Liberty, both in its positive and negative sense, is identified within the liberal framework and is related to the individual as the agent to be either left without interference or to be provided with enabling conditions to realize liberty in the sense of self-realization or development. Liberation, however, does not imply such a meaning. Liberation is used to describe a generally radical political goal or a movement that seeks to alter the prevailing relationship of power, dominance and perceived or existing inequality. For example, anti-colonial movements in countries under subjugation were generally identified as liberation movements. Similarly, many a movement within a nation-state that identifies itself as a separate nation such as Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (Sri Lanka), or one that resents political domination of others such as Palestine Liberation Organization (Israel, Palestine) also take liberation as goal. Liberation movements have generally been radical in their approach and embraced collective goals. One of such an effort emerged in the form of women’s liberation or feminist movements, which sought to alter primarily not only the political but also other forms of power relations that prevail between male and female in society. This resulted in the demand for equal political, civil and economic rights and also for the sexual liberation of women. The core of feminist liberation philosophy is that ‘gender’ is a political construct based on stereotypical masculine-feminine behaviour and social roles.22 This becomes a political construct justifying unequal share of power, privileges, roles and status for male and females. Feminist movements hold that patriarchy justifies inequality by assigning to females such identity as passive, shy, submissive, weak or feeble. Feminist movements have focused on the oppression women have to bear due to the incidence of multiple inequalities including mental, moral, psychological and sexual repression. As part of countering gender myth, feminist movements have advocated sexual freedom also.
Liberty is generally associated with the liberal conception of individual freedom. Liberation, though aims at freedom and liberty, and focuses on collective interest or goal. It seeks to fight against power inequality, e.g. women liberation movements focusing on gender inequality as a political construct. Freedom also stands for liberty but is not restricted to the liberal framework only for its use. Freedom as a generic term is used across various perspectives. Liberal and Marxian theorists alike use the term freedom though with different meanings. Liberation as a goal and movement implies freedom in the sense of an ideal or a normative and ethical goal. Freedom is associated with ‘free will’ as opposed to an entirely determined action.
When we look at the scope of liberty from the viewpoint of it being arranged or adjusted to the claims of different individuals, two extreme positions may emerge. One of them claims complete liberty even to the extent of absence of all restraints as if it is the market of individual liberty with survival of the fittest as the goal. This way of conceiving liberty amounts to liberty as licence. It is almost agreed that liberty as licence is not the approved goal of political society. Thrasymachus’s insistence on force principle, might is right, in Plato’s Republic, Manu and Kautilaya’s mention of matsyanyaya, big fish eating the smaller one, Hobbes and to some extent, Locke’s description of state of nature, etc. can be treated as examples of licentious liberty. Though liberal theorists such as Adam Smith, John Locke, Herbert Spencer, Isaiah Berlin, Milton Friedman, Robert Nozick and others advocate the minimalist approach of intervention in an individual’s liberty, this however does not mean they are exponent of licentious liberty. The governing principle of liberty should not be licence. Liberty is doing or enjoying what an individual is entitled to do or enjoy without harming similar liberty of others. When one goes beyond one’s required or given liberty and rights, which instead of helping the individual harms others, licentious liberty starts. As such, going beyond one’s own liberty and abusing the rights of others, leads to licentious liberty. For example, I have liberty to drive on the road, but not as per the speed I like obstructing and threatening others on the road; I have a right to trade and do business, but not to do trade in human slaves harming their rights to have a dignified life. This requires liberty that does not degenerate into licence.
This means that liberty should be regulated and adjusted with other principles such as equality, justice and rights of others. There have been various attempts and propositions to differentiate between the spheres of liberty and licence on the one hand and justify grounds of liberty on the other. Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau differentiated between liberty available in the state of nature and those, which are part of the civil society. Thus, a distinction between natural and civil liberty is made. These contractualists treat natural liberty as liberty, which is more or less licentious due to unregulated selfishness (Hobbes), unregulated legislation, execution and interpretation of law (Locke) and idyllic savagery (Rousseau). Counter to this, the scope of liberty is defined as either provided by the Leviathan (Hobbes) or the institution of government as trust while people retain certain natural rights (Locke) or submission to the General Will (Rousseau). However, in all the cases there is transition from licentious liberty to civil liberty. In contractualists’ view, liberty is civil liberty; Hobbes and Rousseau make it clear by asking the individual to seek their liberty in submission to the Leviathan and the General Will, respectively. And for Locke ‘end of law is not to abolish or restrain but to preserve and enlarge freedom. As such, freedom and liberty is grounded in the civil liberty, liberty as regulated by law or a properly instituted authority.
While contractualists seek to ground liberty in the political sense, J. S. Mill is concerned with the sphere of individual liberty in the context of society expressed in the form of majority. On what ground interference by society or majority of that society in the actions and sphere of liberty of the individual or the minority is allowed? Mill’s solution lies in the differentiation between ‘self-regarding’ and ‘other-regarding’ actions of the individual. Mill is of the view that an individual needs liberty for complete self-development. As such, self-regarding sphere of actions should not be interfered by society. One is sovereign over his body and mind and should not be hindered by external interference in self-development.
However, Mill’s differentiation between ‘self-regarding’ and ‘other regarding’ actions allows scope for interference. To protect similar liberty of the other individual, society or majority of it should interfere and regulate the liberty in such a manner that self-regarding sphere of all is coordinated. Further, liberty also does not mean liberty to the extent of harming oneself. Mill will agree that an individual who knows that crossing a damaged bridge is harmful for others is correct in interfering with the action of others and not allowing them to cross. So far as freedom to cross the bridge would result in falling in the river and harm to life, interference is not against liberty. Thus, liberty if taken to the extent of harming either oneself or others, may become licentious.
Some political theorists such R. H. Tawney, L. T. Hobhouse, H. J. Laski and Sir E. Barker have maintained that there should not be unregulated liberty. They opine that liberty of one has to be qualified by the liberty of all. In short, there should be equality of liberty. Tawney cautions against emphasis on liberty alone when he says, ‘the freedom of the pike is death to the minnows’. For Hobhouse, unchartered freedom of one should become servitude of all hence equality of freedom requires equal restraint upon all. Given the fact that each individual would enjoy similar liberty concurrently in society, it requires relative and regulated liberty. Barker in his book, Principles of Social and Political Theory has suggested necessity of ‘relative and regulated liberty’. He feels that while making distinction between ‘self-regarding’ and ‘other-regarding’ actions of individuals, Mill excludes the former from the regulated and relative sphere. According to Barker, this way of distinguishing actions of individual is meaningless. He calls Mill ‘a prophet of empty liberty’. Barker says that Mill should have separated the sphere of society and the State rather than that of the individual. This would provide the area in which the State interferes and the area in which society interferes. This view of Barker is in line with his pluralist position. Sabine has also pointed out that Mill’s proposition of liberty based on ‘self-regarding’ actions of individual would have been more convincing provided ‘there was a body of natural rights which intrinsically belonged to individuals and of which they ought never to be deprived’.23
Anarchists have advocated an extreme position in favour of liberty. For them, liberty means absence of any authority—State, property, administration, court, etc. Though in different degrees, Proudhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin and other anarchists advocate absence of any authority—religious, political, economic, as hindrance to liberty. However, an anarchic political stage should not be confused with a stage of licentious liberty. Licentious liberty or minimal interference stands for absence of restraints so that the individual realizes his or her liberty in a competitive manner. For Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, Spencer, Nozick, liberty means liberty to compete and survive, as one is the fittest. For advocates of anarchic position, absence of authority in any form is not licence to do what one wants. An anarchic position is a political state of human effort where each individual realizes his or her self-development as per their fullest capacity not in competition, but in cooperation. An anarchic position on liberty implies comprehensive liberty—from state and political authority, religious yoke and economic domination.
Thus, we find that liberty and freedom have been advocated for individuals, groups, nations, communities, gender, etc. Various bases of this have been advocated which include natural liberty of individuals, ‘self-regarding’ actions of individuals, gender equality, national liberation, freedom for self-development, liberty as absence of any authority, etc. On the other hand, bases of regulated liberty have also been advocated. These include ‘regulated and relative liberty’, ‘equality of liberty for all’, liberty as provided by civil law, liberty of one not to harm the liberty of others, etc. In recent times, Rawls’s conception of distributive justice has suggested compatibility of liberty of one with that of the other as a principle of justice. It seems unregulated liberty will be liberty of few. But over-regulation will amount to absence of liberty. We require coordination and adjustment amongst liberty of each for any meaningful enjoyment of liberty by all. This requires interference and authority. But at the same time, excessive authority may lead to the very absence of liberty. A balance between liberty and authority is required.
Relationship between liberty and authority is to be understood in terms of the perspective that one adopts such as laissez-faire individualism and the negative view of liberty or pluralist-liberal position, positive-liberal position, Marxian position, Anarchist view, etc.
Leave a Reply