Two Concepts of Freedom

A few weeks back I wrote an essay looking at some of the cultural dynamics found in the Scorcese flick, The Age Of Innocence. I contrasted some of the themes found in that movie with a picture of a transgendered mother and son, which was making the rounds on social media. Both mother and child had decided to transition. Mother was now father, and son was now daughter. I found that intriguing. Specifically, I saw it and still see it as an amazing act of will for both of them. The reality is that in their situation, with both of them deciding to transition, it might actually be easier as they can provide support to each other. Regardless, I imagine that typically, when a person decides to transition from one gender to the other, it is purely an act of individual will.

This individual will, this drive, which led a mother and son to transition to father and daughter, cannot be found in The Age of Innocence.

The willful individual in The Age of Innocence, which takes place in 19th century New York, is controlled and dealt with through social convention. Such individuals are not welcome in this world. In this world, it is not the individual will, which drives decisions. In this world found in the Age of Innocence, it is what is right, it is what is proper, that determines what one does, how one behaves. It is social norm, convention, tradition that drives what is done.

What I drew out of these two scenes in the earlier essay were two theories of value, or meaning. In the case of the mother and son or father and daughter, meaning is determined by the individuals. Both are compelled by something very much unique and inside them. It is something they must express. It is almost an artistic or creative act. In short, meaning is created through the expression of will, of self.

Going back to the Age of Innocence and 19th century New York, that is not the case. Meaning is not created by the expression of self, nor will. In fact, the expression of self is controlled and largely negated in this story. The will, or the expression of self, is perceived as a challenge or a threat to that which is valuable, that which has meaning. Specifically, individual wants and needs are fitted into the social fabric or negated, or simply ignored. The expression of self is of value only if it can be applied or brought into or is applicable to the social norms of the time.

Value and meaning in 19th century New York, as per the Scorcese movie, is based on social norm, on tradition and custom. Here what is done is determined by one's place in society, in one's family, one's business dealings, one's place in the church, within one's community. It is in this dynamic that meaning and value are derived. If there is a passion for something or someone, it is applied within this realm. It is directed. One's passion must controlled and directed. They do not control or drive one. The individual within the group, within one's family, or among one's neighbors, one's peers, determines what is acceptable to express and share within those groups, and likewise what is not by looking to those groups, their traditions, norms and customs.

Again, the value here is found in the norms and customs of these communities. And value is not created, but preserved in this world. Here, we look not for the creation of value, but rather the preservation of value. We desire to preserve the community, its norms, and customs. Anything new, anything different, is valued only if it preserves and supports what we have, who we are. If the new item challenges those things, if it harms the social fabric of our community and those within it, it is discarded. It is abandoned. Rarely is the new embraced, and if it is embraced it is over time.

So from the Scorcese movie and from the image of father and daughter, we arrive at two very different theories of value and or meaning. One originating from the self or will, and the other from within the community. In my earlier essay I suggested that these can be applied loosely to the liberal and conservative traditions. Specifically, the focus on self is to be tied to liberalism, and community is to be associated with conservatism. No doubt some explaining is required. At first blush the liberal is often seen as socialists or communists - communal. Is it not the liberal that value community? Is it not Hillary Clinton who with her book suggested that it takes a village?

Likewise, is it not the conservatives who typically values liberty, which is often associated with the individual? There is some work to be done here, but it is through this 'work' that we arrive at the two concepts of freedom referenced in the title.

First off, why do I suggest that liberalism is tied to pure will or the self? Typically liberalism is associated with big government, things such as tax and spend programs, the environment, and the support of feminists, various minority groups, and today movements such as Black Lives Matter and LGTB. How are these related to the expression of self, to the will?

My response is that these things flow from liberalism. They are largely products of the will. They are expressions of self. To come out and say I am gay or I am transgender are truly expressions of self, and the political movements I have listed here came out of such expressive acts.

The environment or our interest in environmental issues is again an expression of self. (This is truly a topic or essay unto itself!) For now though, let me point to a prima facie case. In a nutshell, Take the first line of America the Beautiful,

"O beautiful for spacious skies, For amber waves of grain,"

And then jump to the recent TV series Madmen, when Don and Betty Draper go on a picnic circa the early 1960s, and abandon their soda cans and all else right there where they had picnicked. The problem was right there. It just took us awhile to see it. When I watched it in 2012 I certainly saw it. The US in 1960 had to be shown it. Such practices had to be pointed to in 1960. We were not conscious of such issues in 1960, it required an act of will.

Of course the other perception of America the Beautiful and its environment are the tears of Iron Eyes Cody. Cody was the actor in that classic commercial with the native American looking up and down the roadway, cars whizzing by. The roadway littered with trash and in the end there is a tear in Cody's eye. That commercial, it could be said of course was not will, but marketing.

Regardless, at a certain point in our history, we became conscious of how our environment was being harmed. And with that, the defense of the environment became an act of will. It became a social movement. That movement though started with an individual perceiving what had become and sharing that with others. Some first person had to perceive and express that we were damaging the environment. Likewise, Rosa Parks on her bus, and the Montgomery Bus Boycott which followed. This is another example of an individual expressing their will and the consequences of such.

I know I am conflating the liberalism of the enlightenment with the contemporary. That said, I do want to suggest the two are still connected. The technocratic state based upon reason and science, is inspired by and propelled by its citizens and ultimately their citizen's passions and wills.  Much of our "big government" in all its varieties, I would argue begins with or points back to acts of will.

A bigger issue perhaps is my suggestion that only liberals act on their will. Surely, conservatives can offer up their own social movements, driven just as much by willful individuals. This is a valid point there, however, I would argue that typically conservative social movements are driven not by inspiration but by preservation. Let me restate that. Conservatives certainly have social and political movements, but their movements are responses to the social movements originated by liberals. The conservative's social movement is intent upon preserving the social structure, the world as they know it. The liberal movement wants to change the way in which we live and engage. they want to change the world. The conservative movement largely wants to preserve and conserve.

For example, to make claims that we are harming our environment is to challenge our industries, our factories, our capitalist system, our way of life. The conservative response to feminism is and was to advocate for the traditional family. Those who are Pro-Life are basically challenging the woman's right to choose. They want to eliminate abortion, which was not legally available until 1973. They want to return to what was. The NRA and those who are advocates of the 2nd Amendment want to protect and defend their right to bear arms. In each case they want to protect something they have. (Interestingly, it could be argued they did not originally have it the case of the 2nd Amendment. . .) Again, in the Age of Innocence it is a focus on and a preservation of the existing social norms, traditions, and conventions.

This leads us to another interesting space - Progress. Liberals are today often referred to as progressives. The two terms in today's vernacular are largely equivalent and there has been a relation between the two for roughly the last one hundred years. In the little comparison which I have sketched between that which is liberal and that which is conservative, we can see that conservatives are not going to have it. They do not embrace progress, certainly not the progress advocated by the various social movements of liberals.

Likewise, they are not going to have the progress of science. Now conservatives will certainly contest this, but I would argue that the anti-intellectualism often associated with the conservative movement is rooted in the desire to preserve what we have, the norms, conventions and traditions which make us who we are. Their skepticism regarding science is rooted in their norms, traditions, and conventions which facilitate and enable the relationships, and the world in which they live.

In short, the liberal state, "big government", and science all challenge the world as it is. Both were devised or inspired to some degree with that intent of progress, of overcoming what is. For conservatives however, progress offers challenges such as abortion and the Roe vs Wade decision of 1973. With science we environmentalism, less global warming, both of which attempt to dismantle our factories and our markets. Transgender transitions would not be possible without advances in medicine. Racial justice would not be feasible without a state to impose such. All are the result of liberalism and ultimately the will.

I know I paint with an extremely large brush here. Those around me have already pointed this out, but sometimes it behooves us to go to the satellite image, unless of course it is overcast.  The question I am left with here, and this is again another tangent, is this: Does reason come from the will or from social convention and norms? For our purposes I offer up that reason for liberals is inspired, it is transcendent. It originates from the will, but it is also universal. All have will and all have reason. Once discovered, the products of the will can be seen by and embraced by others. Will and reason cut across culture, convention, and norm.

For the conservative reason is common sense. That which is reasonable is in fact among a particular group. Reason for the conservative is not universal. What one culture believes might overlap what another culture might believe. There might be a great deal of overlap of belief, but no two cultures are not identical nor are the  logical propositions embraced by them. Each has their own values and practises and what is reasonable and logical are different in each. And that is why we must protect our beliefs and consider how we engage the world. Such engagements with other cultures do put at risk who we are, what we value, and what we believe.

Finally, we arrive at our two concepts of freedom, derived from the story I tell above. Both liberalism and conservatism value freedom, but if the stories I offer of each have any validity, they will impact upon how each defines freedom. Now the basic definition of freedom is the ability to act. Accepting this, the question then becomes how does each of them, liberalism and conservatism, view the ability to act? What is it for each of these to be able to act?

For liberalism, freedom, the ability to act, is the ability of the individual to express their will. The goal is to enable the individual to express themselves. This translates to various government initiatives allowing individuals to achieve various goals, whether those goals entail getting a mortgage, an education, The pursuit of a student loan, to gender reassignment surgery, to applying for Social Security at age 65 - each of these is an act of will and an act of freedom. Each of these  becomes a prosthetic device enabling the individual's will to be expressed. And as was pointed out earlier, this is universal. To be human is to have a will, a voice and we must allow its expression. Not only allow it but nurture and facilitate it.

And for conservatism? Here, freedom is not the ability to express one's self. Freedom, for the conservative, is not the ability to create or express. The ability to act here is to be free from intrusion. Both conservatives and liberals will agree that freedom is the ability to live one's own life. The conservative, however, sees life not as will, but as communal, as social. They see life as defined by family, church, commerce, ultimately engagement with a community. In short, freedom is the ability to engage those closest to you, embracing the customs, norms and traditions that nurtured those relationships. You are defined by these relationships. How you maintain these relations tells us what kind of person you are. Self is defined by those relationships. And to deny one freedom is to deny one access to those relationships along with the customs, norms and traditions they are based upon.

Lastly, one footnote of sorts, the state and likewise science are seen by conservatives not as prosthetic devices to facilitate the will but as intrusions into one's life. They prevent one from properly engaging others. They take away from and disrupt one's life as they not only prevent one from embracing custom and tradition, but destroy and uproot custom and tradition. They like the will, destroy life.