freedom and development
the new york times reports this morning that mr. bush and mr. blair have reached an agreement on debt remission for a number of (mostly african) nations. this seems like good news, though unfortunately it looks like the bush administration has yet to agree to the plan for increased african aid which the britains favor.
it is well known that bush has made the spread of freedom a central theme of his presidency. and the buzz about freedom's march has been fueled by the recent push for democratic reforms in ukraine, eygpt, lebanon and elsewhere. however, it seems that we have failed to connect our concerns about freedom with our concerns about development/poverty/disease in the world's poorest nations. or rather, the connection between the two frequently takes the following form: countries that have democratic freedoms and working democratic institutions tend to be able to support development, overcome poverty, etc. this way of connecting freedom and development takes "freedom" to be a matter of political practices/institution and then stresses that freedom is a kind of condition (necessary? sufficient?) for development.
this is surely a very important point. but there is another way of connecting freedom and development. this second way takes "freedom" to be not only a matter of political institutions, but an expression of a person's ability to lead a self-directing, flourishing human life. that is, "freedom" is not merely a matter of free elections and free markets, but a way of characterizing a certain kind of human life -a life that is able to pursue in a self-directed way the goods which make up a human life. here, to be free is to be able to engage in the sorts of activities that make up a distinctly human life, and an excellent human life. whereas on the first way of thinking about freedom, freedom is a condition for development, on the second way of thinknig about freedom, development is a condition for freedom. to be terribly poor -unable to find work, unable to feed oneself and one's family, unable to find adequate healthcare- is to be prevented from pursuing the goods which make up a flourishing human life. in this way, it is not live as a free person. thus we speak of the "bondage" or "prison" of poverty and disease.
i think it is obvious that this second sense of "freedom" is at least as important as the first sense. in fact, the second sense is more important, because it is the importance of this notion of freedom that grounds the first notion. that is, political/economic freedom is important precisely because it enables persons to live as self-directing agents in pursuit of the goods which make up a flourishing human life.
why is it, then, that our discourse of freedom focuses so heavily on the first notion of freedom? doubtless this has something to do with the fact that this is largely a "political" discourse, and it focused on fairly narrow "political" concerns. but it is a great mistake for us to focus on the first notion of freedom at the expense of the second, and hence for us to direct our efforts at the political/economic freedoms while neglecting the needs of millions for even basic freedom in the second sense -freedom to eat and drink enough, to have a job, to get medicine for one's children, etc.
we ought, I suggest, to see development precisely as an issue of freedom and not simply as an issue for "charity" or "helping out the less fortunate." this is not because there is something wrong with charity, but because thinking of development as charity fails to see what is ultimately at state in development efforts -whether or not millions of people will be free to live flourishing human lives.
moreover, once we recognize the cause of development as the cause of freedom, we will be able to see how one-sided and imbalanced our efforts in promoting the spread of freedom truly are. for example, consider the following numbers:
amount of debt to be relieved by bush/blair agreement: $17 billion
amount of annual u.s. aid to africa: $3.2 billion
cost of iraq war: over $200 billion.
my point here is not to argue about the legitimacy or wisdom of the iraq war. rather, i think that even if we see the iraq war as part of the "spread of freedom" -perhaps especially if we see it as such- then it become apparent how lopsided our pursuit of freedom's spread truly is. are not those people "unfree" who suffer from crushing poverty, who lack adequate drinking water, who have no access to healthcare? surely these people are just as "unfree" as those who live under oppressive regimes, if by "freedom" we recognize something more than just free markets and free elections.
let us, then, take up mr. bush's challenge to promote the spread of freedom. but let us think seriously about what freedom means and why freedom is something worth pursuing in the first place. the language of freedom, it seems, is singularly inspiring (in spite of being overused and misused), and for this very reason we should not surrender the term "freedom" to those who would define freedom in such a way that obscures or overlooks the places in the world where freedom is most badly needed.
p.s. it seems that u.s. political discourse on freedom has not always been as narrowly focused as it is now. as i recall, didn't a former u.s. president (and an academic, i believe) have something to say about different kinds of freedom? something about four...
it is well known that bush has made the spread of freedom a central theme of his presidency. and the buzz about freedom's march has been fueled by the recent push for democratic reforms in ukraine, eygpt, lebanon and elsewhere. however, it seems that we have failed to connect our concerns about freedom with our concerns about development/poverty/disease in the world's poorest nations. or rather, the connection between the two frequently takes the following form: countries that have democratic freedoms and working democratic institutions tend to be able to support development, overcome poverty, etc. this way of connecting freedom and development takes "freedom" to be a matter of political practices/institution and then stresses that freedom is a kind of condition (necessary? sufficient?) for development.
this is surely a very important point. but there is another way of connecting freedom and development. this second way takes "freedom" to be not only a matter of political institutions, but an expression of a person's ability to lead a self-directing, flourishing human life. that is, "freedom" is not merely a matter of free elections and free markets, but a way of characterizing a certain kind of human life -a life that is able to pursue in a self-directed way the goods which make up a human life. here, to be free is to be able to engage in the sorts of activities that make up a distinctly human life, and an excellent human life. whereas on the first way of thinking about freedom, freedom is a condition for development, on the second way of thinknig about freedom, development is a condition for freedom. to be terribly poor -unable to find work, unable to feed oneself and one's family, unable to find adequate healthcare- is to be prevented from pursuing the goods which make up a flourishing human life. in this way, it is not live as a free person. thus we speak of the "bondage" or "prison" of poverty and disease.
i think it is obvious that this second sense of "freedom" is at least as important as the first sense. in fact, the second sense is more important, because it is the importance of this notion of freedom that grounds the first notion. that is, political/economic freedom is important precisely because it enables persons to live as self-directing agents in pursuit of the goods which make up a flourishing human life.
why is it, then, that our discourse of freedom focuses so heavily on the first notion of freedom? doubtless this has something to do with the fact that this is largely a "political" discourse, and it focused on fairly narrow "political" concerns. but it is a great mistake for us to focus on the first notion of freedom at the expense of the second, and hence for us to direct our efforts at the political/economic freedoms while neglecting the needs of millions for even basic freedom in the second sense -freedom to eat and drink enough, to have a job, to get medicine for one's children, etc.
we ought, I suggest, to see development precisely as an issue of freedom and not simply as an issue for "charity" or "helping out the less fortunate." this is not because there is something wrong with charity, but because thinking of development as charity fails to see what is ultimately at state in development efforts -whether or not millions of people will be free to live flourishing human lives.
moreover, once we recognize the cause of development as the cause of freedom, we will be able to see how one-sided and imbalanced our efforts in promoting the spread of freedom truly are. for example, consider the following numbers:
amount of debt to be relieved by bush/blair agreement: $17 billion
amount of annual u.s. aid to africa: $3.2 billion
cost of iraq war: over $200 billion.
my point here is not to argue about the legitimacy or wisdom of the iraq war. rather, i think that even if we see the iraq war as part of the "spread of freedom" -perhaps especially if we see it as such- then it become apparent how lopsided our pursuit of freedom's spread truly is. are not those people "unfree" who suffer from crushing poverty, who lack adequate drinking water, who have no access to healthcare? surely these people are just as "unfree" as those who live under oppressive regimes, if by "freedom" we recognize something more than just free markets and free elections.
let us, then, take up mr. bush's challenge to promote the spread of freedom. but let us think seriously about what freedom means and why freedom is something worth pursuing in the first place. the language of freedom, it seems, is singularly inspiring (in spite of being overused and misused), and for this very reason we should not surrender the term "freedom" to those who would define freedom in such a way that obscures or overlooks the places in the world where freedom is most badly needed.
p.s. it seems that u.s. political discourse on freedom has not always been as narrowly focused as it is now. as i recall, didn't a former u.s. president (and an academic, i believe) have something to say about different kinds of freedom? something about four...
posted by micah at 10:50 AM
1 Comments:
I like this post because I think it is true. I always wonder if this kind of thought ever even occurs to Presdient Bush and others. It seems like the general conception of freedom, at least in America, is not so much about having freedom to develop a contented and simple life and maintain human dignity. It seems more like people are interested in having unhindered freedom to indulge their individual desires for power, wealth, and pleasure. I think in general if we were content with enough, had a less individualistic worldview, and were more interested in the welfare of others, the concept of freedom that you talk about would occur to people and it would be something that our nation would be more interested in pursuing in the terms you describe. I think the whole debate over social security illustrates the problem. The big benefit supposedly of privatizing is that individuals will have the opportunity to make a lot more money, but social security was not designed or intended to be a money-making program. It was designed as a way for the community to take care of the community. It was designed so that people could have enough not excess. If ss is privatized it will cease to be social security, but that's another discussion. Dorothy Day would like your post, too. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home