23rd of October, 2020

GRADE​: 2º ​International Relations

COURSE​: History of Contemporary Political Theory

PROFESSOR​: Anna Piaza

Berlin,

Two Concepts of Liberty

Marta De los Ángeles García Lamas

Lorena Jianxing García Martínez

Malena Ramirez Hellín

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….2

Life and works……………………………………………………………………………….2

"Freedom from": negative interpretation of liberty……………………………………..…...3

"Freedom to": positive interpretation of liberty………………………………………….…..4

Liberty, sovereignty & the many……………………………………………………...……...5

Personal reflections and thoughts: the scope and significance of Berlin’s theory…....….......7

1
INTRODUCTION​. In the doctrine of liberalism of the 20th century, the thinking of Isaiah
Berlin (1909-1997) was of great influence. Historian and political scientist of Jewish origin,
he is considered one of the most prominent intellectuals of contemporary political
philosophy. Among his main contributions, we find the idea of the Counter-Enlightenment,
the pluralism of values, and the distinction between negative and positive liberty. The latter,
collected in chapter ​Two Concepts of Liberty,​ will be the central theme of this essay. After a
brief approach to the author's biography, we will proceed to analyze the fragment in question.
Our purpose is to offer the reader, not a mere summary, but a concise interpretation to
facilitate its comprehension. Finally, his theory will be transferred to a hypothetical current
case, not only to include our vision but also to reflect the relevance and undeniable
permanence of his ideas.

Life and works

Isaiah Berlin was born in Riga, Latvia within a family of merchants. At the age of six, they
moved to Petrograd and witnessed the Russian Revolution of 1917. Consequently, they
decided to emigrate to England, where he began his education at the Saint Paul School in
London. He finished his studies at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, obtaining a bachelor's
degree in ​litterae humaniores (Philosophy, Ancient History, and Classical Languages).
Besides, due to his excellent trajectory, he received the John Locke Award, as well as a
scholarship from All Souls College, Oxford.

During World War II, he was appointed secretary of the English embassy, ​first in Washington
and later in Moscow. Subsequently, in 1957 he began teaching classes in Political and Social
Theory at the University of Oxford. Meanwhile, he combined the writing of many articles for
specialized magazines. In this period, he received the title of Sir and Knight Bachelor, and it
was also when he released Two Concepts of Liberty.​ This key piece in his thinking is neither
an article nor an essay, but rather a lecture he gave in 1958. Its content, where it is evident the
influence of the events that he experienced during his youth (the convulsions of the October
Revolution and later the boom of Nazism), is a significant contribution to political
philosophy. Finally, in 1979 he was awarded the Jerusalem Prize in recognition of his
writings on individual freedom, collected in his famous work ​Four Essays on Liberty​.

2
 "Freedom from": negative interpretation of liberty.

Despite being a work written in the middle of the Cold War, its validity remains. This is not
surprising, since it encompasses a concept that continues to be a focus of philosophical,
political, and social debates: freedom. Isaiah Berlin exposed in this conference the distinction
between two interpretations of the term: on the one hand, the negative one, and on the other
the positive one. Concerning the first, he referred to the possibility of acting without being
obstructed, that is, without the interference of anyone. In this way, political freedom would be
the framework exempt from all deprivation, impediments, and obligations to carry out
specific conduct. Here, he highlights the importance of considering coercion, the fact of being
oppressed by a third party of something I could do, and not due to incapacity. In other words,
the absence of liberty is not because of a lack of instruments or means (financial, material),
but rather when the range of alternatives that I could consider when deciding is diminished.
Furthermore, he establishes an inverse relationship between the two: the more coercion, the
less freedom, and vice versa.

The principal dilemma that arises from this vision is the existence of limits. According to the
philosopher, a complete possibility of action without restrictions would make coexistence in
society impossible. For this reason, he defends a limitation with laws to guarantee a private
property sphere apart from the public authority. Nevertheless, what are the consequences of
establishing this frontier? Berlin is aware that ensuring freedom involves giving up part of
ours, and that no principle or justification (such as an increase in happiness or justice)
compensates for it. Even so, he advocates following this commitment, because only under
that, we could prevent our natural conditions from being corrupted. Yet, always remember
the need to establish a minimum to preserve the human essence. Hence, the author asks
himself: “what are the standards which it entails”? Without clarifying his position and leaving
it open to deliberation, in my opinion, it would be indispensable in aspects such as
expression, opinion, or religion. In such realms reside the most personal thoughts, so that
only if such are exempt from any coercion one can affirm that he acts freely and in harmony
with his ideas.

Lastly, Berlin underlies three aspects. In the first place, he highlights the vision of J. S. Mill
to expose the contradiction that he observes between his utilitarianism and the importance he
gave to the protection of individual freedom. The Scottish philosopher defended the negative
interpretation of the term, advocating the delimitation of a personal sphere free from

3
interference. For him, preserving such a minimum of freedom was the necessary condition
for the development of both the person and society. Without it, the truth would not be
possible and human desires could not be satisfied. This great value that he placed on
individual ingenuity and the fullness of life, led to Berlin considered him not such a utilitarian
as his mentor Bentham, but a firm defender of justice and freedom.

Afterward, he refers to the relative novelty of this definition. The aspiration to be left to
oneself was not a central purpose in human history until the Modern Age. It was in the
Renaissance and the Reformation, with the decline of the Church, when this desire for
autonomy emerged from disposing of the authority of the religion.

Third and lastly, he points out that there is no necessary connection between democracy and
liberty. Other regimes such as enlightened despotism, under the motto "everything for the
people but without the people", could be more effective in preserving certain civil rights.
However, Berlin warns us not to fall into this falsehood. It is this type of system where
freedom itself is being denied, although citizens are not aware of their submission. To cease
these tyrannical pretensions, he will introduce the importance of pluralism, which recognizes
the value of the diversity of priorities as well as the multiplicity of human ends.

“Freedom to”: positive interpretation of liberty

This liberty is referred to the freedom to act upon one’s will, so the individual becomes its
own master. Meanwhile negative liberty is spoken in natural rights language, the positive one
is spoken in the entitlement sphere (to have the right to).

In this sense, freedom gives the individual the ability to achieve its own goals, regardingless
the outsider interference. Berlin highlights a difference in two levels of nature: the higher and
lower nature. These conceptions are similar to the ones J.S Mill gave when talking about the
two levels of pleasures.

Higher nature is related to reason. The purpose of the self is to find the long run satisfaction,
meeting the real self at its best. This ‘real self’ is seen sometimes as if the individual is an
element of the social whole, so the ‘true self’ works in a way that, by imposing its organic
(collective) single upon its members, they will be able to achieve their higher freedom. There

4
are cases in which an individual can’t achieve the goal by its own, so coercion to the other
appears to be justifiable.

Lower nature is when the self follows the immediate satisfaction, so the ‘empirical self’ takes
place. This division of natures splits the person into two: the first is the transcendent self, the
dominant; and the second is the empirical bundle of desires and passions to be disciplined
and brought to heel.

In 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt made a speech in which he presented four freedoms
everyone should have:

- Freedom of speech.
- Freedom of worship
- Freedom from want
- Freedom from fear

When we look at this, we observe that the first two are related to Negative liberty. These are
traditional rights in which no one can interfere you, so you can speak and worship freely.

The other two are positive liberal rights because they are entitlements of living in a civilized
society. I have the right to not be needy and to not have fear.

Modern liberalism criticizes this positive view because it requires redistribution of wealth,
taking the property of one person to provide for the needs of another.

Liberty, Sovereignty & the Many

Benjamin Constant brought up a conflict between the two types of liberties that had been
spoken about. He claimed that changing the hands in power, referring to the sovereignty,
doesn’t increase liberties, but rather puts “the burden of slavery” into other’s hand. And those
who support negative freedom don’t question who stands in the power of authority, but rather
how much power should he have. So, the problem is not sovereignty by itself, the problem is
how much does sovereignty control. Because, Constant says, the moment anyone holds the
complete authority it is inevitable that he destroys someone. And we would think that
sovereignty then shouldn’t exist, but the same problem lies in democracy, in which a group
composed by the wants of the majority will still hurt the individuals pertaining to the

5
minority. The issue with democracy or total lack of concentration of authority is that it
doesn’t ensure a rise of liberty, because individuals will be equal, but they will have an equal
authority to oppress others around them. Constant sets a series of questions to exemplify this:
“if I sell myself to slavery, am I the less slave? If I commit suicide, am I the less dead
because I took my life freely?”

The way then, he says, to ensure complete liberty, is to create a set of “frontiers” that cannot,
by any chance, be overstepped. This frontier may come from what has classically been
known as natural rights, the word of God... Wherever they come from, these stones that build
up the frontier will be universal and no-time-tied, since they will appeal to what the essence
of the human is, and this essence cannot be altered by history.

But, if the solution is not in sovereignty, nor in democracy or any power structure, how can
solve the issue of liberty? The liberal tradition of which Constant, Mill and Tocqueville are
part, states that a society can only be free if it is fundamentally governed by two principles.
First, that power cannot be considered absolute, only rights can –this is so to ensure that men
are not obliged to act inhumanly even if the law says so. Second, that there are, and always
have been, certain “rules” or frontiers of what being a human being is, and these must never
be crossed, since that would mean an act against the individual's humanity. Of course, there
exist men who break these rules and cross them without a second thought, but these men are
not inside the spectrum of “normal” men, meaning that a normal man could cross the frontier,
but he would inevitably have a sense of self-repulsion.

But in history there are examples of great human sacrifices made for the sake of “progress” or
“the future generations”. These sacrifices are led by the idea that there must be a final
solution to all problems, whether it is in revelation, in the divine, in an individual thinker, in
science... This need for a solution that ties up all values and beliefs followed throughout
history in a common end, arises because the idea of conflict of value being something
irremediable is terrible and a burden. The problem with this need is that life implies a series
of choices, and the election of one means the sacrifice of the other, even if both are good.
This is why freedom of choice becomes so fundamental in the lives of men, because if we
don’t have security in a perfect state in which decisions won’t be in conflict, then it becomes
vital to have the chance of choosing what we want in this life.

In the end, we see in history that we determine the solution to these problems based on a
moral code. This means that with a certain sense of good and bad, we forbid acts of human

6
violence and encourage education, for example. Liberty, then, is never unlimited, since there
are some values that weigh against the individual being able to live the way he wants to.

7
 Personal reflections and thoughts:

The scope and significance of Berlin’s theory

In times of pandemic: freedom and its limits

The State and the Law define our legitimate framework of action by regulating the behavior
of the individual. Nowadays, due to the pandemic, the government has limited it, and if it is
not respected, we receive a sanction. In short, our negative liberty, Berlin would say, has been
diminished by reducing the alternatives of action through greater interference from the State.
How can we be free in these confinement measures? Do you still find your freedom to be
respected? From my point of view, the crux of the matter underlies here: what are the
requirements to ensure the preservation of liberty? If we consider that it must be absolute,
then it is undoubtedly not guaranteed. However, and as the philosopher said, without such
limitations, coexistence would be impossible, therefore our actions must respect a minimum
of laws and regulations. Concerning this position, I fully agree. Indeed, my range of options
has been restricted, but it has been a response to a global health emergency. Besides, they are
only affecting my mobility and leisure plans since I am allowed to keep with my studies and
essential tasks. Hence, I do believe that my freedoms as a citizen are being recognized since I
do not consider this confinement a violation of that minimal private sphere that Berlin cites.
Despite the exceptional conditions, I continue to preserve full autonomy in the scope that I
consider essential: my right of thought, opinion, and expression. As long as I am the owner of
my ideas, I can affirm that my freedom is respected because, in my opinion, that concept
does not entail doing whatever we want, but being able to act following your values ​and
conscience. Ultimately, for me being free is simply that, feeling and to develop in harmony
with myself.

8
In conclusion, ​Two Concepts of Liberty has seemed a very appealing reading that could solve
the dilemma of the guarantee of rights in the challenging situation of the Covid-19. In the
decision-making of any democratic government, a degree of freedom must be preserved in its
negative interpretation. In this way, and independently of the evolution of the pandemic, it
would not be legitimate interference in the private sphere depriving the individual of a
minimum of rights and autonomy. This Berlin's defense of preserving the negative freedom,
as well as his idea that its application should not discredit other principles such as justice and
equality, makes me recognize his theory as a noteworthy and valuable contribution to
political philosophy.

9
Berlin, Two Concepts of Liberty / History of Contemporary Political Theory

10