WEBVTT
X-TIMESTAMP-MAP=MPEGTS:900000,LOCAL:00:00:00.000

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:06.280

2
00:00:06.280 --> 00:00:08.280
Can we be forced to be free?

3
00:00:08.280 --> 00:00:10.460
The idea seems counterintuitive.

4
00:00:10.460 --> 00:00:12.550
If we're forced to do
something, are we not

5
00:00:12.550 --> 00:00:14.650
being made to act
against our will?

6
00:00:14.650 --> 00:00:17.920
And is that not the very
antithesis of freedom?

7
00:00:17.920 --> 00:00:20.179
Yet this was the claim
famously asserted

8
00:00:20.179 --> 00:00:22.220
by the Genevan political
philosopher Jean-Jacques

9
00:00:22.220 --> 00:00:24.800
Rousseau in The Social Contract.

10
00:00:24.800 --> 00:00:26.300
Freedom of in a
political society

11
00:00:26.300 --> 00:00:28.635
involved, for
Rousseau, obeying laws

12
00:00:28.635 --> 00:00:30.360
that we make for ourselves.

13
00:00:30.360 --> 00:00:33.160
And so if a citizen
is forced to obey

14
00:00:33.160 --> 00:00:36.040
made in the appropriate way,
commensurate of what he called

15
00:00:36.040 --> 00:00:40.240
the general will of a community,
they are therefore made free.

16
00:00:40.240 --> 00:00:41.986
The idea of being
forced to be free

17
00:00:41.986 --> 00:00:43.360
brings power and
freedom together

18
00:00:43.360 --> 00:00:45.140
in a very direct manner.

19
00:00:45.140 --> 00:00:46.890
In Rousseau's
view, the community

20
00:00:46.890 --> 00:00:50.510
has a legitimate interest in
having the general will obeyed.

21
00:00:50.510 --> 00:00:53.050
And it has the right to bring
this collective power to bear

22
00:00:53.050 --> 00:00:55.280
on recalcitrant individuals.

23
00:00:55.280 --> 00:00:58.520
In doing so, it does not
violate their freedom.

24
00:00:58.520 --> 00:01:00.840
This touches on a fundamental
divide in the literature

25
00:01:00.840 --> 00:01:02.620
on liberty and freedom.

26
00:01:02.620 --> 00:01:05.420
And these terms are generally
used interchangeably.

27
00:01:05.420 --> 00:01:07.920
That between positive
and negative liberty,

28
00:01:07.920 --> 00:01:10.867
made famous by
philosopher Isaiah Berlin,

29
00:01:10.867 --> 00:01:12.950
those who favour a negative
conception of liberty,

30
00:01:12.950 --> 00:01:15.720
such as John Stuart Mill,
see freedom in terms

31
00:01:15.720 --> 00:01:20.290
of the capacity of an individual
to do as he or she sees fit

32
00:01:20.290 --> 00:01:22.140
without the
interference of others,

33
00:01:22.140 --> 00:01:25.920
and particularly without the
interference of the state.

34
00:01:25.920 --> 00:01:27.982
Freedom may, therefore,
mean the right

35
00:01:27.982 --> 00:01:29.440
to do things that
we would normally

36
00:01:29.440 --> 00:01:32.080
consider against the
interest of the individual,

37
00:01:32.080 --> 00:01:34.050
such as smoking or gambling.

38
00:01:34.050 --> 00:01:35.820
Mill was very clear on this.

39
00:01:35.820 --> 00:01:38.950
Society could only restrict
the liberty of individuals

40
00:01:38.950 --> 00:01:42.840
if those individuals would use
that freedom to harm others.

41
00:01:42.840 --> 00:01:45.730
Absent such harm, social
or political intervention

42
00:01:45.730 --> 00:01:48.330
has no legitimacy.

43
00:01:48.330 --> 00:01:50.900
The positive conception of
freedom, on the other hand,

44
00:01:50.900 --> 00:01:54.080
does not associate being
free with non-interference,

45
00:01:54.080 --> 00:01:57.350
but rather with doing the
right or rational thing.

46
00:01:57.350 --> 00:01:59.950
And if we are doing the
wrong or irrational thing,

47
00:01:59.950 --> 00:02:02.200
we are not fully free.

48
00:02:02.200 --> 00:02:04.330
Engels' assertion
that freedom consists

49
00:02:04.330 --> 00:02:09.039
in understanding natural laws
fits very much in this vein.

50
00:02:09.039 --> 00:02:10.639
This idea can gain
some plausibility

51
00:02:10.639 --> 00:02:12.730
if we think again of the smoker.

52
00:02:12.730 --> 00:02:14.560
Perhaps the smoker
understands the damage

53
00:02:14.560 --> 00:02:18.360
that smoking is likely to do
to his body and wants to quit,

54
00:02:18.360 --> 00:02:20.285
but is so addicted
to nicotine that he

55
00:02:20.285 --> 00:02:22.110
finds quitting impossible.

56
00:02:22.110 --> 00:02:25.470
So even though this person
chooses to buy cigarettes,

57
00:02:25.470 --> 00:02:27.350
this is not right
an act of freedom,

58
00:02:27.350 --> 00:02:29.780
but instead reflects being
the subject of or slave

59
00:02:29.780 --> 00:02:33.990
to first-order desire when there
is a higher-order desire not

60
00:02:33.990 --> 00:02:35.710
to smoke at all.

61
00:02:35.710 --> 00:02:37.930
Only when the agent
does the rational thing

62
00:02:37.930 --> 00:02:41.200
and gives up smoking
will he be truly free.

63
00:02:41.200 --> 00:02:42.780
This conception of
freedom is often

64
00:02:42.780 --> 00:02:46.560
cast as the achievement of
self-realization or autonomy.

65
00:02:46.560 --> 00:02:49.870
One thing worth noting is that
neither side in this debate

66
00:02:49.870 --> 00:02:51.670
say they are against freedom.

67
00:02:51.670 --> 00:02:54.270
This is not a
freedom/anti-freedom debate.

68
00:02:54.270 --> 00:02:56.790
Freedom is a positively
appraised concept

69
00:02:56.790 --> 00:02:59.380
in almost all sets
of political beliefs.

70
00:02:59.380 --> 00:03:01.250
And so the concept
is contested in

71
00:03:01.250 --> 00:03:03.806
that there are different
interpretations of it in play

72
00:03:03.806 --> 00:03:05.430
that would involve
strikingly different

73
00:03:05.430 --> 00:03:08.220
political arrangements if
implemented, for example,

74
00:03:08.220 --> 00:03:10.790
either banning smoking
completely or allowing people

75
00:03:10.790 --> 00:03:12.670
to self-harm.

76
00:03:12.670 --> 00:03:14.400
Supporters of each
interpretation

77
00:03:14.400 --> 00:03:17.430
seek to decontest the notion,
if only provisionally.

78
00:03:17.430 --> 00:03:19.780
In other words, they try to
fix the meaning in their own

79
00:03:19.780 --> 00:03:21.870
favour.

80
00:03:21.870 --> 00:03:23.630
This shows the one
very important element

81
00:03:23.630 --> 00:03:26.180
in political life is
the attempt to control

82
00:03:26.180 --> 00:03:28.130
the language of politics.

83
00:03:28.130 --> 00:03:30.540
Language is not something
that is easily controlled,

84
00:03:30.540 --> 00:03:34.610
and so such attempts are always
ephemeral and likely to fail.

85
00:03:34.610 --> 00:03:36.610
Nonetheless, convincing
enough people

86
00:03:36.610 --> 00:03:39.020
that freedom requires
this form of politics

87
00:03:39.020 --> 00:03:40.820
rather than that
form of politics

88
00:03:40.820 --> 00:03:43.490
can be a powerful weapon,
even if the advantage

89
00:03:43.490 --> 00:03:45.600
gained is fleeting.

90
00:03:45.600 --> 00:03:47.760
So one way to
articulate power is

91
00:03:47.760 --> 00:03:49.280
to frame a discussion
in language

92
00:03:49.280 --> 00:03:51.700
that is conducive to your aims.

93
00:03:51.700 --> 00:03:54.660
Steven Lukes gave an account
of this with his idea,

94
00:03:54.660 --> 00:03:56.720
the three dimensions of power.

95
00:03:56.720 --> 00:03:59.700
Where the first dimension is
behavioural and observable,

96
00:03:59.700 --> 00:04:03.100
as when the government forces
protesters off the streets.

97
00:04:03.100 --> 00:04:05.960
The second dimension involves
pursuing one's interests

98
00:04:05.960 --> 00:04:08.650
in rather more covert
ways, including the power

99
00:04:08.650 --> 00:04:12.060
to set agendas, in such a way
that contentious issues are not

100
00:04:12.060 --> 00:04:13.950
allowed to surface.

101
00:04:13.950 --> 00:04:15.750
The third dimension
of power, however,

102
00:04:15.750 --> 00:04:18.709
is essentially ideological
in a sense in which Marxists

103
00:04:18.709 --> 00:04:20.940
tend to use that
term, where ideas

104
00:04:20.940 --> 00:04:24.650
are taken to mask forms
of power and exploitation.

105
00:04:24.650 --> 00:04:27.050
It involves the very way in
which conceptions of interest

106
00:04:27.050 --> 00:04:31.080
come to be formulated and what
people think is even possible.

107
00:04:31.080 --> 00:04:34.750
Here, we may see no
political conflict at all.

108
00:04:34.750 --> 00:04:37.880
But as Lukes said, the most
effective and insidious use

109
00:04:37.880 --> 00:04:40.870
of power is to prevent
such conflicts from arising

110
00:04:40.870 --> 00:04:42.740
in the first place.

111
00:04:42.740 --> 00:04:46.160
Ideas of freedom and power
are intricately connected.

112
00:04:46.160 --> 00:04:48.770
We exercise our freedoms
through the powers and rights

113
00:04:48.770 --> 00:04:49.880
that we have.

114
00:04:49.880 --> 00:04:52.010
And at the same
time, our society

115
00:04:52.010 --> 00:04:53.750
or the state that
we live under may

116
00:04:53.750 --> 00:04:55.700
use its power to
deny our freedoms

117
00:04:55.700 --> 00:04:57.960
or to force us to be free.

118
00:04:57.960 --> 00:05:00.000
How we understand what
the state is doing

119
00:05:00.000 --> 00:05:02.240
may determine whether
we see it as our friend

120
00:05:02.240 --> 00:05:04.360
or seek to mobilise against it.

121
00:05:04.360 --> 00:05:06.070
The differing and
conflicting conceptions

122
00:05:06.070 --> 00:05:09.540
of freedom that we have show why
the attempt to control language

123
00:05:09.540 --> 00:05:12.450
is such a critical part
of political struggle.

124
00:05:12.450 --> 00:05:16.120
Liberals, fascists,
communists, and anarchists

125
00:05:16.120 --> 00:05:17.790
will all claim to make us free.

126
00:05:17.790 --> 00:05:20.900
They will all seek to
decontest that idea.

127
00:05:20.900 --> 00:05:24.460
In the end, the question
is who can they convince?

128
00:05:24.460 --> 00:05:27.445