DOCSLIB.ORG

Two Concepts of Liberty

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Two Concepts of Liberty “No chains around my feet, but I’m not free.” – Bob Marley (Concrete Jungle) Two Concepts of Liberty 1. Positive vs Negative Liberty: Isaiah Berlin’s highly influential article brought to light the nature of the disagreement about political freedom. Largely until his time, the default assumption was that ‘liberty’ referred to what Berlin calls ‘negative liberty’. Negative Liberty: Roughly, freedom FROM. One is free in this sense to the extent that their actions are not hindered or prevented by outside interferers. Jefferson & Madison: This is, for instance, how the founding fathers understood liberty. Consider our constitutionally recognized rights of freedom of speech, freedom of religion (in James Madison’s Bill of Rights), and rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (in Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence). Example: Freedom of Speech: Having this right means that the government will not interfere with your speech (e.g., they will not pass laws forbidding you from saying whatever you want, and they will pass laws forbidding others from coercively preventing you from saying whatever you want, etc.). The same can be said for all of the others I listed. (For instance, as one more example, the government will allow you to pursue happiness, and they will not interfere with you or try to prevent you from doing so.) But, negative liberty of, say freedom of speech, doesn’t do me any good if I lack the ability to speak. For instance, imagine that I was raised by wolves and I don’t know how to speak any human languages, or read, or write, etc. In one sense I am free to speak (if I try to say something, the government will not interfere). But, in another sense I am not free to speak (for, I lack the ability to say something in the first place). Berlin recognizes this as a distinct type of liberty, which he calls ‘positive liberty’: Positive Liberty: Roughly, freedom TO. One is free in this sense to the extent that they have the ability to DO something, to pursue and achieve goals, etc. Emancipation: Booker T. Washington’s description of the day of freedom brings out these two aspects of being ‘free’ beautifully. Born as a slave, he recalls rejoicing after being freed. He was no longer someone else’s property! No longer would his actions be dictated and restricted by another. The former slaves were rejoicing in their newly found NEGATIVE liberty. Then, slowly, the realization dawned on them. With no money, no property, no education, and no skills other than manual labor, wtf were they supposed to do now!? He writes, “within a few hours the wild rejoicing ceased and a feeling of deep gloom seemed to pervade the slave quarters.” They were mourning the fact that their newly found “freedom” did not include any POSITIVE liberty. As a result, many had no choice but to remain with their former masters as (often poorly paid) contracted laborers, with life before and after their emancipation not significantly different. Washington, who himself (as he describes it) slept on the streets of Richmond, impoverished, laments the fact that the government did not do more to ensure the well- being of freed slaves (e.g., by giving them property, education, etc.). [Note: You may be under the impression that the government gave to each freed slave “40 acres and a mule”, but that did not actually happen. For more, listen here. Short version: True, a few freed slaves (but not many) were briefly given some land near Savannah, Georgia, and fewer still also got a mule. But, Andrew Johnson (who assumed the presidency after Lincoln’s assassination) struck down the order and returned the land to its original, white, Confederate owners.] FDR and the Four Freedoms: It is fairly uncontroversial that the role of the U.S. government is to protect and promote our freedoms. But, which freedoms? President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in his State of the Union address in 1941, listed Four Freedoms to which every citizen has a right: Freedom of speech Freedom from fear Freedom of worship Freedom from want [Quiz: What sort of liberty does each of these recognize? Positive or Negative?] In his 1944 “Second Bill of Rights” address, FDR elaborated that all citizens have rights: “to a useful and remunerative job” “to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation” “to a decent home” “to a good education” “to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health” “to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment” The goal of this proposal was to “assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.” 2 Contrast Mill’s free world with FDR’s. For Mill, to be free is to live under a government which intervenes as little as possible. But, what good is it to live a life where no one WOULD interfere with you if you were able to do something—but where you CAN’T do anything because you are starving, disabled, homeless, etc.? Hence, for FDR, to be free is to live without (too much) government intervention AND with the ability to actually pursue your own happiness. Thought Experiment: Imagine that you were confined to a wheelchair in the United States at a time when there were no wheelchair ramps, elevators, aid programs, etc. for the physically disabled. If you tried to visit my upstairs store, or rent my second story apartment, no one would stop you. However, you are unable to physically get to these places. In which of the two senses are you free, and in which sense are you not free? Do you think that society ought to work toward the advancement and improvement of our environment and system in order to increase opportunities for such a person? Why or why not? What does this indicate about your own idea of what ‘liberty’ is? Brainstorm: Consider each of the following government programs. Do they represent an expansion of negative or positive liberty (or both/neither)? Do you favor such programs, or not? What does this indicate about your own definition of ‘liberty’? Military defense Police protection Public schools Medicaid (subsidized health care for the impoverished) Welfare (subsidized aid for the impoverished; e.g., food, clothing, shelter) Notice that promoting and protecting the positive liberties of some will REQUIRE that we violate the negative liberties of others. For, programs that promote positive liberty require MONEY, which require TAXES, which entails infringing on people’s property rights (i.e., violating their negative liberty by interfering with their economic affairs). So, no matter what, if government exists, it must infringe at least upon some of our negative liberties (in the form of laws and taxes). But, it does so in the name of increasing our total amount of liberty on the whole. Long story short: The great disagreement between conservatives and liberals today often boils down to a disagreement about what ‘freedom’ is. As G.A. Cohen puts it, “The Right extols the freedom enjoyed by all in a liberal capitalist society. The Left complains that the freedom in question is meagre for poor people. The Right rejoins that the Left confuses freedom with resources. ‘You are free to do what no 3 one will interfere with your doing’, says the Right. ‘If you cannot afford to do it, that does not mean that someone will interfere with your doing it, but just that you lack the means or ability to do it. The problem the poor face is lack of ability, not lack of freedom.’ The Left may say that ability should count for as much as freedom does. [Exercise: Consider this controversy: Gun regulation would be “taking away our freedom”, says the conservative. “No,” responds the liberal, “It would, rather, increase it for others.” Explain how this disagreement might be cast in terms of positive vs. negative liberty.] 2. Against Nozick: Recall that Nozick opposed end-state principles of justice because these would require a restriction of our liberties. For instance, if inequalities that do not benefit everyone are unjust, then Wilt Chamberlain must be taxed heavily after going on his basketball tour, and the money must be used for something that benefits everyone (or else, there must be laws forbidding such tours). But, Nozick says that either of these options would be an absurd infringement upon Wilt’s freedom. [Question: Which type of liberty does Nozick seem to be using to define ‘freedom’?] Alan Goldman points out that one’s success is strongly correlated with one’s initial conditions. For instance, one who starts off with wealth is FAR more likely to be successful than one who starts off in poverty. [Consider also Iris Young’s claims about oppression. Do the “initial conditions” of one’s race and gender also play a role in the likelihood/difficulty of one’s success?] Goldman says that it doesn’t seem fair that the likelihood/difficulty of one’s success be dependent upon what one’s ancestors have done, or what society has done to one’s ancestors. [Consider the “freed” slaves in Booker T. Washington’s essay. It simply doesn’t seem fair that their success after being freed was virtually impossible due to the history of slavery and oppression, and their “freedom” amounting to nothing more than being turned out onto the streets without property, money, skills, or education. Do you agree?] Goldman’s goal is convince you that some amount of re-distributive taxation is justified. Doing so takes from the advantaged (i.e., those who have a great deal of positive liberty) and re-distributes to the dis-advantaged (i.e., those who enjoy virtually no positive liberty), ultimately infringing upon the (negative) liberties of some just a LITTLE so that it can promote the (positive) liberties of others a LOT.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ideological Contributions of Celtic Freedom and Individualism to Human Rights
    chapter 4 Ideological Contributions of Celtic Freedom and Individualism to Human Rights This chapter emphasizes the importance of the often-overlooked contribu- tions of indigenous European cultures to the development of human rights. Attention is given to the ancient Celtic culture, the ideas of Celtic freedom and individualism, the distinctive role of the Scottish theologian, John Dunn Scotus and the Scottish Arbroath Declaration of Freedom (1320).1 It is from the Scottish Enlightenment and its subsequent influence on the late 18th century revolutions that we see an affirmative declaration of the Rights of Man, which is a precursor to the development of modern human rights. The importance of the Celtic-Irish-Scottish contribution to human rights is that it was the foun- dation for individual liberty and dignity in Western civilization. Indigenous Celtic culture staked an original and critical claim to the ideal of universal hu- man dignity. This is an important insight because it broadens the ideals that promote human rights, including within them those ideals of the indigenous cultures of the world, whose voices are oftentimes forgotten. It strengthens the universality of human rights. i The Intellectual and Philosophical Origins of International Law and Human Rights The intellectual and philosophical origins of human rights rhetoric and law, democracy, freedom and ideas supporting “consent of the governed” are in- tertwined in this composite explanation that attempts to explain all of these themes with the historical themes of Roman natural law, Athenian democracy and later the modern political philosophy of John Locke and his followers. The absence of a medieval connection between the alleged ancient Roman and Greek sources and the modern developments of human rights indicates that this perspective is faulty.
    [Show full text]
  • Freedom, Democracy and Economic Welfare
    copyright The Fraser Institute copyright The Fraser Institute LORD BAUER RAMON DIAZ MILTON FRIEDMAN RAYMOND D GASTIL TIBOR R MACHAN DOUGLASS NORTH SVETOZAR PEJOVICH ALVIN RABUSHKA INGEMAR STAHL LINDSAY M WRIGHT PROCEEDINGS OF AN INTERNATIONAL EDITED BY MICHAEL A WALKER SYMPOSIUM copyright The Fraser Institute Proceedings of an International Symposium on Economic, Political, and Civil Freedom, held October 5-8, 1986 in Napa Valley, California. This event is part of the programme of Liberty Fund Inc., under the direction of its President, Dr W. W. Hill. This Symposium was managed by The Fraser Institute and organized by its Director, Dr. Michael A. Walker. Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data Main entry under title: Freedom, democracy and economic welfare Symposium held Oct 5-8, 1986 in Napa Valley, Calif. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-88975-116-1 1.Capitalism – Congresses. 2. Liberty – Congresses. 3. Economics – Political aspects – Congresses. 4. Economics – Philosophy – Congresses. I. Walker, Michael 1945 – II.Fraser Institute (Vancouver, BC.) HB501.F74 1988 330.12’2 C88-091102-6 Copyright 1988 by the Fraser Institute. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical arti- cles and reviews. Printed in Canada copyright The Fraser Institute CONTENTS Participants / vii Preface, Michael A. Walker / ix PART ONE POLITICAL, ECONOMIC AND CIVIL FREEDOMS: A CONCEPTUAL, HISTORICAL AND STATISTICAL OVERVIEW 1 INSTITUTIONS, ECONOMIC GROWTH AND FREEDOM: AN HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION, Douglass C. North / 3 Discussion / 26 2 CAPITALISM AND FREEDOM, Milton Friedman / 47 Discussion / 59 3 THE STATE OF THE WORLD POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM, Raymond D.
    [Show full text]
  • Unit 24 Individualism and Communitarianism
    Gandhism (Dharma, UNIT 24 INDIVIDUALISM AND Swaraj, Sarvodaya and COMMUNITARIANISM Satyagraha) Structure 24.0 Objectives 24.1 Introduction 24.1.1 Individualist Versus Communitarian Position 24.1.2 Relevance in the Indian Context 24.2 Meaning and Development of Individualism 24.2.1 Atomism and Methodological Individualism 24.2.2 Views of Contractualists Including John Rawls 24.2.3 Views of Utilitarians 24.3 The Individualist Conception of the Self 24.4 The Individualist Theory of the Nature and Functions of the State 24.4.1 Functions of State and Government 24.5 Communitarianism: An Introduction 24.6 The Communitarian Critique of the Individualist Conception of the Self 24.6.1 Two Main Limitations of Individualism 24.7 The Communitarian Critique of the Idea of State Neutrality 24.8 Let Us Sum Up 24.9 Some Useful References 24.10 Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises 24.0 OBJECTIVES Our objective in this unit is to understand and assess one of the major ongoing debates in contemporary political theory; namely, the debate between liberal individualism and communitarianism. After studying this unit, you should be able to: • Understand the individualistic theory of the nature and functions of state; • Describe and assess the communitarian critique of liberal individualism; • Compare the major theoretical positions of individualism and communitarianism; and • Understand the relevance of this debate to contemporary political theory and practice. 24.1 INTRODUCTION In this unit, you will be introduced to one of the central debates in contemporary political theory, namely, the debate between liberal individualism and communitarianism. The debate between individualism and communitarianism developed and became central to political theory during the 1980s with the publication of Michael Sandel’s Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (1982).
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4 Freedom and Progress
    Chapter 4 Freedom and Progress The best road to progress is freedom’s road. John F. Kennedy The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impeded their efforts to obtain it. John Stuart Mill To cull the inestimable benefits assured by freedom of the press, it is necessary to put up with the inevitable evils springing therefrom. Alexis de Tocqueville Freedom is necessary to generate progress; people also value freedom as an important component of progress. This chapter will contend that both propositions are correct. Without liberty, there will be little or no progress; most people will consider an expansion in freedom as progress. Neither proposition would win universal acceptance. Some would argue that a totalitarian state can marshal the resources to generate economic growth. Many will contend that too much liberty induces libertine behavior and is destructive of society, peace, and the family. For better or worse, the record shows that freedom has increased throughout the world over the last few centuries and especially over the last few decades. There are of course many examples of non-free, totalitarian, ruthless government on the globe, but their number has decreased and now represents a smaller proportion of the world’s population. Perhaps this growth of freedom is partially responsible for the breakdown of the family and the rise in crime, described in the previous chapter. Dictators do tolerate less crime and are often very repressive of deviant sexual behavior, but, as the previous chapter reported, divorce and illegitimacy are more connected with improved income of women than with a permissive society.
    [Show full text]
  • “American Chronicles: the Art of Norman Rockwell at TAM” Published in Artdish, March 2011  2011 Jane Richlovsky
    “American Chronicles: The Art of Norman Rockwell at TAM” published in Artdish, March 2011 2011 Jane Richlovsky Norman Rockwell's painting "Discovery", currently on display at the Tacoma Art Museum, depicts a pajama-clad young boy finding a Santa Claus suit and false beard in Dad's bureau drawer, incriminating evidence of the old man's fakery. The picture appeared on the cover of the December 29, 1956 Saturday Evening Post. It's hard at first to get past the boy's facial expression. His eyes are popping out of his head, in a way that irritatingly foreshadows the ubiquitous Macauley Caulkin "Home Alone" publicity shot. However unfortunate this association, the expression is so utterly unconvincing as a portrayal of having one's cherished mythology punctured, that one can't help but think the kid never believed in Santa in the first place. Considering that this is one of many Rockwell paintings that repeatedly revisit the Santa-unmasking narrative over decades, you have to wonder: Is the guy responsible for our vision of the American Myth perhaps telling us we shouldn't be so surprised or upset that it's all made up? I've always found sunny, idealized, 1950's-style Leave-it-to-Beaver archetypal America intriguing, compelling, and horrifying. I'm far from alone in this, but I have spent more time than most people immersed in its ephemera, interrogating, digesting, cutting up, reconfiguring, and spitting back out endless images from midcentury domestic magazines. Imagine my shock when, after all that, putting together a show of the resulting paintings, I encounter a dealer's misbegotten press release, or an enthusiastic patron, praising what I thought was my scathing critique as a fond, nostalgic look back at a "simpler time".
    [Show full text]
  • Durham Research Online
    Durham Research Online Deposited in DRO: 24 April 2017 Version of attached le: Accepted Version Peer-review status of attached le: Peer-reviewed Citation for published item: Dimova-Cookson, Maria (2013) 'Defending Isaiah Berlin's distinctions between negative and positive freedoms.', in Isaiah Berlin and the politics of freedom : 'Two concepts of liberty' 50 years later. New York: Routledge, pp. 73-86. Routledge innovations in political theory. (48). Further information on publisher's website: https://www.routledge.com/9780415656795/ Publisher's copyright statement: This is an Accepted Manuscript of a book chapter published by Routledge in Isaiah Berlin and the politics of freedom: 'Two concepts of liberty' 50 years later on 20/12/2012, available online: https://www.routledge.com/9780415656795/ Additional information: Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Durham University Library, Stockton Road, Durham DH1 3LY, United Kingdom Tel : +44 (0)191 334 3042 | Fax : +44 (0)191 334 2971 https://dro.dur.ac.uk Defending Isaiah Berlin’s Distinctions between Negative and Positive Freedoms1 Maria Dimova-Cookson Published in Bruce Baum and Robert Nichols, eds.
    [Show full text]
  • Mill's "Very Simple Principle": Liberty, Utilitarianism And
    MILL'S "VERY SIMPLE PRINCIPLE": LIBERTY, UTILITARIANISM AND SOCIALISM MICHAEL GRENFELL submitted for degree of Ph.D. London School of Economics and Political Science UMI Number: U048607 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U048607 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 I H^S £ S F 6SI6 ABSTRACT OF THESIS MILL'S "VERY SIMPLE PRINCIPLE'*: LIBERTY. UTILITARIANISM AND SOCIALISM 1 The thesis aims to examine the political consequences of applying J.S. Mill's "very simple principle" of liberty in practice: whether the result would be free-market liberalism or socialism, and to what extent a society governed in accordance with the principle would be free. 2 Contrary to Mill's claims for the principle, it fails to provide a clear or coherent answer to this "practical question". This is largely because of three essential ambiguities in Mill's formulation of the principle, examined in turn in the three chapters of the thesis. 3 First, Mill is ambivalent about whether liberty is to be promoted for its intrinsic value, or because it is instrumental to the achievement of other objectives, principally the utilitarian objective of "general welfare".
    [Show full text]
  • Some Worries About the Coherence of Left-Libertarianism Mathias Risse
    John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Faculty Research Working Papers Series Can There be “Libertarianism without Inequality”? Some Worries About the Coherence of Left-Libertarianism Mathias Risse Nov 2003 RWP03-044 The views expressed in the KSG Faculty Research Working Paper Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the John F. Kennedy School of Government or Harvard University. All works posted here are owned and copyrighted by the author(s). Papers may be downloaded for personal use only. Can There be “Libertarianism without Inequality”? Some Worries About the Coherence of Left-Libertarianism1 Mathias Risse John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University October 25, 2003 1. Left-libertarianism is not a new star on the sky of political philosophy, but it was through the recent publication of Peter Vallentyne and Hillel Steiner’s anthologies that it became clearly visible as a contemporary movement with distinct historical roots. “Left- libertarian theories of justice,” says Vallentyne, “hold that agents are full self-owners and that natural resources are owned in some egalitarian manner. Unlike most versions of egalitarianism, left-libertarianism endorses full self-ownership, and thus places specific limits on what others may do to one’s person without one’s permission. Unlike right- libertarianism, it holds that natural resources may be privately appropriated only with the permission of, or with a significant payment to, the members of society. Like right- libertarianism, left-libertarianism holds that the basic rights of individuals are ownership rights. Left-libertarianism is promising because it coherently underwrites both some demands of material equality and some limits on the permissible means of promoting this equality” (Vallentyne and Steiner (2000a), p 1; emphasis added).
    [Show full text]
  • WPSA 2017 Unstable Equilibrium
    Unstable Equilibrium: Positive and Negative Liberty for Isaiah Berlin Kathleen Cole, Ph.D. Metropolitan State University Paper for Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Western Political Science Association April 15, 2017 This paper is a working draft. Please do not circulate. In his landmark essay, “Two Concepts of Liberty,” Isaiah Berlin identifies two distinct conceptions of liberty that have emerged from various philosophical traditions: negative and positive liberty. For Berlin, theorists of negative and positive liberty differ with respect to the divergent questions they ask when determining conditions of freedom or unfreedom. Negative liberty theorists are centrally concerned with the question, “[What is the] minimum area of personal freedom which must on no account be violated”?1 From this perspective, “I am normally said to be free to the degree to which no man or body of men interferes with my activity. Political liberty in this sense if simply the area within which a man can act unobstructed by others.”2 In contrast, positive liberty theorists determine conditions of freedom or unfreedom by asking, “By whom am I ruled?”3 From this perspective, to be free is to be one’s own master, to make autonomous choices about the purpose and practices of one’s life, and to bear the responsibility for those choices.4 Berlin’s essay has been widely praised for clarifying important distinctions between conflicting meanings of the term liberty.5 The essay has become one of Berlin’s most widely read and influential publications. Often, the essay is interpreted as an endorsement of negative liberty and a rejection of positive conceptions of liberty.
    [Show full text]
  • Norman Rockwell from the Collections of George Lucas and Steven Spielberg
    Smithsonian American Art Museum TEACHER’S GUIDE from the collections of GEORGE LUCAS and STEVEN SPIELBERG 1 ABOUT THIS RESOURCE PLANNING YOUR TRIP TO THE MUSEUM This teacher’s guide was developed to accompany the exhibition Telling The Smithsonian American Art Museum is located at 8th and G Streets, NW, Stories: Norman Rockwell from the Collections of George Lucas and above the Gallery Place Metro stop and near the Verizon Center. The museum Steven Spielberg, on view at the Smithsonian American Art Museum in is open from 11:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Admission is free. Washington, D.C., from July 2, 2010 through January 2, 2011. The show Visit the exhibition online at http://AmericanArt.si.edu/rockwell explores the connections between Norman Rockwell’s iconic images of American life and the movies. Two of America’s best-known modern GUIDED SCHOOL TOURS filmmakers—George Lucas and Steven Spielberg—recognized a kindred Tours of the exhibition with American Art Museum docents are available spirit in Rockwell and formed in-depth collections of his work. Tuesday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., September through Rockwell was a masterful storyteller who could distill a narrative into December. To schedule a tour contact the tour scheduler at (202) 633-8550 a single moment. His images contain characters, settings, and situations that or [email protected]. viewers recognize immediately. However, he devised his compositional The docent will contact you in advance of your visit. Please let the details in a painstaking process. Rockwell selected locations, lit sets, chose docent know if you would like to use materials from this guide or any you props and costumes, and directed his models in much the same way that design yourself during the visit.
    [Show full text]
  • 'History, Method and Pluralism: a Re-Interpretation of Isaiah Berlin's
    HISTORY, METHOD, AND PLURALISM A Re-interpretation of Isaiah Berlin’s Political Thought Thesis submitted to the University of London for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by HAOYEH London School of Economics and Political Science 2005 UMI Number: U205195 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U205195 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 S 510 Abstract of the Thesis In the literature on Berlin to date, two broad approaches to study his political thought can be detected. The first is the piecemeal approach, which tends to single out an element of Berlin’s thought (for example, his distinction between negative liberty and positive liberty) for exposition or criticism, leaving other elements unaccounted. And the second is the holistic approach, which pays attention to the overall structure of Berlin’s thought as a whole, in particular the relation between his defence for negative liberty and pluralism. This thesis is to defend the holistic approach against the piecemeal approach, but its interpretation will differ from the two representative readings, offered by Claude J.
    [Show full text]
  • 2-A Rockwell Freedom of Speech
    Freedom of Speech, The Saturday Evening Post, 1943, 1943 Norman Rockwell (1894–1978) Oil on Canvas (45 ¾ x 35 ½ in) Norman Rockwell Museum NORMAN ROCKWELL [1894–1978] 19 a Freedom of Speech, The Saturday Evening Post, 1943 After Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, What is uncontested is that his renditions were not only vital to America was soon bustling to marshal its forces on the home the war effort, but have become enshrined in American culture. front as well as abroad. Norman Rockwell, already well known Painting the Four Freedoms was important to Rockwell for as an illustrator for one of the country’s most popular maga- more than patriotic reasons. He hoped one of them would zines, The Saturday Evening Post, had created the affable, gangly become his statement as an artist. Rockwell had been born into character of Willie Gillis for the magazine’s cover, and Post read- a world in which painters crossed easily from the commercial ers eagerly followed Willie as he developed from boy to man world to that of the gallery, as Winslow Homer had done during the tenure of his imaginary military service. Rockwell (see 9-A). By the 1940s, however, a division had emerged considered himself the heir of the great illustrators who left their between the fine arts and the work for hire that Rockwell pro- mark during World War I, and, like them, he wanted to con- duced. The detailed, homespun images he employed to reach tribute something substantial to his country. a mass audience were not appealing to an art community that A critical component of the World War II war effort was the now lionized intellectual and abstract works.
    [Show full text]