Every generation has its highs and lows but the account of the moral decay of its lows is an intriguing and far richer learning experience. Let me review different writers and philosophers over the last 254 years that represent the best of the liberal thought. The continuity of ideas on freedom through different times is breath taking and a testament to individual freedom as the basic building block of a healthy and prosperous society. I will then review a number of stories in the XXth century that represent the negation of such liberal ideas and yet the indelible presence of human freedom. We must be vigilant and work on our freedom every day, not take it for granted because freedom is at risk when each and every one of us does not work for it. The core to the permanence of a free society sits in the moral behavior of each one of us, individuals. When the moral ethos of individuals decays societies embark on a downward spiral.
In the XVIIIth century Rousseau is probably the most advanced thinker in political philosophy. In his essay The Social Contract (1762), he proposes a social contract where its members will be free because they all give up the same rights and impose the same duties. He further divides the political system into two elements, the first one being a sovereign consisting of the whole population that represents the general will and is the legislative power within the state; the second element is government, different from the sovereign. The Social Contract argues against the idea that monarchs are empowered to legislate. Only the people, who are sovereign, have that right. In summary, he establishes that legitimacy comes from the people and there must be a division between legislative power and government. Pretty advanced in 1762!
In the XIXth century the luminary of liberalism and free societies was Stuart Mill, the English economist whose opus magnum On liberty (1859) defined the need for freedom in society and affirmed the individuality over societal coercion. He opposes the concepts of authority and liberty. In his view it is citizen’s liberty which needs to control the tyranny of government. He also describes two mechanisms: rights belonging to citizens, and a body of some sort which represents the interests of people, both a condition to the governing power.
In the XXth century, the embodiment of freedom is probably best represented by another Englishman Winston Churchill. In 1940 he personified the inalienable right to freedom and individuality against oppression and barbarism. From a philosophical point of view there were many whose leadership could be singled out but I would vote for “Four Essays on Liberty” by Isaiah Berlin. He updates the concept of liberty, in need of reinforcement and redefinition after WWII while the Soviet Union, China and so many others were curtailing such freedom in most of the world.
So, there is a rich and long history of advocates for freedom and open societies over the last 200 years. If the Hegelian approach to history as an evolution to a state of perfect freedom were true we would have probably achieved such state of rational political happiness by now.
What happened? Well, the twentieth century happened!
Now that we have gone briefly through the political philosophy that has been a constant in recent times, which is the surface of history though the only one chronicled by the history books, let us go to what a Spanish writer (Miguel Unamuno) called “intrahistoria”, the everyday life and suffering of the those with no lines in those books, the teachings of those individual stories and how they become truth and sometimes history.
“Man’s search for meaning” by Viktor Frankl (1942). When I first read the book back in late 80’s, a present from a very good friend who probably knew me better than I knew myself, I was very impressed. I was shocked as to the possibility of even considering the existence of moral action in such dire inhuman conditions. Frankl concludes that there are only two kinds of human beings, decent and indecent. He extends the category to Nazi guards. I have to agree that there are two ways to answer life, with or without decency. But that category that he applies equally to Nazi guards and prisoners deserves further consideration in my opinion. A political system, like Nazi Germany, cannot be built but with the acquiescence of the society over which it rules. Without denying the fundamental freedom of choice of every individual, Nazi guards included, a “decent” Nazi guard has chosen silence or agreement first and then has become a “decent” human being otherwise. It is good to also read “Not I” by Joachim Fest a story of courage, hardship and loneliness from the other side of Frankl’s fence, though nothing is comparable to Frankl’s suffering.
“1984” by George Orwell (1949) is the story of human breakdown and moral decay to abysm. What the totalitarian government does is terrible but within the boundaries of any regime that does not believe in freedom (today’s Venezuela, or Facebook censoring whatever does not apply to its unwritten millennial rules of acne damaged brains without access to tretinoin). What makes the case is the betrayal, through torture and exhaustion. That betrayal does not kill Winston or Julia, but it is the final blow to their freedom and to their last remnant of human dignity. After that moment they become numb to any human feeling or value, they change into something non-human. And they do not like themselves or each other.
“Life and Fate” (1960) by V Grossman. This book is monumental, out of the many ideas that run through it I think 2 are timeless lessons. The first story is that of physicist Viktor Shtrum, who goes from rags to riches, but in the end is corrupted by the totalitarian state and his own moral weakness. The other is completely different, and though Grossman is not a warm writer the meaning of life surfaces in the book as individual and random acts of kindness. There are few moments through the monumental story where small actions make the world a better place.
“Patria” (2016) by F Aramburu. This is a book for our and future generations, it describes the mindless, racist and terrifying world of murderous terrorism in the northern region of Spain known as the Basque region. But the most important aspect of this magnificent book is the description of each and every personal story, all of them small in societal terms but gigantic in personal terms. Each individual story speaks to the successes and failures of our own personal decisions, sometimes in situations we have created ourselves and others in situations that destiny awarded us, thank you very much!
What do all those books have in common?
The books of liberal thinkers describe the most natural tendencies of individual the self to freedom and the exercise of choice without coercion while providing a framework to have such freedoms in a societal agreement. They propose a societal contract that will allow us to keep as much personal freedom as possible while we all can pursue our own dreams.
The following books describe the harrowing circumstances that have occurred in the XXth century and to a certain extent underscore the difficulty of such societal agreement for an open society. At the same time, they describe the irrefutable nature of humankind, freedom based on personal decision and moral beliefs. That happens in a concentration camp, in the gulag, in a totalitarian regime or in San Sebastian. All similar circumstances where terror reigns and only personal freedom allows the human being to raise above the circumstances.
So, here is the paradox… why is it so difficult for an open society to thrive when freedom is one of the most basic instincts of human beings (along with breathing on a regular basis).
I think we need to go back to Hegel. Even though he did not get everything right, he identified the link between both personal freedom and political framework. In his Phenomenology of Spirit (1807) Hegel identifies the relationship between “objective” history and the individual consciousness (“spirit”) of the being as an intimate one. In that intimate relationship we can understand the societal twists in history as the sum of the individual consciousness. And considering that there is no straight path to the improvement of the consciousness, history (which is the sum of individual political acts) is an uncertain and sometimes erratic process, with no specific end state or destination.
So here you go, in the end history is the sum of each individual human act, we cannot hide and say ” it has nothing to do with me” because it DOES!
Literature References
“The Social Contract” by Rousseau
“On liberty” by J Stuart Mill , surprisingly modern
“Four Essays on Liberty” by Isaiah Berlin
“1984” by George Orwell, just read it
“Life and Fate” by Vasily Grossman, just read it
“Man’s search for meaning” by Viktor Frankl, just read it
“El Quijote” by Miguel de Cervantes, always a good read
“Phenomenology of the spirit” by George Hegel, take your time
“Patria” by Fernando Aramburu, a monumental book, read it first!