While reading Hannah Arendt’s writing in “The Meaning of Revolution”, one phrase in particular caught me as peculiar – that is, “the life of a free man needed the presence of others”. Having read Henry David Thoreau’s Walden, in the past few months, along with having picked up Edward Abbey’s Desert Solitaire, just the other day, this string of words put forth by Arendt seemed like an oxymoron. For the two philosophers I have mentioned, freedom is being completely and utterly alone. Freedom is being left to explore your surroundings, free to your own thoughts (and even words if one is so inclined to speak to one’s self). With this concept of freedom still fresh in my mind, Arendt’s words caught me off guard. I was still thinking of freedom at the personal level, instead of a broader viewpoint. This very well my be because I have had the privilege to know freedom of oppression, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion my entire life – I have not had to think of freedom as something that must be brought about by revolution. How do you personally view the ideal of freedom? Do you tend to side more with Arendt, or Thoreau and Abbey?
Arendt’s work quickly brought my mind around to a more revolutionary mindset. In the revolutionary sense, it is very clear that many, even if led by one, must enforce the movement for revolution. If one man were to stand up against a dictator, or a military, he would simply be gotten rid of. If however, the majority of citizens were to stand against the oppressing party, the fight may at least be equal. This point was reinforced after my reading in a very surprising manner. While relaxing over the weekend at home watching Robin Hood, I could not help but notice that a reoccurring phrase tied in perfectly with the topic of liberty and revolution: “rise and rise again, until lambs become lions”. A bit cheesy quoting a Hollywood motion film, I’m aware, but for me, this completely reinforced Arendt’s assertion that freedom is taken by groups, not by individuals. And maybe most importantly, that the groups fighting, those that have the most at stake, are indeed the lambs.
To me, freedom is an ideal that can only exist if its counter-state exists; namely, for one to appreciate freedom and its implications, the implications of its opposite, of subjugation, must be understood. In this way, I tend to agree with Arendt's point of view. Freedom to pursue any sort of action, whether it be thinking, voting, marrying who you love, or sitting where you want on the bus, requires the presence of the vehicles for those actions. Being completely alone to your thoughts disallows you from social freedoms, which are quite important to most people given that we a re a social species.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Robin Hood quote, this struck me as more of an acknowledgement of the power of persistence despite overwhelming odds. It's kind of like that quote about how even the smallest river can cut the deepest valley, given enough time. And while numbers can be quite important for a revolution, it is my personal belief that this is secondary to such qualities as loyalty, moral distance from the "enemy" (which can be a person, organization, or simply a state of living), and strategy. These are some of the principal channels by which people without majority of support can claim power.
I agree with both Arendt and Thoreau (I am not familiar with Abbey), but I think that they address different forms of freedom. Arendt addresses a type of social freedom, relative to other humans, and Thoreau addresses a type of psychological freedom that comes from being completely alone. I agree with the quote from Arendt that humans need other humans to feel freedom. As Aaron addressed, freedom can only be felt it was previously opposed. I think this can be taken further to address the psychological freedom Thoreau enjoyed, in that, freedom of mind can only be attained after one was aware of and familiar with the oppression of mind. Mental oppression being somewhat tied to social oppression in the forms of propaganda or more innocent in the influence of family and friends. By seeking out the "freedom" of isolation, one's thoughts are free from the influence and molding of others. But this mental freedom can be defined and seen as different from the physical state of freedom, or lack of.
ReplyDeleteGreat discussion. I think one cannot discount the effect of Protestant Christianity on Thoreau's thinking -- certainly his milieu if not his personal beliefs exactly. In fact Christianity in general from early on focused on transformation of the individual, not society. Protestantism takes that even further, particularly the groups that seeded the US early on. Thoreau was adamant that societal change stems from strong individuals. I guess that's the essence of transcendentalism. However, it's not like Thoreau didn't engage with society. He was a devoted abolitionist among other social activities.
ReplyDeleteThe sense of social justice we find in Arendt in my view begins (at least on a wide scale) with secular humanism, which although it focuses on individual potential in many ways, does posit that we can change society for the better and create societal conditions for freedom. Some of these ideas end in awful concepts like eugenics; others gave birth to things we take for granted today, like basic concepts of democracy.
Thoreau could enjoy his psychological freedom because as a white property owning male over 25 at that time, he had every privilege afforded him in American society. The things he wrote and espoused were radical and would easily have led to imprisonment and death in many societies. Arendt's concept of a space for freedom and political dialog was already implemented in his time (at least for human beings with his ethinicity, gender, and wealth level). So in my view Arendt's concept still stands as a precursor to the kind of psychological freedom Thoreau enjoyed. African-Americans did not have access to that kind of psychological freedom and in many cases (say the half of men in our corporate prison system) still don't.