Skip to main content

To Freedom or Not to Freedom

A good portion of this week's readings dealt with the idea of freedom.

What did Lenin say about freedom? What did others say to that? What is their own definition and all. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's (August 27, 1770 – November 14, 1831) core concept in life was the notion of freedom. Understanding humanity, its history, political life, and self-consciousness all revolved around this, in Hegel's work and philosophy (source). Eighteenth century philosophy of freedom dealt with the individual citizen, a strand of belief that Hegel did not subscribe to. Hegel believed that such individualistic freedom is tyrannical, and is abstract and purely formal. He said that true freedom is only possible in a political state where millions of differences in wills can be reconciled through reason.

However, as Lenin famously retorted, “Freedom yes, but for whom? To do what?” Does the ability to express one's own opinions and choices constitute freedom? One very small example can look at the scenario where parents encourage children to express their wants and listen to them (a very Western concept for me). But is that freedom? Does that child know what it entails? From here, it can be a logical deduction that freedom requires a certain degree of consciousness.

Consciousness for whom? Another example may include a group of people who are born and raised in the bourgeois class. Do they even know the plights of the proletariat? In such cases, does freedom not become a mere word to play with linguistically?

Finally, freedom that truly does not bring peace to a nation or group, cannot be a freedom to look for and crave. Freedom to not know, and fall into the hands of the cunning capitalistic and hegemonic propaganda cannot be freedom. Inability to question the status quo because of any fear of consequences cannot be freedom, even though the setting is in a free world.

So what is freedom? Do we actually have a choice?

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