyder, in his book "On Freedom", attempts to define the word in terms that may seem logical but incongruous to Americans. According to Snyder, Americans have been defining the word incorrectly for centuries, and we are suffering the very real consequences of that fact.

For a large percentage of Americans, freedom is defined as something to be taken away---a "freedom from... [fill in the blank: oppression, regulation, unchecked monetary gain, ridicule, etc.]"---rather than as something to be gained---a "freedom to... [fill in the blank: live life, find happiness, go to college, make a decent wage, marry who you want, practice or not practice any religion, etc."

Snyder views the former type of freedom as "negative freedom", as it usually involves policy-making that restricts or limits actions but always, ironically, in the name of liberty. For example: attempts to restrict or eliminate regulations on certain business practices are almost always viewed (by conservatives) as a way to give businesses freer reign in the market, when, in fact, they are almost always pathways to more corrupt and harmful practices that screw over customers and the environment.

Snyder advocates for a "positive" view of freedom, one that nurtures creativity and autonomy for all people---white, non-white, gay, straight, religious, non-religious. Sadly, many Americans have, for centuries, viewed their world through a very narrow lens of their own making: I want freedom for me and my family and my kind, but if it helps to make other groups that I find inferior and dangerous (blacks, hispanics, gay, Jews, Muslims, etc.), then I'm willing to restrict it for everybody... In other words: I may want a piece of the pie, but if everybody else is going to get the same size piece of pie, just throw the pie away.

Snyder's definition of freedom involves five key ingredients: sovereignty, unpredictability, mobility, factuality, and solidarity. He describes each of these concepts in-depth in the book's five main chapters. Some of these concepts may make sense. Sovereignty, for example, is simply another word for "autonomy", or self-government. This seems logical when describing freedom. His concept of "unpredictability", however, may take some getting used to, since it tends to go against society's predilection for normalization and conformity as a virtue. "Bucking the system", "Being an outlier", "going against the grain" are all ways of being unpredictable, but they are also all somewhat frowned upon or discouraged by society, starting at a very young age.

"On Freedom" is, so far, the best book I have read this year, and, yes, I know this year has just started. It is, however, a book that I can see myself going back to numerous times for solace and wisdom.