In today’s world, if the majority of people are asked whether they are free or not, they would claim to be free. They are not confined in a prison, living as a captive or a hostage, nor are they being enslaved and sold. They have certain rights, and yes, they are free. Many countries have taken steps towards liberalism in the last century, ensuring legal protections and safeguarding both individual and societal freedoms. In most cases, individuals are confident that they are free, except for extreme situations.
Independence and freedom are something everyone seeks and needs, even if not consciously. No one wants to live trapped within four walls, enslaved, and condemned to work as a slave. However, the concept of freedom is not solely about seeing the sky and moving around as you wish. Just because a person can go wherever they want, use their rights according to their desires, does not necessarily mean that they are completely independent and free. Freedom encompasses not only physical aspects but also emotional and intellectual states. The foundation of expressing these states or realizing a condition of limitation lies in language. If your life is not essentially free, and you are condemned to live under the restrictions of society or certain individuals, but you are deprived of the language that could allow you to understand this, you cannot even realize that you are bound, let alone break free from those chains.
Consider someone born into a conservative family anywhere in the world. This person goes to school, makes friends, and plays games. From an outsider’s perspective, they seem free, and there is no obstacle preventing them from exercising their rights. However, they may struggle to express their thoughts and feelings, perhaps not even attempting to do so. They might face challenging situations within their family, behaviors and attitudes that bother them, constraints that are considered “normal” in every family but remain unspoken. When this individual tries to express any of these issues, they are not taken seriously, told to be silent, not listened to due to their age, and might even receive simple punishments for their efforts. This person is not truly free, even as a child. Yet, they may never realize this, as none of the conversations around them draw attention to it or provide even a hint about the situation for them to gain awareness. The narrative always reinforces the righteousness of the parents, assures that what is best is being sought for them, and that their life is in a good state. The language used in their life does not allow them to understand or express their lack of internal freedom. They cannot find the words to describe themselves or their life, and the words they hear do not empower them or provide the language they need. Language is inadequate for them.
In a philosophical standpoint, Ralph Emerson defined freedom as having the courage to follow one’s own truths, while Russell defined it as the ability to pursue one’s own ideals, even if they do not align with the views of others. The person in the scenario mentioned, who might have been able to lead a life that truly made them feel free, never found the courage or the ability to follow a life different from what was deemed appropriate by their family and never discovered that they could draw a future independent and free from their family’s life and ideals. This is because the language and discourse used in their life did not allow them to understand this; they never found the words to express themselves or find the words that described their life. The words they heard never gave them power, and their language failed them.
Now, imagine a person living as a slave. Picture a life in the Middle Ages where someone lives as the property of a feudal lord within the confines of a castle, providing services in exchange for protection. This person may not be physically chained at the wrists and neck, may witness the sunset, and may dip their feet into a river. However, due to the conditions of the time and their life, this individual may never read, participate in conversations, and ultimately works for the safety of their life. A different opinion is never conveyed to them, and they never realize or learn about their own limitations.
Now, let’s think about an entire society rather than an individual. In countries where injustices and restrictions are prevalent due to oppressive regimes, individuals have always emerged from among the oppressed, using their words to break free. In suppressed societies, individuals who cannot express themselves have always come forward, using language to realize and voice that they are not free, thereby propelling their society towards progress and freedom. Figures like Rousseau, Voltaire, Lafayette, and others improved their consciousness by using words, wrote texts, and, through language alone, led revolutions both in their countries and worldwide. However, if their language had been restricted or misdirected, and if these writers had been deprived of using their words as effectively, perhaps they would never have been able to speak out against all the injustice and restrictions they faced, and millions of lives may not have been changed.
It is well known how powerful governments can be, regardless of their form of governance. If even a leader who claims to defend freedom and speaks in that direction still restricts the rights and freedoms of people, the power given to the government by the people will always be limiting. For instance, Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding members and early presidents of the United States, delved into philosophy and freedom thinking, stating that freedom and happiness are the most fundamental and innate rights of humans. However, historically, Jefferson is known to have owned a female slave and used slaves for labor in Virginia.
If a leader who claims to advocate for freedom, yet restricts the rights and freedoms of people, even if they use language that aligns with freedom, how can their words truly make the society free? If a president, who fought and spoke for freedom and made speeches about it, used thousands of people as slaves, do the words they use genuinely reflect freedom, or do they lead their people into an illusion? Does such a person, who directs the language and direction of the society, allow the spread and use of a liberating language, or do they act based on their own and their immediate circle’s interests first?
Regardless of the individual’s situation, if they do not possess a language that can express and understand the time they are in and their life, it cannot be considered that the person is truly free. Liberation begins within the mind, and without words, the mind can never surpass its inherent limitations.
