This paper argues that the most productive conceptions of freedom result in both humility—that is, an awareness of our lack of certainty and lack of universal knowledge—and a call to responsibility. This can be seen especially in the work of Dorothy Roberts and M. Shawn Copeland, both of whom understand freedom as necessitating resources and conditions that make choice possible and illuminate freedom as something lived and carried out in bodies, not just a concept touted in the abstract. Whereas some understandings of freedom, especially negative freedoms that consist mainly of non-interference, yield virtually no sense of responsibility, Roberts and Copeland’s understandings of freedom imply a responsibility akin to that described by Iris Marion Young, that is, the social connection model of responsibility that calls on persons of privilege to recognize the ways they have contributed to the perpetuation of injustice and continue to do so.
In this political moment in the United States, it seems more important than ever to arrive at a shared understanding of freedom, as well as a shared sense of responsibility. There is no shortage of talk about the former. Just last week, Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos declared that the opinion section of the paper would now cover only defenses of “personal liberties and free markets,” echoing the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page banner: “free markets, free people.” Although their influence seems to be waning, Moms for Liberty, founded in 2021, claims to be “educating and empowering parents to defend their parental rights at all levels of government.” Their work has included advocating for the banning of books and campaigning against transgender persons playing on their chosen-gender sports team. Meanwhile, this week, the United States was added to a global human rights watch list due to threats to civil liberties, including freedoms of assembly, expression, and association. Relatedly, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and curricula are under attack because of an alarming lack of epistemic humility and responsibility for accessibility of resources and just conditions.
One need not wade too deeply into thought experiments to see the obvious connections—or sometimes lack thereof—between freedom and responsibility. For instance, if one conceives of freedom in a negative sense, as non-interference, a kind of self-determination that bears no connection to others or to any values, then it is not much of a leap from there to denying responsibility for just about anything, everything, and everyone. If I am simply free to do as I please, why should I care about anything or anyone else? What would hold me responsible?
On the other hand, more substantive definitions of freedom yield richer notions of responsibility. Many scholars have offered rich definitions of freedom that far surpass what negative freedom provides. If freedom is bound to hope (James Gustafson), to truth (John Paul II), to the body and history (M. Shawn Copeland), to equality (Dorothy Roberts), or to relationality (David Hollenbach, SJ), then a more robust understanding of responsibility emerges that centers human dependence. For reasons of space and time, this paper will focus on the conceptions of freedom presented by Dorothy Roberts and M. Shawn Copeland. In her work on race and reproductive justice, Roberts asserts that freedom goes hand in hand with rectifying social inequalities. “The abstract freedom to choose is of meager value without meaningful options from which to choose and the ability to effectuate one’s choice…[and it is] of little help to someone who lacks the resources to realize the identity she envisions or whose emergent self is continually beaten down by social forces” (Roberts 1997, 309). Freedom must be accompanied by the social conditions and resources that make possible self-determination and autonomous decision-making. Copeland similarly recognizes that freedom is “freedom for” something and requires resources and conditions. Freedom cannot be an abstract concept; it must be enfleshed in the body. Both of their descriptions of freedom imply, if not outright require, responsibility to ensure that these resources are available and the social conditions are just.
In this paper, I will argue that embedded in the rich conceptions of freedom held by Dorothy Roberts and M. Shawn Copeland are understandings of responsibility akin to Iris Marion Young’s social connection model of responsibility, which, among other things, requires all persons, especially those in privileged situations, to work for social change. Moreover, this model of responsibility acknowledges and values the humility of the privileged, acknowledging what we do not see from our limited perspective and, therefore, the ways we perpetuate injustice. The most robust understandings of freedom are those that yield an integration of humility and responsibility. Protecting freedom means recognizing all the ways that marginalized persons are in positions that make choice impossible and both the explicit and implicit ways that persons of privilege contribute to these limits on choice. Roberts’ and Copeland’s definitions of freedom illuminate this kind of responsibility for social change that requires humility.
This paper argues that the most productive conceptions of freedom result in both humility—that is, an awareness of our lack of certainty and lack of universal knowledge—and a call to responsibility. This can be seen especially in the work of Dorothy Roberts and M. Shawn Copeland, both of whom understand freedom as necessitating resources and conditions that make choice possible and illuminate freedom as something lived and carried out in bodies, not just a concept touted in the abstract. Whereas some understandings of freedom, especially negative freedoms that consist mainly of non-interference, yield virtually no sense of responsibility, Roberts and Copeland’s understandings of freedom imply a responsibility akin to that described by Iris Marion Young, that is, the social connection model of responsibility that calls on persons of privilege to recognize the ways they have contributed to the perpetuation of injustice and continue to do so.