What is freedom?
Free society
Required topic concepts: freedom, necessity, responsibility,
What is freedom?
Freedom is the ability to choose from many options, one or more.
CLICK SLIDE
Is absolute freedom possible?
No matter how much people strive for freedom, they understand that there cannot be absolute, unlimited freedom. First of all, because complete freedom for one would mean arbitrariness in relation to the other. For example, someone wanted to listen to loud music at night. By turning on the tape recorder at full power, the man fulfilled his desire and acted freely. But his freedom in this case infringed on the right of many others to get a good night's sleep.
That is why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where all articles are devoted to the rights and freedoms of the individual, the latter, which contains a mention of responsibilities, states that in the exercise of his rights and freedoms, each person should be subject only to such restrictions as are intended to ensure recognition and respect the rights of others.
CLICK SLIDE
Such freedom would mean unlimited choice for a person, which would put him in an extremely difficult position in making a decision. The expression “Buridan’s donkey” is widely known. The French philosopher Buridan spoke about a donkey that was placed between two identical and equidistant armfuls of hay. Unable to decide which armful to prefer, the donkey died of hunger. Even earlier, Dante described a similar situation, but he spoke not about donkeys, but about people: “Placed between two dishes, equally distant and equally attractive, a person would rather die than, having absolute freedom, take one of them into his mouth.”
CLICK SLIDE
Absolute freedom makes it difficult to make an informed choice.
Various philosophers interpreted the concept of freedom in different ways; the first were religious thinkers.
CLICK SLIDE
Many religious philosophers have said that human life is predetermined by God. This is how the idea of fatalism appeared
CLICK SLIDE
Fatalism is the belief in the predestination of existence, all events in a person’s life are inevitable and he cannot do anything about it.
CLICK SLIDE
Tell us about Moira - goddesses of fate
CLICK SLIDE
Other philosophers argued that man was created by God with free will, and the main freedom of man is the conscious choice between good and evil.
Freedom first of all means the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and a choice given independently, based on one’s own decision. Of course, God can destroy evil and death in an instant. But at the same time He would at the same time deprive the world and freedom. The world itself must return to God, since it itself has departed from Him.”
CLICK SLIDE
B. Spinoza, Hegel and F. Engels interpreted freedom as a conscious necessity.”
What does this mean?
How do you understand the concept of necessity?
CLICK SLIDE
Necessity is a phenomenon defined by a certain area of reality and uniquely predictable within the framework of knowledge about it.
CLICK SLIDE
In other words, necessity is an expression of a natural, objectively determined course of events.
CLICK SLIDE
Thus, a person, cognizing these objective laws, becomes free.
EXAMPLE: CLICKING A SLIDE
It is known that earthquakes periodically occur in seismic zones. People who are unaware of this circumstance or ignore it when building their homes in this area may be victims of a dangerous element. In the same case, when this fact is taken into account during the construction, for example, of earthquake-resistant buildings, the likelihood of risk will sharply decrease.
In a generalized form, the presented position can be expressed in the words of F. Engels: “Freedom does not lie in imaginary independence from the laws of nature, but in the knowledge of these laws and in the ability, based on this knowledge, to systematically force the laws of nature to act for certain purposes.”
CONCLUSION:
Freedom as a recognized necessity - a person taking into account the limits of his activity, as well as expanding these limits through the development of knowledge
Freedom restrictions: internal and external
CLICK SLIDE
Let's consider another situation. Modern society provides a person with a variety of means to help get rid of a depressed state. Among them there are those (alcohol, drugs) that inexorably destroy the human body. When making his choice, a person who knows about such a danger can neglect it, but then he will inevitably face retribution, and he will have to pay with the most precious things - his own health, and sometimes life.
In other words, a truly free person will not be a slave to his momentary moods and passions. He will choose a healthy lifestyle. In this case, in addition to the perceived danger, a person is encouraged to act one way and not another by certain social conditions.
Responsibility - adverse consequences in case of violation of established rules, this is a restriction of human freedom.
Limiters of liability are:
External - moral norms, law, traditions, customs, public opinion.
It manifests itself primarily in a person’s conscious readiness to follow established norms, evaluate his actions in terms of their consequences for others, and accept sanctions in case of violations.
As psychologists' research shows, most people tend to accept responsibility for their actions. However, situations arise when the sense of responsibility becomes dull.
CLICK SLIDE
Thus, a person in a crowd is capable of such actions - offensive shouts, resistance to law enforcement officials, various manifestations of cruelty and aggression that he would never have committed in a different situation.
In this case, the influence is exerted not only by the massiveness of the speeches, but primarily by the anonymous nature of people’s activities.
At such moments, internal constraints are weakened and concerns about public evaluation are reduced. By forming a sense of responsibility in oneself, a person protects himself from deindividuation, i.e., becoming a faceless being with reduced self-awareness.
CLICK SLIDE
Now let’s answer the question: what kind of person do we consider free? (Someone who is not forced to do anything, who does what he wants)
Let's imagine a situation - a person you know comes up to you and offers to inject yourself with a drug (smoke weed, commit some crime, etc.) if you make a free choice in favor of this “Tempting Offer”, but will you be free after that?
CLICK SLIDE
However, true freedom begins with self-restraint.
CLICK SLIDE
Freedom for is good will, subject to the moral law.
The main thing is not what the external circumstances of a person’s life are, but what goals he sets for himself, how he relates to the surrounding reality, and how he can realistically assess the consequences of his actions.
Lesson summary:
Is absolute freedom possible?
How do you understand the concept of freedom - a conscious necessity?
Sometimes freedom is understood as permissiveness. In a social sense, this means complete independence from any norms or restrictions. At the beginning of the 20th century. in Russian villages they sang the following ditty:
There is no God, there is no need for a king,
We'll kill the governor
We won't pay taxes
We won't become soldiers.
What consequences can this interpretation of freedom lead to? Concretize your reasoning with examples.
Good day, dear readers of my blog! Breathe deeply, realize your desires and realize them. Make decisions without being influenced by others and allow yourself to be yourself while remaining committed to your identity and belonging. The ability to make choices and be responsible for them, without blaming or punishing yourself for mistakes and imperfections - this is what human inner freedom means.
How do restrictions appear?
Opinions of others
Have you noticed how much energy little children have? With what excitement and interest do they live every day? And the whole point is that they are spontaneous and do not stop themselves in their desires. Until they grow up, because caring parents and strangers begin to teach them norms of behavior. Often, according to my observations, it looks like this: “Don’t do that, otherwise everyone will laugh at you.” And a child who hears catchy music at a bus stop has to stop dancing to the beat, because it’s embarrassing and those around him will look at him and even laugh.
And then, as an adult, he will stop doing a whole bunch of things that, in his opinion, will attract attention to him, after which he will definitely be very ashamed. For example, offer your idea at a meeting on how to increase sales in order to have a chance to advance in your career, or approach the girl you like... A lot of things, because the fear of condemnation and devaluation will live inside.
This process is called introjection. This is the most basic enemy due to which lack of freedom arises. That is, beliefs, norms of behavior, priorities, etc., which we did not come to on our own, but by adopting from other people who are significant to us, even whom we hate. After all, then their image sits deep inside, and we are accustomed to using it in any life circumstances. Signs can also be classified as introjects.
For example, a woman does not take care of herself during pregnancy, that is, she does not do makeup, dye her hair, etc., because there is a sign prohibiting this process. And then a very wonderful time, when, in theory, a woman blossoms, carrying a child under her heart, becomes unbearable for her and not as beautiful as it seemed. She hates her reflection in the mirror, and is waiting for the moment when she finally gives birth and can feel attractive again.
Bad experience
It also arises due to some bad experience that is deposited in the subconscious. In moments similar to the previous situation, a feeling of fear and confusion arises. After living a traumatic experience, a person can completely close himself off, not risking expressing himself and trying to block emotions so as not to feel pain. In this case, some part of the personality is blocked and becomes unfree. For example, after violence, a woman is afraid to express her femininity and sexuality; she experiences tension in the presence of men, and sometimes even aggression. What kind of internal freedom can we talk about then, when there are such significant restrictions?
Often we stop ourselves for fear of ruining relationships. The difference between a free and an unfree person is one thing: the first makes a conscious choice. For example, without telling your boss your opinion about him, because he understands what consequences this will entail. But the second one is from good manners, seniors in rank are not rude, and in general, because it is unsettling to tell a person the truth to a person’s face, and then he will endure injustice, allow himself to be taken advantage of, without making attempts to look for a more decent job with adequate management.
Self-acceptance
A serious problem that is very constraining in presenting oneself to the world is failure to accept oneself as one is. Some qualities, body parts, personal characteristics, life history... As a result, low self-esteem appears. Against this background, there will be a constant unconscious comparison of oneself with others, and not at all with positive conclusions. Once in the company of more successful people, a person who has many internal limitations will not feel comfortable. He will try to keep a low profile and seem unnoticeable.
Many women do not accept their body as it is. Dreaming of losing weight, changing, and having the idea that the outer shell plays the most important role in life, and that after these changes everything will improve and become different. But, having lost weight, they rarely feel the expected happiness, because inside they remain the same. What kind of woman will attract male attention more, who is beautiful, but very constrained, repressed, avoids communication and is too tense? Or who, for example, is overweight, but at the same time energetic, free and enjoying life?
Fear of the unknown
Some people have a fear of the unknown, when it is uncomfortable, if something does not go according to plan, when there is a need to adapt. Therefore, such individuals control, or at least try to control, not only the lives of loved ones, but also circumstances. And this, as you know, is impossible. And not only they suffer from this, but also those they control.
For example, the completely natural fear of losing a child turns into torture. When a mother gives up her personal life, taking care of her son, not giving him freedom and checking every step. She suffers from both anxiety and the inability to live, receiving pleasure, satiation and fulfilling her needs. The son will also suffer, who feels in a vice, not having the opportunity to live as he wants and gain experience through trial and error.
Finding freedom first of all begins with the realization that you are responsible not only for your life, but also for its quality. Therefore, you should not try to be “good” and please everyone, sacrificing your interests, or wait for a “good wizard” who will appear and change everything. Therefore, if something happens that makes you unhappy, think about whether you should endure it further, or take a risk and try something different.
You can take a leaf and divide it into two columns. In one, write down the disadvantages and consequences if you leave everything as it is, for example, without getting a divorce or quitting. What it is fraught with and what it will lead to over time. And in the second column, write risks, fears and fantasies about how everything will change and what will happen if you take the risk of changing something in life that you are not happy with. And if you decide to leave everything as is, this will be your conscious choice.
For example, I stay with my alcoholic husband because I value those moments when he is sober, and this is my choice. Then I won’t look like a victim and wonder how to find happiness, then I will be a free person who knows what he is doing and why.
2.Dependencies
Addiction partially deprives us of the right to choose, limiting our actions and, in general, opportunities. On the path of self-development, this is a significant obstacle that will not allow you to breathe deeply and boldly declare that you are a free, conscious person. I recommend reading several articles that I devoted specifically to this topic: “” , And
3.Installation
So, the X's raised their children, instilling the value of getting an education, and in their era this really was the key to a successful life, until perestroika struck. And if this introject worked before, now it’s possible to earn a million without getting a diploma. The main thing is to believe in yourself and not stop in front of obstacles. But, in order to please their parents, many unknowingly enter universities, doing something completely different from what they want and wasting whole years before they find themselves.
Freedom as a condition for personal self-realization. Human freedom and its limiters (internal - from the person himself and external - from society). Choice and responsibility for its consequences. Civic qualities of the individual.
Liberty- a word with multiple meanings. There are extremes in the understanding of freedom:
The essence of freedom– a choice associated with intellectual and emotional-volitional tension (burden of choice).
Social conditions for the realization of freedom of choice of a free person:
· on the one hand – social norms, on the other hand – forms of social activity;
· on the one hand – the place of a person in society, on the other hand – the level of development of society; socialization.
Liberty- a specific way of being of a person, associated with his ability to choose a decision and perform an action in accordance with his goals, interests, ideals and assessments, based on awareness of the objective properties and relationships of things, the laws of the surrounding world.
Responsibility– an objective, historically specific type of relationship between an individual, a team, and society from the point of view of the conscious implementation of mutual requirements placed on them.
Types of responsibility:
· Historical, political, moral, legal, etc.;
· Individual (personal), group, collective.
· Social responsibility is a person’s tendency to behave in accordance with the interests of other people.
· Legal responsibility – responsibility before the law (disciplinary, administrative, criminal; material)
Responsibility- a socio-philosophical and sociological concept that characterizes an objective, historically specific type of relationship between an individual, a team, and society from the point of view of the conscious implementation of mutual requirements placed on them.
Responsibility, accepted by a person as the basis of his personal moral position, acts as the foundation of the internal motivation of his behavior and actions. The regulator of such behavior is conscience.
Social responsibility is expressed in a person's tendency to behave in accordance with the interests of other people.
As human freedom develops, responsibility increases. But its focus is gradually shifting from the collective (collective responsibility) to the person himself (individual, personal responsibility).
Only a free and responsible person can fully realize himself in social behavior and thereby reveal his potential to the maximum extent.
Philosophical solving the problem of the relationship between freedom and necessity in the activities and behavior of the individual has a huge practical significance for assessing all human actions . If people do not have freedom, but act only out of necessity, then the question of their responsibility for their behavior becomes meaningless.
WITH freedom of the individual in society certainly exists, but it is relative. Everything comes from this relativity of freedom. democratically oriented legal documents. For example, the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights emphasizes that these rights, in the course of their implementation, should not infringe on the rights of other individuals. Thus, the relative nature of freedom is reflected in responsibility of the individual to other people and society as a whole. The relationship between freedom and responsibility of the individual is directly proportional: The more freedom society gives a person, the greater his responsibility for using this freedom - this is where they manifest themselves civic qualities of the individual. Otherwise, anarchy, destructive for the social system, occurs, turning social order into social chaos.
Each social system has not only its own freedoms, but also its own restrictions on freedom. New rights, designed to weaken (abolish) basic administrative-command restrictions, expand the space of life opportunities and support the growth of social activity, contributed to a change in the system of social relations, which placed many members of Russian society in front of new restrictions. The previous restrictions also did not disappear instantly. In addition, as happens with fundamental changes in society, additional restrictions arise that are not associated with the disappearance of old and the emergence of new rights. In other words, during the reform, the system of social restrictions comes into motion: some restrictions die out, others appear; previously unrecognized limitations become obvious, and some of the previously recognized limitations in the new conditions fade into the background and begin to be perceived as an advantage, and not as disadvantages of the previous life; some are overcome more easily than before, others, on the contrary, become insurmountable.
The nature of freedom restrictions is very diverse, therefore the number of possible grounds for their classification is enormous. As Ashby rightly noted, "It seems impossible to classify the limitations... in any simple way, for they include all cases in which some set, for whatever reason, turns out to be smaller than it could be." [Ross Ashby, P.182]. Therefore, when identifying certain types of restrictions on freedom, we will be guided by our goals, and from their huge variety, we will highlight first of all those that reveal the objective and subjective features of the transition period and facilitate understanding of the patterns of changes in the level of freedom and adaptation to new conditions of different social groups.
1. Main types of modern limiters
individual freedom
1. Limitations are old (inherited from the previous system: technical and production, infrastructural, cultural, etc.) and new (arising during the reforms). The specificity of the transition period lies in the simultaneous existence and close interweaving of old, new and “transitional” limiters. Currently, the following relationships between them take place.
a) Some of the previous restrictions have disappeared completely or almost completely. For example, state-fixed wages and prices for products in a number of industries; a ban on applying for work in two places without special permission from the place of main work; compulsory work for everyone, persecution for parasitism; the obligation to take part in the life of the team (carry out public and party assignments). The need for membership in the CPSU for a successful career has become a thing of the past, many of the previously “closed” cities and enterprises have opened, travel abroad has become easier, etc. Another part of the past restrictions, although still preserved, has been significantly weakened. First of all, this concerns the shortage of goods and services. Although here it should be borne in mind that the obstacles associated with it have decreased primarily in capital cities and regional centers, while, say, Siberian rural residents often deal with an even more limited supply of goods than before.
b) Some of the past restrictions that continue to this day can be considered “inherited”. Some of them, in the new conditions, not only strengthened, but also expanded their sphere of influence, i.e. act as an obstacle to many more individuals than before. For example, a limited choice (lack of choice) of places to work in rural areas and in monofunctional cities, rudeness, aggressiveness of people, rudeness, etc. Other restrictions intensified due to the fact that they began to be reproduced on a different basis. First of all, this concerns difficulties with improving living conditions and migration. The economic barriers that have appeared here for the majority of the population are even more difficult to overcome than the previous administrative-command barriers.
c) New restrictions have appeared that were not there before: high and constantly rising prices for goods and services, inflation; large (from several months to two or more years) delays in the payment of wages and benefits; unemployment in once labor-starved regions of the country; the inculcation of ideas and values of a market society that are alien to many; lack of personal security, rampant crime; etc. This also includes the limited freedom of consumer behavior of the impoverished population in the context of an expanded supply of goods and services (medical, educational, etc.).
According to my data, one or another of the new restrictions that respondents encountered today constrains almost everyone (98% in the city, 95% in the village), and their number is very large (on average five). On average, one additional limiter per respondent is added to “inherited” old ones: currently more than half of the respondents deal with them (60% in the city, 56% in the village). Thus, unfavorable housing conditions limited 40% of city residents in the previous conditions, and 30% in the new conditions. However, behind these apparently favorable dynamics lies an improvement in the capabilities of a few (16%) and a deterioration in the capabilities of the majority (66%). In rural areas, the housing constraint remained at approximately the same level (18-19%).
But those obstacles that are unconditionally a thing of the past are today recognized by only 4-15% of surveyed villagers and from 7 to 29% (according to various obstacles) of city residents as actual restrictions on their former life, in short, a total of no more than 50% of respondents ( on average - 1.2 limiters per person). Thus, from the perspective of today, 29% of city residents and 15-16% of villagers recognize the limitations of their former life as the inability to earn a lot, state-fixed salaries and prices; inability to get a job in two places without special permission - 16% of city residents and 9% of villagers; compulsory work, prosecution for parasitism - 7% each in cities and villages; the obligation to carry out public and party orders - 15% - in the city and 4% - in the village, etc. I do not yet attribute the pre-reform shortage of industrial and food products to the unconditionally disappeared limiters, since in rural areas even now you can often see half-empty counters. In addition, the expanded supply of goods and services is beyond the means of many (even in a large city, almost half of respondents of working age cannot reach the previous level of consumption, 43% are faced with the inability to improve their health due to the high cost of medical services, 42% are faced with a decrease in opportunities to receive (or give children) a good education due to lack of money, etc.).
The spread of new limiters, as well as the reproduction of old ones on a new basis, contribute to an increase in their total number. And this makes the problem of either overcoming them or adapting to them urgent. Why are large sections of the population today unable to overcome or adapt to these restrictions on freedom? What depends on them, and what lies on the side of the system? Can we expect that any “system” limitations will disappear on their own over time? Which ones will disappear and which ones won't? The following three bases for classifying restrictions on freedom allow us to assess the degree and prospects of their surmountability.
2. Limiters are permanent and temporary. Let us call constants the constraints that are internal to the new (updated old) social system as such: they are determined by the properties, basic relationships and interdependencies of this system and, in principle, are necessary for its normal functioning. Once the course is set for the formation of the market as a basic economic institution, then the space of opportunities for many groups of the population from now on, one way or another, will be limited (whether they realize it or not, whether they agree with it or not) by the presence (or threat) of unemployment (today the influence of this factor is experienced by 37% of city residents and 38% of villagers of working age), increased social stratification (38% of city residents and 41% of villagers pointed to this limiter as unjustified), etc.
Let's call temporary obstacles associated with the characteristics of the transition period and the patterns of social adaptation to them (structural restructuring and destructive trends in the economy, lack of skills to act in new conditions both among managers at different levels and among ordinary people, absence or weakness of institutional mechanisms for protecting interests as " strong" and "weak" groups, etc.). Today, the undisputed leader among the circumstances constraining the life activity of individuals is the economic situation in the country (collapse of the economy, decline in production, crisis): it was indicated by 81% of respondents of working age.
The presence of temporary restrictions on freedom during the transition period is inevitable. Complementing and, in some cases, reinforcing permanent restrictions, they significantly narrow the space of opportunities for large groups of the population at the present time. The situation is aggravated by the fact that temporary restrictions are very often perceived as permanent. Moreover, almost none of our respondents (97%) have ever been to countries with developed market economies. They either know from hearsay about the internal laws of the market economy or do not know at all. Thus, during interviews with rural residents in 1995, it was discovered that three years after the start of market reforms, almost half (45%) of respondents still did not understand what the “market” that the reformers want to create was. A significant portion of respondents associated the concept of “market” with chaos, arbitrariness, permissiveness, and personal defenselessness, which made it even more difficult for them to adapt to the changed social environment.
But if the existence of temporary restrictions on freedom during the transition period is inevitable, does this mean that their range must inevitably be as wide, their height as insurmountable, and their consequences as unfavorable as they are today?
3. Natural and man-made restrictions. We will consider natural constraints to be those that necessarily follow from the parameters of the state of the social system in which it is, for one reason or another, at a given moment in time. For example, in a social system of a transitional type, natural restrictions include such restrictions (permanent and temporary) that inevitably arise in connection with the breakdown of old and the formation of new social institutions. We will call man-made those limiters that do not necessarily follow either from the current state of the system or from the trajectory of its intended development. In other words, given the state of the system, they might not exist or they might not be as noticeable. Man-made can include restrictions generated by the choice of one or another reform tactics due to the rejection of more careful (in relation to the economic and production system) and less burdensome (for the population) methods of transformation.
Thus, academic economists, citing the experience of the separation of Hong Kong and England (which, in accordance with the decision made, was supposed to take place only after 50 years), express the opinion that the division of the USSR into several states actually also required decades. “And we had to spend at least 20-30 years revising connections, building new partner factories, regrouping material and human flows. And only leaders who did not imagine the country’s economy could cut to the quick” [G. Popov, S .3]. Already in the first years of reforms, in principle, completely natural processes went beyond reasonable limits, largely for man-made reasons: of course, a decline in production was inevitable, but not by 50 percent; of course, unemployment was supposed to increase, but not to 20-30% (taking into account hidden forms of unemployment); Of course, social stratification should have increased, but not to the extent that it reached in Russia and which it does not have in the West [Russian Economic Journal. - 1995. - N10. - P. 5.]. These restrictions were largely generated by the socio-economic policy of the state (budgetary, tax, credit, monetary, currency, etc.), and in this sense, their quantitative parameters (height and scale) are artificially inflated.
What does it mean, say, for a rural resident not to receive a salary for several months or even years (this limitation was indicated by 66% of respondents in the village)? Of course, everyone has subsidiary plots that will prevent them from starving to death. But people cannot go to the city, where they previously satisfied a considerable part of their needs (there is no money even to get to the regional center, and a large number of Siberian villages are tens of kilometers away from cities and railways), they cannot see relatives living in other places, they cannot buy what they need to send their children to school, not to mention clothes and shoes for adult family members, etc. They find themselves artificially cut off from the outside world (“here, like in a trap,” “here, like in prison"), their space of possibilities has narrowed significantly, and in this limited space they are asked to act independently. What, under these conditions, depends on the individuals (groups) themselves? Which systemic constraints are they able to ease, and which ones are they unable to overcome?
4. Limitations are societal, social and personal. Until now, predominantly societal constraints (permanent and temporary, natural and artificial) have been considered. They are associated with the formation of new social institutions in society; with the country’s place in the world community; environmental conditions; with the general situation in the country, determined both by the choice and implementation of one or another reform policy, and by the unforeseen cumulative result of various social actions. In principle, all groups of the population face societal restrictions in one way or another; they create, as it were, a “common background” of social life. At the same time, societal restrictions are most often “socially distributed”, extinguished or strengthened either by status restrictions (income, power, capital, place of residence, type of employment, level and type of education, marital status, etc.), or personal restrictions, or both others at the same time.
In modern conditions, societal restrictions are often reinforced by status (social) restrictions. Thus, the chances of our rural respondents to constructively adapt to new societal constraints are reduced by their very belonging to a rural territorial community (small choice of jobs, poor development of industrial and social infrastructure, remoteness from cities and railways; extremely limited possibility of migration to more developed settlements and etc.). Moreover, the strengthening of the socio-territorial advantages of the city is fully realized by both rural and urban residents. 59% of city residents and 50% of villagers indicated an increase in differences between the city and the countryside in the possibilities for better organization of life (20% in each group indicated a decrease). In addition, the majority (61%) of residents of a large city in the Russian province note that over the years of reforms, similar differences between the capital and other settlements have noticeably increased. In the village, 38% expressed this opinion, while the majority (43%) referred to ignorance about life in the capital.
Other status positions (volume of power, sector of employment, etc.) can, to one degree or another, weaken socio-territorial barriers. In particular, managers are more likely to overcome certain restrictions on their freedom than ordinary employees; Those employed in the trade and financial sector have much higher chances than those employed in education or health care. And the lowest opportunities today in rural areas are for those employed in agriculture (regardless of whether they work in the state, corporate or private sector), and in the city for those employed in heavy industry.
The leading role in social restrictions on freedom today - by a large margin - is played by material restrictions: high prices for goods and services, cramped financial situation, need, and “lack of money” limit opportunities in important areas of life for 70% of surveyed villagers and 78% of city residents. For some, material restrictions on freedom are caused by low wages in the public sector, and they cannot be overcome even at the cost of a good job at 1.5 - 2 times the rate. For others, they are a consequence not only of low wages, but also of large delays in their payment (64-66% of respondents in cities and villages). For still others, they are generated by labor restrictions, which unite a group of various obstacles associated with the realization of the respondents’ strengths and abilities, and the loss of stability in the sphere of employment.
In total, 55-61% of respondents of working age in cities and villages indicated labor restrictions. Among them, the leader is undoubtedly the threat of unemployment or the loss of a job that has already occurred (36-37%); followed by the inability to work at full capacity, to realize one’s abilities (12% in the city, 23% in the village). Almost every tenth person (9% in both cities and villages) is constrained by unfavorable conditions for doing business (inflation, tax and credit policy of the state, economic crisis, etc.), while the hostile attitude of the population towards entrepreneurs and farmers completely limits few (3%). While the majority of respondents are concerned about the inability to realize their labor potential, there are also many in the city who named the need to work too much and have little rest as a limiter to their lives today (21%).
Thus, the combined effect of societal and social restrictions today is such that they not only reduce the space of significant opportunities for large groups of the population, but also deprive them of the main way to counter this trend, which is inclusion in various types of labor activity. In the formation of the negative dynamics of individual freedom, societal factors (limiters) undoubtedly dominate, and they also significantly weaken the possibility of countering this trend on the part of social actors.
Personal restrictions are restrictions of a socio-psychological and value-normative nature that an individual (whether wanting it or not, realizing it or not) imposes both on his goals and on acceptable ways to achieve them. In the context of the transition to a new social system, the role of personal limiters of freedom (certain character traits, habits, preferences, beliefs) in the social adaptation of individuals to a changing social environment and in influencing the level of freedom achieved and perceived by them is especially great.
As it turned out during sociological surveys in cities and villages, the extent of the spread of value-normative restrictions associated with the inculcation of ideas and values of a market society that are alien to individuals is small. In the city, 15% of respondents of working age indicated these obstacles, in the village - 13%. Much more often, restrictions were indicated related to the need to put up with illegal actions of managers at the place of main and additional work, the need to demonstrate loyalty to them in order not to lose your job (“sometimes you feel disgusted for yourself,” “sometimes you have to break yourself, although you know that he [the boss] is not in the right according to the law”, etc.). The most common value-normative limiter today is the unjustified stratification between the rich and the poor (38% in the city, 41% in the village).
It is no coincidence that a very large part of rural residents (23%) - in the city these aspects were studied in less detail - consider internal restrictions as even more difficult to overcome obstacles than external circumstances beyond their control. Only a fifth of respondents have so far managed to overcome personal limitations and follow new values and norms of behavior without internal resistance and tension. Although a much larger proportion of individuals go beyond their limits at the cost of internal discomfort. Thus, 36% of respondents already live in accordance with new values and norms of behavior, but the latter still cause them rejection and internal resistance. This brings us to the need to classify modern restrictions on freedom depending on the degree and nature of their acceptance by individuals (groups).
5. Forced and voluntary restrictions. We will call forced restrictions imposed on an individual by the external environment, which he is unable to resist, and which reduce the space of his possibilities, causing him internal resistance, tension, and rejection. We will classify as voluntary restrictions either those that individuals (groups) impose on themselves (of their own free will), although external conditions allow them not to do so; or those that are imposed by the environment, but individuals (groups) share them and consider them necessary and justified at the moment.
For example, some rural respondents (21%) today prefer not to deviate from their beliefs and moral principles, even when they realize that if they retreated, they could achieve more. Others, inspired by hopes for a better future (for themselves, their children and grandchildren), perceive the current deterioration in their lives as necessary, justified in the course of reforms (9%). The voluntary acceptance of certain restrictions on freedom (societal, status, personal) allows, under the same external conditions, to “push” their boundaries, weaken their negative impact on the internal self-esteem of freedom and reduce the social costs of adaptation to new conditions. Therefore, the presence in society of conditions for their manifestation is extremely important.
However, a feature of the ongoing reform stage is the unconditional predominance of forced restrictions on freedom over voluntary ones. It is no coincidence that in the modern adaptation process in cities and villages, forced mechanisms undoubtedly prevail over voluntary ones. Thus, 51-55% of urban and rural respondents of working age indicated that most often they are forced to adapt to new conditions, only because they are not able to change the situation. Another 25-39% noted that in their adaptation to new conditions voluntariness and coercion were approximately the same.
The forced and voluntary aspects of the modern adaptation process will be discussed in more detail in one of the following chapters. Here I will add that in rural areas that are particularly unfavorable on this basis, the absolute majority of respondents (87%) explain their patient attitude towards the deterioration of life during the reforms as forced, caused by the fact that they are not able to change the situation, even when they endure all these hardships and deprivations are already unbearable (58%). Only 10% of respondents are ready to make any sacrifice for a better life in the future; while 18%, on the contrary, would not voluntarily give up anything very important for themselves, even if reforms were carried out for the sake of a better life in the future. The remaining 72% of respondents are, in principle, ready to make certain sacrifices during the reforms, but in most cases so that they do not concern the deterioration of nutrition, the opportunity to update clothes and shoes, purchase durable items, visit relatives and friends in other settlements, and have a guaranteed job etc., i.e. exactly what turned out to be broken or lost today.
But if labor efforts are often not enough to overcome new restrictions on freedom, and the latter create additional obstacles to the implementation of labor efforts, then do individuals have any other ways to overcome existing obstacles?
6. Legal and moral restrictions. The first are written down in laws, regulations, etc.; the second - unite customs, traditions, moral standards. Violation of the former can lead to criminal and administrative penalties, violation of the latter can lead to various kinds of sanctions from significant others and others (conviction, disapproval, punishment, etc.). Failure to comply with both one and the other may or may not be accompanied by internal discomfort. Thus, half of the respondents indicated that over the past 3-5 years, for the sake of the survival and well-being of their family, they had to act more often than before in a way that was not what they considered more acceptable for themselves. After that, they were “tormented by their conscience,” “the feeling of guilt did not go away for a long time,” etc. Another 15% behaved in this regard in the same way as before the reforms, and only 27% said that they had never acted this way.
Approximately the same proportion of respondents in the city and village (27 and 29%, respectively) today certainly condemn people who resort to petty theft from production or from a state farm field, believing that, regardless of life circumstances, this is unacceptable. In modern conditions, deviation from the formal laws and norms of a social system is often an internal property (requirement) of the system itself, i.e. in fact, different laws and regulations apply. Respondents, in principle, do not deny the importance of complying with legal norms, but the majority believe that in modern conditions it is impossible to follow them if you want to survive (52-53% in cities and villages). And the system “forgives” them such behavior, since it to some extent smoothes out disruptions in its functioning and thereby supports its existence. [More on this in Chapter 10].
7. Vertical and horizontal limiters. We will consider vertical restrictions on everyday life generated by direct or indirect interactions with authorities at different levels or considered as a product of such interactions. Of course, the same action (policy) of those in power can be considered by some groups as an increase in freedom, and by others as a restriction. So the majority of respondents today point to obstacles generated by both the weakening of the role of the state and its strengthening.
The vast majority of respondents (67% in the city, 90% in the village) are today hampered by high and constantly rising prices for goods and services, and many of them (59% in the city, 63% in the village) perceive the weakening role of the state in this sphere as a limitation of one’s freedom. This group of vertical restrictions also includes obstacles associated with bureaucracy, indifference of the authorities, lack of hope for the protection of rights by both local and central government bodies (30% in the city, 27% in the village); low life safety (46% in the city, 18% in the village); the dependence of real human rights on the availability of money (30% in the city, 21% in the village) and the “deafness of the upper crust”, the uselessness of any criticism: you can say anything, you can criticize anyone, but no one will does not listen (38% in the city, 29% in the village).
Another group of vertical restrictions, on the contrary, is generated by excessive, from the respondents’ point of view, and unlawful interference in their lives by authorities at various levels. Among these limiters, the unpredictability of the policy of the “tops” was most often cited, depriving confidence in the future (75%): “Is it possible to be free when you live one day at a time and cannot make plans for the future?” In a large number of cases, untimely payment of wages was cited (64% in the city, 66% in the village); arbitrariness, permissiveness, impunity of the authorities (46% in the city, 29% in the village); excessive interference of the politics of the “top” in the lives of ordinary citizens in connection with wars, national conflicts, the collapse of the USSR (21%), etc.
Thus, in modern conditions, the main part of the vertical limiters of individual freedom is generated, on the one hand, by the inaction (and impotence) of the authorities in a constructive way, and on the other, by their activity in a destructive, illegal way. This is an even more alarming fact since essentially all respondents (99%) encountered vertical restrictions on their freedom. Even if we attribute the decline in production and the collapse of the economy to the inevitable consequences of structural changes, vertical restrictors of freedom will remain dominant (84-87%).
Let us call horizontal communal restrictions those that people, entering into interpersonal relationships and not being bound by relationships of superiority and subordination, themselves impose on each other. In some cases, the development of this kind of restrictions is associated with the transfer of vertical relations of command and subordination to horizontal relations, when instead of equal relations, say, regarding the purchase and sale of goods (services) or the fulfillment of other roles, people find themselves in a subordinate position of a petitioner and become the object of rudeness , reproaches, etc. (relationships "seller - buyer", "conductor - passenger", "plumber - tenant", "hotel attendant (doorman) - resident", "driver - pedestrian", etc.). Horizontal restrictions on freedom also arise in interpersonal relationships between people who find themselves in one place at one time or another: in a queue, on the street, in transport.
There is no need to conduct special research in order to state that in our society this phenomenon - let's call it “everyday”, “horizontal” slavery - is widespread. And as our surveys showed, over the years of reforms it not only did not weaken, but even more intensified, not only in the city, but also in rural areas, whose residents are much more often connected by neighborly and informal relations. True, while noting the intensification of these undesirable influences (from 40 to 61% of respondents indicated this for various reasons), many, nevertheless, perceive them as the norm. A much smaller (albeit not insignificant) part of respondents consider them to be restrictions on their freedom (from 14 to 30%). One of the rapidly growing horizontal reforms over the years of individual freedom is the rudeness, aggressiveness of people, and rudeness. In the city, 40% of respondents indicate this (14% recognize it as a pre-reform restriction), in the village - 29% (before the reforms - 8-9%).
8. Limiters are real and imaginary (false). We will refer to real constraints as those that in a given society actually arise for individuals with certain objective and subjective characteristics (prescribed and achieved social status, a system of value orientations and life goals, socio-psychological characteristics, etc.). Imaginary ones are imaginary, apparent limitations, the appearance of which is caused by misunderstanding or underestimation of true conditions and changes in the environment and one’s position in it. During the transition period, the soil for their occurrence becomes especially rich. Imaginary obstacles appear whenever individuals judge the present based on adverse past experiences, limited access to information, preconceived notions, rumors, stereotypes, etc.
Thus, it has already been said that a very large group of the rural population (42%), having experienced or heard firsthand about unsuccessful transformations in the past, today argues their negative attitude towards market reforms by the fact that any transformations do not lead to anything good. The intimidation of capitalism in the recent past largely contributed to the formation of a “frightening” image of the market at the very beginning of economic reforms. Imaginary restrictions arise both from ignorance of one’s actual rights and from a lack of faith in the fairness of law enforcement agencies. According to our data, the majority of respondents (35% in the city, 57% in the village) are firmly convinced that defending their rights today is completely hopeless, and only 12% count on turning to laws as a way to restore violated rights. 13%. Although this feeling largely reflects the real state of affairs, the latter is not always so hopeless. And those single people who strive to learn the laws and defend their rights with the help of law enforcement agencies are already succeeding in something today [More about this in Chapter 10].
9. Basic (basic) and non-basic (minor) limiters. Different constraints have different significance for individuals (groups), so that the presence of some is perceived more acutely than others. This is due to the fact that at each moment in time individuals have more important and less important life goals, their value orientations are hierarchized in a certain way, and differences in social status further exacerbate the difference in the chances of success in life. The weakening of restrictions in less important areas of life for each individual against the background of their strengthening in more important ones led to the fact that during the reforms the level of freedom of the majority of the population decreased. In conditions of mass impoverishment, many progressive changes of a socio-political and civil nature remain unnoticed or unclaimed.
For example, a very large part of urban and rural respondents (37-40%) note that over the years of reforms their ability to openly defend their views and beliefs has increased, while for 24-27%, on the contrary, they have worsened. However, both groups rarely take this possibility into account when assessing the overall dynamics of individual freedom over the years of reforms (it was indicated by 11% of respondents of working age in both cities and villages). Describing “administrative-command” restrictions on freedom, although they pointed to the “prohibition of saying out loud what they thought,” they immediately added: “but this is not so important.”
Another example is the restrictions on the possibilities of moving to another, more desirable settlement. Today, only 7% of the rural population point to them as a limiter of freedom. Meanwhile, (39%) rural residents admit that they always (11%) or once (28%) wanted to leave this settlement, but were never able to do so. Moreover, the reasons for unrealized migration were most often cited as either lack of housing (37%) or the inability to obtain registration in a new place (9%). However, in modern conditions, when even primary needs are not met, and the opportunities to gain a foothold in the city have decreased even further, the relevance of moving there has faded into the background. Material restrictions move him to a more distant, “unrealistic” space (the area of “desired”, “dreams”), and he ceases to have a noticeable impact on the assessment of modern limiters of individual freedom (“this is later”).
10. Conscious and unconscious limitations. Until now, we have talked about the restrictions on freedom that are perceived at a given moment in time in relationships that are significant for social subjects, because it is they that affect the subjective assessment of the dynamics of individual freedom and fall into the subject of our research. However, it should be borne in mind that not all existing restrictions on freedom in reality are recognized as such. Different social subjects have different abilities and inclinations for reflection, different access to information, migration and social experience. Ideological control and manipulation of the authorities by the consciousness of ordinary citizens (through institutions of socialization and other institutions) also increases the range of unconscious restrictions on freedom.
For example, the Russian institution of registration has caused outrage in the West for several decades and has been interpreted as a violation of human rights. Meanwhile, in Russia, according to our data, only 7% of respondents (both in the city and in the village) consider registration as a previous restriction on individual freedom to choose a place of residence. Another 12% of respondents in the city and 2% in the village indicated that in the pre-reform period they were embarrassed by the inability to register whoever they wanted for their living space.
The specificity of the transition period is that the process of awareness of restrictions on freedom intensifies, and some previously unconscious restrictions become conscious. These changes, in turn, are reflected in the assessment of the level of past and present freedom, and can give rise to both positive and negative dynamics.
Thus, new information revealed during the period of glasnost made some respondents realize previously unnoticed restrictions on their freedom (“at that time I didn’t think about it,” “I didn’t notice it then,” “it just seemed to us then that we were free, we weren’t knew what real freedom was like in other countries"). However, this process has not yet affected quite large groups of Russian citizens who were socialized in the previous administrative-command system and are occupied with the problem of survival in the new, “market, democratic” one. Thus, the right to reliable information about the state of affairs in the country is still not relevant for the vast majority of urban and rural residents (59 and 77%, respectively). Even from today’s perspective, only 27% of urban residents of working age and 13% of villagers consider spiritual dictate and lack of truthful information to be a pre-reform limiter of individual freedom.
2. Basic patterns of transformation of restrictions on freedom in a changing society. The phenomenon of metamorphosis of pre-reform restrictions on freedom
What conclusions can be drawn based on all that has been said above about the transformation of restrictions on individual freedom during the transition from one social system to another or during cardinal changes within the same social system? I will name five main patterns of this process.
1. The range of restrictions on freedom is expanding. During periods of change in the type of economic and social system for some time, new and old, permanent and temporary, natural and artificial, real and imaginary (false) restrictions, etc. always coexist. Thus, we have seen that new restrictions (for example, non-payment wages, greatly increased prices for essential goods, unemployment, instability and low safety of life, open national conflicts, etc.) are combined with restrictions inherited from the past (for example, housing and migration), which, being reproduced primarily on an economic basis, for the majority of the population have become less surmountable than under the administrative-command system (at least for now).
Temporary obstacles of the transition period (structural restructuring and destructive trends in the economy, lack of skills to act in new conditions, both among managers at different levels and among ordinary people, weakness of institutional mechanisms for protecting the interests of both “strong” and “weak” groups, etc. .) are often perceived by the population as limitations inherent in the new system as such. During transition periods, the number of imaginary limiters inevitably increases, moral ones change, and the “exchange” between unconscious and conscious limiters intensifies. Intertwined, different types of restrictions on freedom in transitional and unstable societies much more often strengthen each other than weaken each other.
2. The qualitative composition of restrictions on freedom is changing, which is associated with both objective reasons (for example, the course towards the formation of the market as a basic economic institution, which is associated with increased unemployment, social stratification, etc.) and subjective reasons (transformation in the perception of old and new restrictions on freedom). Moreover, a comparison of the strength of limiters does not always work out in favor of the new one.
Thus, almost 40% of rural residents, when asked to remember external circumstances beyond their control that in the pre-reform period did not allow them to live the way they would like, answered that then they did not feel any special restrictions at all: they lived, they say, as wanted, not what it is now. “Everything was normal, we got out of the situation”, “I didn’t feel any restrictions”, “I didn’t feel any infringement of freedom and I remember those times like a dream”, “before the reforms I considered myself a relatively free person, and what I couldn’t afford before , especially now I can’t afford it,” these are the most typical answers of respondents from this group.
Even such a widespread phenomenon as a shortage of goods, “empty shelves” and endless queues in stores is today called a limiter to the old life by only 29% of rural residents. The once problematic narrow choice of professions and places of work in rural areas is today recognized as such by only 4% of respondents; and the injustice of the distribution of scarce goods, the unjustified privileges of those in power and their entourage, which at one time became one of the main arguments for the need for perestroika, are today considered by only 24% of respondents to be a limitation of their life under the administrative-command system.
This metamorphosis in the perception of the limits of “administrative-command” freedom is connected not only (and not so much) with the idealization of the past or ideological attachments characteristic of people. It is largely caused by a real narrowing of significant life opportunities over the years of reforms due to the fact that for large groups of Russian society the new restrictions on freedom turned out to be stronger than the previous “administrative-command” ones. As one respondent concluded: “Compared to how we live now, everything that was bad was eclipsed.” Today, many rural residents (68%) do not even have access to the previous limited freedom of consumer behavior; the value became not attractive, but simply paid work (66%); the differences between those in power and ordinary citizens in the opportunities to live better, according to 71% of respondents, have increased even more, and “social dumbness” has been replaced by “social deafness”: you can say anything, you can criticize anyone, but no one listens to it ( 29%).
The significant opportunities for residents of a large city have decreased to a lesser extent than in a village. Modern difficulties and hardships were not so strong here as to overshadow the shortcomings of the previous life, so the townspeople give more balanced assessments of the old restrictions on freedom compared to the new ones. In particular, 53% of respondents point to “empty shelves”, shortages of food and industrial goods, queues as a limiter to pre-reform freedom, 16% point to the impossibility of working in two places without special permission, and social injustice in the distribution of scarce goods, unjustified privileges of power haves - 40%. And only 16% of city residents from today’s perspective claim that in the pre-reform period they did not feel any special restrictions and lived as they wanted.
3. The relative importance and hierarchy of restrictions on freedom are changing: the leading role (by a large margin) today is played by material restrictions (indicated by 70-78% of respondents) and labor (55-61%). The impoverishment of large groups of the population has significantly narrowed the available space of significant life opportunities (consumer, educational, migration, etc.), and the strengthening of obstacles in the field of employment further “cements” the situation. In such conditions, the weakening of restrictions on political or civil freedom that occurs during reforms is in most cases less significant (or insignificant at all), and therefore remains unnoticed or unclaimed.
4. The efforts of the majority of individuals to overcome the restrictions on their freedom are increasing. Many began to work more at their main or additional jobs, as well as in their personal subsidiary plots and garden plots (Chapter 6). The majority of respondents try to solve their problems on their own (in formal and informal ways available to them), ceasing to count on the participation of the authorities, even when the solution to the problem is within the competence of the latter. One way or another, for the absolute majority of rural respondents (74%) and a very large part of urban respondents (35%), it has become more difficult to overcome modern restrictions on individual freedom than pre-reform ones. Another 7% in the village and 27% in the city find both restrictions equally difficult to overcome. Modern restrictions on freedom are considered easier by 14% of rural residents and 19% of working-age urban residents.
5. Different social groups encounter different restrictions on freedom in a significant social space, have different access to certain methods of overcoming them, as well as different possibilities for constructive adaptation to those restrictions that cannot be overcome. These differences become an additional factor of social inequalities in a changing society (between city and village, managers and ordinary people, etc.)
In general, 84% of able-bodied residents of villages and small towns and 60% of able-bodied residents of a large city indicated that over the years of reforms, life obstacles that are (not yet) possible to overcome have increased. Moreover, large groups of individuals were faced with a new system of restrictions on freedom in conditions where their financial situation was significantly undermined by the authorities themselves (loss of savings at the entrance to reforms, delays in payment of wages from six months to 2-3 years, failure by the state to fulfill its obligations for delivered products, difficulties in obtaining loans, etc.).
An analysis of the structure of modern restrictions on freedom shows that the expansion of their range in conditions of a change in the type of social system is, in principle, inevitable: it would have occurred under any policy of in-depth reform. However, with modern reforms, many restrictions on freedom have been strengthened artificially. They might not exist or they might not be so strong if a different tactic of socio-economic transformation was implemented, a different strategy for expanding freedom and social protection of both weak and strong social groups in the context of reforms and a more active role of the state.
We are talking about both the priorities of the state in structural, investment and legal policies, and about its role in the field of persuasion and explanation. After all, individuals who know about the society of “market and democracy” only by hearsay or who know nothing about it at all have to overcome the complex tangle of old, new and “transitional” restrictions on freedom or somehow adapt to them; individuals who were socialized in previous conditions, when other personal qualities were in demand, learned other ways of solving problems.
In our conditions, large groups of people who find themselves unwillingly in an unfamiliar living space would feel more calm and confident if the “new rules of the game” were constantly explained to them (how best to behave in a given situation, what to do in certain conditions), the positive experience of those who had already tried themselves in new conditions was constantly demonstrated. As Ludwig von Mises rightly noted: “He who wants to change his compatriots must resort to persuasion. This is the only democratic way to achieve change...” [L. von Mises, P.27].
Under certain conditions, the mechanism of persuasion-explanation can play a huge role: it is no coincidence that Ludwig Erhard attached such importance to the psychological aspect when implementing his program of transition from a forced economy to a market economy in post-war Germany. Erhard considered the “psychological approach”, which in Germany was called “mental massage”, as a necessary method of economic policy. By his own admission, sometimes he “dedicated many months to achieving a correct understanding by the population of the economic situation and the goals of economic policy” [L. Erhard, S. 254]; constantly explained to the population, using specific life examples, the internal laws of the market economy, be it anti-cartel policy or the relationship between rising prices and wages, or something else (“I literally traveled all over the country to explain these elementary truths to even the most simple-minded people”). And, of course, he constantly monitored the population’s reaction to various phenomena of economic life, taking this reaction into account in his political and economic activities.
Of course, under any conditions, there will still be many people who will resist the new. And it would be naive to think that persuasion or explanation is a panacea for all the ills of the transition period. I just wanted to emphasize that, as long as the task of transition to a freer society is set, the mechanism of persuasion and explanation has an absolute advantage over the mechanism of coercion. Its use could allow part of the population to encounter fewer restrictions on freedom and more successfully adapt to new conditions.
But persuasion-explanation alone is, of course, not enough: “There is little point in appealing to people if they are inclined to think that sacrifices are required of them only to please a given minister or government... It is necessary to appeal to the idea of benefit and to personal the interests of the businessman" [L. Erhard, S.224]. It is one thing for people to “know why they are enduring all these hardships and hardships” and gradually begin to feel the positive impact of a recovering economy. It’s another matter when they don’t know why they are suffering, when the domestic economy continues to collapse and become more and more primitive, and its impact on people’s lives becomes less and less favorable.
One way or another, one of the reasons for the expansion of independence, on the one hand, and the decrease in the level of freedom, on the other, is the expansion of the circle of restrictions on freedom that individuals involved in independent social actions cannot overcome or overcome with greater effort and losses than before. To the extent that the increase in the number of restrictions on freedom in modern conditions is natural (or man-made), the gap between the dynamics of independence and the dynamics of freedom, up to their multidirectional movement, is also natural (or we can eliminate it).
In the current conditions, the unidirectional dynamics of independence and freedom manifests itself most often when the first represents the most important life value and goal of social subjects, and not a way to achieve other more significant goals; when, in order to gain greater independence, people are ready for certain losses, for new limitations and new efforts to overcome them. This opinion can be heard from representatives of creative professions: “I have become independent from a number of social guarantees, from a restful sleep, in other words, from confidence in the future. In exchange, I received freedom, or dependence on myself. And I would not exchange it for anything ". But such people are in the minority.
At this stage of social reform, the growth of independent actions among numerous groups occurred not due to the weakening of administrative-command restrictions on their freedom, but due to the disappearance of the previous supports in life, i.e. was predominantly forced rather than voluntary (57 vs. 25%). This “amateur everyday life” in a more limited living space only formally coincides with independence (as actions on one’s own initiative and on the basis of one’s own strength). Essentially, this is not independence, because it does not contribute to the revelation of individuality, the acquisition of the status of “master of one’s own destiny,” but, on the contrary, is often associated with the loss of this status, a feeling of being left to the mercy of fate in a world that has suddenly become so alien, where everyone is for himself and where everyone survives as best they can.
In principle, it is possible that even this – albeit initially forced and “distorted” – independence will eventually lead to a genuine increase in individual freedom over time. But whether the internalization of Western societal freedom will occur or some other type of institutional-legal (or non-legal) freedom will be established will depend on what types of social interactions are institutionalized “under the cap” of modern limiters of individual freedom, and therefore what types of social relations will continue to dominate. For one or another limiter of individual freedom at each moment of time, most often, reflects the relationship of forces between stronger and weaker groups in a given respect, as a rule, characterizes social dependencies that have not been overcome and are undesirable for individuals. The constant reproduction of one or another restrictor of freedom in itself indicates that the social interactions that define it are becoming a stable element of the new system of social relations.
In this regard, two characteristic features of the modern system of restrictions on individual freedom are striking: firstly, the dominance of the vertical component, based (directly or indirectly) on relations of dominance-subordination, and, secondly, the dominance of the non-legal social space, where other Restrictors of freedom of all types, including vertical ones, are becoming more intensified. The strengthening of vertical restrictions on freedom, reflecting the growing dependence of “ordinary” individuals on various kinds of authorities, has already been discussed in some detail. New aspects of these interactions are revealed by the phenomenon of non-legal freedom, analyzed in the next chapter.
Loading...
