I guess everybody in this room reckons that freedom is an ideal. It’s built into DNA of our culture, it’s built into the DNA of our human intuition. But I reckon that freedom, the ideal of freedom, has been captured, in a way, too much by the economists, I suppose. Being users of free markets, free economies, even the free world. I think it’s become a bland and a thin ideal, not the rich ideal it once was and I think it can be again, the ideal that we think of when we talk about whether someone is really a free person, and whether a society is a society of free persons.
I’d like to talk to you about this way of enriching the notion of freedom. And in order to introduce it, let me talk about a play that many of you will know, it’s a wonderful play written by Henrik Ibsen about a 100 years ago called “A Doll’s House.” And those of you who know it will remember the main character is Nora who’s married to Torvald, a young, rich banker.
In the world that Ibsen is writing about, Scandinavia, in about the 1870s, women have very few rights. Torvald has all the legal and all the cultural power in his relationship with Nora. It sounds, as I describe it, as if Nora, therefore, is suppressed. But actually, Torvald worships the ground that Nora walks on, he dotes on her. And hence he allows her basically to do anything she wishes, in the exercise of what we think of as our basic liberties. She can wear what she wishes, she can speak her mind wherever, whenever she wishes, whatever topic she can associate, with whatever friends she wishes to associate. She can go to the theater or not, just as she wishes.
In fact, the only thing he really imposes her as a restriction is that she should not eat macaroons. But even that’s not a problem for Nora, because she hides them in her skirts. So, Nora really has carte blanche. You know, she can act just as she wishes.
Now the question I want you to think about is whether Nora is a free person. And I think she’s not. Let me tell you what I see as the problem and I hope that you share the intuition. The problem is that while Nora is unrestricted, while she’s not interfered with in the exercise of her basic liberties by Torvald, she depends on Torvald for having that sort of freedom. The freedom she has is a lucky freedom. It’s freedom she has in virtue of the good luck of having a husband who is totally indulgent in his relationship to her. So that she depends on his grace and favor in order to exercise her basic liberties.
I say Nora is not a free person because while she is not interfered with, she is total non-interference, she is subject to Torvald’s will as to the will of the master. A dominos, as it used to be called, she is dominated in that sense, or subordinated or subjected to the will of Torvald. It’s his will that rules; she can act as she wishes or she wills, but only because he wills that she should act as she wills. She’s not a free person. That’s the problem, she doesn’t have what you might call robust freedom; she only has lucky freedom, dependent on his allowing her that freedom.
Nora teaches us a lesson in that particular example. Because of course, the problem that I’ve described in that instance – and we’ll recognize it as a problem that she isn’t a free person, I think – that problem arises in all sorts of sectors of human life in our society too. So the freedom remains a challenging ideal.
So for example, of course, it arises in the home. Insofar as the culture is not supportive of the laws we do have that give spouses rights against their partners, women in particular, rights against their husbands; but it also arises in the school, where a child is subject to the potential bullying of those in his class if he or she, the child, is not protected against that bullying. Even if the bullying doesn’t occur. If the child’s, so to speak, has to run the gauntlet, the threat of such bullying, that child’s not free.
Or it arises in the workplace. If the employer has – in many of our states, the employer has – if the employer has a right to fire at will, without cause, without process, then I think that many employees are in this situation where they really depend on the goodwill of the employer in order to remain in employment. And I think to that extent, they’re a bit like Nora. They do not enjoy the exercise of the basic liberties, they’ve got to watch what they say, perhaps they’ve even got to watch for political party they identify with. They’ve got to watch themselves in order to keep the employer sweet. That means that like Nora, they are also unfree.
It also rises for people from another culture and minority culture, whatever, who run always the risk of being taunted or bated in public, where the culture is not going to support them. In order to be free, you have to have a law and a culture that backs you up, that puts backbone in you, that enables you to look others in the eye without reason for fear or deference. That gives you what I think of this personal freedom; freedom as an individual. Unfortunately, that’s only half the story.