As you might expect, I had already written my little babble; but then, after rage, savagery and sheer idiocy melt together, resulting in the burst of both tangible and symbolic violence we have known last week, I could not keep my speech the same. It’s not that I'm going to consume myself in emotion and lyricism, but these events certainly make any debate on “freedom” particularly and painfully sharp...
Since a theory of “natural rights” was developed during the 17th century in Britain and France, law has shouldered in western societies the role to define freedom as a set of parameters backed up by a philosophical tradition. An individual is theoretically authorized to do whatever he wants within these parameters. Some of them are universal and abstract (fundamental rights); the others are contextual and concrete (civil, commercial and penal laws). Legally speaking, rights make us free.
Nevertheless, we must bear in mind, that laws were motivated by moral principles, which are the result of a long history: legal rights come from long-running social processes and may be seen as culturally relevant only for a handful of countries. Which is to say that the boundaries for freedom may vary largely from one place to another, or from one individual to another. The right of blasphemy is one example of those culturally variable liberties.
Consequently, law is only legitimate for society as a whole if all its members agree on fundamental moral values. Sharing this values make us free, because it makes the law legitimate to enforce our own freedom, possibly by punishing the acts of others. So to say, law isn’t “self-performing”.
The reason why the killers last week felt entitled to kill, is that they believed they were legitimate to do to so in the prospect of their own moral values.
Central question we should ask ourselves is thus:
What is it that makes us share these fundamental values and views about freedom? What makes us consider law and justice legitimate?
A sense of cultural belonging to the national community we take part in is necessary : it comes mainly from education. May seem paradoxical. If you picture education as a way manipulate or determine children; it may seem contradictory with the idea of freedom. If, on the contrary, you consider –as I do-education as a tool for everyone to understand intellectual foundations to the society we live in, education is a path on which we can explore both the limits and the possibilities of freedom.
Language and ability to express one’s feelings. Alain Bentolila, a French linguist explains that social violence main cause is the impossibility to express frustration or anger. It is, so to say, purely a language problem. Not being able to tell why we feel trapped, or alone, or depressed, or having no one to tell it to, is even more important than not being able to remediate to our problems. There is one simple reason to this: problems that we are able to express may not be solved; but problems we are not able to express can’t be solved, because they can't be named. Language is thus necessary for individuals to negotiate - so to speak - with society and purge the negative impulses that could otherwise lead to violent outcomes (whether they are self-focused (such as suicide) or extroverted (such as murder)).
If they have been able to realize through language and thought the political, social and even religious absurdity of their bloody project, and to accept this absurdity as obvious, perhaps would have the Kouachi brothers not become murderers; a week ago.
We have, though, to admit, that we are not placed in equally adequate conditions to accept social rules that are at the base of freedom. As citizens, as politically aware individuals, we must struggle to make sure that each and every one of us is able to conquer his own freedom. If prisons weren’t the best school for crime ; if school had offered better possibilities for suburbs kids to express themselves ; if some kids weren't in a state of social maladjustment ; if war against terrorism wasn't precisely a cause of terrorism throughout the globe ; perhaps the brothers would not have become murderers either.
There is a sentence I'd like to remember forever, and it is a quote by John Locke, which I love very much. “Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him”. It is much linked to my subject of today. I believe, I feel, and most importantly, I think that the only path towards freedom is for us to be our most harsh judges. We have to produce a constant effort on ourselves to keep open eyes on the world, especially on perceptions and opinions that diverges from ours. We have to quit intellectual easiness. We have to keep ourselves informed, to read and learn and experience new things and travel; for being a gentleman, in the language of Locke, is to be free but capable to respect our neighbour’s freedom.
I insist: freedom is a right, but it is also, in a way, a skill we conquer by thinking. I’ll give three reasons:
First, thinking allows us to understand social rules, to grab our freedom by understanding its limits. It tends to suppress most reasons that could lead us to transgress fundamental principles which makes it possible to live peacefully with each other. No point to be free if we consider ourselves entitled to kill: freedom shouldn’t lead us to jail for murder.
Second, thinking may help us to get rid our prejudices. How indeed to pretend to be free if we can’t quietly face facts, and facts only? Pre-thought representations oppose to freedom.
Third, thinking is our first tool to mutually empower others to be free, by political actions and discourse. If I'm able to make this fellow next to me understand his own prejudices, or why he shouldn't cross some limits; I'm helping him to be free.
In a word, thinking and learning makes us free in our mind. It’s the first and necessary step to freedom in acts.
“Ma seule patrie c’est la langue française...”
Albert Camus
Louis is an alumnus of Massillon. He is in second year of Sciences Po in Paris.
