NeoFreeZone

Today the general understanding of obedience and discipline can be explained with the following definitions:

Obedience – compliance with someone’s wishes or orders, or acknowledgment of his or her authority.

Discipline – The practice of training people to obey rules or a code of behaviour, using punishment or rewards to correct disobedience.

Executing external commands and submitting to oppression is what comes to mind when the two concepts are discussed. I associate these words with control and maintaining power rather than social cohesion. It’s about diminishing the possibility of exercising one’s free will.

“…the usual aim is to curb the will of the child, substituting the teacher’s will for his, and demanding of him obedience.”

On the contrary, Montessori had the exact opposite idea when she talked about discipline:

“…to obtain discipline give freedom.”

Convinced that discipline and obedience’s main purpose is social cohesion and not authoritarian control over a group of people she found that not giving the children an opportunity to exercise their decision-making abilities can be harmful not only for their development but also for society.

“The finesse of discipline is to obtain obedience from developed wills and is based on society by cohesion, the first step to organised society.”

“The more the young are placed in subjection without power to exercise their own wills, the more easily do they fall prey to the perils of which the world is full.”

The definitions from a Montessori perspective can be expressed with her own words:

“Discipline is attained indirectly, that is by developing activity in spontaneous work.”

…”it is not a fact but a way.”

Obedience – …”sublimation of the individual’s own will”.

In the following paragraphs I will elaborate on the teaching method supporting the development of the will and how that relates to the appearance of naturally evolved obedience and discipline.

If the strengthening of the will is what causes obedience and discipline in children the favorable environment is a essential condition for achieving these goals. The key elements aiding the process of acquiring autonomy are: freedom of movement, opportunity to freely choose an activity, consistency, order and no interruption of children’s working process. In other words everything in the Montessori environment is organised in such way that children can peacefully exercise their mental and physical abilities at their own pace and free of adult interference. The importance of feeling independent and in control of one’s surroundings is what fosters the development of the will. The secure environment has provided an infinite number of opportunities for the assertion of one’s character. Even more, one starts to realise that with freedom, comes responsibility. This gradually increases the sense of empathy and helps foster mutual care and respect among the children, which becomes part of their daily routine.

“The child should act together and practise the gymnastics of the will in the daily habits of life.”

The Activities of Everyday Living, the use of materials along with the nursery ground rules are all part of the continuous training of the will. Each and every day a Montessori child makes numerous decisions. For example: selecting an activity, choosing how long he/she will work it for, deciding when and how to rest. The environment allows children to logically understand why certain rules need to be obeyed as the consequences of inconsistency and disorder immediately harm their collective interests. Introducing materials, which provide the children with an opportunity to correct their errors enhances their sense of control over themselves and the materials. These conditions provide solid ground for the development of children’s full potential by realizing the power they posses, the power of their will.

“Obedience can only be obtained through a complex formation of the psychic personality. In order to obey one must not only wish, but also be able to obey. Obedience includes a training of both the intellect and the will.”

During the Absorbent Mind plane of development the Montessori children’s maturational leap can be presented by explaining the three key events happening from birth to six years: the transfer from spiritual to social embryonic stage, the development of the will and the formation of discipline and obedience.

The Spiritual Embryonic stage usually lasts from birth to three years. It marks the beginning of the personality creation when information is absorbed unconsciously and the child is relying on his/her inner drive also known as the “horme”.

Given favourable external conditions the little person gradually learns to walk and talk. Even though at this age children are highly dependent on the care of adults, a constant striving on behalf of the children for minimizing assistance is usually observed. This journey towards human independence is aided by the sensitive periods – certain phases during children’s development when they have a much bigger chance to accommodate different skills and abilities. Some of the sensitive periods take place during the earliest stage of life. For example: language, order and refinement of the senses.

“Men possesses creative sensitivities instead of hereditary models of behavior, and if it is due to these that adaptation occurs to his surroundings, then it is clear that the whole psychic life of the individual stands upon a foundation which is laid down by them in the earliest years.”

The first level of obedience coincides with the spiritual embryonic stage. In this period children are not able to obey adults unless it is something they wish to do anyway. There are a several reasons for the lack of submission to external commands. Firstly children are physically incapable of control their movement, as their motor skills have not been fully developed yet. Secondly, up until three years old most children are guided by the horme (“an inner drive, universal unconscious force of life itself”) and not able to exercise the power of their conscious will. Often adults mistaken this behavior with selfishness and stubbornness when the fact of the matter is, children are not mentally and physically ready to be disciplined and obey adults or other social conventions.

“So, what we call the first level of obedience is that in which the child can obey, but not always. It is a period in which obedience and disobedience seem to be combined!”

“Before three the functions are being created: after three they develop.”

In the spiritual embryonic stage initial attempts for obedience and discipline are starting to emerge silently without any external indication followed by the transitional period between the first and the second level of obedience. It’s also the time when the child moves to the social embryonic stage.

“Thus it happens that at the age of three, life seems to begin again; for now consciousness shines forth in all its fullness and glory”

Supported by the nursery environment and having the opportunity to spontaneously choose activities the child starts to develop his/her will. Everyday she/he makes a set of autonomous decisions and works through practical problems.

“A man must be independent in his powers and character, able to work and assert his mastery over all that depends on him. This was the light in which childhood revealed itself to us, once consciousness had come to birth and begun to take control.”

As being part of a group the child starts to realize the importance of empathy and how it affects the well being of the rest of the children along with the teacher and the materials. This helps him/her reach the second phase of obedience.

“The second level is when the child can always obey, or rather, when there are no longer any obstacles deriving from his lack of control. His powers are now consolidated and can be directed not only by his own will, but by the will of another.”

“The child can absorb another person’s wishes and express them in his own behaviour.”

“That which at first was but a vital impulse (horme) has become a deliberate act.”

In this phase the child reaches a state in which he is able to exercise his/her will and be a master of himself/herself. One is in control not only of his/her movements and desires but also able to take part in complex social dynamics understanding and contributing to the social cohesion within the group.

“Will and obedience then go hand in hand, inasmuch as the will prior foundation in the order of development, and obedience is a later stage resting on this foundation.”

Most mainstream educators are satisfied with accomplishing the second level of obedience. This usually happens through the means of reward, punishment, setting conditions and limiting choices, destroying children’s natural development by breaking their will or limiting their decision making practice. In Montessori teaching method a third level of obedience can be reached where children are so eager to follow the directions of their teacher that the inner motivation for obedience comes naturally as a total acknowledgment and belief in the directress’ potential to guide the child towards a fruitful end. Montessori children’s enthusiasm to obey the teacher and follow the ground rules comes as a response to the trust that their guide has granted by allowing them to operate independently. Equality and freedom has created equilibrium for the both the directress and the children. The lack of coercion and exploitation has created a secure space where mutual respect and appreciation towards the care provider lead to rapid development of the will leading to explosion in creativity, joy of working and willingness to be guided.

During the spiritual embryonic stage children start developing the potential to exercise their will and make decisions. This process is fostered by the favorable environment, supported by the directress and inspired by freedom of movement and activity choice. The stage also coincides with the second level of obedience when children are able to work with adults for the benefit of the group. Following this process discipline emerges in children’s lives naturally not by imposition but by providing assistance, helping children gain control over their actions and movements by supporting the development of their will.

Montessori, M., (Reprinted 2007,2009), The Discovery of the child, The Netherlands: Montessori-Pierson Publishing Company

Montessori, M. (1989). Education for a New World, Clio Press, Oxford,

Montessori, M. (2004 reprint). The Advanced Montessori Method I, Oxford: Clio,

Montessori, M, (Reprinted -2007, 2010), The Absorbent Mind, The Netherlands: Montessori-Pierson Publishing Company,

To understand Foucault’s account of the subject one should look into the entire body of work dedicated to different aspects of his observations. The most suitable context would be the subject viewed in the social frame of discourse and its interplay with power, freedom, knowledge, history, society and the self.

Heavily influenced by Nietzsche, Foucault developed a theory explaining the construction of social concepts or in other words, common understandings taken for granted and often unquestioned by the majority of people.

Let me quote few of the definitions explaining the social frame, called discourse:

“ Systems of thought and knowledge (epistemes) governed by rules beyond those of grammar and logic, that operate beneath the consciousness of individual subjects and define a system of conceptual possibilities that determines the boundaries of thought in given domain and period.” (1)

“Tactical blocks or elements operating in the field of force relations, there can exist different and even contradictory discourses within the same strategy” (2)

“Linguistic or semiotic form adopted by a set of relationships taken as natural, rather than socially constructed” (2)

“Unity of an ideal conceptual structure and a real set of power relations among people” (2)

According to Foucault these can be scientific models, medical, legal, corporate, media etc. also known as “games of truth”. Through a network of power relationships these games constitute a discourse. A discourse is like the birthplace, home and life imprisonment for the subject.

“Inside power there is no escaping it there is no absolute outside where it is concerned.” (2)

What is the subject for Foucault? At first he maintains that the subject is a product of power and as such it is not able to define or influence a discourse.

“I would say that if now I am interested, in fact, in the way in which the subject constitutes himself in an active fashion, by the practices of self, these practices are nevertheless not something that the individual invents by himself. They are patterns that he finds in his culture and which are proposed, suggested and imposed on him by his culture, his society and his social group.” (3)

I agree that the agency of the subject is questionable and Foucault is correct in pointing out its weakness in relation to abilities of self-determination, forming an authentic identity and exercising agency. However the qualities and functions of the subject do not end there and at the end of his work Foucault was aware of the inherent duality observable in the subject present in social discourses. The two main characteristics describing the dual nature of the subject are facticity and transcendence.

“Facticity refers to a quality that is mentioned and focused upon in a given case. Transcendence refers to the fact that there always remains more than that which facticity suggests.” (4)

“I (my consciousness) must, as Kant put it, be both an empirical object of representation and the transcendental source of representations.” (1)

Even though discourses create systems of classifications, assigning subjects to categories and leaving almost no space for maneuvering, a certain potential for making changes on psychological level exists.

Let me introduce two examples describing this possibility:

The first one is the ability to observe multiple subject positions depending on the perspective of the speaker.

As a mother – structural

As her mother – existential

Flexibility arises from the fact that the subject can hold two opposite ideas at the same time which helps him/her escape the indoctrination by the existing episteme and the possibilities of maintaining different perspectives which I translate into type of freedom in the mind which allows for much more than simply complying with a given discourse.

The second one is the ability to make assumptions about an individual following a common identity or induction led opinion and applying this concept every time encountering this type of individual. Stereotyping is a very common event in society. However the completely reversed situation is possible where one’s judgments are influenced by very personal, intimate experience when interacting with another subject and it manages to ignore all previous prejudice and assumption powered by the discursive indoctrination. Although rare in real life it proofs a possibility, which makes freedom and agency part of the status of the subject, maybe not a dominant but certainly existent.

“In my books I have really tried to analyze changes, not in order to find the material causes but to show all the factors that interacted and the reactions of people. I believe in the freedom of people. To the same situation, people react in very different ways.” (5)

In other words the subject might not have a voice but does have a choice.

Many believed that Foucault defined the subject as an effect of power without any capabilities of modifying discursive constructs. Indeed that was his initial view, but later in his work he develops an idea about a subject existing in a dual state. Allowing space for agency and exercising freedom while at the same time being constrained and defined by domination. After all the working of power would not be possible without the existence of freedom and the other way around. “The subject is simultaneously ruled and a ruler.” The possibility of power equals freedom and the possibility of freedom equals power. And these two states form the status of the subject according to Foucault.

My philosophical intuition and personal experience as a subject in various discourses tells me this account is plausible. It also makes one understand how difficult must have been for Michel Foucault to arrive to a conclusion which allows an active subject within a socially constrained discourse. It takes time to see hope when living in such harsh reality where most humans have lost their ability to be sovereign subjects who don’t utilize their possibility of freedom.

The key to the power of the social subject is hidden in the ability of collaboration and building complex networks of interaction and mutual understanding. The possibility of freedom and the potential for agency is in employing social subjects’ individual desires, ideas and discourses into a collective voice. This is the most effective way of resistance and making a difference within a game of domination. Individual efforts are close to useless as the power of discourse and social concepts is too much to be opposed by a single unit. The system of knowledge, history and domination can be modified in an effective way only when a group of social interrelated subject requests the change in a harmonized action. The subject can always choose whether to be a spectator or an actor in the game of truth. He/She/It is caught in this complex net of power relations and social determination and the only way to get out of the passive status is to activate his/her ability to cooperate with the rest of the social subjects.

By social subjects I mean products of “a collaborative human relationship which connects people with the entire history of humanity through languages, symbols, images…shaped by generations of such activities.” (2) Practicing freedom is not hard to learn but it’s very difficult to detect when one is given discourses, which only teaches him/her to stay passive disabling the skill to recognize when one is constantly dominated. Discourses where definitions are false, words don’t reflect the reality and subjects are just products of power. A suitable example of this would be the current discourse where:

“Peace is war

Freedom is slavery

Ignorance is strength” (6)

An example of a practical method of how this type of discourse is achieved is the silencing of the subject by a state educational system where the criteria for a well-written text would be its objectivity. Promoting the idea and training young people to silence their emotions and subjectivity when expressing their thoughts is a very effective way of wiring their brain activity to fit a discourse that is maintained by a certain type of power. Power, which does not have an interest in changing the status quo. I am glad that I have come to the realization that the subject in me will not give up on her agency even after over 13 years of training to do the opposite. And yes power fuels resistance and provokes the possibility of freedom. The status of Foucault’s subject becomes more plausible when verified with personal experience.

To examine the power of discourse one should seek alternatives and constantly question his/her environment. Many subjects are not even aware they are experiencing the domination forces in their social environment. First, one needs to gain awareness of the concept of discourse. That would be easy in theory but awareness about the powers involved in the modern episteme is much more than just reading what Foucault or anyone else has to say about it. Awareness means experiencing different types of social settings and their constant analysis and verification in addition to experimenting with situations, information and other social subjects. Only after experiencing two or more different discourses one can find ways in which he/she will be able to influence society as an active player in the game of truth, a player who will know how to collaborate in a meaningful and beneficial for society way. Changing from one episteme to another is what makes subjects prepared for action. Once the structures of power are recognized the possibility increases immediately because a discourse is an abstract entity, an idea controlled mostly by self-awareness of conventions one should obey. The constant subjectivisation is executed not only externally but has its implication mostly internally. Self-censorship and self-control are constantly re-enforced in the behavior of humans. Once the realization that discourse is actually something abstract, something that should not be taken for granted as natural and given, an idea, a concept that can be changed even completely denied and modified then the real possibilities for awakening and becoming an active social subject emerge.

What makes subjects passive? Foucault is right to point out the dangers emerging when bodies of knowledge claiming to be “objective” start to shape and classify subjects, alienating them from one another by defining them as normal or abnormal. This method leaves the subject with no space for maneuver and having to worry to much about living up to the standard than actually creating its own reality or in other words exercising freedom. Totalitarian political systems come to mind when describing these events and occurrences.

“Not only is there control exercised via others’ knowledge of individuals; there is also control via individuals’ knowledge of themselves. Individuals internalize the norms laid down by the sciences of sexuality and monitor themselves in an effort to conform to these norms. Thus, they are controlled not only as objects of disciplines but also as self-scrutinizing and self-forming subjects.” (1)

An opposite system of knowledge, communication and collaboration in the present appears to be the Internet. A social playground too young and independent to have imposed standards of normality, a system that changes subjects and discourses in real time, social space where pre-determined identities disappear and the possibilities to exercise agency seem infinite. The “normalization” of the subject constrains its agency and self-determination although technology and collaboration seem to change this limitation.

Foucault’s concerns when it comes to the status of the subject are not related with its duality, whether “man must be regarded as irreducibly both empirical and transcendental.” His message aims at pointing out the imbalance between the two caused by the increasing power of discourse and its implications on the development of the individual and society at the same time. In other words, the marginalization of the subject, the loss of the power of consciousness, inability of self determination and the emerging social amnesia when it comes to exercising freedom. This concern was properly justified in the past, and is rather valid in the present.

“The inability of people to attain an effective voice in their own lives and our collective failure to achieve simple social objectives, such as the elimination of poverty and war, is testimony to the fact that lack of subjectivity is a source of social injustice today.” (2)

“As it happens, the past couple of decades have seen the growth of social conditions in which the great mass of people are experiencing a ‘loss of agency’, as power becomes more and more concentrated in a relatively small number of great corporations, subject to the “laws of the market,” while all other forms of social collaboration are being destroyed and society atomised. This is where our attention needs to be focused. To theorise this as if subjectivity was only ever an illusion, or even, as some do, paint ‘the subject’ as an essentially oppressive entity anyway, only makes the situation worse.” (2)

Foucault is presenting us with a real problem. If not solved this fundamental social illness might have and already has a devastating effects on people everywhere around the world. Understanding the status of the subject is a key for building a healthy society and environment for future generations. It’s part of collective and individual realization of infinite possibilities. The constraints imposed by discursive structures are no longer necessary and can be ignored as we have new tools to form our social concepts in real time without trying to follow a strict code of norms but living in a constantly changing system of human relations, keeping an open-mind, shifting and upgrading our identities, confirming agency and resisting propaganda. The power of the subject will be collectively exercised as a triumph of freedom and the possibility of agency in opposition of outdated and false discourses. A new social paradigm will emerge with a new generation that will dominate the current forces, exercising freedom as a representation of its instinct for survival.

(1) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/foucault/

(2) “Foucault’s Discursive Subject” by Andy Blunden. Sept 2005 (http://home.mira.net/~andy/works/foucault.htm)

(3) Foucault, “The Ethics of the Care of the Self as a Practice of Freedom,” in Bernauer et al., Final Foucault, 11.

(4) http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3669/is_200301/ai_n9235810/pg_15/?tag=content;col1

(5) (21.) Michel Foucault, “Truth, Power, Self: An Interview with Michel Foucault,” in Technologies of the Self, ed. Luther H.

Martin, Huck Gutman, and Patrick H. Hutton (Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press, 1988), 14.

(6) 1984, George Orwell

Entering a period in history where technology is running ahead of social development, Archaeology finds itself unprepared for the challenges of a new generation demanding more engaging and understandable ways of communicating the knowledge of the past. Communication that would capture the attention of viewers from diverse backgrounds, educate and enrich their cultural perspectives and at the same time make the process enjoyable. Channel 4’s Time Team program seems to solve most of the persisting issues in the relationship between Archaeology represented by the scientific community and the state, and non-professionals who have genuine interest in history and Archaeology. As we will see, the benefits of boosting the relationship between Archaeology and people via TV and Internet are enormous for both parties.

Archaeology enters people’s homes. It is a no longer a distant science only practiced by a limited number of academics, discussed only in conferences, universities and state institutions. Time Team removes the complicated vocabulary and reminds the viewers that the past is part of their present, it’s literally next door. It suggests to the people watching that Archaeology is one of many social sciences which purpose is to explain the past experience of people like themselves. If a social science cannot be communicated and understood by the majority of society what is the point of developing it? Moreover, if citizens can’t benefit from this knowledge what is the point of funding it? When people become more familiar and feel that they are taking advantage of shared archaeological knowledge they will be more supportive and likely to approve when funding is needed. It turns out that after all Archaeology needs society’s support.

Of course this is not one player’s game. Watching Time Team is incredibly rewarding. It develops “an informed imagination”, something progress requires from society. It makes people reflect more on their own lives by comparing the present with the past. This encourages self-realisation but also brings communities together. A perfect example of this is the United Kingdom, a country with very diverse population and enormous emigrant community. It gives people a sense of shared identity on the bases of common heritage and its understanding.

What Time Team managed to accomplish is a compact but thorough presentation of a very complicated process of excavation, research and investigation all happening in the form of a dialogue. Communicating information via conversation proves to be much more engaging and attention driving than any other form of presentation. This is of course accompanied with a wide range of visual and tactical interpretation techniques. For example 3D graphics, geo physical diagrams, illustrations, even reconstructing a wooden Druid statue (Series 14 / Episode 4). It’s a very modern and efficient approach especially when trying to engage a technologically advanced society and works even more spectacular in a technologically disabled population.

Another interesting addition to the overall understanding of the process unfolding past events is the great number of diverse specialists involved: geo physicists, landscape investigators, historians, metal detectorists, finds specialists, kiln builders and so on. It introduces the viewer to an unexpected range of occupations and surely this inspires many young explorers. Often in the episodes the local school children are encouraged to observe and support Time Team’s work. This develops practical knowledge, enthusiastic involvement which will most likely transform into creativity and interest in learning about society by reflecting on the past.

It is a program that I find to be not strictly constrained to Archaeology but encompassing a wide range of sciences like geography, history, anthropology which adds up to the overall educational value.

What’s even more surprising, Time Team seems to successfully avoid the usual ethical issues that accompany Archeology. For example, dig permissions, identity issues, interpretation of the past and heritage ownership. All these are somehow excluded from the program. In E4/Series 14 there was a discussion on the druid’s identity and how much of the history and traditions should be sourced from contemporary representatives of the group. It was again in a friendly dialogue with no unnecessary tension, just freedom of expressing informed opinions. This approach provides a very mature and conflict free perspective on ethical issues.

The team has definitely advanced and improved the perception of Archaeology. As a media, not confined with state policies and other interests influencing archaeological institutions, Time Team shares the knowledge in an interesting and understandable for all manner.

Another thing is the advantage of being open to comments and scrutiny from the public. If anyone disagrees with something presented on the program he could always write or phone in and express his opinion. The media (TV & Internet) does provide this feedback opportunity wheres museums I find more conservative and difficult to approach.

Watching the episodes I often think how amazing would be if the crew could excavate all over the world.

To confirm the beneficial contribution of Channel 4’s Time Team I would like to summaries the advantages brought not only to Archaeology but also society. The program provides a contemporary style of introducing something that has been considered a boring, elitist part of science in a accessible and engaging form. The program does not waste time in resolving meaningless ownership disputes or “ethical“, ego driven issues. Instead it focuses on the main goal, the dig, and simply gets it done in a way that passively involves people from diverse backgrounds who at the same time gain a sense of shared heritage. It is educational, inspiring, develops creativity and stimulates reflection on relevant for people’s well being topics. In short Time Team re-connects the missing link between Archaeology and the public.

There are many ways of interpreting the concept of freedom. However it is desirable to recognize the distinctions among these ideas in order to acquire a better understanding of their implications in society. In the following paragraphs I will compare the notion of negative liberty with the concept of republican freedom. Along with outlining the distinctions between the two I will also present the latter as a better alternative for our social and political institutions, a consequence of the non-domination ideal which the republican account of freedom promotes.

I will start my exposition by giving the main definitions of the key types of freedom.

Ultimate freedom – the absence of internal and external obstacle to what one truly and authentically feels, thinks, wants to do. This is an extreme utopian understanding of freedom. It is also strictly theoretical because of its impossibility to be sustained in real life. If practiced this idea will automatically disregard the notions of good and bad, right and wrong. It is a combination of non-domination and non-interference ideals mixed with the art of perfect self-mastery also known as positive liberty.

Positive liberty – the process of self-realisation for the purpose of self-fulfillment along with attaining harmony with the popular will of a particular group of people. It also requires eradicating irrationality from one’s feelings, thoughts and actions.

Negative liberty – individual independence from others, particularly absence of significant external physical or legal obstacles. According to Berlin negative liberty is minimized when one’s range of options is reduced by external interference. Therefore negative liberty promotes the non-interference ideal.

Republican concept of liberty – a notion of liberty as non-domination, to be free from someone, something that has the capacity to interfere on an arbitrary basis.

Let’s assume that each of the concepts I am about to compare promote a certain ideal. The main difference between each will be in that particular core value. In the case of the republican liberty that is the non-domination ideal. On the contrary for the negative libertarians the most important gain would be non-interference. In order to explain the difference between the two I am suggesting the following definitions.

Domination – one agent dominates the other if and only if they have a power of interference on an arbitrary basis

Non-domination – control over one’s life, a security in the possession of non-interference

Interference – coercion of the body (physical restraint), coercion of the will (threat), manipulation (agenda-fixing, shaping people’s beliefs)

From the given definitions follows that the republican concept of liberty is significantly distinct from the negative notion. It focuses on the idea that freedom must be protected from arbitrary interference. It also shows that interference by just laws has a huge potential for maximizing individual and group freedom. On the contrary the negative libertarians claim that any type of interference reduces freedom. I disagree with their view. In my opinion the Third concept of liberty is a fascinating idea, the idea of securing freedom by safeguarding it from the powerful.

In conclusion I would like to expose the relation between these ideas and their social implications. The concept of non-interference is just a step in the social struggle for attaining freedom. The republican understanding offers much more, it provides security for peoples’ rights. It is important to question our social achievements and the alternative concept offered by Petit accomplishes the task in a brilliant way. Unfortunately at the time of writing the question is still dwelling: Are we really free if this freedom of ours is constantly threatened?

The question of how important for democracy is the equal distribution of political power has two dimensions. One is theoretical and the other practical. In this essay I will discuss both situations and prove that democracy is not a constitutive part of equality. Moreover I will expand the question and bring a new understanding of the practical ramifications of the current system to find out whether it is possible to talk about democracy and the value of equality in an inherently unequal society.

The main concepts I’ll be using in this essay are:

Equality – the act of treating every human being equally with fairness.

Political Equality – equal distribution of political power.

Political Impact – the political power that an individual has within the political establishment.

Political Influence – the power that one has to influence the way others exercise their political impact.

In theory when a democratic society tries to reach an agreement about a certain policy the state uses a so-called democratic procedure of voting where everyone is able to exercise his/hers political impact. Unfortunately this leads to non-egalitarian result where a majority decides on behalf of all people. The procedure is democratic but the result restricts and diminishes the value of equality. Instead of fair decision people end up with the dictatorship of the majority. A way to avoid this would be the establishment of set of rights to protect the minority from being exploited by the majority. This is also a problem for equality as it puts constraint on the majority and their power to make decisions. Either way the goal of creating an egalitarian society is unattainable using a democratic procedure, which inevitably creates unequal results.

To illustrate this I will use an example of persistent majority, which occurred since the creation of the United States. Over 200 years the dominant the majority elected only white presidents, the white electorate was making decisions on behalf of everyone, suppressing the rights of Afro-Americans, rightful citizens of the same country which happened to be treated unequally by supposedly the most democratic regime in the world.

This has to do with the difference between equality of procedure and equality of outcome. In society a democratic procedure promotes the value of having even rights and equal political power but then the result of that procedure turns to be rather unfair.

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
Thomas Jefferson

Attaining equality in society is a difficult task especially if people don’t think they should have the same rights and equal political power. This is the disadvantage of the concept of equality. Not everyone believes that people should be treated in the same way and have the same opportunities. This is something conditioned by the environment and in my opinion education, media and state institutions should promote this as a value and a necessary factor for a successful society. Democracy seems to me, promotes equality only in theory, scratch the surface and you find corruption in almost every state institution and corporation. People are different but they should be treated equally by the system, and that should be encouraged not only in theory but also in real life.

In present times one of the most crucial aspects in political life is political influence. The power to influence the individual through the mass media is something that has developed on such a scale that one wonders whether this isn’t something that has the potential to destroy the ability of critical thinking in people and take away their political power. It is exactly the monopoly of political influence that I find particularly dangerous for preserving the freedom of choice.

Also the inequality that we are witnessing, a product of the current monetary system, has created a type of imbalances that are impossible to fight with a democratic procedure. In practice the problem seems to be not in the notion of democracy or the value of equality and whether the first is promoting the second but in the system itself.

In regards with the main question my essay clearly shows that democracy is incompatible with equality. It appears that equality is not only unattainable by applying democratic procedures but also it is not something that democracy does not promote as a system. I think this appears to be a disadvantage because I personally believe in equality and regard it as a crucial social value. If democracy is not able to deliver results such as equal rights, justice, independent political influence and equal opportunities both in theory and in practice I don’t really find this idea and its application efficient and useful for the people. It is unthinkable to get the equation “democracy leads to equality” right while living in a monetary system that promotes competition, self-interest and achieving profit. Society is pre-conditioned and stimulated to be unequal by the establishment and democracy cannot be justified by appeal to the value of equality.

“Democratic forms have little substance when “the life of the country”- production, commerce, media is ruled by private tyrannies in a system called “industrial feudalism” in which working people are subordinated to managerial control, and politics becomes “the shadow cast by big business over society”.
Noam Chomsky

Absolutism is the political doctrine and practice of unlimited, centralized authority and absolute sovereignty held by a monarch or dictator. The essence of this type of system is that the power of the monarch is unchallenged by any of the following institutions: judicial, legislative, religious, economic or electoral. In this essay I will argue whether the definition above applies to the reality of absolutism by examining the reign of the Louis XIV between 1643 and 1715.

From the distance of time and by examining some facts it seems that absolutism adjusted itself to the circumstances of the period and developed within society as the first building block in the formation of the modern state. In order to give a clear answer whether Louis XIV had an absolute or limited power I will start with some pre-history and move onto the theory and practice, by enhancing on the limitations and lack of effectiveness of royal power. In conclusion I will stress the need of understanding the term in its historical context rather than accepting the actual meaning of the word “absolute”.
By the time Louis XIV came into power the foundations of the absolute state were already laid by his father with the help of Richelieu’s program of centralizing the state.

The estates, authorities consisted of townsmen, nobles and clergy, helped the crown impose effective taxation on the provinces. The church with its powerful ability to shape social opinion rooted the belief in the divine rights of the king, which was also the key element in the absolutist ideology. Another reason for people’s consent and acceptance of the strengthening of state power was the fact that they were exhausted of the religious wars and the tyranny of their feudal despots. In the concentration of power aristocracy, clergy and peasants hoped for security. Most of them believed in the idea of the benevolent, wise monarch who will look after their interests.

To understand an absolute monarchy we need to examine the personality of the ruler. Although the king didn’t possess the ultimate and absolute power as it is physically impossible for him to take part in each and every policy, law and decision making concerning such a vast territory like France, Louis XIV found a really clever way to maintain state control. In 1682 Versailles became the official residence of the king, a formidable instrument of power the palace accommodated the nobility. Along with the political dominance came a cultural control designed to build the cult of “le Roi Solei” (The Sun King). He created academies, which provided the state need of educated bureaucrats and military specialists. Cultural dominance and censorship resulted in unprecedented political power. State and church united through the absolutist doctrines and gave justification of the monarch’s power to make laws, collect taxes, administer justice, determine culture, finance and warfare, in other words have “monopolized power” and “royal autocracy”.

How the state apparatus managed this responsibility and power is completely different matter from the theory of the absolute monarchy. The Sun King created a grand spectacle, a daily routine of ceremonies that occupied his attention leaving not much time for initiating policies on his own. Often his decisions were influenced either by his “unofficial think-tank” or his official ministers. Laws and policies were carefully selected and suggested to the king. Neither was possible for him to be an expert in the broad activities of the state, nor was he eager to be one. His personal interests were related mostly to exposing and reaffirming the impression of being the all mighty king.

A major weakness of the absolutist state was the flourishing of venality of office and royal patronage. The result was corruption, inefficiency, continuous opposition and delays when it came to royal legislation. This was a definite restriction on the monarch’s authority and shows that the interaction between state and society plays an important role in the practical aspect of the absolute system.
Louis XIV never initiated a reform that could solve the financial problems and rationalise the administrative system. Instead wars were fought, taxation imposed and new offices created increasing the burden of debt. This is how mismanaging state finance made the monarchy dependent on the financiers. All this in addition to the significant growth of state administration not only limited Louis’s grasp on power but also made for the French state difficult to sustain itself.

It seems that by the end of the Sun King’s reign the state has taken over the power of the monarch. The system might be absolute but it no longer submitted to the power of one master. A group of state servants occupying different posts in a wide range of offices, running them as a private business with the sole purpose of fulfilling their own interests in the absence of  state regulation.

In the transition from feudalism to capitalism France experienced the period of absolutism seen as the system that laid the foundations of the modern state. Although Louis XIV implemented fundamental changes in the state apparatus along with establishing cultural dominance and the cult of his personality he was unable to exercise total control over his subjects. Therefore we can see the kings’ major role in balancing the power between different factions. In this process the monarch lost his actual authority although his royal glamour stayed intact. This is why today we question the concept of the absolutist state, because if we look beyond the meaning of the actual words we can see the harsh reality of the absolute monarchy where the power of the monarch was in theory unchallenged but in practice limited.