Skip to main content

Freedom

As a forerunner to this posting - I am responding to week 2 readings.

It is interesting that this week's readings discuss freedom, a topic we briefly (though loudly) discussed in class. Freedom is such a loaded word, and my personal experience with this word has created a connotation that does not match that of the readings or many of my peers in class. Is it freedom to have your choice of whether you want to work? Is it freedom to have the right to say "No"? An even more important question to ask is, when your freedom infringes on the freedom of others, where do we draw the line?

To answer some of these questions, it is important first to define what 'freedom' even means. Websters dictionary defines freedom as "exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc." I am not sure if this type of freedom actually exists. We are all influenced and controlled by external forces. Whether these forces be the opinion of others or a gun to our head, our choices are never solely our own. We are always a reflection of the world we live in. Does this mean that we are not free? An even harder question (for me) to ask is, is freedom really as important as I believe it is? Zizek points out that the word freedom can be used to manipulate - to force people to accept oppression as freedom. (For example, he shows how having to "change jobs every year [and] relying on short-term contracts instead of a long-term stable appointment" can be couched as "the liberation from the constraints of a fixed job, as the chance to reinvent yourself again and again, to become aware of and realize hidden potentials of your personality.") Furthermore, Zizek points out that there are many types of freedom, namely actual and formal freedom. He defines this distinction as, “Formal freedom is the freedom of choice within the coordinates of the existing power relations, while actual freedom designates the site of an intervention which undermines these very coordinates.” Sydney contests this concept, saying, "We are all victims of circumstances and at the same time have the potential to free ourselves (individually and collectively) from these circumstances, but only if the imagination allows it, and that’s where the possibilities become endless." Is freedom, then, the cultivation of imagination? If we a million people what freedom is, we would get a million different answers.

I look forward to discussing the concept of freedom in class. It is important for us to remember that we are all dealing with different connotations of this word. We all have rich, different experiences, and it is in sharing our experiences that we can find understanding. How do you define freedom? Is it important to you, or just another word that the administration uses to manipulate the people? Is it tangible? Though this concept is contentious and very subjective, I believe that it will shape the way we view government, revolution, and even scholarship.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Purdue's Professional Revolutionary

In light of the discussion we had during our advisee meeting on Friday about being strategic in our means as critical scholars I was struck by the words of Lenin who emphasizes the role of the intellectual. He says, "The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade-union consciousness, i.e., it may itself realize the necessity for combining in unions, for fighting against the employers and for striving to compel the government to pass necessary labor legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals." (pg. 74) This idea of the bourgeois socialist intelligentsia as an instrument of raising consciousness and fomenting dissent is an ideal one I am sure but in contemporary times we, the academics, forming a substantial part of the "intellectual elite", occupy a unique position which forces us into ...

Echoing Malcom

Reading Malcolm X's speeches, it is clear that he points to a historical trend in the process of obtaining independence from tyranny. In other words, history shows that people must be committed to overhauling the system and prepared to sacrifice for a great cause. The trouble comes in overcoming the anesthetization of the natural impulse that people have to change their surroundings. I feel that this is incredibly difficult in the modern world when entire industries have been created for the sole purpose of distraction and self-indulgence. Has that impulse changed? Is it still there? Sometimes I think that when people become so self-absorbed and ignorant of rampant injustice, they will only react when its too late. For instance, there have always been economic disparities but public anger only sets in when their houses are foreclosed and savings wiped out. Revolution then becomes the last refuge of the hopeless. Is there any point to calling for revolution when the only precursor t...