[Wrote this for my Political Thought 2 course] [Originally written: 04/03/2018] [Message me: first if your gonna use it/questions/suggestions]
For
the past eras, many philosophers have delved into trying to answer the “meaning
of life”; until eventually, majority have settled in favour of letting the
uncertainty answer it. Then, after arduous cycle of the rise and fall of
political powers, the trend of questioning life as it is, then focused on questioning
Man’s limitations and freedom. The idea of freedom took the spotlight and
reflected it into various sub-topics such as, state freedom, civilian liberty, freedom
in sexuality and of race, human rights, and etc. As for this academic paper, it
will focus on the relationship between Freedom and Institution. The connection
between these two will be shown through the judicious analysis between the
changes in the trend of political thought between thinkers from Modern to
Post-Modern Era; and illustrate how it is inspired from, or reflected in the
institutions of that time.
Modern
political thinkers (such as George Hegel, Karl Marx, Alexis de Tocqueville,
John Stuart Mill and Edmund Burke) have their many takes on the definite
definition of Freedom and/or liberty, and how and who can wield it differed
from each other. These differences are from the fact that they are guided by
their own perception of the scope as to who are the wielders of this freedom.
Yet all have shared a common idea: they believed that Man is entitled to his
freedom; the only major difference from these political philosopher’s thoughts
are their definition of ‘Man’. This commonality in thought is shaped by a
common antagonist: the great inequality of men in their time. The aforementioned
thinkers share the same Geist or
Spirit from Hegel’s The Philosophy of History. This Geist is a transcendent and omnipotent extension of our humanity
that encompasses the collection of the thoughts of the people within a certain
period in the Dialectic (Hegel, 2001, pp. 28, 350) . To put ourselves in the tattered shoes of the people of that age that
we are observing through the works of these political thinkers, we can feel the
Geist’s longing for the recognition
of the fact that all man is born free, and should retain a fraction of this
freedom under the rule of law; laws that are made under a collective agreement
of equally free men for their protection and interest. George Wilhelm von Hegel
also provided the future thinkers with a malleable foundation for political thought;
which is the idea that human thought evolution is guided by the continuous
questioning of the meaning of freedom and the attainment and adoption of its
answer and essence (Hegel, 2001) .
Hegel also provided the succeeding political thinkers with a lens, through
which they may view history as a non-linear human development characterized by
a continuous loop of regression and progress. This pattern for which history
may be viewed is called, “Dialectic” which is composed of the Thesis: the
initial thought, the Anti-thesis: another thought that contradicts or a parallel
of the thesis; and the Synthesis: the composition derived from the Thesis and
Anti-thesis (Hegel, 2001, pp. 79, 458) .
Years
later another Modern political thinker: Karl Marx, a proponent of Communism, has
built his theories with influence and also as a critique response to the ideas
of Hegel (Marx, 1959, pp. 2, 63-77) . Marx was influenced
by some of Hegel’s points, which are: all men are free (Hegel, 2001) ;
and the role of the government to regulate man’s freedom is powered by the
people’s consent (Hegel, 2001) ;
and that man’s deepest desire is to be with God because it’s fulfilment (or the
fulfilment of the spiritual aspect of life) signifies a return to the ‘natural’
state, which should provide us a sense of completion (Hegel, 2001, p. 350) . However, as was Marx
also inspired by Ludwig Feuerbach’s reverse take on Hegel’s theory, he did not
agree on the divine aspect of it (Marx,
1959, pp. 2, 63-77) . For Marx, it is not the fulfilment of
the spiritual that brings fulfilment to the material aspect of living. For Marx,
the fulfilment of the material need of man brings him the intellectual
fulfilment, and therefore the attainment of man’s appeasement as a whole (Marx, 1959, pp. 29-73) . In addition, Marx
postulates that his era’s dissatisfaction is due to the disconnection of Man’s
labour to its fruit; he calls this theory: Entfremdung
or Alienation (Marx, 1959, p. 29) . Karl Marx answers
this phenomenon by drawing again from his inspiration from Hegel. He proposes
that, as history moves forward, the worker class or the proletariat will soon
realize the injustice born from their constricted freedom. They will inevitably
rise up against the bourgeoisie as the Dialectic pendulum swings from the
Capitalist thesis, to the Socialist Anti-thesis, and then, to the Communist
Synthesis (Marx & Engels, 1968) . Freedom for Karl
Marx is at the center of his theories; he views it as both as a tool for its
own attainment. Freedom for Marx also means, to be free from economic
constraints that are not natural to man, yet still manage to be under a state. Hegel
and Marx’s works have raised institutions that reflected these observations and
political thoughts; these also sparked ideologies that would motivate many
States; some of which had dominated the international political arena.
Marx's
theory of historical materialism and economic theories all revolve around one
and the same basic problem: the relationship between productive forces and
production relations (Rubin, 1976, pp. 4-5) . His compelling
utopian classless society naturally inspired many followers, thus igniting
several revolutions. One of these revolutions, the February Revolution, where
Tsar Nicholas II lost his power to the proletariat, became a pivotal point in
history as it had been the turning point and the start of a change in the government
of a popular and powerful State: Russia. Russia established institutions that
preserved and enforced the rule of Communism to its people; this state also
propagated it to its neighbouring countries. Russia’s revolution and the change
of its government is one of the greatest examples of how political thought,
through the written works and lectures of political thinkers, had affected the
institutions around them.
Years
later, after the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics’s (USSR) fall, humanity
will prove that aspects of truths can be still be found in Karl Marx theories
despite beliefs that his theoretical political system is a failure; which is
due to the fact that Capitalism emerged to be a dominant politico-economic
system of the world. Examples of these truths are: (1) Entfremdung, which means: the alienation of worker to his work; (2)
Man unnaturally enslaved by work; and (3) the great class difference and
inequality. Then due to our natural desire to concrete truths, we established institutions
that will enforce and our unwillingness to succumb to such fate. International
agreements and laws were created due to the universality of the fear of Entfremdung, proliferated by the
popularity of the Communism ideology. Examples of this are: (1) the International
Labour Standards which refer conventions agreed upon by international actors,
resulting from a series of value judgments, set forth to protect basic worker
rights, enhance workers’ job security, and to improve their terms of employment
on a global scale (Alan, Deardorff, & Stern,
1996, pp. 227-272) ;
(2) the establishment of International Labour Organization (ILO), which is a
United Nations agency dealing with labour problems, particularly international
labour standards, social protection, and work opportunities for all (International Labour Organization, 2015) ; (3) the
international ratification of the Article 23-24 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. These are examples of political institutions reflecting political
propositions presented by the works of political thinkers. Social and political
institutions most prominently those of democratic states’ have patterned their
foundations to that ideology with the re-emergence and widening of the idea
that man is inherently free and that the power of government rests upon their
willingness to be governed. In addition, international political institutions
such as NGOs and INGOs have cemented their foundations in accordance to the
ideology after democracy’s triumph as the dominant and widespread ideology of
the modern and post-modern era (until now).
The
modern idea that freedom is innate to all man did not change for post-modern
thought. It was, however, the definition of “Man”, altogether with its
corresponding conceptions, that underwent numerous changes throughout the
course of history. It is an observable fact that the way philosophers conceived
the meaning of Man eventually affected the manner of how they thought of his freedom;
and therefore institutions. One notable
change for the definition of ‘man’ is the widening of what it encompasses; and
so altogether with it, the definition that of which freedom encompasses also
have widened. The said changes also affected the meaning and limitations of the
institutions affected and created at that time. An example of this phenomenon
would be an observation of the changes of the meaning of human rights from the classical
Greek, to the 1865 - onwards America, then to the installation of the United
Nations. The classical Greeks believed that the civilian status could only be
inherited by male Greeks, leaving the women and slaves without citizen rights
and therefore not included to be a part of the institutions that protect these
rights. Their meaning of “Man” did not include women, slaves and foreigners;
thus, did their concept of Freedom and human rights also did not apply to them.
Years later, after the American Civil War, the American’s view of “Man” did not
only expand from the two genders but also to the different skin tones. The
American concept of “Man” expanded, and so did their concept of freedom,
liberty and the rights and privileges that came with it have also magnified its
scope. 80 years later, the United Nations was established in an effort to keep
the peace in the international political arena, acknowledging the new found
truth that Freedom belong to all Men; by ‘Men’ it meant all of humanity
included, regardless of skin colour, gender, nationality and class. This grand observation
shows how Feminism, racial acceptance and the abolishment of several monarchies
have opened the scope as to whom the meaning of ‘man’ was applicable to.
After
the broadening of the meaning of Man and Freedom, and the institutions that
protect and/or provide privileges to it, political thinkers focused on another
aspect of ‘Man’ and his/her ‘Freedom’. Freedom became a great power that had
propelled man-kind towards great development; however, as what had Uncle Ben
once said, “With great power comes great responsibility” (Raimi, 2002) .
Post-Modern political thinkers now focused on what being ‘free’ should mean to
us and what are our new-found responsibilities are. A great post-modern
thinker, Maximilian Karl Emil "Max" Weber explained what these
responsibilities are, and how these came into realization. Max Weber was also a
German philosopher like Karl Marx, and like him he believed that the Man’s
perception of himself was closely related to his economic and social life (Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit
of Capitalism, 2001, p. 9) . Conversely, Weber
did not believe that the economic affairs of man would determine his culture,
rather, his/her culture is determines his/her economic and social activities (Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit
of Capitalism, 2001, p. 9) . By reversing or
acting as an anti-thesis to Karl Marx thesis, Weber had put emphasis to the
subjective meaning that the individuals within a society attach to their
day-to-day actions. Weber reverted back into using religion as a lens through
which he observed humanity, a feat closely similar to what Karl Marx’s mentor,
Friedrich Hegel used. However, Weber took a more realist approach to his work
rather than the liberal lens Hegel which used. He observed and compared the
effects of religion to other non-religious institutions, particularly: Hinduism
and Buddhism in Nepal and Protestant Christianity, Catholicism and Capitalism
in northern Europe (Weber, 1921,
p. 27) .
He observed how Catholicism, Hinduism and Buddhism being the “disenchantment of
the world” had justified people’s ineptitude by favouring the poor and demonizing
money (Weber, 1921) . Weber did not
approve of this and hailed Protestantism (notably Calvinism) because of its
values that promotes the individual’s productivity, which therefore promotes
economic prosperity of the whole. He had also acclaimed the Protestant notion
that money was not evil because it was the fruit of hard-work which contributes
to the general good; was ultimately what God had wanted to see in humanity after
punishing Adam and Eve with hardship and toil (Weber, 2001) . In this theory,
Weber shows us how religions shape societies and for us to question the virtues
and values each ideology promotes. He saw freedom as innate to man and observed
how this freedom was given up by man to various institutions such as the
government, and religion that protect and promote various values and beliefs
he/she put their faith in. He also observed the circle of how societies create
and also affected by the institutions they make; and how the culture of society
affect how efficient and effective they institutions make.
Mankind’s
inquiry for the meaning of freedom and who can wield it had been appeased (at
least for now). Like Weber, an example or proof of this appeasement is Jürgen
Habermas; another German post-modern political thinker who was influenced by
Max Weber’s rational approach to his observation on the society (Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, 1984) from which he
developed a more specialized theoretical point of view, the Communicative
Rationality (Habermas, The Theory of
Communicative Action, 1984) . In which he saw
humans to possess the goal and the means to create mutual understanding; which
he saw liberating yet strenuous (Habermas, The Theory of
Communicative Action, 1984) . He saw freedom as
innate to man and is expressed through successful communication. He also
observed how this freedom combined with our capability towards successful mutual
understanding through communication, gave birth to several public institutions
that would cultivate rationality in its members and benefactors; he called
this, the ‘public sphere’ (Habermas,
1991) .
He explained how from newspapers, discourses inside a coffee shop or market had
created a rational and critical thinking society (public sphere) (Habermas,
1991) .
Habermas saw the good outcome which the proper use of man’s freedom (especially
his/her freedom of speech), with the aid of institutions, had bought to the
society.
Development
and a higher standard of living have been granted to us by society, freedom,
Man and institutions. From Man’s capacity to work and create surplus came society,
which then gave birth to institutions that regulate Man and his works. When
these institutions transgressed the nature of Man to be free by creating
physical and psychological turmoil, Man began to question his very existence
and reminds himself of his innate right to be free. Man then revolts and reforms
these institutions, thus the pendulum of the Dialectic starts to swing. Man
starts questioning the scope of which freedom entails; after much debate, the
idea that Freedom is innate to all of humanity became the dominant of them all.
Humanity, specifically the post-modern thinkers, then focused on answering what
it means to be free and the responsibilities it comes with. Thinkers used
different lenses to approach the study of humanity’s freedom its relationship
towards society and institutions; some used traditional liberal lenses and some
used rational and/or realist lenses. However, common truths can be taken from
all of these, that is: Man is innately free; however, with population growth he
had given up some of this freedom to several institutions to protect him and promote
his interests. If these institutions fail, then man would modify or abolish it
(this is observable through Hegel’s dialectic); and these institutions reflect
humanity’s dominant idea, norms, and values.
References:
Alan, D., Deardorff, A., & Stern, R. (1996).
International Labour Standards and Trade: A Theorethical Analysis. Fair
Trade and Harmonisation: Prerequisites for free trade?, 227-272.
Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative
Action. Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1991). The Structural
Transformation. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Hegel, G. W. (2001). The Philosophy of History.
Ontario: Batoche Books.
International Labour Organization. (2015). Mission
and Impact of the ILO. Retrieved March 11, 2018, from ilo.org:
http://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/mission-and-objectives/lang--en/index.htm
Marx, K. (1959). Economic & Philosophic
Manuscripts of 1844. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1968). The German
Ideology. Progress Publishers.
Raimi, S. (Director). (2002). Spider-Man
[Motion Picture].
Rubin, I. I. (1976). Essays on Marxs Theory of
Value. New York: Black Rose Books.
Weber, M. (1921). Politics as a Vocation.
Munich: Duncker & Humblodt.
Weber, M. (2001). The Protestant Ethic and the
Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Routledge Classics.
