Whether liberty is the absence of interference or the presence of opportunity is a complex debate, in which the idea of value pluralism adds to that complexity. Value pluralism suggests that multiple legitimate values can conflict and cannot be reduced to a single value. Drawing on the work of the renowned 20th-century political theorist Isaiah Berlin, liberty has two plural values: negative liberty and positive liberty (Oudbier). This paper argues that while negative liberty is foundational, allowing for personal and communal freedom, positive liberty is indispensable to achieving full and meaningful freedom.
Literature Review
Several political theorists have contributed to defining liberty as the absence of interference, or the negative notion of liberty. Berlin argues as such, describing liberty as the area in which one can act without the interference of others (359). Still, this concept is not entirely original to Berlin. Its underlying principles can be attributed to liberal political freedom, which received extensive contributions from Enlightenment philosophers such as John Locke and Jeremy Bentham (Berlin 360). Nevertheless, both the concept of liberal political freedom and Berlin’s argument highlight a common idea: freedom as non-interference.
By contrast, some argue for a positive concept of liberty, holding that liberty is the presence of opportunity. T.H. Green, for example, argues that the presence of opportunity is a duty of the state and encourages the government to take on an active role in enhancing its citizens’ welfare, thereby making them positively free (141). Amartya Sen, meanwhile, builds on Green’s ideas expansively with his Capability Approach, arguing that while both notions of liberty are essential, expanding the capabilities and real freedom people enjoy prevails over the negative notion (Siani 1, 8). In essence, while negative liberty is the condition of being free from something, positive liberty is the empowerment to do something one otherwise could not do (Oudbier).
These dual perspectives highlight the debate within the literature on which notion is more compelling. However, because literature is often comprised of normative arguments, it rarely reflects liberty in practice. Thus, this paper aims to contribute to this discussion by first explaining the empirical observations of the two concepts of liberty in the real world, followed by a description of the interrelation between the dual values of liberty within the framework of value pluralism.
Distinction & Interrelation Between Dual Liberty
Examining the distinctions between negative and positive liberty can provide insight into their interrelation. This section argues that for polities, negative liberty is foundational, specifically meaning that without its establishment, there would be no space arranged for positive liberty to occupy (Oudbier).
1. Distinction in high-intervention states
The authority of these states can blur the distinction between negative and positive liberty, leading society to view liberty negatively. A key characteristic of high-intervention states is that their citizens have a small area of negative liberty. When one’s area of freedom sinks beneath a certain minimum, the positive notion becomes increasingly similar to the negative notion. For example, when observing authoritarian regimes, being negatively free can be understood as being undisturbed by central authority. Similarly, being positively free involves prioritizing individual aims over central authority. Both ideas of liberty are inherently opposed to an oppressive society; positive liberty merely offers an alternative rationale that is largely unnecessary when negative principles are secure. Thus, this example suggests that negative liberty precedes the realization of positive liberty.
2. Distinction in modern democracies
To explore positive liberty, democratic systems offer a direct contrast and can provide insights. Democratic governance guarantees fundamental freedoms and the continuous possession of negative liberty. In these structures, positive liberty requires the government to make a deliberate choice to maintain. The distinction here stems from the government’s role in creating the types of liberty. The specific ideological framework often determines negative liberty in a society. The deliberate promotion of opportunities by the government determines positive liberty in a society. These provisions, such as healthcare, come from specific policies rather than a framework. This key distinction between the two liberties demonstrates that positive liberty is an option for the state. Regardless of whether positive liberty is enjoyed, citizens would continue to possess negative liberty. Thus, this comparison shows that negative liberty is foundational in this context, because positive liberty often requires deliberate state action.
Colonization & Interrelation Between Dual Liberty
To further illustrate the foundational importance of negative liberty, this section examines a historical case of colonization. Exploring failed attempts at positive liberty, it is argued that positive liberty would rarely function without a secure foundation of negative liberty, thereby emphasizing the latter’s importance.
Modern colonialism began in the 15th century, when Europeans began colonizing nations to control foreign territories. In several states, the local authority was replaced by the colonial government, which influenced and modified pre-existing economic systems and disrupted traditional culture and society. Still, despite the ravages of negative liberty caused by the colonizers, some argued that these actions promote the positive liberty of their subjects. For example, the Civilizing Mission was an ideology that claimed to elevate imperial subjects from their uncivilized state, thereby opening unprecedented freedoms to them. For instance, religious missionaries believed that converting to their religion would help the Native groups live a “better” life. Yet, these ethnocentric models become justifications for paternalism, permitting colonizers to determine what constitutes freedom in place of their subjects. Consequently, the Civilizing Mission can be considered a failed, paternalistic attempt to improve the positive liberty of the colonized. In the absence of a negative liberty basis, state interference impedes Native groups’ ability to make decisions for themselves. This explains why paternalism prevails in such a society lacking a foundation of negative liberty, underscoring its base importance.
A case study of the Māori people of present-day New Zealand demonstrates the idea of failed positive liberty. The British colonized the Māori during the mid-1800s, and until the 1970s, assimilationist policies remained the official policy of the New Zealand government (Hill 1). These policies embodied the Civilizing Mission ideology, as they aimed to create a society in which Māori would abandon their traditional culture in favor of adopting European standards of life (Hill 99). The Hunn Report in the 1960s illustrated the paternalistic nature of assimilation. Issued by the government’s Department of Māori Affairs, it recommended the acceleration of assimilation and integration of Māori into European society. These recommendations operate under the ethnocentric assumption that European society represents the ideal model for Māori, overlooking Māori preferences (Hill 98). In an attempt to improve positive liberty for Māori through integration into the European lifestyle, paternalism infiltrates an Indigenous society that is inadequate in negative liberty. Hence, this example emphasizes the importance of negative liberty in mitigating the potential risks associated with positive liberty.
Because of such past policies, many Indigenous groups since the 1970s have imagined liberty as largely being free from government interference. The Māori’s own liberation movement, for example, began in the 1980s with the aim of bringing all Māori affairs into communal Māori authority (Hill 180). Since then, the achievements of this movement have represented a form of liberation from governmental interference and an increasing area in which Māori can act freely.
Positive Liberty’s Indispensable Role in Decolonization
While decolonization can invoke negative liberty to dismantle the harmful effects of imperial states, the negative definition does not capture its ultimate goal. Freedom for historically oppressed groups means more than the fulfillment of negative liberty alone (Hirschmann). For example, the Māori search for self-determination and autonomy during the Māori Renaissance (1970s-2000s) embodies this idea. While this is an initiative pursued solely by Māori, without deliberate state support, these goals can be arduous and, in many cases, unfeasible. One example illustrates the government’s parsimony towards funding Māori committees. In many cases, “the state provided inadequate resources to enable committees to develop their services in ways that fitted local community circumstances” (Hill 141). This quote reveals the Māori’s incapacity to pursue their autonomous goals due to insufficient resources. Even as the state weakens its interference over time, its parsimony in providing opportunities constrains the progression of Māori welfare. By illustrating a scenario where opportunities are absent, this example underscores the importance of state-enabled opportunities for a collective to exercise its freedom meaningfully.
One state initiative that pioneered numerous positive opportunities for the Māori was the Waitangi Tribunal. Established through the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 under the Labour government, the Tribunal served as a permanent panel for investigating historical injustices against Māori. A significant positive liberty accomplishment by this Tribunal can be seen in the case of New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General. In this case, the Tribunal was tasked with providing re-interpretations of the Treaty of Waitangi, the document that has governed Māori-State relations since 1840. The new interpretation clarified Māori rights to their land and possessions, which had previously been unclear (Mein Smith 246). As a result, this change enabled Māori to begin filing claims for settlements of historical grievances, thereby expanding their capabilities. The Waikato-Tainui and Ngai Tahu claims, with the latter handled by the Waitangi Tribunal, resulted in $170 million in reparations each, in addition to the return of historically confiscated land to the tribes (Mein Smith 247). The Waitangi Tribunal can be understood as a manifestation of positive liberty that materially benefits Māori autonomy. The Tribunal’s early years provided Māori with the opportunity to negotiate for their rights, and as it matured, it became a tool for facilitating further opportunities. The work of the Tribunal contributed to the Māori Renaissance, during which Māori liberty increased substantially through legal wins, social recognition, and historical reparations.
This case study of decolonization highlights positive liberty as an indispensable counterpart to negative liberty, which is freedom from imperialist interference. The positive notion involves the state’s role in fulfilling certain conditions that enable one’s capability to pursue their autonomous goals. This interpretation of liberty satisfies three key factors for achieving full liberty: first, the state’s role ensures that a powerful entity can provide opportunities that are not marginal. Second, the state should enable the capability only, limiting its influence and the risk of paternalism. Lastly, while the state creates opportunities, the means to achieve liberty should originate from non-state entities, allowing these groups to act autonomously with the capabilities they have been enabled to possess.
Lessons Offered
This paper has argued that while negative liberty is foundational to preserving personal and communal freedom, positive liberty elevates freedom and serves as a necessary corollary to negative liberty. For the Māori, their experience with the imperial state’s land encroachment and later assimilationist policies engendered a view of liberty as the absence of government (imperialist) interference. After achieving this negative freedom in the 1970s, however, the Māori began to perceive how positive liberty could enhance the authenticity of their freedom, appealing to the state to enable their communities through institutions such as the Waitangi Tribunal. In summary, liberty can be reinterpreted to serve new purposes in post-colonial contexts. The Māori people have notably expanded their freedom by envisioning liberty as the absence of interference combined with the cautious use of government power to foster opportunities for themselves. This shift illustrates how freedom, particularly for historically oppressed groups, requires the dynamic interplay between negative and positive liberty, ultimately promoting self-determination and autonomy.
Bibliography
Berlin, Isaiah. “Two Concepts of Liberty.” Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Anthology, edited by Robert E. Goodin and Philip Pettit, Wiley Blackwell, 2019, pp. 359-75.
Green, T. H. “Liberalism and Positive Freedom.” Ideals and Ideologies, edited by Terence Ball et al., Routledge, 2024, pp. 141–44, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003263562-25.
Hill, Richard S. Māori and the State: Crown-Māori Relations in New Zealand/Aotearoa, 1950-2000. Victoria University Press, 2010.
Hirschmann, Nancy. “Feminism and Freedom: Nancy Hirschmann.” What Is Freedom? Conversations with Historians, Philosophers, and Activists, edited by Tony Buckle, Oxford University Press, 2021, pp. 73–88, doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197572214.003.0005.
Mein Smith, Philippa. A Concise History of New Zealand. Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Oudbier, Matthew. “The Position of Negative Liberty in Value Pluralism.” ScholarWorks@GVSU, 2016, scholarworks.gvsu.edu/mcnair/vol20/iss1/13/.
Siani, Joseph. “The Role of Freedom in Sen’s Capability Approach.” Economics Bulletin, vol. 37, no. 1, AccessEcon, 2017, pp. 107–17, ideas.repec.org/a/ebl/ecbull/eb-13-00740.html.