29/05/2024
Freedom
Penned by Tatenda ‘Colourful Villain’ Matake
Cries of freedom are echoed from all corners of the universe and on all levels. Freedom happens to be diverse and relative depending on the circumstances. A thorough comprehension of freedom is needed before we cry and advocate for freedom. Practicality and realism is of necessity when assessing or studying the subject of freedom.
What is freedom? Is it the right to do what you deem as you please? Is it the absence of tyranny and constraints? Is it practical and can anyone attain such? Is it being allowed to express your ability, if so then by who? Is it exemption from coercion and manipulation? Is it room to do anything that doesn’t interfere with others? Is it the absence of incarceration or enslavement? Let’s delve into the article and explore the diversity and relativity of freedom.
Freedom can be classified into three dimensions namely: ‘freedom from’ such as from coercion or manipulation, enslavement or incarceration and custody. The second is ‘freedom to’ such as to act, speak or think as one deems. This encompasses freedom of expression, association and choice. The third is ‘freedom to be’ whoever one seems, such as sexual orientation, political participation and liberties of gender. This challenges patriarch which inhibits and limit certain people to express and reach their full potential.
According to Meriam Webster Dictionary, ‘freedom’ is the quality or state of being free such as the absence of necessity, coercion or constraint. She further alludes it to not being subject subject to engagement and obligations or not observing the normal conventions of a system, style or form. Other idealists perceive freedom as the power or right to act, speak or think as one wants such as freedom of choice. One might also put it as the right or power to act without outside hindrances. These different perspectives form the relativity, variety and ambiguity of freedom. Of all these many kinds of freedom, there seems to be less and less of it.
The world grew and squeezed out the true essence of freedom. The is freedom lack of organisation? Could one be both organised and free? The existence of a system or any form of governance takes away the true sense of freedom, already there stands a constraint. The existence of laws and regulations again nullifies absoluteness of freedom , but there could be total chaos and anarchy in every sphere of life, and social order would cease to exist if we seek to attain the absoluteness of freedom. Everyone would do as they please without consideration of the other. As such freedom is certainly not doing anything you deem or that doesn’t interfere with others, for everything you do interferes with others.
Politicians and intellectuals might view freedom as the right and power to express one’s self as they deem. The existence and mandates of the different ‘state apparatuses’ such as the law and courts, police force, army and prisons nullifies their assertions. The fear of of facing the consequences of one’s expressions takes away the essence of freedom. Then freedom is not doing what you want as you please, express your ideas and abilities with liberty and no outside hindrances. The whole tang of life is about overcoming of obstacles or hindrances, without them there would be neither freedom nor life. Freedom is not being allowed to express your ability, given there’s freedom you wouldn’t need permission, you don’t have to be allowed and no one can stop you. The existence of hindrances , regulations and constraints take away freedom. The existence of repressive state apparatuses and policies helps to keep a balance of norm in society, in the absence of such, there would be total chaos and anarchy as there would be no regulation to liberties.
Is freedom then the absence of tyranny? Who are the tyrants? How does one duck their presence, by running away (no freedom if you have to run) or by overthrowing them? Rather rough and unfair on the tyrants who also want to be free - to tyrannise. But certainly one can’t permit that. Then this challenges freedom as an institution, some would view it as the departure from an oppressive human society for the hardships of a new but hopeful one. The existence of such gives precedence to freedom. Freedom can be put as the state of not being subject to or affected to or affected by oppression or coercion. The human mind demands a moving foam of choice in a great sea of habit to truly attain freedom.
However freedom is relative and everyone has their own variety. The capitalists view it as their power to dictate over their employees, their working conditions as well as remuneration. They would interpret it as their power to expand and beat down competitors without any legal interference or legal consequences in the aftermath. The irony comes when they want to use the same law to protect their assets, investment and interests. The employees on the other hand would perceive it as the right and power to choose and change their bosses, as well as to strike upon disapproval, right to a job. They don’t usually see it as their right or power to seize factories and produce the goods they want as they deem, but that wouldn’t be freedom but lawlessness rather. Is there any difference between the two, except that one is established and the other arriving? Constraints and regulations are of necessity to maintain a moral balance in the society.
Some idealists argue that the existence and prevalence of crime and deviation gives somewhat relevance to true freedom. People still exercise their freedom of choice on certain aspects in life, but as in crime their freedom is only before not after, because in the aftermath comes paying for one’s actions - a reprimand. The existence thought of a constitution that has laws governing you and giving you parameters within which to operate takes away the true essence of freedom. Freedom then lacks absoluteness as an institution.
We arrive at the conclusion that one can only attain and enjoy a certain degree of freedom but not in its absoluteness . Norms and values are there to limit our liberties and maintain order in the society. The consideration of others or consequences hinders us from attaining absolute freedom. If there was absolute freedom there would be no boundaries,law or governance as everyone would be having their own, but that would only land us at the door of chaos and anarchy.
…The End…