lecture 8: Liberty III Flashcards
(9 cards)
Charles Taylor’s Critique of Isaiah Berlin’s Liberty Framework
Taylor agrees with Berlin’s core ideas but argues that both negative and positive liberty are often misrepresented.
Caricature of Positive Liberty: Portrayed as leading to totalitarianism (e.g., communism) — Taylor says this is an extreme reading.
Moderate positive liberty thinkers (e.g., Republicanism) argue for self-rule as inherently valuable, without coercion.
Caricature of Negative Liberty: Seen as purely about the absence of legal/physical obstacles, ignoring psychological barriers to freedom. (Boogeyman: Hobbesian Warmongering).
Taylor points out that ideas like self-realization (e.g., John Stuart Mill) are also common in liberal theories.
Main Problem: These caricatures are uneven — negative liberty is often viewed more positively, while positive liberty is unfairly tied to extreme outcomes.
What is Taylor’s critique of the “Maginot Line” version of negative liberty?
Taylor critiques the “Maginot Line” version of negative liberty for its simplicity. He argues it avoids engaging with complex distinctions required to understand freedom as an “exercise-concept” (involving self-determined actions and motivations), instead reducing freedom to merely the absence of external obstacles. This oversimplification, Taylor suggests, ignores the complexities of freedom.
Taylor’s Complex Theory of Freedom vs. the Maginot Line
Taylor’s View on Freedom: We need a more complex theory that helps us judge which freedoms are more meaningful than others.
Internal Obstacles: Things like fears, stubbornness, or emotional responses (e.g., fear of public speaking, rage) affect our ability to act freely.
Second-order Desires: Humans have desires about their desires—some are more significant than others, like choosing your vocation over momentary comforts.
Maginot Line Critique: The theory ignores internal obstacles, making it hard to distinguish between more or less meaningful freedoms.
Desires and Judgment: If we only follow the Maginot Line, we’d have to believe people can never be wrong about their desires. Taylor argues we can be wrong, which is why we feel shame or reject certain beliefs.
Import-Attributing Desires: Some desires are more important and contribute more to our freedom than others.
How does Charles Taylor recast the distinction between positive and negative liberty, and what is his critique of the “Maginot Line” theory of freedom?
Positive Liberty (Exercise-concept): Freedom is about the individual’s ability to control and actively shape their life. It’s the capacity to exercise control over one’s own actions and determine the direction of one’s life.
Negative Liberty (Opportunity-concept): Freedom is the absence of obstacles, meaning that one is free when there are no external barriers preventing the pursuit of their own goals. It is about having the opportunity to act, whether or not one chooses to exercise that opportunity.
Critique: Taylor argues that the traditional distinction is too simplistic. Negative liberty can combine both exercise and opportunity aspects, while positive liberty focuses only on active exercise. He rejects the “Maginot Line” theory, which is simply the absence of external obstacles, as inadequate because it fails to account for the deeper needs of freedom.
What does Hirschmann argue about freedom and the feminist reclaiming of freedom?
Freedom is Contextual: Freedom depends on context and how people value things (e.g., privacy vs. safety).
Meaning of Freedom: It’s not just “What is freedom?” but “What makes freedom meaningful?”
Reclaiming Women’s Freedom:
Define important values (e.g., choice, integrity).
Expose sexism in liberalism, showing how society limits women’s freedom.
Critique of Liberalism: Women’s experiences reveal how liberal theories often ignore or overlook sexism.
How does Hirschmann critique the internal/external divide in freedom?
Hirschmann starts with Berlin’s internal/external divide (negative liberty vs. positive liberty) but argues it falls apart when considering social construction.
She critiques the “natural” basis of freedom, which is limited to a narrow, privileged view (white, economically privileged men).
Freedom, desires, and beliefs are shaped by social relationships and historical context, not just internal desires or external forces.
Patriarchy, as a social structure, influences how we define and understand freedom, making it socially constructed.
To understand freedom fully, we must consider how external forces shape our internal desires and values.
How does Hirschmann’s view of social construction challenge our understanding of freedom?
In a patriarchal world, language and societal norms limit women’s freedom, constraining their ability to speak and know.
Patriarchy shapes both internal and external boundaries, which means these boundaries are constitutive of who women are, not just external restrictions.
This challenges both negative liberty (external barriers are part of identity) and positive liberty (internal barriers are externally generated).
Hirschmann’s view critiques liberalism’s inability to account for gender domination, as it fails to recognize how freedom is socially constructed and shaped by power dynamics.
Hirschmann’s Paradox of Patriarchy and Freedom
One answer is to eliminate patriarchy entirely, as freedom for women would require the end of external patriarchal forces that shape desires, preferences, and fears.
Another answer is to expand negative liberty, protecting women from external patriarchal forces and providing personal space.
However, if patriarchy shapes everything, it raises a paradox: how can we have any meaningful notion of freedom and agency when the system itself constrains what freedom means?
Conclusion: Social constructivism creates a paradox by questioning whether meaningful freedom can exist within a system where everything is shaped by patriarchy.
Hirschmann’s Two-Pronged Approach to Feminist Freedom
Feminism must accept that social constructivism challenges conventional notions of freedom and subjectivity.
However, it must not surrender agency and should allow women to create their own forms of agency.
Feminists need to reclaim the power to participate in society’s construction:
“Freedom for these groups requires increasing their ability to participate in the processes of construction.”
To do this, women must form counter publics—spaces where women can develop relationships and freedom outside of patriarchal influence.
Feminist freedom requires a balance between individual and group freedom, merging aspects of negative and positive liberty.
It involves a contextual form of agency, where freedom is tied to relationships and specific social contexts.
