One of the most recurring and passionate social debates is the extent to which we are free to make our decisions. Was the choice of vacation destination in the most fashionable Eastern country made freely? Fashion—which, in a strategy to disguise its coercive nature, is now called trend– Does it curtail our freedom?
My opinion is that the debate about freedom is often conducted from an overly naive perspective. In fact, a more rational—but unattractive—way to pose the question would be to do so in the form of a paradox: what are the social constraints we accept—and why? freelyOr, to put it more bluntly: what forms of coercion do we fail to notice are imposed precisely because we have accepted them as voluntary? This is the most effective disciplinary mechanism of all because it masks their coercive nature. The most cunning forms of propaganda—whether for a pizza or a luxury vehicle—run the gamut, and without realizing it, by submitting to their coercion, we feel that we have chosen what we wanted. in freedom.
In this matter, as in so many others, it can be said that no hunchback ever sees his own hump. It's very easy for us to discover the weight of coercion in the behavior of others, while we don't usually see it in our own. To give an example, this is precisely what we call leisure When human behavior becomes more gregarious: Another paradoxical example: the language with which we express ourselves and think is certainly the main path to freedom, but also to inclusion in a culturally and historically limited world.
Authoritarian forms of coercion are, at the same time, the most vulnerable for the simple reason that they are visible because they are expressed outside of individual will. The most consistent forms of coercion, however, are those internalized as individual choices. To return to the Islamic veil, from the subjective perspective of the wearer, it can be the result of a choice perceived as an act of freedom, even of pride of belonging and rebellion against the dominant culture, or of unbearable coercion that causes major conflicts within the family and within the community of origin. However, beyond individual subjectivity, there are also objective meanings that can be inferred from the historical context in which the norm of wearing the veil was born, the role women play in the religious system that uses it, the symbolism of the gesture as it is perceived in the communicative context of reception, and even whether it is an element manipulated for or against certain interests.
I won't say that freedom is overrated, especially as an aspiration. But it is when we believe our margins of freedom are unlimited. At least from a sociological perspective, it's already a great thing if one can choose which forms of coercion one voluntarily submits to, if one wants to. freely. It's the thing about the voluntary servitude, by De la Boétie. Of radical freedom, as non-predetermined disruptive behavior, perhaps it occurs in the small cracks that historically form between conflict situations, the result of normative confusion. Perhaps in chance and serendipity. Sometimes, in shadowy spaces neglected by society and that allow, as Susie Scott would say, "not being a thing" or "being a non-thing."
In any case, I remember that my first sociology work was precisely on the question of freedom, based on the classic texts of Carl Wright Mills, The sociological imagination, and Peter L. Berger, Invitation to SociologyAnd fifty years later, I maintain my conclusion: the only way to increase the share of freedom, both individual and collective, is through awareness of one's own determinations. We choose alternative frameworks of coercion that seem to us not less coercive, but also ethically or civilizationally superior.
