One accepts freedom, especially here in the West, as a sort of utopian goal, and also as a birthright - one which we, the privileged, are allowed to exist in. What we rarely do well, however, is question where this state comes from and what it is bound upon.
Just re-read this first paragraph. In here, you see the terms: allowed; accept; bound. As such, we already uncover an interesting issue just in terms of definition. Freedom is something we accept, as such we’re automatically unaccepting of non-freedom. Freedom is bound by this dichotomy and contradiction. Just re-read this first paragraph again. In this I ask where this state comes from and speak about freedom as a goal, as a state. Here’s another issue, freedom is something that is manufactured. It is set up through the structures of power that organise society / societies. It is organised and dissipated through the constantly moving set of symbols that constitute truth, reality and order. What are these symbols? Political, educational, religious, familial and so on and so on. So, we, the West, say We have freedom, but, must be alert to how that freedom is set up through the institutions that structure and organise power. This is nothing new, this was set out by Father Foucault and his merry band of post-structuralists. Here’s an example. The UK is free - in the main we’d probably agree with this statement. We have ostensible freedom of speech and movement, we can choose our fields of work, modes of transport, diet, toothpaste, band of american pop drinks, which newspapers to ignore - yes, we are free. Silly jokes aside, we accept a type of freedom (oh lord, isn’t that loaded with more issues), a type that perhaps doesn’t exist for North Koreans, for example. Let’s pick this UK specific freedom apart a bit. Much of our attitude towards what makes us free is tied up with choice, we tell ourselves that choice provides freedom - we have rules but, we can make choices that measure up to our expectations of being. Right now, I am allowing myself, because of the life choices I’ve made, because of the privilege of my life, to write, in my dressing gown, drinking loads of coffee - I am free to do this (I’d rather be having sex but, as far as freedom goes, this morning is pretty good). So, choice is something that is afforded to those who can earn choice, i.e. a homeless man cannot earn enough to afford the choice of what to eat, where to sleep etc, as such he cannot be given / has not earned the freedom to vote, to have his voice counted and so on and so on. (I know there’s an argument to suggest the homeless man may have consolidated all of life’s issues into one or two, and is in fact, ‘more free’, but that’s not my point, and, you know, tell that to him next time you ignore his methadone shakes on a midnight in winter). What I’m suggesting here is that UK type freedom is intrinsically a late-capitalist model - one of hierarchy and one that is powered fiscally. So, if we trace where the UK’s wealth comes from we could arguably pin point where we source our choice-based freedom from. Check any twentieth and twenty-first century list of UK trade partners, now check how many war crimes, genocides, humanitarian crises these countries have on their hands (by the time you read this we probably won’t be in the EU anymore so this exercise should be pretty easy). If you can’t be bothered with this, let’s use another example. At the time of writing, (5th April 2017) Theresa May, our current Prime Minister (in charge of UK Freedom) is in talks with leaders from Saudi Arabia. We’ve done tons of trade deals with these guys, they’re friends of freedom. In lots of ways, they contribute to the UK’s wealth, as such, they’re partially responsible for our sense of freedom, our choice-inspired freedom. So, when we’re being free (watching TV or wasting oil or something), we can thank the same system where no-jury trials sentence gay people to death by 1000 lashes and where women are stoned to death for the crime of ‘being raped’. This supports our freedom - this forms part of the structures of power, that enables our freedom. This links back to my previous comment about how freedom exists as a form of acceptance. By freeing / accepting one thing, we are imprisoning / neglecting another. Freedom is a myth. In the interest of balance here’s another extreme example. Not too long ago a London art gallery put on an exhibit of Right Wing artists’. This started a plethora of protests and social-media based anger. The main argument from those angry protesters was this: the artwork was offensive, racist, inciting hate, and should not be on display. Essentially suggesting that this kind of freedom of expression antagonises their sense of freedom. Freedom of expression is fundamental to our freedom-based ontology, yet, it can only be expression which is permitted within our value structures. Our freedom then, is not based on unconditional acceptance, it is ruled and forged by a liberal morality that does not allow for the freedom of non-liberal morality. The trouble with freedom is it undoes itself. It is a state (which is fixed to start with) where one is ostensibly unaccountable but, in fact, is so only under the framework of the acts and values that underpin freedom. Freedom relies, on one hand, on the acceptance of anything, and on the other, on bringing those who disrupt that acceptance to account. Freedom can never be, as it exists entirely on definitions that are always relative, always binary, as such exclusivity and elitism conduct its nature. To say, 'I am free' or 'I have freedom' is to acknowledge the order of freedom and one's subjugation to it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
June 2020
Categories |