By Joseph
The modern era has seen developmental blooms in agriculture, science, technology, and industry, which together have yielded an inevitable blossoming of new and profound philosophical problems. Thus, where in the past we may have struggled with disease and famine, we now face the more extreme issue of discord within and outside of the Self. Modernity, the current age beginning in the nineteenth century, may be characterized by countless pressures on the individual to be a particular sort of person and act in a particular way. These pressures are numerous in form and function, from genetic disposition to the capitalist drive to become the perfect new market, and all have the overall effect of diminishing individuality and freedom. In short, the modern individual Self, as expressed by behavior, disposition, and attitude, closely mirrors the new world that we have built. For example, the desire for an “easy street” life as maximization of the cost/benefit analysis is an embodiment of our capitalist economics. Even the fact that we value freedom is socially constructed—freedom provides a sense of power, and the modern market-capitalist individual requires power in order to satisfy desire.
So, in a modern world, how might we conceive of freedom in a way that enables us to create a meaningful and coherent organization of the Self? In this three-part series, I will attempt to both address the source of the conflicts that modernity applies to the Self and to provide suggestions of simple ways that the modern individual can thrive in this framework. Throughout the analysis I will take freedom to be both the sense of and actual capacity for unrestrained exploration and development of a singular identity. I would like to dissociate freedom from synonyms such as autonomy, disengagement, abandonment, and deliverance in favor of flexibility, liberty, opportunity, and self-determination. I will also divide freedom into three types: freedom of action, psychological freedom, and sociobiological freedom. Although each type of freedom may exist without its partners, in order for an individual to achieve a full realization of freedom all three components must be fully integrated. Unfortunately, the difficulties of modernity will make the achievement of this whole very rare. In the end, this discussion will show that the incredible normalizing forces of modernity require a synthesis that utilizes a number of localities of freedom identified by several contemporary authors. As in most philosophical discussions, a large and malleable gray area will be favored over the extremes of black or white in order locate a mode of freedom in contemporary life that is not nihilistic but allows for the modern individual to live a life ripe with vitality and meaning.
Freedom of action—the capacity to do whatever one likes whenever one likes and however one likes--is the first component in the trinity of freedom and will be the subject of this first part of the series. At a basic level, the fact that the primary mode of punishment in modern times is imprisonment illustrates the value that we place on physical freedom. By restricting the actions of those we punish we eliminate a critical component of their ability to develop a coherent and organized Self. Better yet, we not only limit this development, but also are able to shape Self-development in a controlled matter, enabling the restructuring of individuals who have strayed from the accepted system of morality. More than other types of freedom, a freedom of action is also the ultimate expression of power, a value that we hold because of our existence in a market/capitalist society. According to the philosopher Ross Poole, one of the most important elements of a commercial society is “an individual propensity for self-interested behavior.”[1] At first glance, it might appear that a requirement for the modern individual in an economic society to act primarily out of self-interest would allow for the utmost expression of personal freedom. If I have to do what is of the most benefit to my personal existence, without concern for how my actions may affect others, than I truly have freedom to do whatever I like! Unfortunately, such freedom is only an illusion. First of all, Poole’s self-interested behavior is a limitation in itself. If at all times we must be acting only out of self-interest, than the large portion of human action in which we are moving for others or for no reason at all is prohibited--spontaneity, and the feeling of freedom and vitality that comes with it, is out the window. In addition, as Poole recognizes, the fulfillment of self-interest requires regulation. If each self-interested individual were allowed complete freedom, eventually the interests of one individual will conflict with those of another: “without some constraints on the operation of self-interest, the market would soon collapse into chaos,” necessitating the development and implication of an “effective legal framework.”1 Thus the illusion of freedom becomes critically important in a modern economic culture, by giving individuals the power to fulfill their desires.
According to another modern philosopher, Michel Foucault, the illusion of freedom is also a production of the systems of discipline that the modern individual is subject to. Capitalist society spawns systems and institutions that in turn create individuals by which to perpetuate itself—individuals acting under a veil of false freedom: “The perpetual penality that traverses all points and supervises every instant in the disciplinary institutions compares, differentiates, hierarchizes, homogenizes, excludes. In short, it normalizes.”2 In addition, under Hannah Arendt’s conception of the Self, such normalization is necessary. If we were to express personal freedom, as a component of an erotically vital moment for the Self, at all times, we would become entirely removed from the realm of ordinary life. A person for whom such moments are a permanent state of transcendence would be unreachable and utterly boring. Therefore we must spend the majority of our lives in a state of normalization and lack of freedom, to be punctuated by moments of vitality in which we can achieve meaning and life. So if freedom of action in a market/capitalist society is ultimately an illusion, is there anywhere else where we may locate the freedom necessary for vitality? At the beginning of this era, the market individual found his freedom in the private sphere. While he fulfilled his market obligations for half of the day in the public sphere, he was able to return home at the end of the workday and achieve freedom and individuality in his actions and interactions with the family. Unfortunately, two obstacles to this conception of freedom have arisen. First, this split into two different realms is also necessarily a split in the Self. Therefore, when the market individual returns home to the private sphere he turns off the normalized market/capitalist aspect of his Self for that which operates with his family. Unfortunately then it is only one half of his Self that is ever free, and consequently his vitality and erotic engagement is never intact. Second, as the yearning for the wealth and status (power) with which to fulfill desires grows the public sphere encroaches upon the private, eventually eliminating any private freedom and leaving only the socially constructed veil of freedom with which we began.
No comments:
Post a Comment