|
THE CURRENT DIVISION IN AMERICA: THE MEANING OF FREEDOM
PART III.
A mountain which falls upon oneself or upon many crushes that which is beneath it, or, in a milder version of this metaphor (since the ‘mountain’ is a visual expression of a feeling, rather than a reality) – the falling ‘mountain’ restricts the freedom of movement of those beneath it. It pins them down. This restriction of movement is what is held by some to be the essential force which prevents individuals from choosing their own actions and their own lives. Such a potentially overwhelming force creates an overwhelming sense of threat. In response, the need to get ‘the mountain’ off one’s back is the defining action of restoring freedom. Here, freedom is defined as the absence of restraint. It is freedom from external compulsion or force.
However, this is not the only definition of freedom.
There is another definition which differs from the above in two ways: First, it involves not only freedom from something in a negative sense, but rather freedom for something in a positive one. (See H. Ahrendt: "On Revolution") Freedom from external restraint does not necessarily mean that one will have the inner and outer capacity to create a life of one’s choosing, to manifest one’s highest ideals, to find an adequate means of self-expression, to create a life in wholeness. These are pursuits that require more than freedom from restraint. They are inner actions and motivations that give shape to a life which must be supported by a societal and cultural context that allows positive motivations and movements to bloom, replacing the inner sense of limitation or self-negation. Freedom from external restraint is only, by this definition, one aspect of freedom.
Freedom for something, freedom which makes actual the potential within individuals, which allows them to realize their dreams - this is a freedom that some may feel has been taken away from them even without external restraint because of cultural conditioning, societal prejudice, lack of access to opportunities for education or training, lack of opportunities for self-development or expression. Freedom to realize one’s potential can be limited by more subtle means than the laws which seek to regulate and control.
Herein lies the second decisive principle regarding the present conflict between factions or states of consciousness. It resides in the answer to these questions:
Can I be free if others are not?
What relationship does my freedom have to yours?
Can I be free to develop my own inner potential and manifest a life that represents my ideals if you are not free in the same way?
These questions point to a sub-current within American culture and character that has been deeply troubling to many. For the affirmative answer to the question: "Can I be free if you are not?" has been acted out over and over again throughout American history in policies of exclusion and exception which have been tolerated as ‘normal’ if not ‘inevitable.’ Since settlers first came to this country’s Eastern shores and founded the earliest colonies, we witness the darker side of American character as well as the light, namely, the willingness for some to be empowered and free, while others are not accorded these rights. Thus, the willingness to accept an affirmative answer to the above question resulted in the abrogation of rights of the indigenous peoples whom the settlers met during the early years of colonization. Later, the same affirmative answer made possible a visionary document that affirmed the inalienable rights of all to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, even while slavery was allowed to continue.
The dark current within American character involves the negation of universal freedom due to self-seeking at the expense of others. Though we have espoused the inalienable rights of all, in practice, we have not been willing to accord these rights to all and, in fact, have often been unconcerned about the effect of this decision.
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, a willingness to dispossess the Native populations existed even while accompanying the simultaneous desire for our own freedom due to dispossession and disenfranchisement by the British. The Declaration of Independence became the charter which asserted the ideals of the new nation to be formed, yet these ideals did not apply to those who were still considered ‘property’, namely, the slaves. The practice of excluding some from the application of our highest principles continues to this day, and is based on the same thing – self-seeking at the expense of others, and ignorance as to the effect or consequence of this arrangement.
Such a brief review necessarily leaves out other factors that play a part in this current conflict. Its intention, though limited, is to focus the essential question for today concerning freedom. Brought into the light of greater awareness, it asks for a new consideration of the historical and moral issue: “Can I be free if you are not?” In this case, the ‘you’ are those who are least able to recover from the ‘earthquake’ that has shaken the U.S. economy and that has not yet ended. For these, it is not the mountain that is the greatest danger. It is the lack of solid ground to stand on.
To put the question differently: Is freedom being threatened by the ‘mountain’ that may be falling on it? Or is it more threatened by the earthquake that is disrupting the foundation upon which lives are built? And, in addition to these current concerns, we may add, has freedom always been limited within this nation that is devoted to freedom, due to the exceptions it has tolerated within its own body politic and beyond?
These questions concerning the nature of freedom have traveled with us throughout history. They both shape and form the actions that are taken by governments and individuals. Often, freedom for the ‘self’ or for the ‘national self’ has been pursued without due concern for what limits it might place on the freedom of others. The complex relationship between ‘freedom’ and ‘unity’ which is based on identification with these ‘others’ had not yet arrived in the foreground of consciousness where it might be looked at more closely and with greater humility.
Today, however, we may look at this matter of identification and ask ourselves where we stand in terms of associating our wellbeing and welfare with the wellbeing and welfare of others. The history of slavery, of the treatment of Native peoples, and of the incarceration of various minorities based on fear and prejudice has formed a stream throughout our collective past. We were not ready to link our freedom with that of others, or to view freedom as more than the absence of external compulsion or restraint as it is presently being viewed today.
Yet, we have the opportunity, now, to take a wider view. In doing this, we are upheld by the work of centuries that has made progress in this direction but that needs to be brought to a higher level. We need to seek the balance between freedom and unity, foregoing the exclusive self-interest that has been so much a part of our history. We have moved in the direction of upholding freedom more than unity because the consequences of abandoning the defense of freedom have been more visible and created a sense of vigilance within us. Also, because the consciousness which would support a more complete identification with others had not yet developed on a collective level.
Today, however, we must conceive, in the same way, of the consequences of remaining without unity. For unity is a foundational principle in America’s consciousness, just as freedom is. It requires the same vigilant upholding as freedom has throughout our history. Without it, we are in danger of maintaining the existing painful separation between the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ within our borders and beyond, and of reinforcing the dark current within our consciousness that creates a gap and division between America’s ideals and her reality.
In view of our collective desire to merge the two principles, freedom and unity, we may consider that it is time to take the opening words of the Preamble to the Constitution to a place of greater depth. “We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union…” It is time for this historical, foundational, and moral goal embedded within the Constitution to become realized, namely, that we are being called and have called ourselves to “form a more perfect Union.”
This is the need of our time – that the desire for ‘unity’ be brought into balance with the desire for ‘freedom,’ and that both, together, find an increasing path toward fulfillment.
Return to: The Current Division in America: Parts I and II
------------------------------
You are invited to join us Friday, Feb. 19th, for the third "Holding the Light for Haiti" meditation. Go to www.responseoflight.com for information.
|
