Home > Positioning > Subjects > Political philosophy > Liberty and the self

Liberty and the self

What it is to be free, and what kind of self is doing the being-free, are the two questions of this branch — and they turn out to be one question seen twice. A theory of liberty presupposes a picture of the self whose liberty is at stake; an argument about the self carries a politics of what may be demanded of it. The disputes here are where those pictures clash.

Three concepts of liberty

Isaiah Berlin’s “Two Concepts of Liberty” (1958) drew the distinction the field still works from. Negative liberty is the absence of interference — freedom as the space within which one is left alone to act, bounded only where it would impede another. Positive liberty is the presence of self-mastery — freedom as the capacity for self-direction, being one’s own master rather than driven by forces one disowns. Berlin’s warning was that positive liberty, innocent in itself, can be turned: once freedom is identified with a “higher” or “rational” self, an authority can claim to free people against their will by aligning them with what they would want if only they were wise enough — coercion rebranded as liberation.

A third concept reframes the choice. The republican tradition, recovered by Quentin Skinner and given systematic form by Philip Pettit (Republicanism, 1997), defines freedom as non-domination: not the absence of interference but the absence of subjection to arbitrary power. The test case is the benevolent master who never interferes — on the negative view his contented slave is free, since unimpeded; on the republican view the slave is unfree all the same, because he lives at another’s mercy, his liberty a gift that could be withdrawn. Non-domination demands not just that no one interferes but that no one could interfere arbitrarily — which turns freedom into a matter of institutions, the rule of law and accountable power, rather than merely of being let alone.

The liberal self

Liberalism’s account of the self underwrites its politics. The liberal subject is, in the first instance, an individual: prior to its social roles, a bearer of rights, the author of its own conception of the good. Mill’s On Liberty (1859) gives the canonical defence — the harm principle, that power may be exercised over a member of society against their will only to prevent harm to others, and the case for individuality and diversity as conditions of human flourishing. Rawls’s veil of ignorance abstracts the self from its particular attachments precisely to find principles no one could reject on the basis of where they happen to stand. The strength of the picture is its neutrality: by not presupposing any one conception of the good life, a liberal order claims to leave room for all of them.

The communitarian reply

The communitarian critics of the 1980s argued that this neutral, prior self is a fiction, and a consequential one. Michael Sandel (Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, 1982) pressed the charge directly: the self behind the veil of ignorance, stripped of its attachments and ends, is too thin to be anyone — real selves are encumbered, partly constituted by loyalties and commitments they did not choose and could not shed without ceasing to be themselves. Alasdair MacIntyre (After Virtue, 1981) argued that moral reasoning is unintelligible outside a tradition and a narrative that give the agent’s life its shape. Charles Taylor traced how identity is formed dialogically, in relation to others and to shared frameworks of meaning, not assembled by a self that precedes them. Michael Walzer located justice in the shared understandings of a particular community rather than in principles chosen from nowhere.

The dispute that follows — the liberal–communitarian debate — is one of the field’s defining fronts. Its real question is whether justice can be neutral about the good, or whether any workable politics must presuppose some shared conception of how to live. It is not cleanly won. Rawls’s Political Liberalism (1993) can be read as conceding part of the charge — dropping the comprehensive picture for a strictly political conception that asks only for an overlapping consensus among divergent doctrines — while liberals reply that the communitarian, pressed, either collapses into relativism (each community just to its own lights) or smuggles back the universal standards it denied. The communitarians, in turn, deny both. The self that politics is built for remains contested, and with it the kind of freedom such a self can have.