Oliver O’Donovan in his book The Desire of the Nations: Rediscovering the Roots of Political Theology has recently analyzed freedom as a three-fold pattern: freedom begins as an individualistic notion because “it is simply the power to act, “ yet for that assertion to be meaningful, secondly, it must occur in a social setting; freedom is “the realization of individual powers with social forms” (67-68).
O’Donvovan contends that traditions are what make lasting social communication possible, and to sustain themselves, they must hand over traditions from one generation to the next. Personal freedom is conceivable only in relation to the tradition that conceives it—even if that freedom is that of the critic, rebel, or martyr. Social identity is a personal one, and in turn, personal identity is social. Since a tradition’s history is both social and individualistic at once, the successful society is one that maximizes positive freedom for its individuals.
Yet O’Donovan as a Christian also observes that the “liberty of baptism” teaches that freedom is, in the third place, “the individual’s discovery and pursuit of his or her vocation from God” (72). Loss of freedom follows from the society's inability to accommodate and cultivate its members’ vocations—gifts that arise in the last analysis from beyond the society itself.
The three-fold nexus that O’Donovan sets out—individual assertion, social tradition, and God-given vocation--has something to teach us about why we as Christians pursue freedom of all kinds. What might those lessons be? I wonder.
OK,just a minute. There are so many things I don't understand about O'Donavan's statements.
ReplyDeleteFor one, what does it actually mean to say that "Loss of freedom follows from the society's inability to accommodate and cultivate its members’ vocations"? (The problem with economists is that they always want to know how will this actually work!)
Say my vocation is to be a counselor. Say my society is Philip, David, John, and Rob. Does the society O'Donovan sets forth owe(!) me the chance to counsel them? Which one of you would have to listen to my counseling? What if nobody in the society wants to be counseled?
Would things not be in exactly the reverse of what O'Donavan is proposing in that I would actually be limiting the other people's freedom by forcing them to 'cultivate' my vocation?
Can anyone explain this to me? Until a satisfactory explanation of these types of issues can be offered, I will stick with my Locke-ian understanding of freedom as a negative freedom only, whereby freedom is simply absence of interference from others.
Keep in mind that what O'Donovan, as well as a number of other Christian thinkers, are recommending is a vision of individuals *within* community. Part of what he is trying to suggest is that we can't be positively free-ala' free to be who and what we are called to be-without a social practice in which there are standards to acheive and goods to develop and expand.
ReplyDeleteIn our little society, if you were called to counsel us, then indeed part of our own positive freedom would be found in receiving that counsel. To not do so would be bondage rather than freedom. This approach denies that simple autonomy is truly "free," rather it enslaves us to our inordinate desires and consumptions. Such "freedom" is to act as the eye in Paul's parable as if it does not need the other parts of the body to fulfill its true purpose.
Now, Jekabs since you obviously need to be more free in your calling, about my 403b . . . .
hehe, yes, about the 403b... Now that's a depressing subject.
ReplyDeleteI wish there was some 'positive freedom' for the stock market to move in one direction only.
Thanks for your response. But this sort of a positive communal freedom then presupposes one of two scenarios, both of which seem troubling to me.
ReplyDeleteA. All persons in the community must share the dynamic understanding of each's call. If God calls me to counsel you today, but to be your dentist tomorrow, and if you also know that God is calling me to do so, then you will voluntarily submit (if you are obedient to God), and the community will be exercising this positive freedom. Isn't this idealistic? Would it not be more likely that the individuals in community will be convinced of their callings, but not the community at large, at least in some cases?
B. The vocation to which each individual is called just so happens to coincide with existing needs in the community, so even though the call of each is not shared by everyone, everyone naturally obliges. Is this not idealistic?
Since in my view the above cases are the only two consistent with this type of positive freedom working out without the use of force, and since I think that both scenarios are too Utopian, then I remain unconvinced of the efficacy of the concept of positive freedom, although I am very interested in how this concept could work out in a fallen world in a better way.
They are somewhat idealistic, but then all visions of social interaction are at some level--even the ones that are deeply pessimistic. My initial argument is that this vision seems best possible in small, face-to-face, long term communities where people know each other and interact on a weekly basis. Admittedly, it also requires leaders and cultural movers who can cast the vision and influence people to adapt it as a worldview, and of course, that's never easy or short-term. I would argue that I have experienced it though never to perfection--this is a fallen world!
ReplyDeleteI think O'Donovan also has in mind traditions and social practices in the way that Alasdair MacIntyre has defined them. (Maybe that should be my next post.)
One final thought: the criticism I most hear of the Chicago school of economics is how idealistic it is.