Abstract
Pastoral theology can contribute to the discourse on social-political freedom. More specifically, the concepts of care and faith—theologically, existentially, and psychologically understood—provide an innovative and illuminating perspective on the notions of social and political freedoms as well as how they are related. A focus on the dynamics of faith and care vis-à-vis freedom, for instance, also renders a diagnosis of the social-political pathologies of neoliberal capitalism with its atomization of human beings, distortion of accountability, and exploitation of human beings and the earth. To move in this direction, part I of this paper offers a brief overview of some of the salient features of discourses on political freedom in the West, namely, justice, equality, rights, reason, and agency. Noticeably absent is any connection between political freedom and civic care and civic faith. This sets the stage, then, for a discussion on care and faith vis-à-vis social and political freedom, which is developed in part II of this paper. Part II, which will appear in the next issue of this journal, develops a view of freedom relying first on the pre-political space of parent–child interactions and how they relate to the child’s emerging experience of and capacity for social freedom. Once this is developed, I shift to differentiating between social and political freedoms, which allows me to reimagine political freedom in terms of the dynamics of care and faith.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Both Hayek and Friedman, in my view, needed to wed freedom and capitalism to advance their political-economic agenda with regard to Europe and the United States. In particular, they wanted to remove economic protections (regulations) so that there could be greater economic and political “freedom.” They have been proven wrong not only by examples such as China but also by political scientists such as Sheldon Wolin (2008, 2016). Longstanding rises in economic inequalities accompany political inequalities. Princeton researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page (2014) examined the years from 1981 to 2002 and found that when “the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact on public policy” (p. 575). A plutocracy is hardly a polis of freedom, except for the political-economic elites. I would add that political freedom means little when one is burdened by poverty and the energy it takes to survive.
The tendency to deny freedoms will be exacerbated as the realities of climate change take place. Davenport (2014) writes that the “Pentagon... released a report asserting decisively that climate change poses an immediate threat to national security, with increased risks from terrorism, infectious disease, global poverty and food shortages.” It is almost assured that the social and political freedoms of people of poorer nations will be thwarted as more powerful nations seek to secure resources.
It is misleading to suggest that there is a Greek philosophy or, to use the more expansive term, “Greek thought.” It is more accurate to say Greek philosophies of political freedom, but to compare and contrast the idea of political freedom in various Greek philosophers would not only be a book-length project, it would also divert me from my task. My aim, as stated earlier, is simply to tease out some salient features, recognizing that much more could be said about the idea of freedom in Greek thought.
A modern version of this is seen in the brutal enslavement and exploitation of Africans in the United States and their close connection to capitalism (see Baptist 2014).
Saying that women (and children) were socially constructed as existentially unequal did not mean that they were not recognized as persons. However, they could not possibly be recognized as full persons if they were deemed to be unequal. Existentially, one might say, they were recognized as persons, but as persons who could not legally exercise their political agency. Of course, any cursory reading of history shows that the use of percentages with regard to personhood or being human always accompanies forms of exploitation, marginalization, and oppression.
Although it is not the focus of the article to address the particular limitations of theorists, it is important to note that Arendt’s political philosophy, which relied heavily on Greek thought, overlooked questions regarding justice. Maurizio Passerin d’Entrèves (1994) states that Arendt was not opposed to the idea of justice or “thought it unimportant, but... she was determined to insulate the public realm from all questions pertaining to the social” (p. 61). Arendt, as d’Entrèves argues, thought that including “social and economic questions were bound to destroy politics” (p. 61).
One could argue that love is evident in Aristotle’s view of freedom to the extent that there is greater experience and expression of freedom in friendships. That said, Augustine extends it to all relationships instead of confining it to a particular type of relationship in the polis. Augustine’s patriarchal imbued theology places women in a secondary political status because of the belief that women had less capacity for reason.
Of course, the tendency here is to locate freedom within the context of Christianity, which means that while freedom extends beyond the confines of a particular polis, it is easily restricted to Christians since it is believed that Christianity bears a more complete revelation of God.
Honneth makes clear that Hobbes was more focused on external impediments to freedom than internal impediments. Theologians, such as Augustine and Aquinas, would have viewed sin and vice as internal (and external) impediments.
Of course, people who are convicted of breaking the law will have their rights curtailed (if not their lives). Due to space limitations, it is not possible to address here liberal philosophies and how freedom can be limited.
Max Weber’s (1992) work suggests that a Protestant ethos of self-limitation or ascetism helped give rise to capitalism in that individuals would limit themselves vis-à-vis the material aspects of life and would in the process accumulate wealth. Regardless of whether Weber was accurate, this view of religious self-limitation is narcissistic and not aimed at the common good. Wealthy Christians who accumulated more and more wealth did so at the expense of others.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, The Vatican, https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html, accessed 26 August 2018.
Kenneth Quinnell, “Executive Paywatch 2018: The Gap Between CEO and Worker Compensation Continues to Grow,” AFL-CIO, https://aflcio.org/2018/5/22/executive-paywatch-2018-gap-between-ceo-and-worker-compensation-continues-grow, accessed 30 August 2018.
“Wealth Inequality in the United States,” Inequality.org, https://inequality.org/facts/wealth-inequality/, accessed 30 August 2018.
Kevin McCoy, “Billionaires Compared with the Rest of Us, by the Numbers,” USA Today, Nov. 8, 2017, https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/11/08/billionaires-compared-rest-us-numbers/844720001/, accessed 30 August 2018.
References
Agamben, G. (1998). Homo sacer: Sovereign power and bare life (D. Heller-Roazen, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. University of Chicago Press.
Arendt, H. (2005). The promise of politics. Schocken Books.
Badiou, A. (2019). I know there are so many of you. Polity Press.
Baptist, E. E. (2014). The half has never been told: Slavery and the making of American capitalism. Basic Books.
Barker, E. (1971). The politics of Aristotle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bauerschmidt, F. C. (2007). Aquinas. In P. Scott & W. Cavanaugh (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to political theology. (pp. 48–61). Blackwell.
Brown, W. (1995). States of injury: Power and freedom in late modernity. Princeton University Press.
Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the demos. Zone Books.
Chappell, T. (1995). Aristotle and Augustine on freedom. Palgrave.
Coontz, S. (1988). The social origins of private life. Verso.
Cox, H. (2016). The market as God. Harvard University Press.
Davenport, C. (2014). Pentagon signals security risks of climate change. New York Times, October 13, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/us/pentagon-says-global-warming-presents-immediate-security-threat.html?_r=1, accessed 24 June 2019.
d’Entrèves, M. (1994). The political philosophy of Hannah Arendt. Routledge Press.
Eagleton, T. (2009). Trouble with strangers: A study of ethics. Wiley-Blackwell.
Elshtain, J. B. (2007). Augustine. In P. Scott & W. Cavanaugh (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to political theology. (pp. 35–47). Blackwell.
Frank, T. (2000). One market under God: Extreme capitalism, market populism, and the end of economic democracy. Anchor Books.
Fraser, N., & Honneth, A. (2003). Redistribution or recognition? Verso Books.
Friedman, M. (2002). Capitalism and freedom. University of Chicago Press.
Gilens, M., & Page, B. (2014). Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups and average citizens. American Political Science Association, 12(3), 564–581.
Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2017). Assembly. Oxford University Press.
Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.
von Hayek, F. A. (2005). The road to serfdom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hayek, F. A. (2007). Road to serfdom. University of Chicago Press.
Honneth, A. (2001). The pathologies of individual freedom: Hegel’s social theory. Princeton University Press.
Honneth, A. (2007). Disrespect: The normative foundations of critical theory. Polity Press.
Honneth, A. (2014). Freedom’s right: The social foundations of democratic life. Columbia University Press.
Jones, S. (2012). Masters of the universe: Hayek, Friedman, and the birth of neoliberal politics. Princeton University Press.
Klein, N. (2014). This changes everything: Capitalism vs. the climate. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Lane, M. (2014). The birth of politics: Eight Greek and Roman political ideas and why they matter. Princeton University Press.
Macmurray, J. (1993). Conditions of freedom. London: Humanities Press International. (Original work published 1949)
Margalit, A. (1996). The decent society. Harvard University Press.
Miéville, C. (2018). October: The story of the Russian revolution. Verso.
Moore, J. (2016). Name the system! Anthropocenes & the capitalocene alternative. Jason W. Moore. https://jasonwmoore.wordpress.com/tag/capitalocene/, accessed 25 June 2019.
Nelson, R. (2001). Economics as religion. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the 21st century. Belknap Press.
Reich, R. (2007). Supercapitalism: The transformation of business, democracy, and everyday life. Vintage Books.
Robinson, F. (2011). The ethics of care: A feminist approach to human security. Temple University Press.
Ryan, A. (2012). On politics: A history of political thought. Liveright.
Slobodian, Q. (2018). Globalists: The end of empire and the birth of neoliberalism. Harvard University Press.
Stiglitz, J. (2012). The price of inequality. W. W. Norton.
Taylor, C. (1991). The ethics of authenticity. Harvard University Press.
Weber, M. (1992). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Routledge Press.
Whitehead, A. N. (1978). Process and reality. Free Press.
Wolin, S. (2008). Democracy incorporated. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Wolin. S. (2016). Politics and vision. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Woods, E. (2017). The origins of capitalism. Miamisburg: Verso.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
LaMothe, R. Social and Political Freedom: A Pastoral Theological Perspective—Part I. Pastoral Psychol 70, 255–271 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11089-021-00949-2
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11089-021-00949-2