Home > Positioning > Persons > Berlin

Isaiah Berlin (1909–1997)

Berlin argued that fundamental human values — liberty, equality, justice, mercy — are genuinely plural and irreducibly in conflict. They cannot be ranked on a single scale, harmonised into a system, or resolved by a formula. This is value pluralism: not the claim that values are subjective or culturally relative, but the structural claim that some goods are incommensurable — they cannot be measured in each other’s terms, and no meta-ranking settles their conflicts. The consequence is that political life necessarily involves tragic choices between things that are genuinely good. Practical wisdom navigates these collisions; it does not dissolve them.

Life

Born 6 June 1909 in Riga, Russian Empire, to a Jewish family in the timber trade. The family moved to Petrograd in 1916. Berlin witnessed the Russian Revolution firsthand as a child — he later said that seeing a man dragged away by a mob during the February Revolution left him with a lifelong horror of political violence. The family returned to Riga in 1920 and emigrated to England in 1921.

Educated at St Paul’s School, London, then Corpus Christi College, Oxford — first in Greats (1931) and first in PPE (1932). Elected a Fellow of All Souls College in 1932, at twenty-three — the first unconverted Jew to hold the position. Taught philosophy at New College through the 1930s; his early work was in analytic philosophy and the philosophy of mind.

During the Second World War, Berlin worked at the British Information Services in New York (1941–42), then at the British Embassy in Washington (1942–45). His weekly dispatches on American political opinion were read at the highest levels in Whitehall and admired for their analytical sharpness. In 1945–46 he was posted to the British Embassy in Moscow and Leningrad, where he met Anna Akhmatova and Boris Pasternak. The encounter with Akhmatova — a single night of conversation — was the most consequential personal encounter of Berlin’s life; he believed it contributed to Stalin’s renewed persecution of her.

After the war, Berlin turned from analytic philosophy to the history of ideas — the field in which he did his most lasting work. Chichele Professor of Social and Political Theory at Oxford (1957–67). Founded Wolfson College, Oxford (1966), and served as its first president until 1975. President of the British Academy (1974–78). Knighted 1957; Order of Merit 1971.

Berlin published relatively few books in his lifetime; much of his output took the form of essays and lectures, many of them collected and edited posthumously by Henry Hardy. Died 5 November 1997 in Oxford.

Value pluralism and incommensurability

Berlin’s central philosophical claim, developed across essays from the 1950s onward: the great human values are many, they are genuine, and they conflict. Liberty and equality pull in opposite directions; justice and mercy cannot both be fully satisfied; spontaneity and order, individual freedom and social justice, knowledge and happiness — these are not temporary tensions that a better theory will resolve. They are permanent features of the moral landscape.

The claim is not relativism. Berlin insisted that values are objective — they can be understood, recognised, and communicated across cultures — but they are plural. A member of one culture can understand what another culture values, even when those values conflict with their own. What cannot be done is to rank all values on a single scale, to find a common currency into which liberty and equality can both be converted. That is incommensurability: not that we lack information, but that the values themselves resist reduction to a common measure.

Berlin traced the philosophical roots of value pluralism to the reaction against the Enlightenment’s confidence that all genuine questions have one true answer, that those answers are in principle compatible, and that a rational method exists for discovering them. If those three propositions hold, then a perfect society is in principle attainable. Berlin argued that they do not hold — and that the attempt to realise them in practice produces not utopia but coercion.

The practical consequence of value pluralism is not paralysis but a particular form of political judgment. Berlin called it practical wisdom — the ability to navigate conflicts between genuine goods without the expectation that a correct formula exists. Trade-offs are real and permanent; the task is to manage them with judgment, not to transcend them with theory.

Two concepts of liberty

Berlin’s 1958 inaugural lecture as Chichele Professor — “Two Concepts of Liberty” — is his most widely read work. It distinguishes negative liberty (freedom from interference by others) from positive liberty (freedom to govern oneself, to realise one’s rational or true nature).

Negative liberty asks: what is the area within which the subject is or should be left to do or be what they are able to do or be, without interference by other persons? It is defined by the absence of obstacles, barriers, or constraints imposed by others.

Positive liberty asks: what, or who, is the source of control or interference that can determine someone to do, or be, this rather than that? It is defined by self-mastery — the agent’s capacity to determine their own life according to their own rational will.

Berlin’s argument is not that negative liberty is good and positive liberty is bad. Both are genuine values. The danger arises when positive liberty is appropriated by those who claim to know an individual’s true or rational self better than the individual does — when the state, the party, or the philosopher tells people what they would want if they were truly free. The slide from self-mastery to coercion-in-the-name-of-liberation is the essay’s central warning, and Berlin saw it enacted in the totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century.

The Counter-Enlightenment and the history of ideas

Berlin’s historical work, developed from the 1950s onward, traced a tradition he called the Counter-Enlightenment: thinkers who challenged the Enlightenment’s universalist, monist assumptions from within European thought.

Giambattista Vico (1668–1744): cultures are not stages on a single path toward civilisation but distinct forms of life, each with its own internal logic. Understanding a culture requires entering its categories, not measuring it against a universal standard.

Johann Gottfried Herder (1744–1803): each people has its own character, language, and mode of expression. Cultural diversity is not a deficiency to be overcome but a value in itself. Herder rejected the ranking of cultures on a scale of progress.

Johann Georg Hamann (1730–1788): reason cannot be separated from language, tradition, and the passions. The Enlightenment’s attempt to purify reason of its particular, local, embodied character misunderstands what reason is.

Berlin argued that these thinkers — and the Romantic movement they influenced — saw something the mainstream Enlightenment missed: that human life is not a single project with a single solution, that cultures and values are irreducibly many, and that the attempt to subordinate all of life to a single rational plan is itself a form of violence. The Counter-Enlightenment is not irrationalism in Berlin’s reading; it is the recognition of plural rationalities. His history of ideas work and his value pluralism converge here: the philosophical claim that values are plural and incommensurable has a historical genealogy in thinkers who saw this before it was systematically articulated.

Where Berlin stops

Berlin’s value pluralism says that genuine goods conflict and cannot be harmonised. Practical wisdom navigates the collisions. But how? Berlin invokes judgment, practical wisdom, the ability to weigh without a formula — and declines to say more. George Crowder presses the question: if values are truly incommensurable, what grounds the judgment that one trade-off is wiser than another? Either practical wisdom smuggles in a meta-principle (and the pluralism collapses back toward monism), or it operates without any principle (and the pluralism offers no guidance at all). Berlin’s response — that judgment is real but cannot be codified — leaves the mechanism of rational choice among incommensurables underdeveloped.

Charles Taylor challenges Berlin from a different direction. The negative-liberty account strips away too much: freedom is not merely the absence of interference but the capacity to act on one’s significant purposes. A society that removes obstacles while systematically undermining its members’ ability to recognise what matters to them is not, on Taylor’s view, a free society — but Berlin’s negative liberty cannot say why. The two concepts, which Berlin presents as genuinely distinct, may not be separable in the way the essay requires.

Berlin’s historical work — the Counter-Enlightenment, the Romantics — establishes that value pluralism has a genealogy. What it does not establish is whether pluralism is a discovery about the world or a product of the modern condition. John Gray takes Berlin’s pluralism further than Berlin himself was willing to go, arguing that it undermines liberalism rather than supporting it: if values are truly incommensurable, the liberal settlement is one arrangement among many, not a rationally privileged one. Berlin resisted this conclusion but never fully answered it.

Key works

See also: James · Connolly · Goodman