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

Academic integrity and knowing what you stand for

Reading the story of the UVa President Teresa Sullivan, I am filled with amazement at her integrity and character. Professor Sullivan first and foremost is an A-grade academic, a solid researcher, a great teacher, and an engaged citizen. Of course above and beyond these top-notch credentials, she is a strong leader, one with vision and compassion for her faculty and students. When I read more and more about her leadership style, I am reminded of something my father used to tell me when I was young "You need to have integrity to do anything well in life. You need to figure out where you stand and make sure to stand up for what you believe in, even when that is inconvenient." Now, I don't think I have always been able to follow this dictum consistently, but it is a broad principle that guides me and the way in which I understand leadership. Part of the story of Professor Sullivan's integrity is her excellence as an academic. Academic excellence to me is deepl

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 &

Activism, Communication and Social Change

Now days I am trying to engage myself with various issues related to indigenous communities. As a part of academia it is a constant quest for all of us, how can we engage ourselves to make the world a better place to live. All the reading of this week addressed the aspects of reflexivity and engagement; and, one of them is an article by Zoller (2005) that discussed many aspects of activism, communication and social change. Though in his article he focused mainly on the health and related issues; I think we can use this framework (along with other frameworks like CCA) in other broad contexts, such as the context of indigenous lives, indigenous knowledge, science, technology, art, craft, and other infrastructural issues. Zoller (2005) perceived activism as a means for social change by challenging existing power relation. He mentioned different approaches of participation and emphasized on the aspects of community group mobilization for collective actions. In this context he discussed var