Freedom

What does it mean to be free? This question is one of the most puzzling challenges with which societies around the world must grapple. For people in the United States of America, 'freedom' is the ability to choose what they want to do with their lives, and it is one of the country's most cherished values. However, for people in North Korea, the concept of freedom may be something that is hard to conceptualize, and it is not valued at all. Given these various debates about what freedom is and what it should be, it is useful to formulate one's own idea about what it means to be 'free.' After considering a couple of conceptualizations of duty and freedom, it seems like the best approach is one that defines freedom as the ability to choose how one uses his or her own body. 

One popular approach to defining 'freedom' is to consider the rights of everyone within a society. Author Angela Y. Davis is a popular advocate of this position. Specifically, in her piece The Meaning of Freedom, Davis contrasts the injustices of slavery with the injustices of the modern prison system. Slavery was abolished over 150 years ago because opponents felt as though it violated black people's basic right to be free. However, she outlines how the modern prison systems still subjugate ethnic minorities, claiming that the existence of such institutions means that people are still not truly free. As such, she "suggests we use our imaginations to try to come up with versions of democracy" that does not exclude minorities and promotes the broader spread of human rights (Davis 149). Overall, the pursuit of a higher sense of equality and justice is what Davis holds the freedom to be.

Another approach to freedom imagines the concept as a type of knowledge that people gain through suffering. This position is advanced Orlando Patterson in his book Freedom in the Making of Western Culture. Within this work, Patterson explains how freedom is traditionally conceived as something that human beings naturally want. However, this perspective ignores the fact that most societies throughout history have not placed a particular value on freedom. What are more, countries such as the United States, whose government was founded on the goal of preserving its citizens' freedom, have also behaved extremely contradictorily towards African Americans and Native Americans throughout history. As such, Patterson seeks a definition of freedom that incorporates these disparities. Specifically, he places freedom within the context of Christianity, stating how "freedom was the gift of wisdom won from pain," as symbolized by Christ's sacrifice (Patterson 405). 

With these conceptions of freedom in mind, one can begin to think about his or her own perception of freedom. Personally, I believe that the most effective and valuable way to think about freedom is to conceive it as the ability to do what one wants with his or her own body, so long as s/he does not infringe on other people's right to do the same. One of the biggest difficulties when thinking about freedom is the identification of a 'self' that is actually free. As Patterson indicates, most people throughout history did not feel the need to fight for freedom; they were perfectly content with fighting for their King, religion, or nation. And indeed, although people in Western societies take great pride in their freedom, this 'freedom' still constrains them to numerous forces. For example, a person who claims she is 'free' in Western society will still be swayed by political ideologies, economic realities, families, friends, and governments. As the forces around her continually influence her values and decisions, it can become very difficult to point out a moment at which 'she' exercised a sense of freedom. This problem is one of the oldest in philosophy, as argued by Freud and Sartre, and this ambiguity is one of the reasons that debates about freedom remain prominent to this day. However, I feel as though this issue can be solved by equating 'the self' with 'the body.' In other words, one can define 'a person' as the mental activity that exists within an individual human body. Whether or not this definition is an accurate representation of what 'a person' actually is, for reasons that I am about to outline, I feel as though it offers the best starting point for thinking about a valuable and effective definition of freedom. 

The first reason why I believe that freedom should be defined as the ability to do what one pleases with his or her body (so long as s/he does not infringe on the rights of others to do the same), is that this definition allows solutions to some common modern limitations of freedom. As Davis points out, minorities today still experience significant limitations to their freedom through the justice system in spite of the social progress that has taken place over the past century. If one views 'freedom' as the ability to do what one wants with his or her body, then it can be applied to issues such as prison reform, in that prisoners are unable to use their bodies as they please while behind bars. In addition, this conceptualization also offers a useful way to think about diverse problems such as female genital mutilation, wealth inequality, and immigration. So long as one's ability to use his or her body as s/he desires is constrained, then debates about freedom will be relevant. The versatility of this definition is one of the reasons that I believe it is an effective way to think about freedom. 

The second reason why I believe this definition is an appropriate way to conceptualize freedom is that it justifies limitations to freedom in the interest of justice. Specifically, the stipulation that one cannot limit other people's rights to use their bodies as they wish provides room for a legal code, and subsequently, a stable society. For example, if a woman decides to rob a grocery store and shoot the store clerk, she will significantly limit (perhaps terminate) the clerk's ability to do what he pleases with his body. This means that she is not 'free' to use her body to rob grocery stores and store shoot clerks, as doing so would violate the freedom of others. Including this stipulation allows us to remain 'free,' in that it provides us the chance to use our bodies as we wish without the fear of other people causing us harm. This thinking seems as though it offers a strong foundation for the legal system, which provides further support to the effectiveness and utility of my definition of freedom.  

As one can see, this definition does not incorporate Patterson's conceptualization of freedom as wisdom that is gained through pain. Patterson seems to view freedom as the ability to rise above suffering, mostly in a religious context. While this definition may hold some weight metaphysically, I do not believe it is very effective or useful. For example, if one equates 'freedom' with 'wisdom that is gained through pain,' then there is little incentive to change the circumstances of people who are experiencing the pains of injustice and inequality. Again, I do not feel as though this definition offers practical solutions to problems in today's world that people associate with a lack of freedom. 

Overall, it seems as though the best definition of freedom is one that first equates 'the self' with 'the body.' Once the topic is viewed in these terms, freedom then transitions into its traditional view – i.e., the ability to do what one wants. So long as one does not infringe on the rights of other people to do as they please, then this definition seems as though it offers a useful and effective way to think about freedom.

Works Cited

Davis, Angela Y. The Meaning of Freedom. San Francisco: City Light Books, 2009. 

Patterson, Orlando. Freedom in the Making of Western Culture. New York: BasicBooks, 1991.