Hello friends.
Today in this lecture, we will start with
the first key concepts in our course that
is liberty and on liberty, we are going to
have three lectures through which we will
discuss different aspects of these terms.
And, this is one of the most essentially,
contested concepts in political theory which
has different connotations, different conceptualization
and there are different strands of political
discourse and debates on this question of
liberty.
So, what we are going to discuss is to start
with definition of liberty and try to understand
with some of the political thinkers and their
ideas, about their conception of liberty.
And then, we will move on to the republican
notion of liberty and also, the negative and
positive conception of liberty as argued by
Isaiah Berlin and certain responses to that
kind of conceptualization.
And we will also, discuss then free speech
and hate speech, what is freedom of speech
and expression and what can be the reasonable
limits or restriction to the freedom of speech
and expression.
And finally, we will also discuss the idea
of freedom as moral autonomy or what Gandhi
calls Freedom as Swaraj.
So, these are some of the key themes through
which we will try to understand liberty and
its different conceptualizations.
In today's lecture, we are going to focus
mainly on the understanding of liberty or
freedom through some of the key thinkers and
then, we will focus more on the republican
conception of liberty.
As a way of introduction, many of us are aware
of how liberty or what we called freedom is
regarded essential or a precondition for any
meaningful life or any dignified life, both
for the individual and community to be possible.
So, we will find in our political discourse,
in our political debates or in our history
books the struggle for freedom.
And freedom is regarded as the prerequisite,
the first condition for any other goods to
happen for individual or for the community.
So, then, the significance of this concept
also leads to some of the other challenging
aspect that is attached to this question of
freedom and what are those challenges that
we are going to discuss over the course of
three lectures, but we need to keep in mind
that liberty in its absolute sense, tthat
means, if it is understood as freedom from
restrains, it cannot be absolute freedom from
all kinds of restrains.
So, it is not possible to realise freedom
in that sense as understood by freedom of
all kind of restraints.
So, then, what should be the possible limits
and who is going to decide what should be
the possible limits or restriction to liberty
and freedom?
These are some of the philosophical, moral
questions that we are going to discuss with
this topic.
And, the other aspect of this theme is this
idea of freedom of speech and expression and
when, and how this freedom of speech and expression
can possibly, lead to undesirable ends and
how to restrict that and which authority,
under which rule can reasonably restrict such
freedom of speech and expressions.
In other words, how it can turn prevent it
from turning free speech to hate speech and
so on.
So, these are some of the crucial aspect of
this theme liberty.
So, the concept of liberty signifies a notion
of choice and absence of any constraint.
So, the basic understanding of liberty or
freedom is about choice.
So, individual and community has choice to
make decisions and in making such decisions,
they are not constrained by any authority
or any force that is external to them.
So, in a sense, the liberty or freedom is
about autonomy of individual or community
from any kind of restrictions while they are
making decisions or while they are deciding
about their choice and they want to pursue
that choice or that decision for whatever
their conception of good life, or proper life
are.
So, the concepts of liberty then signifies
in notion of choice, both for individual and
community, and also, an absence of any restraints
that is external or state interference in
exercising one’s choice in order to lead
a good life.
So, you remember in political discourse, you
often find institutions of state or its ideologues
arguing about the good life and to lead that
good life they prescribe certain course of
action, certain decision, and certain policies
to be followed by the people.
Now, that conception of good life as designed
by the state and its authority is inherently,
inimical to the free progress or to make the
condition for living a dignified life or a
free life for individual or society.
So, the danger of state or its institution
designing a conception of good life for the
individual and then, certain policies to be
followed by them is essentially, problematic.
Because, it restricts the individual liberty
to make decisions, to have certain choices
and to pursue the life which he or she want
to pursue.
It means notion of choice which is absence
of any kind of constraints that be external,
that means, it can be a group or other individual
or community on the one hand or the state
and its institution on the other in exercising
his or her own choice.
So, that is very basic fundamental understanding
of liberty or freedom.
So, it emphasises on the curtailment of restrictions
or impediments if individuals or human beings
are to lead a meaningful and purposeful life.
So, the basic contentious understanding of
liberty lies here about the meaningful and
purposeful life who is in control of what
is meaningful or what is purposeful life.
Is it the individual and community themselves
who decides about what is meaningful life
or what is purposeful life or it is the state
or the external authority and institutions
which decide for them what is good for them
and what is purposeful for them ? So, in that
sense, when state and its institutions or
certain moral idealogues dictates what is
good life, what is purposeful life, then it
curtails or restricts individual or community
freedom or liberty to make decisions and make
choices or, that is always dangerous and how
that can be dangerous, we will discuss later.
So, basically, liberty is about maximizing
the scope for individuals to make decisions.
In other words, limiting the restrictions
or impediments on individual choice or individual
decisions to make certain decisions and choice
about their life, or about their conception
of good life and so on.
So, it is in other words, opposite of subjugation,
coercion, control and domination of one by
the another.
So, liberty can be understood in this sense
as well which is one as I have discussed about
choice or freedom from external restrictions.
On the other hand, we can also understand
freedom or liberty as absence of subjugation,
coercion, control and domination of one by
the other.
So, in the context of India, we have had the
experience of colonialism, where the nation
was ruled by a foreign country and we were
subjugated to their dictates and their conception
of public life or what they considered as
a rule or principle of governance and so on.
In that condition, we were, we were fighting
for the freedom from the British rule.
So, it has the collective aspect to it, also.
It has the individual aspect attached to it
also, where as we will discuss it in details,
when we will discuss Gandhi and conception
of Swaraj and Swaraj as freedom which includes
both the individual and the collective.
Now, in other words, we can understand freedom
and liberty as an absence from...absence or
opposite of subjugation, coercion, control
and domination and it is desirable for the
progress of both individuals and community.
So, the decision or the ability to make choice
that concerns one’s life is necessary for
the progress of not just individual, but also,
for the community or their collectivities.
However, this concept of liberty runs into
a problem and there are many contestations
over its meaning in a society, where individuals
to individuals, groups to groups, individuals
to groups or vice versa, ideas, opinions and
beliefs differ.
Now, in a society when different people's,
different groups, different communities have
different beliefs, different opinions, different
ideas, different faiths.
Now, how to reconcile their differences and
these differences are often conflicting, opposite
to each other.
Now, that kind of situation to ensure the
equal space for all the groups, all the individuals
to pursue what they think are good for them
is something, which requires some moral consideration,
some philosophical reflection and that we
are going to discuss.
So, the idea of liberty or freedom as opposition
to subjugation, coercion, control and domination
of one over the other is easily said, but
in practice, it runs into many problems, many
contestations especially, when there is a
society where many individuals or groups or
individual, and group or groups with other
groups vary from each other, differ from each
other about their beliefs, faith, ideas and
opinions.
Now, how to reconcile such differences which
is often contradictory and conflicting.
Now, these kinds of contestations is also,
there when individual interacts with state
or vice versa, what are the fundamental rights,
what are the inalienable rights, where are
the limits against the state and where they
cannot interfere to certain matters concerning
the individual or it is about relationship
between groups or communities, and the state
or vice versa or individual and community,
and community or individual again.
So, in these kinds of inter-relations between
individual group and state, there is a kind
of contestations in meaning, in conceptualization
about what could be the reasonable restrictions
that can be put for individual liberty or
freedom.
So, what are these reasonable...reasonable
constraints or restrictions may vary.
Therefore, from society to society, from context
to context depending upon the different considerations
and what are those considerations that we
will discuss, especially, when we will discuss
John and Stuart Mills.
So, liberal emphasize on the need for liberty
and freedom.
So, for as we have discussed in our introductory
lectures, the liberalism and its emphasis
on the individual and the whole political
and public institutions or a structure is
to ensure that the individual have enough
scope to develop his or her own personality.
So, for them, the liberty and freedom is absolute
prerequisite for a prosperous or free society.
So, for them, liberal or liberty and freedom
is absolutely necessary.
So, the classical liberals, described liberty
as natural rights or inalienable, rights.
So, individual has certain liberties or freedom
which is inalienable.
So, the whole discourse of rights, natural
rights, fundamental rights and so legal rights
and so on is based on this idea of certain
natural rights to individual which is there
in the classical liberal philosophy.
So, liberty thus, for them is about freedom
of choice or freedom from restraints.
Now, what are these freedom and what could
be the reasonable restrictions are subject
to debate and different liberal philosophers
have different understandings of such reasonable
restrictions.
But none the less, their conceptualization
of liberty is freedom of choice or freedom
from restraints.
It will vary from individual to individual,
thinkers even among the liberalism.
But, necessarily, the conceptualization requires
a kind of freedom of choice or to freedom
to make decisions, or freedom from any external
restraints.
So, modern liberals, describe liberty as the
condition essential for developing individuals
on skill and talents to develop a personality
of their own.
So, the idea of individuality or one’s own
self and one’s own judgement requires certain
pre-conditions for human being to develop
such individuality to develop some judgement
which he or she can call his or her own.
Now, that requires a pre-condition which is
liberty.
Liberty and freedom provides the individual
a scope to develop his or her personality,
to develop his or her choice, opinion, judgement
and so on, and that requires any complete
freedom from any kind of external restraints.
Now, these two terms is also necessary, to
understand which we often use interchangeably,
that is freedom and liberty.
So, although it is used interchangeably, however
these two terms analytically differ from each
other.
So, liberty can be understood as a negative
term and is more about the autonomy of the
individual from interference of a group or
community.
So, its about isolating the individual or
separating the individual from the groups
or from the community, and then conceptualizing
his or her freedom in a complete autonomous
or in sense of his isolated existence from
the larger society and community.
So, its more a kind of negative term whereas,
freedom is understood as a positive term that
is more about being or participating in the
community.
So, we will discuss this point when we will
discuss again the republican conception of
liberty, where liberty is not just having
freedom and autonomy from the community and
living one’s life the way one want to live.
But, liberty or as it is understood as a positive
form in a sense of freedom is more about being
and participating in the larger self, or being
or participating in the community life.
In the actual realisation of liberty, it is
not possible to enjoy or exercise liberty
by keeping oneself aloof and in different
from the larger public life.
It is only through participating or acting
in the public collective life, we realise
our freedom.
So, it is more a kind of positive terms and
argue about the participation being or engagement
in the public life, and being participating
and in the engagement, we actually realise
our freedom and not the other way round.
So, liberty is understood as absolute autonomy
or freedom from all constraints.
It is an ideal then.
So, one cannot really, achieve it or realize
it in its absolute sense on earth.
Although, we can aspire for liberty as understood
as complete freedom or freedom from all kind
of external restraints but it is not possible,
it is not pragmatic, to have an individual
which can enjoy such existence because one
of the fundamental characteristic of individual
is that he or she requires associational life.
Associational lives requires the existence
of other and therefore, when the other self
interacts with others, what could be the space
where the self is free and what could be the
scope, where there can be minimal or reasonable
restrictions on the freedom of the self.
So, these are some of the contentious questions
that we need to discuss.
So, liberty in that sense, understood as absolute
freedom is impossible to have in a form of
associational life on earth.
So, what we are left with this freedom and
this freedom is understood as liberty under
the constraints of law.
So, the rule of law restricts or pose certain
restrictions and limits to individual choice,
individual movements, individual decisions
and so on.
Whether that rule of law is justifiable or
not, and how far that rule of law justifiable
or not can be, should we have the rule of
law or any restrictions or not, these are
some of the considerations when we think about
liberty which is understood as freedom within
the constraints of law.
So, here, the law enables the individual to
develop himself or herself into the personality
or individuality that he or she aspires to.
Philosophers like Hannah Arendt make a conceptual
difference between these two concepts.
So, for her, liberty is a negative concept
whereas, freedom entails participation in
public affairs.
So, this participation is necessary to realise
one’s freedom and not kind of isolation
or autonomous life disconnected from the larger
community life.
So, according to her, freedom is not merely
about absence of restraints, right and that
has different consequences.
So, in the popular, general sense of the term,
if liberty is understood as you know it is
my business, there is no one else who should
interfere with what I think is good or not.
So, it has many other moral implications which
we will discuss later on.
So, for Hannah Arendt, the freedom is about
participation and not just about freedom from
restraints.
So, actually, in participating one realises
one’s freedom.
So, one’s ability and willingness to participate
in the public life and constitute the republic.
So, this participation and constitution of
republic or collective life is something,
which provide the condition in the first place
to realise oneself, to make certain decisions
which concerns one’s life and so on.
If that participation or acting in the public
life is absent, then there will be no republic,
no collective self which provide the condition
in the first place for the individual to realise
his or her own self, to make decisions about
his or her own life and so on.
So, to create that conditions it is absolutely,
necessary to actually participate and engage
in the public life to construct a society
or a republic which will enable or provide
the condition for the individuals to make
certain decisions which concerns their life
and so on.
So, thus, she emphasise upon the actual realisation
of freedom through once public activities
and not by living isolatory, autonomous, individualistic
life.
So, however, for all purposes, we will use
these two terms liberty and freedom interchangeably,
as you will see later that these aspects of
negative or positive conception of liberty
and freedom or will conceptualize when will
discuss about republican or liberal, and positive
and negative conception of liberty.
Conceptualization of liberty is put forward
by several political thinkers as one of the
significant concepts to ensure human progress,
to maintain the free nature or soul of human
being without subjugation or oppressions.
So, all the political thinkers, although they
differ in their conceptualization of the term
agree to the significance of this concept
as necessary for human progress or to maintain
the free nature, or free will of individual
soul from any subjugation or oppressions.
So, many political thinkers like Hobbes, John
Locke, Rousseau, John Stuart Mill, Isaiah
Berlin, John Rawls and Karl Marx have put
forward different and interesting conceptualization
of liberty which we will discuss over the
course of three lectures as I have told you
before.
So, there are multiple strands of understanding
and conceptualization of the notion of liberty
and freedom.
So, in the first part of this lecture today
on liberty, we will focus on the meanings
of liberty or freedom through the ideas of
political thinkers like Locke, Rousseau.
Mill and Karl Marx and in the second part
of this lecture, we will focus on the republicanism
or the republican notion of freedom, its classical
and contemporary conceptualizations, and its
relevance in the contemporary times.
So, if you look at the John Locke theory of
liberty, he was arguing about liberty as necessary
for the growth of individuality and this liberty
is something, which he regarded as existing
in the state of nature.
So, if you are familiar with these social
contract tradition of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau,
they argue about the state of nature and how
from the state of nature state comes into
existence.
And, why individuals should obey the state
and what are the rights which state must protect,
and if it does not protect, what are the alternatives
or what are the choices that individuals or
society may have in that condition.
So, in that social contract traditions, Locke
argued that the individual has certain rights
which precedes the civil and political society
that he constituted for the collective life
or for the political life.
These rights are liberty, property.
So, along with liberty, he equally considered
life and property, so liberty, right to life,
liberty and property is something, which he
regarded as inalienable rights of the individual
which existed in the state of nature as well.
So, the responsibility or the duty of state
is to protect or ensure the individual right
to life, liberty and property.
So, his justification or conceptualization
of liberty is based on the notion of morality
and it is grounded on the laws of nature and
notion of equality.
So, he argued, that liberty is natural right
and is therefore, universal.
So, no individual should harm any other individual
and he talked about protection of life, liberty
and property as necessary prerequisite for
the individual to develop as develop in the
true sense of the term or to makes one’s
individuality his own.
So, that distinctive nature of individual
life or individual conception of good life
is possible, when state protects or ensures
certain rights.
These are right to life, liberty and property.
So, he emphasized on the absence of constraints
to attain liberty and he pointed out liberty
is meant for all and not just for few.
So, these are certain rights which is equally,
available for every single individual or citizen
in the state, and all the individual then
must respect each other’s right to life,
liberty and property and state is there to
ensure that these rights are not interfered
with.
So, for him, right to liberty needs to be
secured along with right to life and property,
and he pointed out that liberty precedes both
the emergence of political and civil society
as I have explained to you.
Now, the next thinker that we will discuss
is Rousseau and his conception of liberty
which is in contrast to Lockean understanding
of liberty.
So, Locke...
Rousseau considered liberty, here it is more
about the individual, but in Rousseau’s
conceptualization, liberty is regarded as
collective goal of individual to be realised
in society.
So, his concept of liberty is individualistic
in nature, but it is based on the collective
good or larger good of human beings as a whole,
but it is also, termed as general will.
Now, this general will is the will of individual
and collective at the same time.
Now, we will not go into the complexities
of this concept of general will, but in Rousseau,
understanding of liberty, the individual freedom
can be realised in association with the larger
collective good of the society.
So, he pointed out that liberty can be achieved
by abandoning one’s selfish interests, desires
and motives, and these are the reasons, why
the society is not equal or why there is no
freedom in the society.
I mean civil society or the society that is
constituted after the ‘state of nature’
because the individuals are guided by their
selfish interest, desires and motives that
restricts the freedom that creates inequality
in society.
So, for him, the freedom of individual is
in accordance with the freedom of the society
or the collective as well.
So, for him, liberty in the very individualistic
sense, enables individuals to create an unjust
and unequal society.
So, for Rousseau, liberty is freedom or liberation
from state of unfreedom, as it emerged in
the civil and political society.
So, he believed that people are liberated
only through obedience of law or what he calls
general will.
So, an individual can be a free individual
only by becoming an integral part of the collective
group or the society or the community and
not by living a life which is independent
and autonomous from the collective or community
life.
So, to quote Rousseau, he said ‘a free people
obeys, but it does not serve, it has a leaders,
but no masters.
It obeys the laws, but it obeys only the laws
and it is due to the strength of laws that
is not forced to obey’.
So, for him, in this conceptualization individual
is free only when he or she is free from personal
servitudes.
That means, he governs his or her life according,
to the law or what you call general will,
but that general will is not a kind of dictate
or a kind of law which put him in the condition
of servitude or so on.
So, his understanding of liberty can be traced
back to one of his popular phrase which many
of us are aware of which is there in the social
contract, where he states that ‘man is born
free, but everywhere he is in the chains’.
So, the political society or the civil society
that gets constituted after the ‘state of
nature’ created the conditions of unfreedom.
Now, how to ensure, freedom for each and everyone
in these conditions of unfreedom is what he
argues about general will, where the will
is free from individual interests, motives
for selfish objectives and the objective of
the group or the individual is in accordance
with the larger good of the society and so
on.
So, in this conceptualization, then he goes
on to the extent of forcing the individual
and their lies the danger in Rousseau’s
conception of freedom, where he argued that
even the few person will, if it is in the
larger interest of the society can be considered
as the general will.
And, there is always the danger that the authoritarian
or the dictatorial regime may use this approach
to force their conception of good life, to
force what they think is good for the society,
to the rest of the society.
So, he argues, that the general will ensure
the freedom for each and everyone and others
who do not obey the general will can be forced
to be free.
Now, this kind of conceptual conceptualization
makes the understanding of liberty problematic,
and as I have explained that many dictatorial
or authoritarian regime, or groups can use
this approach to justify their interference
or restrictions on the freedom of others and
so on.
Now, the next thinker, that we will discuss
is John Stuart Mill and Mill is perhaps, one
of the finest supporters of individual conception
of liberty.
So, in his essay, 'On Liberty', we will talk
about the protection of individual liberty
from state interference and other kinds of
social interference.
So, his understanding of liberty is grounded
on the lifelong interest... interests of man
and he emphasized on the importance and significance
of individuality to cultivate the proper self
of human beings.
So, the individuality, the personality, the
individual judgement and opinion is something,
which is possible to achieve, only when the
individuals have the liberty or freedom from
external restraints, be it state or society
or the other individuals and groups.
So, he said that no individual opinion should
be suppressed by the collective or majority
decisions.
Now, sometimes, it happens in the public discourse
or the political discourse, some kind of voices
can be regarded as undesirable or illegitimate,
or the hate speech or untruth or so on.
Against those kind of considerations, Mills
argue that no opinion should be suppressed
or especially, if it is the minorities opinion.
Because, for him, the society can prosperous...
prosper together when all the opinions are
allowed to be expressed freely, without any
kind of constraints and what are the possible
benefits of such opinions that we will discuss,
when we will discuss again this idea of freedom
of speech and expression, or free speech and
hate speech.
But, here it is perhaps, good to know that
freedom and liberty is something, which ensures
all kinds of opinions to be expressed freely,
without any restrictions and that will ultimately,
create a society which will be more prosperous
and more free.
So, for him, liberty is then an end in itself.
So, liberty is not justified because it creates
conditions for other goods to be achieved.
For Mill, liberty is an end in itself.
So, he pointed out that only free action or
freely chosen actions performed by an individual
can make him or her a free person in real
sense.
So, he focused on the rights to free expressions,
thought and freedom of speech, principle of
individuality and limits to authority and
authoritarian nature of power in the state.
So, there are many dangerous to the individuals
freedom and liberty, and those restrictions
are often against the interest of the individuals
pursuit of what he or she considered as good
life, what is his or her conceptualization
of good life.
Now, Mills also, argued about and that we
will discuss, how state can reasonably, put
certain restrictions to individual actions.
But, for him, the opinion, the speech and
expressions, the freedom of thought is something,
which we all must regard as desirable or we
must respect even if it is contract contrary
or opposite to our own opinion or ideas.
So, he pointed out, there should be minimum
restrictions on individual liberty only when
it has potential to harm others, otherwise,
the individual should have the maximum freedom
to lead one’s life.
So, the only... in his words, the only purpose
for which power can be rightfully exercised
over any member of a civilized community against
his will is to prevent harms to others.
So, this is the only possible criteria for
posing any restrictions and limit to individual
freedom and liberty.
Now, he also, makes a crucial restriction
between what he calls self-regarding functions
and other-regarding functions.
Of course, in actual pragmatic practical life,
it is often very difficult to maintain a distinction
between self-regarding function or other-
regarding function, but we can conceptually,
understand it or those actions which is related
to individuals or which has implications to
individual life is self-regarding function.
So, what I wear, what I eat, where I go for
education, what profession I choose are some
of the things which concerns individuals or
myself.
Now, in these decisions, in these actions,
there should not be any limitations at all
whereas, the other-regarding functions are
those actions of individuals which can have
potential, which has implications on others
and which can potentially, harms others.
So, like smoking in the public space or drugs,
or so on which can have or listening to loud
music which can possibly, interfere with the
others right, to have a leisure life without
any interference, to listen to their choice
of music and so on.
So, in the other-regarding functions, there
can be certain reasonable restrictions posed
by the state.
So, these are only some of the limitations
that he argued about.
So, in John Stuart Mill, we will come to his
ideas when we will discuss again, but here
the argument is about the absolute freedom
of individual to lead his or her life according
to his or her own personality without any
constraints.
Only some reasonable constraints can be put
when, those actions are potentially, harmful
for the others.
Now, Karl Marx and his conception of liberty
is basically, about his idea of alienation
where the freedom that is available for the
majority of people in capitalist free society
is not really, available for the majority
of individual.
So, he argued, that the inability to express
oneself, expresses unfreedom or curtailment
of freedom.
So, he put forward four stages to explain
denial of liberty or freedom to majority of
individuals in a society, where the agent
for which he refers to the labourers or the
workers is alienated from the products he
or she is alienated from one’s...he is own
productive activities from his own nature
or individual, and from other human-beings.
In this way, the individuals in this society
lives an alienated life and this alienated
life do not allow him the conditions or ability
to express his self because he lives a kind
of disconnected life from his on labour, from
his own activities, from his own self and
from the other selves.
So, in this kind of society, one cannot really
talks about freedom as self expression and
so on.
So, his understanding of liberty thus, focuses
on the inability of self-expressions of workers
or labourers under capitalism or capitalist
modes of production, where the socio-economic
conditions for the large number of masses
or socio-economic conditions which is a kind
of unfreedom for them make a mockery of legal
and political freedom promised in a free market
capitalist society.
So, for them, this liberal, political or legal
freedom is hollow in the absence of social
and economic conditions of freedom.
So, thus, from these above thinkers and their
conceptualization of freedom, what we get
is that for all of them, liberty is significant
for the development of human beings and to
lead a progressive and free life without external
restrictions and constraints.
They also talked about the free choice and
decision-making and participation of individual
or people in the collective life like in choosing
and electing government, and so on.
So, liberals like John Locke had an individualistic
idea of liberty free from any kind of interferences
and argued about limited or minimal role of
government, or the state whereas, Karl Marx
or Rousseau had argued about the exercise
of liberty or freedom in a collective manner
by living in a community devoid of selfish
interests.
So, the realisation of liberty or freedom
for Marx and Rousseau is about living in a
community devoid of one’s own selfish interest
and so on.
So, if we look at the republican conception
of freedom, so the term republicanism refers
to a particular kind of liberty or freedom.
So, a distinction can be made between republican
conception of freedom or the way we generally,
conceptualize freedom in our ordinary discourse.
So, in ordinary sense, of liberty describes
liberty as freedom from constraints or from
state interference.
So, in this sense, liberty demands non-interference.
This you can also understand as the liberal
conception of liberty which is about freedom
from restraints, freedom from interference
of the state and all.
Now, the republicanism is grounded on the
value of political liberty and it specifically,
emphasize on liberty as non-domination and
not freedom of restraints.
Now, how to ensure this non-domination from
any kind of abusive, authoritarian or arbitrary
power is by acting upon to creating a public
or a republic based on civic virtue or associational
life.
So, in this understanding liberty or freedom
is rooted in the idea of political liberty
as non-domination.
This idea of liberty is thus, different from
the liberty as non-interference as argued
by many liberal thinkers like Mill, Locke
as we have discussed.
Republicanism explains political liberty and
that specifically, focuses on structural independence
or the role of institutions which provide
the condition for individual to exercise his
or her freedom.
So, that is the condition of not being forcibly,
subjected to any authoritarian, unlawful and
arbitrary forms of power.
So, Pettit, one of the republican scholars
or thinker writes that a person or group enjoys
freedom to the extent that no other person
or groups has the capacity to interfere in
their affairs on an arbitrary basis.
Now, there is a slight difference in the conceptualization
of liberty as freedom from restraints or liberty,
and freedom as freedom from non-domination.
Now, to ensure freedom from non-domination,
it requires certain participation, certain
engagement on the parts of individual within
the larger collective public life, whereas,
freedom of restraints have a conceptualization,
where individual is seen as free and autonomous
from the larger collective life and the larger
collective life should not interfere with
the matters that is related to individual.
So, some of the republican thinkers are Skinner,
Viroli, Maynor, Laborde, Costa, Hanohan and
Taylor and so on.
Now, we will discuss some of their thoughts.
In the classical republicanism, it is understood
through the writings of thinkers like Machiavelli,
Milton, Harrington, Montesquieu, Blackstone,
Jefferson, Madison and Adam Smith and many
others.
Now, they all emphasized on some of the significant
political values such as the importance and
need of civic virtue in society, that is,
community feeling or consciousness, active
political participation to expose corruption
and remove its negative consequences on the
larger political life, the need of a constitution
and rule of law.
These are some of the necessary prerequisites
for them to realise freedom, to enable the
individual to realise his or her freedom is
something, which requires a public or a republic
which is based on civic virtue, which is based
on individual participation in the collective
life.
So, it can be argued, that the republican
thinkers did not ask for a limited or minimum
role of the state as we find in the many liberal
thinkers, but their vision was of a state
where the values of political liberty and
civic virtue could be maintained.
So, for them, a constitutional government
would perhaps, govern citizens democratically
and provide them with security rights, freedom
and justice to live a content life.
So, instead of arguing for a minimalist state
or looking at a state as a necessary evil,
republican thinkers and scholars argued for
a state which will be based on the idea of
political liberty or civic virtue which will
create the conditions for the individual to
leave or lead his or her life in a dignified
manner, in a content matter and so on.
So, they believe that the republican liberty
is largely possible, or it can be realised
in a community life, where individuals or
human beings together can learn to contribute
in their own ways, to make their life worthy
of living together in a society.
So, in this conception of liberty and freedom,
it is not about individual living his life
independently of the collective life, it is
coming together of individual to create a
public, to create a republic which will ensure
the liberty or freedom for everyone which
will fight certain evils in the public lives
like corruption and so on.
So, freedom for them is then not just about
enjoying the way one likes to live one’s
life, but about participation in the public
life, to contributing in the public life to
make it more democratic, to make it more egalitarian,
to make it possible from arbitrary rule of
the authoritarian or the dictatorial regime.
So, the classical republicans and republicanism
finds its resemblance in the relevance in
the Aristotelian idea of a Greek polis which
also retained the vision of constructing a
good life of people in a polis that is possible
through active public participation and civic
virtue.
So, the famous definition of citizenship in
Aristotle is one’s ability to govern and
ability to rule and be ruled in turn.
So, every single individual is capable of
ruling the rest and similarly, he is also
ruled by the rest.
So, in other words, this conception of liberty
or good life is through participation in the
public life and only through the participation
in the public life, one can truly enjoy his
or her freedom.
So, the classical republican believe not all
laws therefore, are arbitrary to the freedom
or liberty.
So, Locke, provide the condition for the individual
to realise his or her freedom is in contrast
to the liberal conception of freedom which
regard the laws, state and its institution
as necessary evil as some kind of restriction
and which should be made reasonable and so
on.
Here in the republican conception, we see
the idea of liberty which is facilitated by
the rule of law and individual themselves
participate in active manner to constitute
what is rule of law, to constitute what is
republic and so on.
So, now the contemporary republicanism, they
believe in the civic humanist interpretation
of the classical republicanism that is to
focus on cultivating civic virtue and this
is something, which is missing in our contemporary
political discourse as well, where we fight
for the rights which is self-regarding.
That means, we are bothered only about those
rights which concerns me and not as a collective
as a whole and that creates a kind of discontent
or disconnect between individual liberty or
the liberty of the society or the larger selfhood
as well.
So, the realisation of freedom and liberty
requires an individual to cultivate certain
civic virtue as we have discussed in Hannah
Arendt and many other thinkers, also.
So, it focuses on the re-interpretation of
the classical republicanism and focuses on
the cultivating civic virtue to remove some
of the social evils like corruptions and provide
conditions for individual progress.
So, some of the contemporary republicans are
Arendt, Skinner, Pettit and many others.
So, the contemporary republicans have argued
that public participation and civic virtue
that is community feeling and consciousness
could be important tools or means for securing
and preserving political liberty and to fight
any arbitrary rule or coercive power.
So, this public participations and civic virtue
is necessary for any kind of freedom or political
freedom to be enjoyed or to fight the corruption,
or the arbitrary coercive rule in any society.
So, the contemporary republicans broadly,
emphasize on promoting freedom or independence
from any kind of arbitrary, coercive or authoritarian
rule.
So, they fear that autocratic or dictatorial
government could pose a threat or challenge
to the very idea of political liberty that
is essential for individual growth.
So, if we understand liberal conception of
liberty as freedom from restraint and individual
should be concerned or guided by his or her
own selfish interest or motives and, if they
do not contribute or engage in the collective
life or in the making of the collective life.
Then the chances are the collective life will
be governed or ruled by the undemocratic or
dictatorial or authoritarian ruler which can
pose a threat to the very condition of liberty
or freedom which is so essential for the individual
to progress.
So, they argued, that if there are no criminal
or civil laws, then citizens would have no
idea of what freedom is or what free inter-relationships
mean between or among the individuals.
So, the idea of rule of law or what is civil
law or criminal law give the individual a
sense of what is freedom or what does it mean
to relate with others, or other groups and
so on.
Now, in this absence of rule of law, the coercive
or the arbitrary ruler can forcibly, curtail
their freedoms.
Hence, to make republican freedom exists and
to be enjoyed and cherished by all.
It is necessary, to have a legal system or
rule of law as Hayek argued that law is not
invasive of liberty, but its necessary precondition
for them.
The laws and rule of law is not a kind of
infringement or invasion of individual liberty
or freedom, but it is a prerequisite for any
liberty to be enjoyed or protected, or to
be cherished by others.
So, the focus of republicanism is on political
institutions.
So, for them, political institutions are something,
which provide the enabling condition for the
freedom or liberty to be enjoyed.
So, they believe that political, free, public
political institutions are essential for the
protection of individual freedom.
So, they argued about the proliferation of
democracy through its various institutions
like legislature, courts, rule of law, ideas
of federalism constitution and so on.
So, for them these institutions provide the
conditions for the individual to protect,
to make sense of his or her liberty and actively,
participate in the public life and these institutions
also, then work as a check and balances to
the excessive centralisation of power or to
the arbitrary use of the power by the authoritarian
or a corrupt rule and so on.
So, the objective or goal for the republicanism
is to sustain and enhance democracy and democratic
ideals, ethos and values to build a right
bond or obliged society, and a free society
that respects the true value of freedom without
domination of arbitrary power and subjugation.
So, they wanted individual to value their
worth as citizens and to contest or participate
in all public activities such as election
to commit themselves to right to vote and
to choose their own representatives and to
remind them of their duties.
So, the condition of freedom that we have
is dependent on the participation that we
have in our public life.
So, to demand freedom, to demand liberty without
engaging in the public life is something,
which is problematic, which creates problem
or tensions in the society.
So, they emphasized upon the role and functions
of political institutions to curtail and restrict
the excessive and arbitrary powers of the
state executive.
Instead of, having a coercive, centralised
form of government, the republicanism or republicans
argue about the federalism and a decentralized
government.
So, what are the relevance of a republic republicanism?
They broadly contest the power relations of
domination and subjugation to exercise freedom.
So, freedom is freedom from domination.
To ensure freedom of domination, it requires
public participation, public engagement to
create a public, to create the political institutions
which will ensure or which will create the
condition for the individual to exercise his
or her freedom.
So, it broadly, contests the power relation
of domination and subjugation to exercise
freedom of liberty and makes sense of liberty
as non-domination in contrast to freedom as
freedom from restriction.
It is in contrast to the idea of minimalist
state and emphasis on democracy, democratic
ideas and values which are essential for the
protection of rights, freedom, justice of
people from the arbitrary rule.
So, they focus on the value of civic virtue
in order to fight social evils like corruption
and to check selfish interests, and arbitrary
exercise of power by the authorities.
It argues for political liberty, rule of law
and public participation to create the conditions
necessary for the realisation of true freedom.
So, the republican conceptualization of freedom
and liberty then is about creating the condition
which requires the participation of every
individual in the public collective life.
So, this is all for today’s lecture.
In the next lecture, we are going to discuss
negative and positive conception of liberty
and also, free speech and hate speech and
so on.
So, for this lecture, you can refer to some
of these books like Norman Barry- An Introduction
to Modern Political Theory, from Bhargava
and Acharya, you can read a chapter on liberty
and similarly, Hoffman’s, Introduction to
Political Theory.
You can look at the chapter on liberty.
Similarly, from the Issue in Political Theory
and to know more about the conception of republicanism,
you can look at this entry on republicanism
in Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.
So, these are some of the texts which you
can refer to.
In the next lecture, I will be giving you
some more readings on this concept of liberty.
So, thank you for listening.
Thank you all.
