The topic of freedom brings up a lot of emotion in people. People often protest about losing their freedom in the current hyper-emotional atmosphere in our democracies. It has become an emotional issue spread amongst some groups by emotional contagion, which spreads toxic emotions like a disease.
We like to be free. It is one of our most cherished values. But the emotion gets strong. To lower the emotional temperature about this issue, the idea of freedom needs to be given some clarification and perspectives as to its definition and scope, and its psychological and emotional attributes. I am attempting to maintain neutrality in this discussion without taking sides. However, I do believe it is crucial in a democracy for its citizens to be free. But it is not a simple idea.
Nevertheless, some people in western countries protest to get their freedom. For them, it must sound so good to think of being free, since they protest hard to be free and may feel that they are not free. It is emotional for them, as it would be if they do not feel free. This usually means they feel restricted by some regulations. The regulations and perceived restrictions may be controversial, in that many people may agree with them, but some may not. When people do not agree with them, they usually feel entitled to have things the way they think they should be. This might mean they are fighting for free speech. It might mean they are fighting to be free of vaccine mandates. Or it might mean they are fighting for the right to assemble in public freely to protest some issues, like the right to protest abortion laws or police brutality. These are emotional issues, some potentially involving life and death. For example, issues involving guns, vaccines and abortion may involve life and death issues. The issues about freedom usually do involve a lot of emotion, because if people feel restrained, controlled and ignored, or feel their life is in peril, they naturally get emotional.
Let’s examine some definitions and descriptions of what freedom is before we discuss how emotions play a part. It plays a big part, and we will describe it soon.
The Cambridge Dictionary says freedom is “the condition or right of being able or allowed to do, say, think, etc. whatever you want to, without being controlled or limited.” They also say that it is “a right to act in the way you think you should.”[1] The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines freedom as “The quality or state of being free” and then gives different possibilities or examples. Let’s consider the first three possibilities they give: one: “the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.” Two: “liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another: Independence”. Three: “the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous”.[2]
We note that all these definitions involve being free from something controlling, whether it is something restraining, onerous, limited or coerced. That would make most of us frustrated if we were being controlled by something along these lines, and being frustrated brings up emotions like aggravation, resentment and anger, in those who tend to feel this way easily, and these strong emotions can release behavioral tendencies like rebellion and revolt into the open if enough other people are leaning the same way. Sometimes it will cause depression, or apathy if someone was sad and felt helpless or hopeless about moving forward because they were being prevented from doing so. There is nothing wrong with having these emotions, as they are natural, but in many cases, the behavior they bring out could be problematic in a democratic society that promotes law and order.
The United Nations says a lot about freedom, describing freedom of expression as a fundamental human right since Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” The declaration of human rights states several other freedoms in its articles:[3] There is too much to state here, so not all Articles are listed here to save space as this is a discussion of freedom psychologically and emotionally and not a discussion of human rights. The Articles state that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and are entitled to all the rights and freedoms, without distinction of any kind. They state that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security and freedom of movement. The Articles go on to state that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to change his or her religion or belief and to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. They state that everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association and the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. Interestingly enough, articles 28-30 state some limitations to freedom: Everyone is entitled to a social and international order; has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible, and shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely to secure due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. Article 30 states that Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
That was a lot to read and digest and a lot of it is legalese, but I wanted to help people understand how freedom is officially defined. In order to prevent getting bogged down in semantics let’s just stay with these definitions and descriptions and look for the psychological and emotional aspects they state or imply since they are what drives behavior.
The main thing about freedom that arouses emotion is the idea that it could be blocked, stopped or thwarted. Freedom has its restrictions, and those restrictions can cause people to be angry because they may not agree with them. Although everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association and the right to participate freely in the cultural life of the community, we need to meet the just requirements of morality, public order and general welfare in a democratic society. In other words, we all have to get along and since most people are different from each other, in many ways we need order and predictability to get along. So by definition, we cannot be completely free. The only time a person could be completely free is if they were the last person standing, and it is the very rare person who wants that.
I note that all of the Articles refer to “Everyone” or to “All” people, but one aspect that strikes me is that neither I nor you the readers wrote these definitions or rules. That makes sense, but we could look at it that it is not fair since we are stuck with taking what someone else wrote. We cannot argue back, although we are part of “everyone” or “all” the people. Someone else, many years ago, spoke and wrote for us, and we were not free to write the rules or definitions. Does that make you angry, or do you then feel restricted or controlled? If we don’t like them, we may feel angry, thinking we are unrecognized or prevented from having our input. That could arouse some emotions, especially since we live in a free, democratic country. But we know that not all people can make entries to this type of document because we have to keep order. Most people realize this. People have to be educated and qualified to do so and even then, if they are, there has to be a certain quality along the sense of neutrality and awareness, for example, awareness of various limitations and restrictions of the possibility of being free. For example, if we want people in North America to be free to move to be able to drive on the left side of the road, we need some awareness of the safety of adjusting to that change in North America and how it would be received if we were to recommend that.
At any rate, most people would not even think of the possibility that readers should be able to write the rules and regulations. I would not recommend this either and am just giving this as an example of how it is reasonable to have limitations to freedom, because sometimes it is just not possible to allow that due to various logistical reasons. But readers should have a way to offer suggestions and alternatives in case there are good suggestions, and they should be reviewed and considered regularly. I am not sure that is the case. Most people would just accept the rules and conditions as they were given to us, as long as they made sense and seemed to fit the situation.
This example shows that it is not just as simple as being free the way we like. Some people feel entitled to having things the way they insist they should be. Life is not like that, however. For example, we accept the red, yellow and green lights in traffic signals. No one was given the alternative of whether blue lights would be used for traffic signals. That idea would be seen as preposterous for us now because we have all grown up with red, yellow and green lights, with yellow as the cautionary lights. This is a simple reality of life that we accept as part of the “order” of things. If people argued about whether the green light should be blue, we would never get anywhere. Unfortunately, however, the simple idea of being “free” stirs up so many emotions that their followers are blind to the necessary realities of life, like the need to keep order, like the need to have things consistent and predictable in many areas of society so people can understand directions. There is also a moral and legal responsibility to others so that we can live in a community where there is order. Being decent, kind and fair to most people will be likely to get the most cooperation.
Emotional thinking seems to exaggerate the meaning of “free”. Easy, simple words like “free” easily fit on protest signs or can be yelled out loud in a protest, when people protest about not having freedom. Some people through quick, emotional thinking and quick imagery may envision being tied up in a rope and restrained if they are not free. Such thoughts and images, although absurd, may occur in some people who may have odd definitions of it, as if they think it means rules and responsibilities restrict freedom. They forget the “order” part of law and order. This can’t be de-emphasized. We need to stop for red lights, drive on the correct side of the street, walk on the sidewalk, ride our bikes on the bike path, pay for our groceries, pay our taxes, and so on. This involves being polite and showing respect for people and their property. This also means we should not drive our cars on the sidewalk or on other people’s lawns, not put our own food remnants partly eaten directly onto a grocery store shelf at the store, not enter others’ homes without permission, not walk in the middle of the road, and not leave big trucks parked in the middle of the road blocking others’ freedom of movement, without permission. That’s all part of order and ways in which we are not free. In other words, don’t take “free” literally as applying to everything if you want freedom of movement. One freedom may involve a blockade that can obstruct another person’s freedom.
We accept what the dictionary says, and we can easily see that we cannot be free as the Cambridge dictionary defines it, as it says freedom is “the condition or right of being able or allowed to do, say, think, etc. whatever you want to, without being controlled or limited.” So, if we take these definitions literally it means we should not have to pay for our groceries. This is unfeasible because grocers cannot get food free to give to all of us for free. And they have to earn money to pay for their house, clothes, etc. and if they went out to work elsewhere there would be no one to run the grocery store. This is all common sense.
These examples may seem boring, but this can be an emotional topic, as if we feel we are restricted if we are not “free” to do whatever we want when contentious issues come up, like abortion and vaccines. So contentious issues have been avoided in this discussion to prevent arguments, but these examples illustrate things more easily because they are not contentious. It is not all our choice. It can get emotional. We can feel restricted until we realize that society needs to have an order to it. When it gets emotional, the emotion spreads through emotional contagion, a psychological process in which others’ emotions rub off on others. If one person is angry, fearful or jealous, they will often react quickly in a game of emotional ping-pong. This occurs, for example, if someone may say about a contentious topic, “You are wrong,” and someone else will reply “No, I’m not, you are” very quickly, to defend themselves. It usually is not a case of simple right and wrong because there are often exceptions, conditions, perspectives, etc. involved. Emotions bring simple messages about good and bad, right and wrong. These issues and their emotions can be powerful. And then we forget that we need an order to things so that we cannot all get things equally. For example, issues about abortion are complicated and involve life and death. The mother or baby could die. When we consider this, emotion overtakes us, so we don’t think and at that moment we don’t realize that we can’t have everything go our way because that takes some thought, which the body and mind cannot do at a moment of high emotion. It may seem like we are thinking, but we are not doing so with careful, critical thinking. We are only thinking about how to get what we want at that moment even if that goal is physically impossible. Actually, careful, effortful mental thinking, involving critical thinking and systematic reasoning, is required to think in detail about important issues like abortion. This means to entertain both sides of the case carefully no matter which side you started with.
Freedom necessarily involves give-and-take, involving respect for someone else’s needs and priorities as well as respect for ourselves and our own needs and priorities. Realizing the legitimacy and seriousness of someone else’s needs, but not through purely emotional thinking, will help us decide, as they compare to the common good or our own needs and perspectives. Putting things into perspective in this way often helps out a lot. That requires some careful consideration, which requires slow, reasoned-out logical thinking, without involving emotion in the actual decision, although recognizing the importance of emotion as it may relate to a person’s situation is important as a consideration. And the emotion should appear to be reasonable emotion when considered relative to the topic at hand. That involves a judgment of how urgent the situation would be when considered objectively. For example, in a hospital Emergency Room, the emotion shown by the patient and the patient’s relatives would normally not be good examples, when staff is considering which patient to be admitted next, whereas an emotion shown by the patient’s relatives could be considered indicative of a need to be admitted as soon as possible if a patient were in an urgent life or death situation as indicated by a medical professional. Of course, the situation itself determines this, not the emotion, but the emotion may be considered as an adjunct reason when combined with the primary reason, the medical opinion. The situation determines the validity of the entitlement, not the person’s emotion about it.
[1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/freedom
[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom
[3] https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights