The Implications of Negative and Positive Freedom in the Relationship of the Individual and State - Essay Example

The Implications of ‘Negative Freedom’ and ‘Positive Freedom’ in the Relationship Between the Individual and the State The implications of either positive or negative freedom may be more appropriately understood in the light of a number of definitions and associated philosophies that apparently draw clearer distinctions between the two concepts. Even the proposition to initiate with providing clarity to the basic meaning of freedom prior to contextualizing it might as well help especially for the sake of those new in understanding this field of thought. Freedom, or one which has often been referred to as or used interchangeably with liberty, is that which constitutes a state of being in the absence of bondage to slavery, coercion, physical restraint, or suppression as of inalienable rights. It is also widely claimed to pertain to exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action and the capacity to exercise choice. Out of this freedom comes a consideration whether to be free from authority or external governing forces or from the inner command which is rather controlled by oneself. In a situation where an individual is able to act freely under circumstances when elements of state, unless for the purpose of granting security, may not interfere with freedom, in terms for instance of speech, religious choice, self-expression, and of general learning which are all taken into account by the so-called negative liberty. Restrictions in this sense of negative freedom would thus necessarily be derived from the outside since a person for this case is assumed capable of executing an action by instinct or nature beyond any internal inhibitions. On the contrary, positive liberty is a consequence of freedom from boundaries set by convention in a society which establishes a standard norm that must be adhered to collectively or by the number of people making up a society of particular social structure. This mode of liberty is characteristic of an introspective condition and would not afford even a slightest resistance to implementation of freewill. Though one may feel free to participate in assimilation yet finds discomfort in the idea of conformity to a dominant group which supports advocacy for certain ideology, cultural belief, or a complex sociological framework which embeds inevitable division by race, sex, or class, freedom would not have a complete sense of positive identity for such an involved person. Commitment to liberty in this picture ought to be relieved of coercion and should, by all means, originate based upon sole discretion of freewill instead. Freedom in its positive trait further ensures that people acquire resources by which the accomplishment of free deed through a set of abilities may be sustained. With the primary ideas demonstrated, negative freedom can then be justified to bear implication upon the effects produced by lawful constraints of the government. Because the constitution and bills of rights make a potential risk to the exhibition of negative liberty state intervention, therefore, may only apply to a certain extent if the objective of fulfilling such freedom is to be met completely. Moreover, while this mellowing of administrative rule is conducive for an individual to perform the intended functions, positive liberty seeks otherwise, for laying a foundation on human well-being. This implies that the confidence in gaining mastery of certain skills for personal growth may use the augmented degree of regulations or rule of law against its suppressor which is chiefly embodied by the harsh components of societal conventions. Another qualified representation that may enhance agreement to such principled distinction is on how Erich Fromm, a humanistic philosopher and democratic socialist, proposed freedom from animal instinct. His argument substantiates that when men evolved as rational beings, they could determine their actions based on reasons and not by instincts which are a major attribute of creatures in the lower rank. Then when men are separate from instinctual behavior, this would imply that he can be held responsible for his actions. A sense of direction as such is a conscious effort of guiding an act and of which the further implication ought to be the absence of interfering supervision. The biblically drawn instance of man’s removal from the paradise was Fromm’s concrete tool in generating a similar perspective for the negative freedom. The use of positive freedom in the garden of Eden, nevertheless, is in reference to the ‘actualization of individuality’ according to E. Fromm. It is referred to as ‘positive’ with respect to the view that an individual act, as the one made by Eve on picking the apple with her personal consent alone or excluding that of her partner’s, was done without consulting a collective decision. Because positive freedom often involves action, it represents the ability and inclination to achieve potential and make choices like having the freedom to choose a desired electoral candidate despite reasons and circumstances. To Isaiah Berlin, one of the recent political philosophers acclaimed for distinguishing ‘positive freedom’ as the right to exercise political power from ‘negative freedom’ or the right to be left alone by others while exercising political power, there is more to acknowledging the distinct properties of the two kinds of freedom. On a political level, Berlin argued that liberalism possesses the tendency to presume the implication that by the negative aspect of liberty, liberals appear to demand security from state governance through intense limitations of conducting activities which rather dissatisfy the favor of negative freedom. Since negative liberty, according to Berlin, refers to a lack of interference or force from other people, then anyone who deliberately causes, or forces an individual to act in a certain way would necessarily reduce the person’s negative freedom. It also diminishes with the presence of an enforcer, which may be through another individual approved set of state laws that serve to prevent the same person from doing his chosen action. Lack of ability, nonetheless, does not affect negative freedom such as in the case of the physically disabled who rides wheelchair due to the inability to walk. The fact that this person is unable to walk at the moment would not impact his reserves of negative freedom of being able to move around or go from one place to the other, but if someone would steal the wheelchair or break it, this implies breach upon the negative liberty of the disabled individual. Likewise, exercising the right to personal choice does not in any way increase or decrease negative freedom where, for instance, opting whether to vote or not during elections would not vary one’s prevailing measure of negative freedom. External factors, hence, determine the degree of reduction for negative freedom while personal capabilities as well as internal conditions that facilitate a person’s behavior make would tell how positive freedom may be adjusted. can also be reduced by yourself and your own ability. Certain factors may alter positive freedom in making choices. Drug addiction, for example, can be a factor by which an addicted person may fail to avail of positive freedom as such condition can potentially lessen his access on alternatives toward normal standards of living. When Berlin also made the distinction between a higher and lower self, he proposed that the lower self is driven by basic desires which fulfill negative freedom whereas the higher self is concerned with self-actualization as the requirement to attain positive freedom. Apparently, Berlin discovered that it is favorable for people to increase their positive freedom and to render this possibility, it would sometimes take to borrow from lowering negative freedom, as by rule of law. For the case of the aforementioned drug addict, coercing the individual to undergo intense treatment or rehabilitation would most likely cure him to live a normal life again where positive options are opulent. It would normally take sufficient and sincere willingness to optimize between positive freedom and negative freedom in order to make the most from liberty of either form since both are typically at odds with each other. Thomas Hobbes, who has frequently received merits on initiating the idea of negative freedom and of ‘civil society, and his counterpart John Locke, who witnessed that the original and natural rights of men are equivalent to negative freedom, both give two influentially representative solutions on reconciling the contradicting principles of positive and negative liberties. Both of them comply to the proposition that a line and a sharp space or the ‘sacrosanct’ space of personal liberty must be drawn such that each individual can act according to their tastes, desires, and inclinations beyond any hindrances. They jointly believe, however, that no society is possible without some authority, where the intended purpose of authority is to prevent collisions among the various intents and, thereby, render each person to realize the boundaries of his liberty. The difference between their viewpoints lie heavily upon the extent of the zone suggested. For an absolutist like Hobbes, a negative perception of human nature is taken to be justified by the power of authority which is necessary in refining a character of man out of the naturally savage, wild, or even corrupt attribute of human weakness. In this manner, a strong authority becomes capable of regulating the negative freedom by breaking any further impulses that tend to locate risks with anarchy. J. Locke, on the opposite end, expressed a greater belief that men in general are good in nature and that the emergence of government ought to exist only for the security natural rights. He maintained that the presence of such authority is designed for the limited purpose of protecting the rights that cannot be separated from an individual and should the state exceed in applying its power more than what is adequate, then its legal validity would not take in effect. In support of this theory, Thomas Jefferson sought its promotion during the Declaration of Independence. Being in a rather ambiguous case compared to that of Hobbes, Locke embraced the ‘republican’ knowledge and tradition of liberty that was created out of refuting the necessity of an arbitrary power with state authority in managing the freedom of an individual. References Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2003. Positive and Negative Liberty. [online] Available at: [Accessed 24 June 2011]. Barnfield, Katherine, 2007. Isaiah Berlin’s Concepts of Negative and Positive Freedom. [online] Available at: [Accessed 25 June 2011]. Positive & Negative Liberties in Three Dimensions. [online] Available at: [Accessed 25 June 2011]. The Student Room, 2010. Revision: Negative and Positive Freedom. [online] Available at: [Accessed 27 June 2011]. Read More