Essay on the Balance Between Freedom & Governance: A Necessity for Society

Introduction

Freedom has been an issue of concern in society for an extended period. Many societies believe that a tradeoff between freedom and totalitarianism provides room for societal governance. In this case, freedom allows individuals to conduct various activities and live freely without interference from the government. However, uncontrolled freedom often leads to chaos, which threatens the governance of a nation. The situation creates the need for government control over various aspects of society. Noticeably, novelists such as Plato, Huxley, Zamyatin, and Orwell have expounded on the problem; each one of them trying to air his or her views of what pertains to freedom, happiness, and societies. Some of the writers accomplish the tasks by critiquing governments or developing dystopian states-such as Plato, and We-to portray their ideas of what a society should look like. Despite the social order and collective happiness that can be achieved by limiting freedom as proposed by Plato, the authors, Zamyatin, Orwell, and Huxley, create dystopian societies to critique the adverse effects of totalitarianism where people believe that societal wellbeing is greater than individuality.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Freedom vs Societal Wellbeing in Plato's The Republic

Plato's The Republic expounds on the issues of freedom, democracy, and societal happiness in an unconventional manner. His definition of freedom differs from the typical one which means the ability to think and act freely as one pleases. Plato believed that democracy would often lead to anarchy since the freedom to do as pone perceives is dangerous (Plato, 1966, 95). Noticeably, he believed that freedom would only be achieved through the presence of strict rules such as the constitution, which guided the citizens. Additionally, he believed that happiness would only be achieved if individuals performed their duties to the states since society superseded the needs of an individual.

The idea of freedom has often been perceived as a crucial ingredient in great democracies; however, Plato believed that it posed imminent dangers to the social and political harmony of a society. He was opposed to the idea of individuals having the ability to do and act as they perceived best since people are inherently greedy (Plato, 1966, 94). Plato believed that democracy would often lead to anarchy due to insatiable human desires. Freedom would abuse the power to cause chaos as they seek to satisfy their insatiable desires (Plato, 1966). Plato chose not to dwell on the positive side of freedom; instead, he concentrated on the potential hazards that democracies possessed since he believed that humans are inherently evil and should be guided by law (Plato, 1966).

Unlike today where democracy is perceived as enhancing societal happiness, Plato perceived is as a source of chaos and instability, which would derail governance. He claimed that "people are free, there are liberty and freedom of speech plenty, and every individual is free to do as he likes" (Plato, 1966, 295). He believed that people have insatiable desires that force them to engage in various to try and satisfy them. Notably, he classified desires into two categories, which include necessary and unnecessary desires. Necessary desires are those that human beings cannot overcome or live without such as food and shelter among other basic needs. On the other hand, unnecessary desires are those that people can overcome, yet they choose not to, which include lavish possessions and luxuries (Plato, 1966). He believed that people the influx of freedom among people resulted in the above desires. As a result, people would abuse their liberty to pursue unnecessary desires since there lacks a form of control or restriction. Due to uncontrolled desires, the poor would revolt and blame their predicaments on the wealthy. They would loot their property and share among themselves equally since they believe they are being just (Plato, 1966). Citizens would engage in criminal activities to satisfy their inherent desires. On the other hand, the rich and the ruling class would use their freedom to oppress the poor. The leaders would impose heavy taxes on the people to support their lavish lifestyles.

Additionally, the Republic revealed that in a democracy, people would demand liberty by every chance, fighting any authority that seems to restrict them. Plato believed that people get obsessed with freedom after experiencing it; hence, they are willing to sacrifice social and political order to achieve it (Plato, 1966). Today, many nations engage in revolutions to ouster leaders whom they believe to be tyrants or these that undermine their fundamental rights. In most cases, the freedom sought about by revolutions exists as from the increased desire of the citizens to be given more liberty. The desires can be controlled by the greed of a few individuals who may sanitize their actions by clinging on liberty to act in their best interests.

The Republic shows that in a nation where people are free to choose their leaders and style of governance are more likely to end up in anarchy. Plato claimed that democracy was "an agreeable anarchic form of society" (Plato, 1966, 294). In this case, people gave their consent to choose a tyrant. He explained that through liberty, people could ouster oppressive leaders and choose new ones. However, upon realizing that they would also face the same predicaments as their predecessors, the leaders would impose harsh conditions on the people to ensure that they do not have the power to fight back (Plato, 1966). Additionally, they would strike down any opposition, impose taxation on their people or even label critics as enemies of the state. As a result of the actions, people who supported the leaders would yet start to rebel again to get rid of the persons in office.

Noticeably, Plato believed that true freedom would only be achieved when people performed their roles in society. The roles would be established in a constitution and would contribute to social harmony. Plato perceived societal harmony to be important than an individual's pursuit of happiness (Plato, 1966). As a result, he claimed that a state where people were aware of their roles and performed them diligently would lead to happiness. In the Republic, people would not be allowed to perform roles or engage in activities that are not reserved for them (Plato, 1966). in his view, the type of societal structure would enhance order and permit governance. Moreover, he maintained a totalitarian approach towards freedom in such a way that it cannot be applicable today. For example, concerning his ideas of education of different factions in Kallipolis, Plato stipulated that the guardians would be educated in a censored and deceptive manner to maintain their loyalty to the state (Plato, 1966). Through his construction of Kallipolis, one can identify that Plato perceived freedom as a primary hindrance to the attainment of social harmony; therefore, a more totalitarian system where people are obligated to perform their duties could enhance societal wellbeing.

Freedom in Huxley's Better New World

Huxley's novel a Brave New World reveals a world where individuality is suppressed absolutely to promote societal harmony. Just like Plato's Republic, Huxley presents a society in which harmony is when people perform their specific roles in the state (Huxley, 2006). In the novel, the state gets rid of individuality and emotions among children at an early age, eliminating the presence of lasting relationships since "everyone belongs to everyone else" (Huxley, 2006, 31) Notably, the people in this state are in a state of constant imprisonment; however, they are conditioned to enjoy and love the servitude just like how Plato believed the society should be in the Republic. The societal groups comprise the alpha and betas in which people must strive to belong (Huxley, 2006). Noticeably, Huxley utilized realistic characters in her novel to show the readers the adverse effects of totalitarianism, where the government has absolute control over all aspects of life.

Huxley's work shows that giving the government much control over people's lives can restrain individuality. In collective societies, individuality or freedom becomes a myth since people get accustomed to preconditioned happiness. The sense of self and self-actualization is diminished and the government numbs people's minds and imagination by selling them collective ideologies (Huxley, 2006). While some of the actions utilized by such states aim to enhance social harmony, they minimize the ability of individuals to pursue their happiness outside the structured social confinements. For example, children are created in the Central London Hatchery and Conditioning Center denying people the freedom and opportunity to procreate naturally (Huxley, 2006). The embryos are sorted according to class and various chemicals induced to permit each individual to conform with the characteristics of a specific social class. Notably, the different social classes are bred for different functions in society with the Alphas being raised to be leaders while the Epsilon become menial laborious.

Huxley shows a society where the government presents freedom and individuality as vices and warns people of their dangers. He also uses characters such as Savage, Watson, and Bernard to show how enlightenment can provide people with an opportunity to experience true freedom such as the one they experience under the hypnotizing soma drug (Huxley, 2006). Just like Plato's use of the allegory of the cave in the Republic, Huxley uses Bernard and Lenin in her novel to show that only those who seek the freedom by breaking their chains can experience liberty (Huxley, 2006). In this case, the author presents a prison of the mind, where people are used to the conditioned happiness sold to them by the totalitarian government through propaganda and compartmentalized society.

Huxley acknowledged the adverse effects living a controlled life has on individuality and used Bernard's rebellion to portray her ideas about true freedom. Bernard rebels against the World State and urges his friends, especially his girlfriend Lenina to do the same.

"I don't know what you mean. I am free. Free to have the most wonderful time. Everybody is happy nowadays. But wouldn't you like to be free to be happy in some other way, Lenina? In your own way, for example; not in everybody else's way. (Huxley, 2006, 78-79)

In the above excerpt, Lenina believed that she was free since everyone else was happy. She was brainwashed by the government to believe that what she was experiencing was true freedom and how the world functions naturally. However, her boyfriend, Bernard believed that he was limited to pursue his happiness by the societal confinements. He urged Lenina to try and find happiness in her own way as opposed to the way of her society. For example, he urged her to try and get a baby, which was prohibited by the government. "And perhaps you've missed something in not being a mother, Lenina. Imagine yourself sitting there with a little baby of your own ... "(Huxley, 2006, 96).

Huxley, through his fictional characters, was able to show the extent to which freedom was traded for perceived collective happiness and stability. The Brand New World revealed a society where there was no space for freedom since all person's actions were guided and controlled by a few masters. The protagonist, John the Savage was not pleased with what the people of the World State perceived to be happiness and civilization (Huxley, 2006). He opposed the fact that people traded their freedom for safety and ignorance and preferred his primitive ways, where people had the freedom to do as they wished. The state created by Huxley bear s resemblance to most of the communist regimes that...