DC-I

Semester 2: Political Theory: Concept and Debates

Lesson: Freedom

Lesson Developer: Sushma Gupta

Motilal Nehru College (Evening)

University of Delhi

Institute of lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 1

 Content

I. Introduction

II. Meaning and development of the concept

III. Freedom and authority

IV. Various Conceptions of Freedom

V. Negative and Positive Freedom

VI. Isaiah Berlin’s analysis

VII. Freedom as Emancipation

VIII. Freedom as Development

IX. Conclusion

Institute of lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 2

Freedom or liberty1 is a powerful idea that has guided and inspired human societies in all
ages. Human history is replete with examples when people have made sacrifices and even
lay down their lives for the sake of freedom. In the name of freedom, great acts of heroism
as well as despicable acts of crime have been committed. Human being have struggled,
waged war, led peaceful and armed movements to achieve, posses, protect and defend
freedom. Even today there are few ideals which can move man more readily than the ideal
of freedom.it is easy to invoke but difficult to analyze the concept of freedom. Now, the
question arises why is freedom accorded so much priority and why the idea of freedom
moves people so much? Perhaps, it is the freedom that makes human life worth enjoying.
The struggle for freedom represents the desire of the people to be in control of their own
lives and destinies and to have the opportunity to express themselves freely through their
choices and activities. Freedom has strong laudatory expression and applies to whatever
seems valuable in human life.

MEANING AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONCEPT

All political concepts are ‘essentially contested’, so is the concept of freedom. Definition of
the term is deeply disputed. Philosophers and theorists from different political traditions
attributed different meaning to the term ‘freedom’, therefore no attempt to determine the
best definition of the term freedom is likely to succeed. The concept of freedom is used
differently by different ideological systems and isused in a variety of competing and
incompatible meanings. Classical liberals conceive freedom as absence of restraints. It
implies rolling back of the state and minimizing the realm of political authority. Positive
liberals, view freedom as creation of those conditions by the state that lead to personal
development and human fulfilment. Anarchists regard freedom as an absolute value and are
opposed to all form of political authority. Socialists tends to subscribe to positive view of
freedom that justifies widening of the state responsibility particularly in realm of welfare
activities and economic management. Marxists are critical of civil and political liberties extol
as an ideal by capitalist societies and plead for a society in which freedom of one become a
condition for freedom of all. For feminists, freedom means freedom of women from
subjugation and oppression caused by patriarchy. Raz is aptly right when he says

“What we need is neither a definition (of freedom) nor merely conceptual clarity useful as
these always are, they will not solve our problem. What we require are moral principles and
arguments to supplement them”. (Raz quoted in Against Positive and Negative liberty by
Adrian Blau, Political Theory, Vol. XXXII, No. IV, p. 548.)

At most simplest level, freedom is absence of restraints. The word liberty is derived from
Latin word liberwhich means ‘to be free’. Freedom is said to exist when external constraints
on individual are absent. In other words, an individual is considered to be free if s/he is not
subject to external control or coercion and is able to make independent decision and act in
autonomous way. However, absence of constraints is only one aspect of freedom. Freedom
is also about expanding the ability of people to express themselves, develop their potential

1
In this chapter the term freedom and liberty are used synonymously and inter changeably in social and political
sense. In the metaphysics, there is another idea of freedom which refers to freedom of will, in other words, the
concept of free will. But this is purely a philosophical concept and out of the purview of present chapter.

Institute of lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 3

and pursue their life plans which they finds valuable. As such freedom is the condition in
which people can develop their capabilities and creativity.

Closely associated with the philosophy of individualism, the concept of freedom developed,
predominantly in modern times. This is not to suggest, that ancient and mediaeval societies
had no idea of freedom, though definitely, it was not conceived in terms of individual
freedom. Greek philosophers, Socrates and Plato refused to accept the notion of individual
freedom against the society or the state. For Socrates, freedom lies in the obedience to the
law of the state. While being punished for treason, he refused to run away from the prison
and readily drank the poison. For Greeks, a free citizen was one who took part in the
political affairs of the community. Individuals however, were not given any rights against
the state.Political community, in ancient western political traditions, was conceived not
merely as an instrumentality but rather as a locus of human identity.

During the medieval period, there was no idea of freedom as such. With the collapse of the
Roman Empire, the political authority in the West got fragmented into small kingdoms. Not
only this, the Church replaced the political community as the focus of people’s loyalty and
moral guidance.During this period, a metaphysical notion of freedom prevailed. Christian
doctrine propagated that the service of the God and living in accordance with the ‘will of
God’ is perfect freedom. The modern period began with renaissance and religious
reformation in Europe. The proponents of religious reformation argued for freedom in the
field of religious beliefs and put emphasis on freedom of conscience. As a result of
renaissance, a multi-dimensional demand for freedom was raised. It was raised against the
then existing social order represented by Papacy, feudalism and monarchy. A new
entrepreneurial class which was gradually emerging demanded freedom of free contract and
free trade against the mercantile policies of the state. Restraints, whether economic or
political, were not conducive for the growth of this class; hence, absence of external
restraints was seen as a precondition for the individual freedom. State was considered as a
necessary evil required only for maintaininga minimum framework of rules. This was purely
a negative concept of freedom supported by thinkers such as Hobbes, Locke, Smith,
Bentham and Mill. This view of freedom was dominated in Europe during in 17th and 18th
century. The concept of negative freedom played an historic role. It released the forces of
production blocked by the feudal system. However, by the middle of 19th century, the
capitalist system supported by laissez faire state and negative freedom resulted in the
misery and hardships for the working classes. Oppression and exploitation of the workers
led to the enormous disparities in wealth and power in the society. Consequently, a new
definition of freedom was demanded by humanist thinkers, i.e. positive liberals, socialist,
and the Marxist. It was argued, that the policy of non-intervention by the state was not
compatible with freedom as a universal principle. Unrestrained freedom becomes freedom
only for few. It was felt that the benefits of freedom should go to every one whether rich or
poor. Writings of Kant, Hegel, Bosanquet and Burke advocated positive freedom rather than
merely a negative notion of freedom. Freedom was conceived as a creation of those socio-
economic conditions without which freedom would not become a universal principle and
enjoyed by all.

FREEDOM AND AUTHORITY

Institute of lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 4

The problem, how to adjust the claims of individuals with that of society, is a perennial
problemin political philosophy and it is so in case of freedom. If the claim of the individual is
stretched to an extreme in utter disregard of interest of society, then liberty become
license. It is a point at which freedom becomes excessive and turns into abuse. Such a
condition is not desirable for the maintenance of social cohesiveness and stability. It is also
not conducive to the maintenance of freedom itself. Therefore, it is necessary to fix the
proper frontiers between freedom and authority. These frontiers are fixed differently by
different political ideologies. In spite of the claims of anarchists, it can be said, that there is
nothing like absolute liberty, unrestrained by laws, morals or actions of others. Liberty can
become meaningful and worthwhile within the framework of law. Why law and liberty is
treated as mutually exclusive is because of the impression created by eighteenth century
individualism that every action of the state is an infringement upon the individual freedom.
But later developments clearly showed, that authority in some forms or other is necessary
for maintenance of liberty. As Willoughby puts it freedom exists because there is restraint.
The only liberty possible for civilized man is defined and limited liberty. Certain restraints
are necessary in the interest of general well-being but this should be applied rationally and
society should be convinced of their reasonableness. Otherwise, liberty and authority would
remain opposite to each other. So long as, one has the feeling that law is an external
compulsion devised for the benefit of some particular classes, there is bound to be
discontent and unhappiness leading at times to rebel and revolt. Therefore, if liberty is to be
reconciled with authority, the authority which we are called upon to obey should be
reasonable and obedience to this authority should be voluntary. The authority of the state is
more justified if it is backed by moral support and legitimacy instead of mere force. In the
words of Rousseau

“Obedience to that authority which we proscribe to ourselves is liberty” (Rousseau, 1967:

19)

DIFFERENT CONCEPTIONS OF FREEDOM

Ideas about freedom have varied through western history. Various thinkers have interpreted
the concept of freedom in their own way. H B Constant has distinguished between ancient
and modern version of freedom. David miller has identified three traditions of thought on
freedom: republican, liberal and idealist. Isaiah Berlin prefers a twofold distinction between
positive and negative liberty.

H B Constant, the nineteenth century French liberal philosopher, distinguished between

ancient and modern liberty. In his famous lecture “The Liberty of Ancient compared with
that of Moderns” Constant argued, that liberty for ancient, essentially meant participation as
a citizen in the governance of the city-state. Liberty meant participation in the wide range of
civic activities-deliberative, judicial, military and so forth. By contrast, moderns define
liberty as pursuit and protection of private rights. It meant civil liberties i.e. freedom of life,
freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, freedom of association and other such
freedoms. The stress of moderns is on individual liberty. Constant contends that in the
Greek city-states specifically in Athens, a measure of civil liberties was granted to citizens
but Greeks never thought of liberty in terms of civil liberties. For them, liberty meant a
social status and a position ofa person who is not a slave and is a citizen of self-governing

Institute of lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 5

state.Constant suspects, ancient notion of freedom as direct participation in the affairs of
state is possible in the modern states due to their sheer size. However, a diluted form of
participation (political representation) is essential even in modern state, if liberty is to be
secured.

Miller identified three main traditions of freedom. The first and the oldest is republican, the
most direct political conception of freedom since it defines freedom by reference to a certain
set of political arrangements.(Miller, 1991: 2-3). Machiavelli, Rousseau, Arendt and in
recent times Skinner and Pettit are the chief exponents of this notion of freedom. In the
fourth century BC in ancient Greek city states this notion of freedom was prevalent. A
person according to this view is free if he or she is citizen of free political community which
is independent and self-governing. Citizens play an active role in the government and
discharge their civil obligations. Freedom, in this notion, is realizable through public service
and political activities. Miller argued that Athens, a Greek city-state was not a democracy in
strict sense of the term as it disqualified large number of people i.e. women, slaves, manual
labours from citizenship, thus denying them freedom. Law, in this tradition was not seen
opposite of freedom. Despotism- the arbitrary rule of a tyrant, in this tradition, is opposite
of freedom as the subjects are powerless to resist the tyrant who interferes arbitrarily in
their lives and possessions. Machiavelli and Rousseau’sconception of liberty is republican in
nature .Freedom for Machiavelli thefifteenthcenturyItalian thinker, stood for independence
from external aggression and internal tyranny and the effective exercise of political rights by
a public spirited person. Machiavelli focused on the question of public interests versus
private ends and the role of republican institutions in realizing civic virtues. He saw devotion
to the public cause as a necessary pre condition for claiming and enjoying private rights.

Rousseauthe french liberal philosopher tries to reconcile individual liberty with political
authority. He distinguishes between liberty and independence. Liberty consists in acting
according to one’s wishes. It means not being subject to the will of other person. Anyone
who is master over other can not to be considered as a free person. Rousseau’s ideal
republic is a community vested with the ‘general will’ that is will of all individuals thinking in
common and public interest. Instead of representative democracy, Rousseau advocates a
direct participatory democracy close to the version what the ancient Greeks practiced.

Arendt considers freedom to be the focal point of politics and like Aristotle regards political
activity to be original and supreme. Freedom is the right to take part in the political process
of one’s polity. Human affairs assumes significance only if they fulfil the public dimension of
life. It does not mean absence of restraints on rights of life, liberty and property and
liberation form arbitrary rule. She argued that freedom is possible only in a republic.

Machiavelli and Arendt are not alone in extolling the virtues of an active political life and the
meaningful exercise of citizenship. The republican ideal of freedom which focused on civic
virtue and public involvement find articulation in a wide range of historians and political
theorists in recent times, a view which is discussed later.

The second tradition of thought on freedom is liberal. This tradition treats liberty as the core
value. Liberalism is projected as the philosophy of the free society. Freedom is defined as
the property of the individuals and consists in absence of restraints. A person is free to the

Institute of lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 6

extent that he/she is able to do things the way he/she wishes without being blocked by
activities of other people. Liberal philosophers differ on what could be the proper sphere of
government’s activities but they all share the view that

“Freedom is the matter of scope or extent of government rather than of its form or
character.” (Miller: 1991: 4)

In the liberal view, while government secures freedom by protecting each person from the
interference of others, it also threatens freedom by itself imposing laws and directives with
the help of force. To quote Miller,

“While the republican sees freedom as being realized through a certain kind of
politics, the liberal tend to see freedom as beginning where politics ends.especially in”
various forms of private life. (Miller: 1991: 4)

The third tradition on freedom is the Idealist tradition. In this tradition the focus shift from
the social arrangements or on rights to the way a person actually lives and acts. A person is
free when he/she acts autonomously by following his/her rational beliefs and true desires.
Freedom is no longer a struggle to be free from external constraints but from inner forces
which thwart individual efforts to realize his/her true nature. These internal forces or
elements within a person may be his/her weaknesses, desires, compulsions, instincts and so
forth. At first glance, it seems that this view of freedom has nothing to do with politics. But
it became political, the moment certain political conditions are identified by idealists as
necessary for freedom. The exponents of the idealist view are Hegel and Green.
NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE FREEDOM

Political theorists have broadly categorized the freedom into two negative and positive.
Negative freedom connotes freedom as the absence of the constraints i.e. no interference
by the state in certain activities of the individual to enable him to pursue his own goals as
long as he does not obstruct others in similar freedom. Positive freedom on the other hand,
has been portrayed as self-realization, rational self-direction or capacity to make choices.
While, Hobbes, Bentham, Mill Tocqueville Constant and in recent times Berlin Hayek and
Freidman carried the banner for negative freedom, positive freedom found expression in the
writings of Plato, Kant Rousseau and Marx.

Institute of lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 7

Negative Freedom

As stated above negative freedom means the absence of external constraints or ‘freedom
from’. Hobbes wrote in Leviathan

“Liberty or freedom signifies the absence of opposition; by opposition I mean

external impediment to motion”.

A similar contemporary view is expressed by Berlin2 who writes

“I am normally said to be free to the degree to which no men or body of men interfere with
my activity.”

Firmly based upon the faith in individualrationality, and autonomy the idea of negative
freedom thrived at a time when people were struggling to be free from unnecessary
restraints of arbitrary government andshackles of coercive economic system. They wanted
to carve out a private space both economic and political for themselves. This view of
freedom prods over the question what is the area within which individual is or should be left
free to do what he/she is able to do without the interference of others. Preservation of this
area became one of the main concernsof liberals. J. S. Mill has propounded the ‘harm
principle’ which states that freedom of individual can be restrained only if it harms other.
Mill stated this so eloquently in his essay ‘On Liberty’ [1859]

2
Berlin’s views are explained in detail in a subsequent section.

Institute of lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 8

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill

“The sole end for which mankind is warranted individually or collectively in

interfering with the liberty of action of any of their member is self-protection. That the only
purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized
community against his will is to prevent harm to others.”[Mill;1976;79]

Mill introduces an important distinction between ‘self-regarding’ and ‘other-regarding’

actions. He argued that with regard to self-regarding actions the state has no business to
interfere. In contrast, actions which may cause to harm others, there may arise justification
for external interference. Mill included most of the actions of the individual in the personal
sphere and pleads for non-interference by the state. Mill defends individuality or the right to
choice meaning individual ought to be allowed the freedom to develop his own talent and
invent his own life style. He regards liberty to conscience, liberty to express and publish
one’s opinion, liberty to live as one pleases, liberty of association as essential liberties for a
meaningful life and for the pursuit of one’s good. However, he accepts reasonable
interference by the society to circumscribe individual liberty in order to prevent to harm
other people.

Negative freedom basically conceived by its defenders as ‘freedom of choice’. Supporters of

negative freedom have usually supported the idea of minimum state and their sympathies
are with unfettered capitalism. Laws are seen as a constraint on individual freedom.
However, it does not mean abolition of all laws but only that it should be restricted to the
protection of one’s liberty from the encroachment of others. Friedman, in his book ‘Liberty
and Capitalism’ finds a necessary connection between freedom and capitalism. Friedman
argued that only free market capitalist economy can provide vital freedoms to individuals.
Economic freedom means freedom of choice in the market place. Such a view presupposes
that in the market producers, workers and consumersall are free to choose. To choose
means that the individual makes a voluntary or unhindered choice from among a range of
options. Consequently, it can safely be assumed that a choice reflects a person’s choice,
preferences, wants and needs. It also implies that an individual is rational being and he
knows it very well that what lies in his interest.

Institute of lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 9

Following the empiricist approach to freedom, Hayek characterized individual freedom as
the absence of coercion. Coercion is defined as intentional interference by other people in a
protected individual domain. Hayek argued that individuals can be made responsible only
for the state of affairs they intentionally cause. Coming in defence of free markets, Hayek
maintained that the outcome of free markets is caused not by the deliberate intentions of
participants but by actions of millions of self-interested economic agents who act
independently. Therefore it cannot be characterized as just or unjust. (Hayek in Miller 1991;
99)

The notion of negative freedom is not without its opponent or rivals. It is being argued by
the critiques that negative freedom amounts to freedom to starve because when individuals
are left to the vagaries of market, they may fell prey to its arbitrary justice. C.B.
Macpherson criticized liberal notion of freedom and argued that the unequal access to the
means of life and labour inherent in capitalism is an impediment to the freedom of those
who had little or no access to means and resources.

Positive Freedom

Concrete freedoms require not only the absence of external constraints but also the
availability of the objective conditions for actions as distinct from the constraining
conditions. For example, though someone is free to study up till any level as there is no
legal or discriminatory barrier but if he has no money to pay for his fee that means he lacks
one of the conditions necessary to act on his choice. Being linked to the capacity of human
beings to act and fulfil themselves this conception of freedom is more concerned with the
distribution of economic resources. Instead of the laissez faire capitalism the notion of
positive freedom is linked with welfare state and the idea of social justice. Positive freedom
advocates state intervention in the socio-economic sphere so as to make freedom realizable
for all. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, stark inequalities and injustice
grew in the western societies, as a result of unfettered capitalism. Working classes were
subjected to oppression and led a miserable life burdened by poverty, starvation, sickness
and disease. The role of the state in ameliorating the conditions of miserable masses was
seen as necessary by positive liberals and social democrats. Green was the first liberal
philosopher to openly embrace a positive conception of freedom.In his famous essay ‘Liberal
Legislation and Freedom of Contract’ (1888) Green argued that state intervention even if it
is tantamount to a breach of contract actually expands positive liberty. He has shown the
limitations of the early liberal doctrine of freedom as non-interference. Green defined
freedom as ‘the ability of the people to make the most and best of themselves’. (Green,
1888; 371)

Freedom, in the positive sense, reflects the idea of self-development i.e. as the freedom to
develop one’s self through one’s actions or a process of realizing one’s project through
activity in course of which one forms one’s character and develops capacities. This
conception of freedom stresses on the importance of the availability of objective conditions
both material and social without which people cannot achieve their purposes. The socialists
and the Marxists also view freedom in this sense.

Positive freedom does not mean that negative freedom is dispensable. Rather as the
absence of external constraints imposed by other persons, negative freedom is also an
essential enabling condition for self-development. Thus, the guarantees of civil liberties and
political rights are central to the meaning of self-development or of positive freedom.

Institute of lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 10

ISAIAH BERLIN’S ANALYSIS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IsaiahBerlin.jpg

The contemporary discussion on freedom has profoundly shaped by the analysis of Berlin, a
prominent twentieth century liberal Philosopher. In his seminal essay ‘Two Concepts of
Liberty’, Berlin argued, that in the history of ideas, liberty has had two quite distinct
meanings. In the first negative sense of the word, “a person is free to the degree to which
no man or body of man interferes with his activity. Political liberty, in this sense, is simply
the area within which a man can act un-obstructed by others.” (Berlin: 1979: 122). In the
second positive sense of the word, “a person is free to the extent that he/she is his/her own
master whose life and decisions depend upon himself/herself and not on external forces of
any kind. A person who is autonomous or self-determining who is thinking, willing or active
being ,bearing responsibility for his own choice and able to explain them by reference to
ideas and purposes is ‘positive free. By drawing the contrast between negative and positive
freedom, Berlin has identified an important conceptual distinction. By doing so, he wants to
criticize the positive conception of freedom and see in this view the seeds of totalitarianism.
He argued that freedom as self-mastery divides the individual self into two i.e. lower and
the higher self. Lower self is the self of irrational impulse and uncontrolled desire. If a
person has to reach to the height of his/her true nature he/she has to discipline his/her
lower self that is his/her passion and desires. Higher self is the real or ideal or the
autonomous self. Higher self than is equated with the social whole of which individual is only
a part. Collective or social whole imposes its will upon its reluctant members to achieve
higher freedom. Once the state is seen as embodying such a higher rationality, this is taken
to justify coercing others for its own sake, since this is supposedly getting them to do what
they would choose for themselves if they are fully rational.

Institute of lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 11

Berlin’s view of freedom has been challenged by Gerald MacCallum. Freedom, he argued, is
always one and the same triadic relation. Freedom is always of something (an agent or
agents) from something to do or not to do become or not to become something. Any
statement about freedom must take the form ‘X’is free from ‘Y’ to do ‘Z’. Whereas ‘X’ stands
for agent, ‘Y’ for constraints’ and ‘Z’ meansactions. Rejecting Berlin’s dichotomy between
negative and positive freedom, MacCallumsaid, freedom is a statement about the freedom
of ‘X’ from ‘Y’ to do ‘Z’. Number of contemporary thinkers such as Rawls, Feinberg and Grey
endorsed MacCallum’s understanding of freedom. MacCallum argued that Berlin has taken a
arbitrary view of constraints. Constraints do not mean deliberate interference of other
human beings only.Person can said to be constrained by internal forces and factors as well.
Once you admit this, then there remains no distinction between positive and negative
freedom. Supporters of positivefreedom such as Plato, Kant Hegel who talked about inner
constraints then fall within the negative camp. (MacCallum in Miller; 1991; 100)

Charles Taylor in his essay ‘What’s wrong with Negative Liberty?’ rose to the defence of
positive liberty. Taylor does not agree that freedom as a ‘self-rule’ and ‘independence’ rely
on the negative rubric of freedom as an absence of restraints. Freedom is an affirmative
achievement of self-realisation. Critiquing Berlin and emphasizing deeper distinction
between negative and positive freedom, Taylor suggests that “negative freedom is usually
an ‘opportunity’ concept while positive freedom is always an ‘exercise’ concept. (Taylor,
1979: 176.). The key to his distinction lies in the fact that ‘opportunity’ concept sees only
external obstacles to action as obstacles to freedom. By contrast to understand freedom as
an ‘exercise’ concept, is to accept that the internal obstacles of the mind which affect our
motivation, and control our capacity to moral discrimination also affects our freedom.
(Taylor, 1979; 179)

In recent decades, Berlian dichotomy has been attacked by Quinton Skinner who mounted a
challenge to the hegemony of liberal notion of freedom by defending a third or republican
notion of freedom. Skinner originally talked about the republican conception but more
recently shifted the description to the neo- Roman theory of free states. (For details,
Skinner: 1998: 1-57) Skinner argued that the hegemony of negative liberty within liberal
ideology is the result of liberalism’s roots in the idea of Bentham and Mill. Bentham presents
a physicalist notion of freedom as absence of personal interference which is a descriptive
concept and at best a derivative value.Utilitarians such as Bentham and Mill, have
developed and propagated a narrow and negative conception of liberty that has become a
common currency of the ideology of modern liberalism. Criticising Berlin, Skinner contends
that the choice does not fall between a narrow conception of freedom as non-interference
which is inimical to all forms of government activities and positive freedom which has a
totalitarian impulse because of its subordination of individual interest to the collective will or
to the objective moral law.He presented a republican conception of freedom as an
alternative to utilitarianism.

Making a distinction between liberal and republican notion of freedom, Skinner argued that

“Freedom for liberals is an attribute of a person’s action and not categorisation of states and
institutions.”

Institute of lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 12

(P.J. Kelly: 2001: 17)

Utilitarians, according to Skinner, sever the connection between political liberty and
constitutional form which is central to the vision of republican theorists. The liberal view
gives priority to the private realm of personal consumption and denies the role of political
actions by citizens. The main argument of Skinner is, that by reducing all questions of
liberty into questions of personal liberty, liberalism has shadowed the republican conception
of free states.

Having discussed the various conceptions and negative and positive aspects of freedom, we
shall now discuss two other important aspects of freedom: Freedom as Emancipation and
Freedom as Development.

Freedom as Emancipation

The idea of freedom is associated with emancipation also. The question arises, ‘what do we
mean by emancipation?’ According to Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary:

‘To emancipate someone means to free them from social, political or legal restrictions that
are considered to be degrading or unnecessary or from having to do degrading work.’

Emancipation, in this sense, means liberation from the structures of domination, oppression
and exploitation. In the twentieth century, a new language of freedom emerged in the
growth of liberation movements proclaiming the need for women liberation, sexual
liberation, Dalit liberation and liberation from exploitation that pervades in capitalist
societies. Emancipation or liberation constitutes a radical notion of freedom, i.e., the
overthrow of an all-encompassing system of oppression, thus offering the prospects of
complete human freedom. At the first glance, emancipation seems to be a synonym for
freedom; because to emancipate means to free or to escape. But the notion of emancipation
went much further and deeper than freedom. It connotes a particular form of freedom and a
distinctive style of political movements.

Heywood opines that: “Liberation implies not merely the removal of constraints upon the
individual or even the promotion of individual self-development but rather the overthrow of
what is seen as an all-encompassing system of subjugation and oppression. Liberation
marks nothing less than a historic break with the past. The past represents oppression and
un-freedom, while the future offers complete human satisfaction. The term liberation
therefore tends to possess a quasi-religious character in that whether it refers to an
oppressed nation, ethnic group, gender or an entire society, it offers a vision of human life
as entirely satisfying and completelyfulfiling.”(Heywood.2012; 27).

Although liberation movements against oppression are seen as a modern phenomenon, the
idea of oppression can be traced back to the ancient times and runs all through the
medieval and modern times. Oppression can take different forms in society during different
periods of its history, it is a pervasive phenomenon. Emancipation, in all such cases, implies
the act of liberation of people from different kinds of unfavourable and oppressive
conditions. Human beings have a ‘will to power’ thus deprive others of necessary means of

Institute of lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 13

exercising their freedom. In ancient times, slavery was practiced in many parts of the world.
In Greek and Roman societies slaves were denied the right to citizenship. They did not have
the freedom to participate in the political affairs of the community. Leave aside the political
participation; slaves did not have any control over their lives. Slaves were the property of
their masters who had complete control and full rights over their lives. Freedom, in the
sense, of being left alone or absence of constraints was not available to them. They did not
have any sphere in their lives which could be treated as ‘self-regarding’ in the Millian sense,
where they could have complete freedom.Emancipation of slaves meant that they ceased to
be the legal property of their masters and had the right to live according to their free will.

In the medieval period, the structures of oppression remained intact though slavery was
largely replaced by serfdom in the new system known as feudalism. Serfs(from the verb ‘to
serve’) worked on and cultivated the lands owned by the landlords and in return for their
labour, got only a small share of the produce. Though a little freer than a slave, a serf,
nevertheless, was tied to the land and did not have economic freedom to change his
master. The lord claimed a number of monopolies at the expense of his freedom. In this
case, the emancipation of a serf would mean giving him the freedom to leave his lord and
earn a living by selling his labour in the open market. This would relieve him from all
obligations attached to his status.

The modern period ushered in a new kind of productive system, known as the free market
or capitalist system. This system made the labour free and mobile. The labourer became a
wage earner and was free to sell his labour in the open market. Capitalism brought in its
vogue other kinds of freedom too, i.e., civil and political freedoms. At the first instance it
appears that the system has made workers and laborers free as they were not the property
of their masters like slaves and were not tied to the land and lord like the serfs. But what
appears apparent in this productive system, freedom of workers has not happened in
actuality.

The Marxian theory given by Karl Marx and his friend Engels and enriched by number of
others, beautifully brought to light how this (capitalist) system of production is exploitative
and dehumanized the human beings. According to the Marxian view, capitalist system of
production is not at all conducive to freedom both for capitalist as well as workers. Marxists
does not subscribe to the view that civil and political freedoms are the highest ideals and
other freedoms are dependent on it. Marxian theory defines freedom, on a philosophical
plane, as the removal of obstacles in the path of full flowering of human essence.

Explaining the Marxian view of freedom, Huberman and Sweezy write:

“ Freedom means living life to the fullest- the economic ability to satisfy the need of body
with regard to adequate food, clothing and shelter plus effective opportunity to cultivate the
mind, develop one’s personality and assert one’s individuality.” (Sweezy.1964; 76)

In the ‘Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts’ (1844) Marx laid down the ethical basis of
socialism and humanist foundation of freedom. He severely criticized the capitalist system
for its dehumanizing effect. He argued persuasively, that how a system (capitalism) which
caused alienation of man in several ways, can provide true basis for human freedom. In
spite of interpretations, Marxist and socialists of all hues, regard economic freedom as

Institute of lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 14

primary and consider political and civil liberties as formal in the presence of economic
inequalities. In a class divided society, the freedom of owners of property is built upon the
exploitation of the property-less.

Mechanisms such as constitution, rule of law, or charter of rights, in a capitalist society is a

façade to conceal the exploitation and oppression. It is not the state that poses threat to
individual liberty rather it is economic exploitation that prevents self-realization and material
sufficiency.

Marx has established a critical relationship between liberal freedoms and political power. In
his article ‘On the Jewish Question’ (1844) written in response to Jewish demand for equal
rights, Marx explains that the bourgeoisie revolution has no doubt emancipated individuals
politically, but political emancipation cannot be equated with human emancipation. He
argued, that equal rights and liberties including freedom of speech and expression could
lead to political emancipation of minorities but could not break the stranglehold of the
system of property relations over society and individual lives.Rather, civil liberties would be
used as a tool by the property owning classes to reinforce their power under the guise of
applying equal freedoms and rights. It is only when the power relations generated by the
unequal ownership of property changed, that civil rights and freedoms would really be
equally available to all. Hence Marxian theory conceptualized a society (a socialist and
afterwards a communist) in which the free development of each would be the condition for
the free development of all and where humanity will move from the kingdom of necessity to
the kingdom of freedom.

Marcuse, a neo-Marxist, highlights another important dimension of bondage, liberation from

which is necessary for real emancipation. In his work ‘Repressive Tolerance’ (1969),
Marcuse argued that though the western liberal democracies have removed the traditional
obstacles to liberty, they have managed to stifle human rationality and freedom by new
forms of domination and repression. The masses do not enjoy true liberty since their tastes
and desires are manipulated. The revolutionary spirit in people becomes dull and faded due
to a constant supply of consumer goods which makes a person a mere consumer rather
than a rational thinker. Marcuse emphasized that true freedom lies in the pursuit of rational
ends that is desirable and not in making choices that are restricted to the present. Modern
liberal democracies have turned man into a uni -dimensional man and have subverted his
creative and critical dimensions.

FREEDOM AS DEVELOPMENT

Institute of lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 15

In his book “Development as Freedom” (1999)”, the noted economist and philosopher
Amartya Sen links freedom with development. Sen explained in his book, that how in a
world of unprecedented opulence, millions of people in rich and poor countries are still un-
free. Though, they are not slave in legal and technical terms, they are denied elementary
freedoms and remained imprisoned in one way or the other. Thus, the main purpose of
development is to spread freedom and its thousand charms to the un-free people.

Development for Sen, is the process of expanding real human freedoms, hence the title of
his book. At the centre of Sen’s philosophy is the notion of positive freedoms or what he
calls ‘substantive’ freedoms’. Freedom is not the absence of external interference, but the
capacity to be and do the things which people think as valuable for them. It is the ability to
function well in the life in terms of the ends which one set for oneself.

In Sen’s account, ‘substantive’ freedoms are valuable things that can be divided and
delivered to human beings in different degrees. Things such as income or freedom from
coercion are valuable and are precondition for positive freedom, but they themselves are
not sufficient. A person can have little or lot of money and same is the true with the
coercion. One can be slave constantly and subject to the whims of his master or one can
have maximum available freedom from coercion.

Substantial Freedom and Capability

Sen used the term ‘capability’ to explain what he means by positive freedom. Capability
means valuable ‘functioning’s’ that is ‘beings’ and ‘doings’ such as being well nourished or
having shelter. A person’s capability represents the effective freedom of an individual to
choose between different functioning combinations, that is between the kinds of lives which
one value. In other words, a society provides freedom to its citizens, but if they are not

Institute of lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 16

equipped with physical and/or mental capabilities to use these freedoms, then this freedoms
are meaningless. Therefore, investing in education, providing health care, giving equal
rights and liberties and other such social programs that enhance the capabilities of the
individuals are seen as important for economic progress as building roads, airports and
investing in businesses. A practical outcome of the capability approach has been articulated
by the United Nations Development Program in its Human Development Index. The Human
Development Index gives a more socially oriented account ofcomparative welfare in
different countries than the purely economic indicators of other international organizations
such as the IMF or the World Bank.

For Liberals, freedom means enhancing individual autonomy by aiding one’s capacity to
choose among different conception of good life. But Senwishes to make individual more
freer not only in liberal sense, by removing constraints and giving him choices but rather
making him more capable of effective action. ‘Why’ asks Sen, the status of intense
economic needs, which are matter of life and death for a person, should be lower than that
of personal liberties. Criticizing Rawls’ idea of providing basic equal liberties and primary
goods to the people, Sen argued that providing people with basic goods it-self is not
sufficient as people have different capabilities and abilities, in terms of transferring basic
and primary goods into the instruments of achieving their self-chosen ‘ends’. Therefore, if
we have to secure equal and fair allocation of freedom, we have to consider different types
ofresources and goods which people need, and their capacities to make use of these goods

Clarifying the nature of positive freedom, Sen contends that positive freedom is not identical
or equal to the achievement of well-being [being well and doing well.] His point can be
understood by following example. Gandhi, when he observed fast to make an ethical
argument, went without food deliberately. On the other side, a person starved because he
has no food to eat. Both are not ‘doing well’ in terms of theirnutritional intake, an important
aspect of their health. But Gandhi, who has had chosen to go on fast, had more freedom
than the person who has nothing to eat

Sen has listed five groups of freedoms. Political freedoms, means the opportunities that
people have to determine who should govern them and on what principles. It also includes
the right to criticize authorities, the freedom of political expression, free press and to choose
among different political parties.

‘Economic facilities’ refers to the opportunities that individual have to utilize economic
resources for the purpose of production consumption and exchange. The quantity of income
and how it is distributedis equally important. Availability and access to finance, is also
crucial for economic freedom.

‘Social opportunities’, the third freedom, entails arrangements that a society makes for
education and health care etc.

‘Transparency guarantee’, this freedom relate to the need for openness. It means freedom
to deal with one another with justified expectations for disclosure and clarity. These
guarantees play an important role in preventing corruption, financial bungling’s and
violation of rules of conduct by government and businesses.

Institute of lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 17

‘Protective security’, means social safety net that prevents sections of the population from
facing misery and hardships. Sen refers to fixed institutional arrangements such as
unemployment benefits, statuary income supplements and ad-hoc measures in case of
calamities such as famine and drought.

http://cseindiaportal.wordpress.com/2012/11/25/children-in-poverty-a-study/comment-
page-1/

Sen, not only elaborate on substantial freedoms but also talks about the forms of un-
freedoms, that people across the world suffer from. Poverty, mal-nutrition, bonded labour,
unemployment, poor economic opportunities, neglect of public facilities, systemic social
deprivation and denial of civil liberties by repressive regimes are various kinds of un-
freedoms with which people, both in rich as well as in poor countries ,are afflicted with. Sen
argues that poverty is the biggest source of un-freedom. It robes people of their freedom to
satisfy hunger or to achieve sufficient level of nutrition or to receive medical treatment in
case of illness. Not only this, extreme poverty threatens other kinds of freedoms too. Sen
has cited an example in his book that in a situation of communal riot if a person go out of
his home to a hostile neighbourhood to earn his daily bread, he may risk his life too. Hence,
‘economic un-freedom’ in form of extreme poverty, violates even a crucial freedom of
having a ‘right to life’. There is a casual relationship between these two (social and
economic) un-freedoms and both breeds and foster each other.

In a clear departure from mainstream economic discourse, that conceives development as

rising incomes, industrialization or technological advancement, Sen’s approach view
development in the framework of freedoms. He emphatically argued, that an adequate
conception of development must go beyond the accumulation of the wealth and growth of
GDP (gross domestic product). High income and wealth is not an end itself, rather they are
the means of freedoms to lead the life which one decide for oneself. Besides, wealth and
income, substantive freedoms depend upon other determinants as well. Factors such as,
education, health care facilities, civil and political rights do play significant role in enhancing

Institute of lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 18

freedoms , which people enjoy as member of society. Freedom, for Sen, is at once the
ultimate goal of socio-economic arrangements and most effective means of realizing general
welfare. Social institutions like market, political parties, legislature, judiciary and the media
contribute to the development of individual freedoms and are in turns sustained by it.

In sum, by showing that quality of an individual life should not be measured by the wealth
and the asset but by freedoms, Sen’s approach has revolutionized both the concept of
freedom and development. Sen’s theory is an attempt to build a bridge between the ‘liberal’
and ‘Marxist’ notion of freedom.

CONCLUSION

We begin by saying that the concept of freedom developed mainly in the modern times,
though the ancient and medieval societies also had some idea of freedom. In modern times,
firmly rooted in the philosophy of individualism and a belief in the rationality of human
beings, freedom initially was conceived as absence of restraints. At the end of the medieval
period, a new industrial class was emerging in Europe which wanted minimum restraints on
its activities and freedom of contract and property. This was a negative concept of freedom.
Freedom according to this view, means minimum interference by the government in the
activities of individuals. In this conception, law is seen as opposite to freedom. Gradually it
was realized, that mere absence of restraints becomes freedom only for few. To make
freedom a universal principle, creation of certain socio-economic conditions by the
government was found necessary. This gave rise to the idea of welfare state and the
positive conception of freedom. Rather than absence of constraints, positive freedom was
portrayed as a number of ideas, such as self-mastery, self-realization or capacity to make
choices. Berlin, the twentieth century liberal philosopher advocated a distinction between
negative and positive freedom. His ideas profoundly influenced the contemporary debates
on freedom. He favoured the negative notion of freedom as he saw the seeds of coercion
and totalitarianism hidden in the notion of positive freedom. Besides negative and positive
freedom, recently a third conception of freedom has again been advocated by Skinner the
republican conception of freedom. Freedom has also been linked with the idea of
emancipation that means liberation from oppressive economic and socio-cultural structures.
Marxian theory expresses freedom in this sense, of human emancipation. The idea of
positive freedom got an impetuous from the capability approach advanced by the noted
economist Amartya Sen. Sen in his book ‘Freedom as Development’ convincingly argued,
that providing primary goods to the people, as advocated by Rawls, itself is not sufficient.
Physical and mental capabilities of people have to be enhanced and their
functioning’simproved ,so that they can make use of these primary goods. Sen’s approach
provides a novel framework to view freedom in the context of development.

EXERCISE

Q. 1. Define freedom and distinguish between positive and negative freedom against the
background of the contemporary debate.

Q. 2. Is liberty the product of the law? Discuss the relationship between liberty and law.

Institute of lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 19

Q.3. Analyse the nature and significance of freedom in political philosophy.

Q.4. Elucidate the concept of freedom as an instrument of emancipation and development.

Q. 5. What is meant by social constraints? Are constraints of any kind necessary for
enjoying freedom?

Q.6. Discuss and analyze the distinction between negative and positive freedom?

Q. 7. What is meant by freedom of expression? What in your view would be reasonable

restrictions on this freedom?

Q.8. Analyze Sen’s concept of freedom as development.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Avineris, (1971) The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx, Cambridge, 1971.

 Berlin, I, (1967) Two Concepts of Liberty in A Quinton (ed), Political Theory, OUP.
 Berlin, I., (1969), Four Essays on Liberty, OUP, 1969.
 Gray, T., (1990) Freedom, London: NJ Humanities Press.
 Habermasand Sweezy,(1969) Introduction to Socialism, New Delhi
 Hardy, Henery (2005), Liberty, OUP
 Heywood, Andrew (2012) Political Theory: An Introduction, Palgrave Publication.
 Hayek, F., (1945) The Road to Serfdom, Chicago Press.
 ----------- (1960) The Constitution of Liberty, London: Rutledge
 Marcuse, H., (1964), One Dimensional Man, London: Rutledge.

Institute of lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 20

  Miller, D., (ed.) (1991) Liberty, OUP
 Nozick, R., (1974), Anarchy, State and Utopia, Oxford: Blackwell
 Rawls, J., (1971), A Theory of Justice, OUP
 Sen, A., (2000) Development as Freedom, New York: Anchor Books
 Skinner, Q., (1998), Liberty before Liberalism, CUP
 Swift, A., (2001), Political Philosophy, Cambridge: Polity Press
 Taylor, C., in A. Ryan, (1979), Essays in Honor of Isaiah Berlin, OUP

ARTICLES
 Charles Larmore, “Liberal and Republican Conceptions of Freedom”, Critical Review
of International Social and Political Philosophy, Vol. VI, No. I, pp. 96-119.
 Das Gesper and Irene Staveren, “Development as Freedom and as What
Else?,Feminist Economics Vol. IX, No. II-III, pp. 137-61.
 David Meskill, “Concepts and Consequences of Liberty: From Smith and Mill to
Libertarian Paternalism”, Critical Review, Vol. XXV, No. I, pp. 86-106.
 Mary Walsh, Political Theory: Political Freedom and Political”, Australian Journal of
Political Science, Vol. VIL, No. III, pp. 537-546.
 Michael O Flynn, “Theirs Freedoms and Hours: The Genesis and the Social Function
of Neo-Liberal Concept of Freedom” Critique: Journal of Socialist Theory Vol. XXXVII,
No. II, pp. 237-251.
 Patricia Springborg, “Liberty Exposed: Quentin Skinners, Hobbes and Republican
Liberty”, British Journal for the History of Philosophy, Vol. XVIII, No. I, pp. 139-62.
 P. J. Kelly, “Classical Utilitarianism and the Concept of Freedom: A Response to the
Republican Critique”, Journal of Political Ideologies , Vol. VI, No. I, pp. 13-31.

Institute of lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 21