The Concept of Freedom according to Different Authors - Term Paper Example

? The Concept of Freedom According To Different al affiliation: Freedom People are always in struggle for freedom and freedom comes with mobility. The more mobile the individual happens to be, the more the freedom he or she is bound to have. This kind of mobility is found everywhere in the world. Globalization brings with it mobility hence freedom, where by this freedom appears in different ways. For instance freedom can be in terms of capital movement, labor, cultural activities, technology, career and also sports. Freedom means being out of external coercion from all aspects of life. In most cases this coercion comes from the government. Globalization has been brought about by individuals desire to live better and to be free. The importance of a globalized world is the mobility associated with it across the world. The key attraction to globalization is freedom as suggested by Micklethwait and Wooldridge (2000). The nature of globalization overcomes the barriers associated with where to invest, what to buy or where to go thus giving individuals the chance to make choice. This freedom associated with globalization is in terms of social, political and economic freedom. In the case of political freedom, globalization provides for the best opportunities good governance and democracies. Globalization brings economic freedom in terms of free market competition for goods and services. Social freedom means that individuals are free to move to all parts of world and interact freely without any kind of restriction. However some scholars According to Nikolas Rose, Freedom and its value is becoming principle of most of the political endeavor and projects. The free world where the individuals dwell is triumphed with free market economy brought about by globalization according to Rudnycky (2010). The aspect of freedom according to Nikolas Rose underpins individual’s perception of how they want to be organized, ruled and understood in respect to their predicament. In the past, freedom in all spects of life was seen to eradicate social stability, order and ethics of work, civility and the value of the family. Today with the growth of globalization, freedom is valued as it brings about social mobility. Individuals have desired to be free and are always on the motive of getting liberation. However political freedom appears to be paradoxical and is almost theoretical rather than practical. According to Rose, this is because the world today is characterized by the opposition existing between freedom and government. As suggested by Baum (2000), the value of current politics has been defined by the value of liberalism. A state which is liberal is limited in that the practices of the government are restricted by individual liberty. With the issue of globalization freedom is understood as practical, material, governmental and technical. The principle of individual freedom is only moral aspect which has led to growing and advanced civilization. Protecting and enhancing citizens’ freedom secures the state’s wealth, productivity, health and its welfare. Nikolas Rose argues that freedom has been the governments’ objective. It is also perceived as governments’ instrument and means of promoting the intervention of various governing technologies. According to Zygmunt Bauman, Freedom refers to a situation whereby the motives of the individual shape their actions and the desired results of the outcome. Just like Rose, Bauman is against the idea that freedom existing universally. Bauman argues that freedom in the modern world is constructed as a social creation and capitalism development resulting from privileges and power. In his discussion on the concept of freedom Bauman uses three different themes as suggested by Oksala (2005). One of these themes is relational concept freedom which implies that freedom to one individual is lack of freedom t anther individual. Secondly is the issue of the influence capitalism has on modern freedoms. Finally, he underscores the idea of government’s restriction freedoms of the less privileged individuals. Bauman suggests that freedom only exists in accordance to those tied to it or those not free. Therefore according to him freedom exists as relational condition within the structure of the society but not as a universal condition. The next idea in Bauman’s concept of freedom is the link between capitalism and freedom whereby the individualism forms the base of this link. Division of labor arises strengthening the link between capitalism and freedom. According to Davis and Bauman (2008), the owners of capital withhold the resources from those without so they can receive labor from them. This condition makes some individuals objects of the other. In linking freedom with the free market, he demonstrates the symbolism of goods overcomes the utility of goods and services. Baumans questions the issue of public policy ignoring the needs of those not free in the society. In answer to this issue he comes up with the theorem of median voter to explain why public policy is ineffective in service of the not free. Foucault believes in pure individual freedom and according to him is a practice as opposed to goal which is achieved. However this notion of pure individual freedom according Rose is not possible without political freedom. He also argues that condition in exercise of power thus without freedom the will be no meaning with political life. The thought of power as a limit on freedom leads to the idea that freedom is just a way out in politics. However this idea is not applicable in the modern world as modern power does not apply by starving desire. The achievement of liberalism by the government was to initiate governance whereby people are free. With the individual freed from the aspects of market, civil society, set-up of the family made them subject to the limits of the law alone according to Jacobsen and Poder (2008). On one hand, the governments’ activities of the liberated individual were to be under the regulation of civil reason and order codes. On the other hand the private activities of the free individuals to be civilized through the application of languages and self-understanding techniques. Therefore freedom is viewed to be inextricably linked to the civility norm. The idea of universal principle of freedom underlying social practice does not provide a solution to the problem associated with different interpretations as well as the judgments associated with current types of power. The real freedom is based on polities that make up the individuals nature. There has been a criticism which argues that Faucault’s idea refutes politics of emancipation. This criticism revolves around two major themes, First is due to the fact that Foucault he idea that social relations are inextricably linked with power relations thus rejecting the idea of Utopian position that is beyond power. Critics argue that under this condition, there is no possibility of any sort of freedom because or relations are power related as argued by Foucault. The critics also argue progress on social relations becoming less oppressive becomes impossible. Valerie Walkerdine just like Foucault also focuses on the idea feminism freedom as suggested by Haris (2004). Walkerdine is of the argument that although the feminist freedom has been dominant practice. The feminist teachers and researchers as they make the learner problematic they base this feminist freedom thought. The idea of feminist freedom bases its theories about female gender from self-theories which are concerned with social psychology. The focus here is majorly on girl student who lacks the freedom essential for success in education. Walkerdine argues that if neo-liberalism means freedom as well as autonomy therefore, the idea of personal achievement through their own means acquired from childhood are thus constituted. This makes the assumption that autonomy and freedom lay their base on intellectual as well as emotional maturity. This is gained through the right child rearing and child education by the mother. According to Arnot and Dillabough (2000), drawing from the works of Foucault, Walkerdine observes that working with freedom and at same time with power the individual focuses on uplifting repressive experiences. Therefore according to Walkerdine freedom becomes freedom through overt control and thus the individuals’ attention is moved from the different covert ways through which they are regulated. When the individual is derived from the idea of choice and freedom, the contract-oppression scheme as suggested by Foucault, perceives the issue of power as organizing the context of the individuals. Therefore oppression is depicted in from of struggle and submission implying how the present is brought about by the absent. Conclusion Freedom is one that is cherished by practically every normal human being. In fact, the lack of freedom in its different forms and aspects is one of the main causes of conflicts today and in history. The concept of freedom has been discussed in different aspects according to different scholars. For instance, as seen above, Walkerdine focuses on feminist freedom which is also discussed by Foucault. On the terms of political freedom, both Bauman and Foucault argue that it is the individual freedom that gives life to politics. Therefore according to Bauman and Foucault, without the freed individual, politics does not possess any meaning. The issue of freedom and its mobility has been focused on by Rose. He argues that freedom brings about political mobility as there is freedom of choice. References Arnot, M & Dillabough,J. (2000). Challenging democracy: international perpectives on gender, education and citizenship. , London: Routledge. Baum, B. (2000). Rereading power and freedom in J.S. Mill. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Davis, M & Bauman, Z. (2008). Freedom and consumerism: a critique of Zygmunt Bauman's sociology. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Haris, A. (2004). All about the girl: culture, power, and identity. London: Routledge. Jacobsen, M. & Poder, P. (2008). The sociology of Zygmunt Bauman: challenges and critique. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Micklethwait, J. & Wooldridge, A. (2000). A Future Perfect: The Challenge and Hidden Promise of Globalization. New York: Times Books. Oksala, J. (2005). Foucault on freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .Rudnycky, D. (2010). Spiritual Economies: Islam, Globalization, and the Afterlife of Development. New York: Cornell University Press. Read More