Berlin’s objections to the concept of positive freedom show that Rousseau’s General
Will is a dangerous idea. Discuss.
Berlin identifies two kinds of freedom. Negative freedom we are used to – it is what
actions are possible for us, what doors are open, whether or not I choose to go through
them. Speed limits limit our negative freedom, as would a law demanding that only
those with military service can vote. These restrictions, then, can be large or trivial,
but they all limit our choice of what we can possibly do.
Positive free is more subtle: what makes us think some restrictions are large and other
trivial? Some things we care about more, some thing we wish to do more than others.
Positive freedom is the idea of self mastery – the ability to resist the pack of cigarettes
we know is killing us. Clearly nothing is stopping us either smoking or not smoking,
so this is not a question of negative liberty. This is a question of desires about desire:
we want to not want to smoke
This idea of self mastery also appears at state level. A democracy gives the rule to the
people, thereby enabling their positive freedom on that level.
Rousseau uses the concept of positive liberty to describe what he thinks is the ideal
state. He describes the General Will as being that which most benefits everyone. It is
not the sum of everyone’s desires: everyone may wish to rest and let someone else
grow all the food, but that is not what is best overall. Everyone working fairly and
receiving their fair share might be best, therefore the General Will is to do your fair
share, not to rest. Clearly, Rousseau says, people want to live in the most efficient
state, so they must want to follow the General Will, even if they do not know what it
is. They can be told what it is by people who have worked it out.
So Rousseau appeals to desires about desires: you should want to want to follow the
General Will, and following that Will is the ultimate self mastery.
Rousseau’s argument falls foul of an objection made by Berlin – for the concept of
the General Will to work, there must be one course of action which is best and that
course must be recognised, even proved as being the best. Berlin, as a historian, points
out that many groups have thought they have had this ‘Final Solution’, most famously
the Nazis, from that phrase originates, believed that part of the ideal society was the
extermination of the Jews.
Berlin very reasonably argues that no Final Solution has yet been found. Or, even if it
has been found, it has not been demonstrated as being the best solution to organising
people.
Berlin goes further, arguing that there is no reason to believe that there is a way to
reconcile Man’s diverse goals. Courage is recognised as a virtue, but so is humility; so
are industry and charity. It would seem a coincidence indeed if the universe was
arranged so that all these goals could be achieved at once, and certainly they have
never been achieved in history.
Because of this Berlin, following in the footsteps of Mill, recommends diverse
lifestyles be allowed, that negative freedom be given the larger reign, so that people
can choose for themselves the best course, rather than being forced onto an erroneous
‘best’ course by the government.
Both the Nazis and the Communists can be accused of doing just that, of forcing
people into the ‘best’ path, of saying that they knew people better than the people
themselves, and so were more able to say what people really wanted. This abuse of
the concept of positive freedom, which in its benign form reduces car crashes and
keeps drugs out of ex-addicts’ ways, can ruin a nation and bring immense suffering.
Once a government move from recognising people’s desires to want different things
to saying that they know your true desires best, they have a blank slate for any
totalitarian nightmare atrocity. These are the danger Berlin identifies for Rousseau’s
theory. Rousseau does indeed say that he knows people better than they know
themselves and, while that could be used as a way to distribute crops more fairly, it
could be used to slaughter millions in the name of progress. No doctrinal shift is
needed. Until a single solution can be shown to be best, while a pluralist society exists
where people are respected equally for pursuing different goals, Berlin’s objections to
the concept of positive liberty do show that Rousseau’s General Will is a dangerous
idea.