We hear this phrase frequently, used almost as a principle. I have never heard anyone question it. But, thinking of the underlying assumptions and of their possible consequences, we must seriously question it. It involves the typical freedom defended by liberalism as a political philosophy.
With the fall of the socialism that truly existed were lost some virtues that, for better or worse, socialism had developed, like the spirit of internationalism, the importance of solidarity and the prevalence of the social over the individual. With the assumption of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan to power, the ideals of liberalism and capitalist culture with the exaltation of the individual, supremacy of private property, delegated democracy and free markets returned with a vengeance. As a consequence, we can see that there is now much less international solidarity and concern with change which favors the poor of the world than before.
It is against this backdrop that the phrase, « my freedom ends where yours begins » must be understood. It is an individualistic understanding, an understanding of the «I» alone, apart from society. It is freedom « from » the other and not « with » the other. For your freedom to begin, my freedom must end. Or, for you to start to be free, I have to stop being free. So, if the freedom of the other does not begin, for whatever reason, then my freedom has no limits and can expand at my pleasure, because it does not encounter the freedom of the other. It occupies all the space and inaugurates the empire of egotism. Then, freedom « from » the other transforms itself in freedom « against » the other.
This understanding underlies the current concept of territorial sovereignty of the national states. It is absolute until it reaches the limits of other state. It is void beyond those limits. The consequence is that there is no room for solidarity. To search for convergence and for the supranational common good, neither dialogue nor negotiations are promoted. We have seen the neoliberal concept of freedom and of individual sovereignty demanded by many at work during the natural gas crisis between Brazil and Bolivia. When this paradigm comes into play, usually a conflict is set up that is resolved by force. The sovereignty of one crushes the sovereignty of the other, sacrificing freedom. It has been President Lula’s wisdom not to follow that logic and not to have desisted–to the chagrin of people of the old paradigm of force and barter–from tireless dialogue and a search for convergence with President Evo Morales. That gave, effectively, good results.
This is why the correct phrase should be this: « my freedom only begins when yours also begins. » It is the perennial lesson left by Paulo Freire: we will never be free by ourselves; we will only be free together. My freedom grows in the measure in which your freedom also grows and together we work to create a society of free and solidarian citizens.
Behind this understanding of solidarian freedom is the humanist principle: « do unto others as you would have others do unto you. » No-one is an island. We are beings living together. All of us are bridges that link each one with the others. This is why no one is without the others and free « from » the others. We are all called to be free « for » the others and « with » the others. As Che Guevara wrote in his Diary: « I will only be truly free when the last human being has also won freedom .»
Does my freedom end when yours begins?
Previous post: bell hooks on rap, race & representation of black female bodies
Next post: Gay testimonies from Uganda
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
How amazing thoughts
Sokari, to be very honest, I really would like to agree with you on this, but… I’m afraid I don’t.
I don’t disagree entirely with the principle of “human solidarity” and strongly defend the idea that, contrary to Thatcherite ideology, there is indeed something as society. However, I also strongly believe and defend the principle that “your freedom ends where mine starts”. To me, it’s not a question of individualism, but of mutual respect.
Let me tell you a story that keeps dogging my life in the blogosphere ever since I started my blog: I once warmly welcomed a new commentator to my blog (it was on a post about Angolan Women’s Day…) only to find soon afterwards that s/he was a hardcore pornographer and also an extreme right racist! Upon finding this, I posted a second reply to her/his comment on my blog, saying that I didn’t share her/his interests, but that I respected everyone’s freedom… Since then, the creature has not stopped trying to impose her/himself upon me and attacking me in all sorts of ways s/he possibly can – although, apparently, in his/her mind s/he is not doing nothing of the sort by reblogging some of my posts and my poetry and tainting it with graphic and verbal pornography, thus literally raping/violating all the rights I can possibly be entitled to as a person – while claiming that I should abide by my own words and “respect her freedom”!!!… At the early stages of this nightmare, when I still thought that I could bring her into some sort of sense, I told her that she should understand that her freedom ended where mine started…
Well, not to take more space I’ll stop here, but perhaps in another occasion I’ll say what my feelings are about socialism – having dealt with in a country which had a serious go at it…
Keep well.
Thanks for posting this, Sokari.
The basis of your argument is flawed. This statement speaks to the individual and not the state.
As an individual I have the birth right to do all that I please when and how I please as long as it does not interfere with anyone else.
That said, I am left with just one question for which I humbly request an answer from you and all your readers.
What is freedom?
Your principle has an echo of Frederick Douglass who wrote that freedom was a shared concept, freedom of the slave was also the freedom of the slave-master and the enslavement of one was the enslavement of the other (in an evil system).
This piece is an extract from an article by Leonardo Boff. what is freedom? freedom means different things to different people. freedom for someone who dwells in the slums of port au prince or durban is different from freedom for an african lesbian in nigeria. freedom is also a mindset – a refusal to be engulfed by the material world or to be constrained in anyway. what is most important is to ask questions and continue to ask questions. what i do know is that as Eshuneutics states – freedom of the oppressed is intrinsically linked with freedom of the oppressor.