Will Positive Liberty lead to Totalitarianism?

This is the Final paper of GPA 1095 "Issues of Political Philosophy", guided by Mr. Chow Po Chung

Liberty is a difficult and complex term to discuss in the realm of political philosophy. It is associated with many other concepts like democracy, right, and toleration…etc. One of the vital contemporary discussions of the concept of liberty is triggered by Isaiah Berlin. In his famous work ‘Two Concepts of Liberty’, which is regarded as the most influential essay today, he makes a clear distinction and elaboration of positive liberty and negative liberty. And he attacks the former concept of liberty while advocating the latter one. The main reason is that positive liberty, when tracing back to our history, has been used as a tool by people to establish totalitarian rule.

The arguments in the essay have stirred up a lot of debates and discussions. For instance, G.C. MacCallum[1] and Charles Taylor[2] criticize the distinction of the concepts of liberty, and some concentrate on Berlin’s analysis of pluralism and monism. Also, some political philosophers like Adam Swift and Shi Yuankang are concerned with Berlin’s comment on positive liberty.

Different scholars have different views on the logic “positive liberty will or to large extent lead to Totalitarianism”. Some, like the Swift and Shi mentioned above, from the perspective of logic, hold the view that Berlin’s argument is weak and feeble. There is no direct and close relation between positive liberty and authoritarianism; others, like Galipeau and George Crowder[3], deal with the argument in a historical way, deem that “This is not a formal, conceptual argument, but one related to a historical and practical point” [4] positive libertarian doctrines have too often justified totalitarianism in history.

Since historical way of analysis would relate much analysis of different dynasties and regions in the history, I am not going to manage the argument by this route in this short essay. In the following I will give an outline of Berlin’s opinion about the relationship of positive liberty and totalitarianism. Then, through pointing out Berlin’s logical problems in pulling them together, I will prove that positive liberty, though having a great tendency to totalitarian rules in the past, have no direct causation with totalitarianism.

Berlin’s Two concepts of Liberty

To make everything clear in mind, I will give a short outline of Berlin’s concept of Liberty. Berlin, in his illustrious “Two Concepts of Liberty”, makes clear the concepts of positive and negative liberty, points out the danger of positive liberty and advocates negative liberty and also subsequent pluralism.

He starts by claiming that there are two hundred or even more meanings and interpretations of the word “Liberty”. Yet what attract him are the two major sense of this protean word, namely positive liberty and negative liberty.[5] In the first sense, liberty consists in ‘being one’s own master’ and one is said to be free if s/he is self-governing and directing his or her own life. A person’s autonomy and self-determining is the core of the idea. Thus freedom is concerned with questions like “By whom am I governed?” and “What, or who, is the course of control or interference that can determine someone to do, or be, this rather than that?” When one has a larger degree of mastering him or herself, he or she is seen as having more positive freedom.[6] “Freedom has also been portrayed in the form of self-realization or self-fulfilment”[7]

In the negative sense of liberty, “Political liberty in this sense is simply the area within which a man can act unobstructed by others” [8] The main points are non-interference and opportunity. Just as Charles Taylor’s words, while positive freedom is always an ‘exercise concept’, negative freedom is usually an ‘opportunity concept’.[9] So the extent of one’s freedom depends on the number of obstacles to plausible choices and activities. When more opportunities and choices are available to us, it means we have more negative freedom.

One may ask how the encouragement of chasing for positive liberty lead to totalitarianism. It is because the cores of both senses of liberty are on personal and individual level. Positive freedom consists in being an individual’s own master while negative freedom, just as Berlin said, encourages opening more doors to people.[10] Thereby what the reason is for Berlin to think that positive liberty would lead to authoritarianism or totalitarianism?

Two Routes from being “Free” to “Unfree”

According to Berlin himself, there are two ways by which positive liberty is turned to be a dangerous tool leading to unfreedom. The first route is idealism in which self is splitted into two. The second route is stemmed from the ideas of rationalism.

The core of positive liberty is self-mastery; a person is free when he can control his own life. But, just as those Platonists and Hegelians said, am I a slave of nature and desire? Everyone must have the experience of recognizing him or herself uncontrollable. This irrational me is largely due to my unlimited desire, wants and passion. If we accept the ideas of idealism, which believe the existence of a ‘real’ me and ‘ideal’ me, the aim of achieving self-mastery must be, therefore, done by sweeping all my desire and wants in order to becoming a higher self. Only by this can I really master myself. However, normally we do not have enough ability to clear all of our internal obstacles for reaching this higher self. So we need to be rigidly disciplined or restricted by someone else. That is, we have to taught and trained by the others temporarily until becoming rational.[11]

Or some may think that becoming a higher self should be done by killing their natural affections and desire by themselves. Just like those ascetics, quietist, stoics and Buddhists, as Berlin suggested, these people retreat to the inner citadel. They may have inner or spiritual freedom, but this does not mean they possess political freedom, which is the main concern of the article.[12]

And most importantly, the higher self would be regarded as something more than individual. It would be seen as a social ‘whole’ of which a person is an element or an aspect only. The society or the entity in which the people live would be thought as the” true” self everyone chases for. Thus person’s actual wishes may be ignored and the representatives of the “real” self would, in the name of helping the others to be rational, establish a totalitarian rule to oppress and torture irrational one.[13]

The above is the first road from positive liberty to totalitarianism. The next route is more or less the same. Rationalists believe ultimate harmony with an ultimate Truth. Elites are responsible for ‘liberating’ the “slaves of desire’ and tell them the right way to Truth. According to Berlin, the road of rationalism to unfreedom could be summarized into four main points:

1. All men have one purpose and that is rational self-direction;
2. The ends of all rational beings must of necessity fit into a single universal and harmonious pattern, and some men are able to discern more clearly than others;
3. All conflict and tragedy is caused solely by the clash of irrational and insufficient reasons. And these are due to immature and undeveloped elements of life on either communal or individual level. Also, they can be avoided among rational people;
4. When all men have been made rational, they will obey the law of their own nature, and they are wholly free.[14]

By the above four points, totalitarians or authoritarian rules, through rationalism, would easily be built. Rationalist, as Berlin said, “…from an ethical doctrine of individual responsibility and individual self-perfection to an authoritarian state obedient to the directives of an elite of Platonic guardians.”[15]

Will Positive Liberty lead to Totalitarianism?

Because of the experience of the danger of combining the ideas of idealism and rationalism, liberty, in its positive sense, is not encouraged by Berlin. “This is almost at the opposite pole from the purposes of those who believe in liberty in the ‘positive’ – self-directive – sense. The former want to curb authority as such. The latter want it placed in their own hands.” [16] Positive liberty will easily lead to monism, which implies totalitarianism. That’s the reason why he advocates negative liberty by which pluralism is the core of human development.

Is there strong logical link between positive liberty and totalitarianism? Though Berlin himself said there is no great logical distance between the two. What he concern is the experience in history. “Yet the ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ notions of freedom historically developed in divergent directions not always logically reputable steps, until, in the end, they came into direct conflict with each other” [17] Though historically positive liberty has a great tendency to become so dangerous, we still have to ask the validity of his argument on logical sense. To what extent will this phenomenon appear in the contemporary world? To what extent will it remerge? There are two routes in leading to totalitarianism. Can these two routes link up with positive liberty and totalitarianism?

To what extent will Idealism guide Positive Liberty to Totalitarianism?

Logically and conceptually, idealism is not very likely to turn the positive liberty chaser into an unfree situation. After examining the main and core ideas of the both concepts, we cannot find a direct causality between the two.

First, there is no direction relationship positive liberty and idealism. As Shi Yuankang said, positive liberty does not include any purport in the theory of idealism and rationalism.[18] The core of positive liberty is self-mastery. I am a positive liberty backer does not mean that I agree the splitting of self. The splitting of self is the core of idealism but not positive liberty. The ultimate goal of positive liberty is being of own master and self-governing. A positive libertarian is not determined to believe idealism while obsessing self-mastery.

Second, the acceptance of self-splitting does not imply agreeing with freedom with rationality. Once again, the essence of positive liberty is self-governing. Once this essence is lost or absent, one cannot be regarded as chasing for positive freedom. So even I agree with the splitting of ‘higher self’ and ‘lower self’, namely irrational and rational self, I do not have to sacrifice my lower self for freedom with rationality. My only aim is governing myself, and this including the mastery of my lower self. There are many values and desires other than rationality. Bearing the essence of self-mastery in my mind, though knowing that I myself is irrational, it is not necessary for me to choose rationality as my final life goal.

Third, agree with freedom with rationality is not claim that the same thing is rational for each person. Even if we link up rationality and freedom, it does not mean that we have to agree with monism which leads to totalitarianism. “We can think the different ways to live are rational for different people…” [19] Believing in rationality and self-mastery does not imply monism.
Fourth, supporting freedom with rationality does not mean that people believe the existence of a single thing which is rational for any one. We do believe in monism, which means the existence of a single way of life for everyone. And we also do not believe everyone has only one rational way of life. One is not live for one goal only, and we never know which road is the best life-plan for a rational person.

Finally and most importantly, to identify rationality with freedom of a person does not imply that you are justified in interfering his or her irrational act. From the above we prove that there is no direct relation between positive liberty and idealism. A positive libertarian does not necessarily accept idealism. And most importantly, which I am elaborating in this paragraph, even if one obsesses positive freedom and idealism simultaneously, there is no reason for him to be interfered, restricted, or even controlled. A positive libertarian must place self-mastery as the first position. If one does not believe in idealism, he or she is still a positive libertarian because of his or her insistence of chasing self mastery. Self-mastery cannot be lost. Once he or she gives up this part, one cannot be deemed as a person striving for positive freedom. Thus it is very doubtful for Berlin’s opinion in which chasing for positive liberty will lead to unfreedom.
There is one more extra argument I want to put forth here. In countering against Berlin’s idea in which positive liberty will to large extent lead to authoritarianism, Adam Swift gives a suggestion. He said that in helping or forcing the irrational people to be rational, those elites, instead of establishing an authoritarian rule, can simply provide information and education to help those ‘lower people’ to think in order to promote their autonomy.[20]

However, I think Swift makes a mistake on separating education and political structure. When rational elites want to guide or force those irrationals road to autonomy, the government, and the subsequent inseparable educational system and curriculum, must have the same direction to the same final goal. A totalitarian government will build up schools imparting knowledge which tell people the splendor and greatness of the government’s liberation career. Official ideology then spread out and strengthened. It is the same case if the government is a democratic one. So every education systems herald different ‘Rationality’ coincides with the government’s ‘Rationality’. If this ‘Rationality’ is imposed on a person who against this official thought and that person is not allowed to learn and articulate freely, he is restricted and not self-mastering already. Totalitarian rule does not simply mean oppression and restriction but also on ideological level.[21] On this sense, Swift’s view of promoting education to replace oppression and thereby avoid the establishment of totalitarian rule cannot stand.

In a nutshell, logically there is no strong link between positive liberty and Idealism. And even if there is a person adhering both ideas, as a positive libertarian, there is no reason and force for him to give up his own right of mastering him or herself. So, logically, the first route of Berlin from Freedom to unfreedom to large extent invalid.

To what extent will Rationalism bring us from Freedom to Unfreedom?

In finding the answer of the question asked in this part’s caption, we have to ask again what the relationship is between rationalism and positive freedom. Is positive liberty necessarily linked up with rationalism? Berlin’s four generalization of the view of rationalists are mentioned in the above part in this essay. Berlin must prove there is a strong causality between positive liberty and rationalism to support his argument.
For point one, rationalists believe one true purpose which is rational self-direction. It is very likely for a positive libertarian to obsess this point. They, with the aim of achieving rational self-mastery and self-governing, would to large extent agree with this idea.

Second, rationalists believe that the aims and goals of all rational beings must be fit into a universal and harmonious pattern or mode, and some people may be more able in discerning this than other people. Do positive libertarians certainly accept this view? Definitely not. The backbone of positive liberty is self-mastery. And neither does it deal with the problem of harmony nor the discernment of people. A positive libertarian could hold the view that rationality is not able to dissolve all the problems and conflicts. He or she may also think that it is impossible to reach a harmonious state. Also, chasing for positive liberty does not need to acknowledge the fact that some people are better in recognizing the rationality and some people are not. From the above we know that to large extent a positive libertarian is not necessarily agree with Berlin’s second point

Third, rationalists find that clash of irrational reasons, caused by immature and undeveloped elements in either personal or communal life, is the only source of all conflict and tragedy. And these tragic incidents can absolutely be avoided. There are no determined concepts about source of conflict and its avoidability in the minds of positive libertarians. Thereby, just as the last point, there is no absolute relationship between positive liberty and the view of conflict.

Fourth, it has been said that if all people had been taught and made rational, everyone would naturally abide by the rational law and regulations. On this sense, they are liberated; they are wholly and completely free. People chasing positive liberty do not have to agree with this point on two senses. First, it is not a must for them to believe that a rational person must obey the law naturally. Moreover, rationality does not mean freedom. Mere rationality without self-mastering would not imply being positively free. That’s why there is no reason for a positive libertarian to hold this view.

Finally, same as idealism, even one agree with the ideas of both rationalism and positive liberty, if he or she is a positive libertarian which place self-mastery as essence, this person will not accept the lost of self-governing for the sake of being rational. Thus there is no excuse or pretext for those elites, in the name of ‘helping’ or ‘guiding’ those mediocre people to be rational, seizing the freedom of the others and interfering them.

Conclusion

Through making clear the logical link between positive liberty and totalitarianism, we find that it is to small extent will chasing for positive liberty turn to being restrained. There is no direct relationship between idealism and positive liberty and rationalism and positive liberty. Since idealism and rationalism are two routes or roads which connect positive freedom and authoritarian rule, once we prove that a libertarian do not have to necessarily choose these two routes, we know that it is to small extent for them to be placed in a restricted environment. Moreover, as I have mentioned in the essay, even a positive libertarian is a idealist or a rationalist at the same time, the reason for interference of other people still does not exist.

In ‘Two Concepts of Liberty’, Berlin might want to explain the tendency of positive liberty in causing totalitarianism in history. And by this could he advocate negative liberty and the subsequent pluralism he adores. However, we cannot validate the logic of his argument simply because what had happened before. From conceptual and logical analysis, positive liberty to large extent will not lead to totalitarianism.

Bibliography


1. Berlin. I, “Two Concepts of Liberty”, Four Essays on Liberty (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969).
2. Crowder. G, “From Pluralism to Anti-Utopianism” Liberalism and Value Pluralism (London: Continuum, 2002).
3. Galipeau. C, “Pluralism and the Liberal Political Order” Isaiah Berlin’s Liberalism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994).
4. Heywood. A, Political Theory: an introduction (New York: St. Martins Press, 1999).
5. Kamenka. E, ‘Liberty’, R. Goodin, P. Pettit Ed. A companion to contemporary political philosophy (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993).
6. MacCallum. G, “Negative and positive Liberty” Miller ed. Liberty (Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1991).
7. Swift. A, Political Philosophy: a beginners guide for students and politicians (Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers, 2001).
8. Taylor, Charles, “What is wrong with Negative Liberty” Miller ed. Liberty (Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1991).
9. 以撒.柏林, 雷敏.亞罕拜格魯, 《以撒柏林對話錄》, 楊孝明譯 (台北: 正中書局, 1994).
10. 石元康, 〈柏林論自由〉,《當代自由主義理論》(上海: 三聯書店, 2000).

[1] G. MacCallum, “Negative and positive Liberty” Miller ed. Liberty (Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1991), 100-122.
[2] Charles Taylor, “What is wrong with Negative Liberty” Miller ed. Liberty (Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1991), 141-162.
[3] G. Crowder, “From Pluralism to Anti-Utopianism” Liberalism and Value Pluralism (London: Continuum, 2002), 90-97.
[4] Claude Galipeau, “Pluralism and the Liberal Political Order” Isaiah Berlin’s Liberalism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994),120.
[5] I. Berlin, “Two Concepts of Liberty”, Four Essays on Liberty (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969), 121.
[6] Ibid., 121-122.
[7] A. Heywood, Political Theory: an introduction (New York: St. Martins Press, 1999), Chapter 9, 263
[8] I. Berlin, “Two Concepts of Liberty”, Four Essays on Liberty (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969), 122.
[9] See Charles Taylor, “What is wrong with Negative Liberty” Miller ed. Liberty (Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1991), 141-162.
[10] 以撒.柏林, 雷敏.亞罕拜格魯, 《以撒柏林對話錄》, 楊孝明譯 (台北: 正中書局, 1994), 51.
[11] I. Berlin, “Two Concepts of Liberty”, Four Essays on Liberty (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969), 131-134.
[12] Ibid., 135-137.
[13] Ibid., 131-134.
[14] Ibid., 154.
[15] Ibid., 152.
[16] Ibid., 166.
[17] Ibid., 132.
[18] 石元康, 〈柏林論自由〉,《當代自由主義理論》(上海: 三聯書店, 2000), 23.
[19] A. Swift, Political Philosophy: a beginners guide for students and politicians (Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers, 2001), 84.
[20] Ibid., 78.
[21] See the five factors justify the word ‘totalitarian’ of Eugene Kamenka ‘Liberty’ in R. Goodin, P. Pettit Ed. A companion to contemporary political philosophy (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), 632.