by V. Kumar

Created on: March 16, 2008   Last Updated: September 08, 2009

"Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains." Thus wrote Jeans Jacques Rousseau, the French political philosopher, in his book, "The social contract", in the eighteenth century.

Rousseau indirectly hinted at a very important fact of our society. Freedom is always a relative concept and depends, more often than not, not on the true state of affairs, but on the means that lead us to that state.

So, a man who is forced by fear of instant punishment into working sixteen hours a day is said to have been enslaved, while a man who does the same because of the lust for materialistic life that he has acquired as part of his personality and character is said to be a free man.

What essentially differentiates a free man from one who is not free is the existence or otherwise of options. A man on dieting fasts, so does a man who has nothing to eat. But in the case of former, it is a willful conscious decision of choosing one of the many options, while in the case of the latter, it is the fate of a man who never had another option.

Unfortunately, such simplified descriptions are usually fallacious. A man sentenced to life in prison is not always a man who had no choice. Similarly, the people residing in a territory that has been unfairly occupied by another power are also not a bunch of persons, who have never had a choice. In either case, the persons who lost their status as free men, did have option to do, or not to do, something that could have prevented their loss of freedom. In that sense, it is usually not the destiny alone that makes us free or otherwise.

In the modern civilized world, too, while there is everything, the amount of freedom that is there is very limited. A father, who is otherwise very successful in life, may not get any opportunity to spend time with his son, in spite of all his longing to do so. On the other hand, in a remote undeveloped rural area of the third world another father may have the luxury of actually spending as much time as may wish, with his son. However, such greater freedom, to do something, may not be always sufficient to make one's life better. In some cases, such greater freedom may not even be desirable.

Everything comes at a cost in this world and that includes freedom. You can use that freedom only at a cost, and if you can not pay that cost, such freedom is meaningless. You may be free to go and spend a week on a seven star cruise to Hawaii, but such freedom is meaningless if you do not have the money to buy the ticket. More importantly, this freedom will remain meaningless, if some other of your circumstances do not permit you to indulge in that luxury.

The freedom to vote in a democracy may be relevant only if there is any significant difference between the two contestants that will make the election relevant to the daily lives of the people. Similarly, having freedom to voice your opinions has a relevance only if somebody else has the inclination to listen to them.

Often, we are lost in the rhetoric of 'freedom', without appreciating that freedom in life of every individual is very limited. It would be much more meaningful if we talk about minimum freedom or fairness in social life, or about overall improvement in our social and individual lives.

Learn more about this author, V. Kumar.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.