In contrast, positive liberty is self mastery or self – realisation; the ability to control ones own life and develop personal autonomy. This concept sees liberty as the presence of control on a person – freedom means self determination and control of ones own destiny and interests. Berlin used the idea of positive liberty to answer the question ‘What, or who, is the source of control or interference that can determine someone to do, or be, this rather than that?’ .
Not intended to describe two distinct kind of liberty, the ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ concepts are interpretations of a single political ideal. Comparing and contrasting the two ideals means to try and fully understand the scope of each notion of liberty, and therefore come to a conclusion on the validity of each concept. I will be considering the differences and similarities between each concept, along with whether the two are realistically compatible.
There are of course fundamental differences between the positive and negative concepts of liberty, one being their views on factors that are external or internal to a person. Negative freedom is interested in interference from external forces such as the state, whereas positive liberty concerns itself with factors that are internal. This gives rise to the question of whether positive freedom is in fact a political issue or one that is more concerned with psychology, and in turn the question of whether it is possible for positive freedom to be thought of in political terms. Those who answer ‘no’ obviously advocate negative liberty, but those who answer ‘yes’ believe that it is possible for positive liberty to be promoted through political action. Theorists who defend the political idea of positive liberty include Rousseau, Hegel, Marx and T.H. Green.
Positive liberty in its political form is general though of to be a collective idea. Rousseau’s theory of freedom states that individual freedom can only be achieved through participation. By each person participating, the community as a whole is self controlled in accordance with a ‘general will’. He argues that a democratic society is essentially free as it is self determined. Members of that society are free to the extent that they participate in its democratic process.
However positive liberty is also said to contain an internal contradiction. Berlin argued that the positive idea of liberty could be used by totalitarians and dictators to justify their actions. He believed that this justification began with positive liberty dividing a person into two parts – the rational and irrational self. One could further divide this into a ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ self, the ‘higher’ being the rational self that is moral and responsible. The ‘lower’ self is victim to passion, irrational thought and impulses. Freedom and liberty can only come when one is without this ‘lower’ self and follows only rational thought without being a slave to our passion. The justification of authoritarianism comes from the belief that some individuals are naturally more rational than others and so know what is in the interest of others. By forcing those less rational than themselves to follow their ‘higher’ self they are in fact increasing their personal liberty.
Berlin goes on to say that supporters of positive liberty may also see the self as not just the individual but represented by society as a whole – ‘a tribe, a race, a church, a state, the great society of the living and dead and the yet unborn’. The true interests of the individual are in fact the interests of this whole. Berlin states ‘Once I take this view, I am in a position to ignore the actual wishes of men or societies, to bully, oppress, torture them in the name, and on behalf, of their 'real' selves’. By manipulating the meaning of the individual ‘self’, dictators have been able to distort positive liberty into a justification for oppression – which is itself a fundamental opposite to liberty.
Advocators of negative liberty are able to avoid this line of reason by denying any kind of relationship between one’’s freedom and desires.
. Berlin once stated: "Total liberty can be dreadful, total equality can be equally frightful." All those doctrines which define liberty as self-realization and then prescribe what this is, end up by defending liberty's opposite. To the perennial human problems there are no final answers. "Liberty is liberty, not equality or fairness or justice or human happiness or a quiet conscience." Liberal governments should recognize that all political values must end up in conflict, and all conflicts require negotiation.
Liberalism has contained thinkers from both camps – those who advocate the concept of negative liberty e.g. Oppenheim (1981), Miller (1983) and Steiner (1994) , and those who support the negative concept e.g. Milne (1968), Gibbs (1976) and Christman (1991).
‘Politics, The Basics’ Second Edition, Stephen D Tansey, 2000, p 65 – 66
‘The Social Contract’, Rousseau, p16
‘Essay’, Locke, Book II, Ch.xxi, p15
‘Two Concepts of Liberty’, Isaiah Berlin, [1958] 1969
‘Two Concepts of Liberty’, Isaiah Berlin, [1958]1969
‘Two Concepts of Liberty’, Isaiah Berlin, 1969, 132-133
‘Two Concepts of Liberty’, Isaiah Berlin, 1969, p132 - 133
http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/archives/spr2003/entries/liberties-positive-negative