From Freedom from to Freedom for:
Furthering the Conceptual Arc
In light of the dire ecological realities that are coming our way and are going to shape the reality of humanity’s future, and given the ecologically embedded nature of human freedom itself, it appears reasonable – in fact, necessary – to rethink our core assumptions regarding what freedom really is, and what it is for.
Since the dominant paradigm in the global freedom discourse is heavily liberal, we must briefly (re)trace its history and evolution to know where we are coming from, what we must build upon, and what must be amended. In this, we are tracing a conceptual arc from freedom from to freedom for.
Freedom from: The Western Liberal Paradigm
While human freedom has been an object of interest since time immemorial, the current, dominant Western liberal paradigm was initially formulated in the UK by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke during the rise of classical liberalism in the 17th and 18th centuries. It was then crystallized during the Enlightenment, particularly through the French Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789) and the U.S. Bill of Rights (1791). This positioned liberty as freedom from oppression, coercion, and tyranny – especially on the part of governments. In the mid-19th century, John Stuart Mill refined the concept of non-interference as he introduced the harm principle: the idea that power could be legitimately exercised over an individual against their will only if they proved a threat to others.
The core tenets of liberal freedom, or freedom from, are individual autonomy; non-interference, particularly from the government; and inalienable rights, conceived mostly as safeguards against state intervention. This first legal formulation sought to delineate a zone of non-interference where individuals are left to do as they please so long as they do not infringe on another’s rights. In this view, governments then mostly exist to protect and uphold that private sphere. Such absence of external obstacles and restraints, except by the law for the common good, was meant to enable personal choice, free will, and the pursuit of individual goals on one’s own terms. Autonomy is therefore paramount in the liberal paradigm; this has cleared the way for individualism to gain traction under the guise of agency, which has, over time, drifted into a more pronounced form of self-seeking individualism.
Coined as Negative Liberty by Isaiah Berlin, liberal freedom has had a profound impact on how we understand human freedom and in shaping human rights principles across the world. Its most profound contribution lies in securing a bedrock of dignity for the individual. However, it is insufficient on its own for two main reasons. First, delimiting a zone of non-interference where individuals are free from external constraints does not in itself entail that what people actually do within that private space is meaningful at all. Second, each person’s unrestrained pursuit of interest, accumulation, and privilege gradually scales up to collective problems from environmental abuse, to gaping social inequalities, to eroded social cohesion.
To ensure that freedom is not equated with license, freedom from must ultimately be infused with values, restraint, responsibility and, last but not least, direction – not mere entitlements. To this we now turn.
Freedom to: Self-Determination, Self-Mastery & Capability
The concept of freedom to (also referred to as Positive Liberty by Berlin in a more political sense) stems from the recognition that freedom entails more than simply removing external chains; it requires that individuals have the agency to actually do something with their freedom. The conceptual foundation of freedom to rests upon self-determination, self-mastery, and capability. Of these, self-determination is the keystone, emphasizing the individual’s agency in choosing and following their own path in life. To guarantee that freedom is exercised in line with one’s authentic self, however, one must be able to consciously control his or her own desires, impulses, and behaviors. This is where self-mastery comes in – so as to ensure that our choices are genuinely our own and are not merely the product of inner compulsions or external forces such as social conditioning, ideology or worse, coercion. Finally, acting upon our free will to pursue authentic goals demands that we have the practical and psychological capacity to do so. To this end, poverty and deprivation must be alleviated, education must be rendered accessible, and opportunities must be available.
Agency – the authentic control of one’s life, the capacity to choose and act meaningfully – lies at the heart of this second paradigm and is understood to lead to the discovery of one’s true self, that is, to self-realization. This, in turn, brings about the fulfillment of one’s intrinsic potential, or self-actualization. Freedom to therefore moves beyond mere non-interference and the absence of restraints towards tasking the free individual with using their freedom in constructive ways. Implicitly, it transpires that not all pursuits are equally worthwhile, suggesting that freedom’s value is determined by what we do with it. Indeed, freedom to considers freedom to be most valuable when conceived of as a means towards self-realization. Unlike freedom from which, given its historical emphasis on liberation from oppression and tyranny, does not venture to explore the essence of freedom, freedom to enters this realm and introduces an end goal into the freedom discourse.
However, even as it recognizes that haphazard, individualistic excesses must be offset by infusing the freedom discourse with direction and greater meaning, freedom to fails to fully acknowledge the relational dimension of life as it remains essentially self-centered. Pursuing self-realization for its own sake, it conceives of the world as a stage for one’s own self-expression, a realm of opportunities there for the taking. The world is then reduced to a contextual backdrop intended to serve the individual, not necessarily something we are an integral part of and might purposefully engage with. As a result, while self-realization and actualization hint at authenticity and growth, freedom to might unwittingly support placing them above everyone else’s needs and well-being for the sake of one’s accomplishment. As for the ecological embeddedness of human freedom, it is simply not acknowledged at all. This requires the introduction of a new freedom paradigm that attunes human freedom to the needs and reality of our time.
Freedom for: Furthering the Conceptual Arc
At its core, Freedom for seeks to orient freedom towards meaning (as per Viktor E. Frankl’s psychology), responsibility, and contribution to the common good. Its essence rests on three core dimensions deemed essential to the practice of purposeful freedom: Responsibility, Relationality, and Responsive Meaning. These three pillars of Freedom for blend into an integrated form of autonomy that acknowledges both its social and ecological embeddedness. Here, we are departing from a self-centered approach to individuality to re-situate autonomy within a framework of responsibility towards the world’s needs, be they social or environmental. Such autonomy is ultimately to be actualized through meaningful and purposeful engagement with – not detachment from or overcoming of – the world. In reframing the core concept of autonomy in the freedom discourse, this new paradigm makes the relational nature of life a defining element of human freedom, moving beyond an emphasis on individualism towards a greater integration within the fabric of life itself.
Building on the concepts of self-realization and self-actualization formulated in freedom to, Freedom for embeds them into contribution towards something beyond the self. Here, authenticity is to be found in genuine engagement with the world, through responding to its social and ecological realities and needs, in keeping with one's own inclinations. The obsessive emphasis on the self thus gives way to meaningful actions as a response to the world’s call, making the practice of freedom world-centered rather than self-centered. This is arguably a greater form of self-realization that is not enmeshed in self-preoccupation but brings forth our true nature in relationship to the whole, as the relational essence of life demands. Leading to an integrated form of self-actualization, this produces, in turn, deeper meaning and satisfaction than self-directed and indulgent pursuits ever could.
Of note, integration does not mean the erasure of individuality; it entails finding one’s place within a greater whole. Hence, individuality is affirmed in Freedom for but it is to be found in purpose, through the contribution of one’s unique talents to the world in a way that resonates with one’s true nature. This is an integrated form of individuality, referred to as Integrated Autonomy. Consequently, individuality is not about becoming ever more self-assertive and distinct, even peculiar, nor is it about enjoying ever greater latitude in life. A world of over eight billion people, diminishing resources, and declining ecological realities will soon no longer be able to provide for this and will, in fact, call for great restraint and moderation. For this reason, Freedom for argues that individual pursuits, autonomy and agency must be aligned with both the world’s needs and environmental realities, thereby reclaiming the social and ecological embeddedness of human freedom. This reframing elegantly reconciles individual aspirations with collective stability and continuity: once seen as almost antagonistic, the two can now become synergistic.
Therefore, considering the evolution in our formulations of freedom, we can trace its conceptual arc. Freedom from secured a platform for human dignity and rights. Freedom to introduced self-realization and self-actualization in the freedom discourse, infusing it with meaning and direction. Freedom for situates freedom within world and ecological realities. Aiming to uphold meaningful freedom in the context of a declining, finite world, it argues that freedom is ultimately for something. That something is not about the gratification of our every whims and desires but about contribution to something larger than the self, in line with one’s own intrinsic talents and natural affinities. In return, such responsible engagement with the world brings about authentic self-discovery and a sense of belonging. Finding one’s place in a world that might otherwise fail to make sense answers our search for meaning in life and yields the deepest fulfillment – all things that have largely remained beyond the reach of individualistic pursuits.
The Freedom Arc: from Freedom from to Freedom for – by Freedom for
Embedding Freedom within Social & Ecological Realities