by Natalia Jones

Created on: March 02, 2009

In the battle between the "freedom from" and the "freedom to" does one reign supreme over the other?

First let's define the difference. "Freedom from" implies protection from the thing specified. For instance, "freedom from persecution" denotes a right to be sheltered from the abuse of discrimination. This type of freedom is bestowed on an individual from some external power or authority.

"Freedom to" suggests that the individual is sovereign; he can follow his pursuits as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. This may sound complex, but the "freedom to" simply refers to the existence of choice. This freedom is the kind that emanates from within and is arguably thus the superior.

Are these two concepts in conflict? One may be tempted to conclude that they cannot coexist, however they actually already operate side by side, albeit in some instances rather tragically.

Consider the following scenario. A young woman relaxes at home while taking in the evening news. She is looking at a story on the women of Afghanistan. She contemplates for a moment the Muslim woman under her Burka, as she flicks her cigarette. She thinks of how oppressive it must be to live in a society that dictates to her the way she must dress. She reaches for her cigarettes only to realize that her pack is empty. She grumbles as she grabs her keys and reluctantly turns the TV off to go in search of a fresh pack.

Which of these women understands freedom? Surely, the Muslim woman conforms her way of dress to a specific religious doctrine. Western society may automatically feel sympathy for her, believing that this must be the result of a tyrannical ruling dogma. But what if this woman is fully aware of her lifestyle choices and simply feels the most comfortable with the path she is on? In other words, she has the freedom to wear western style clothes but prefers the covering of the traditional Burka. She sees no need for anyone to bestow upon her the freedom from oppression. She believes that she is indeed free.

Picture the smoker, impulsively reaching for her cigarettes only to discover that she is holding an empty pack. Her next instinct is to get another. The choice has already been made by her addiction. Is she free? One may argue that addiction has crippled this woman's ability to choose and she is therefore oppressed by her need to smoke. Although she lives in a society that offers its citizens "freedom from" second-hand smoke, she has the "freedom to" fill her own lungs with smoke if she so chooses and so she prefers an evening at home to a night out in the no smoking world.

Maybe the answer to the question posed is there is no easy answer. The concept of freedom is so central to survival in society that it has become intertwined, sometimes imperceptibly, into one's everyday life. Both forms of freedom have become necessary, and oftentimes the pursuit of one calls for the existence of the other.

Learn more about this author, Natalia Jones.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.