Franz Neumann on the importance of history to freedom. By Kristopher A. Nelson
We learn history not
in order to know how to behave or how to succeed, but to know who we are -
Leszek Kołakowski, The Idolatry of Politics, [Ch 14 of Modernity on endless trial, (1990)]Freedom, argues Franz Neumann, requires several kinds of knowledge (historical, for example), not simply the absence of state (or private) coercion – though that too is a necessary and critical element
Franz Neumann, a
key political theorist of the mid-twentieth century, on freedom:
For today, freedom is
defined - as it has been for decades - as essentially negative-juristic, that
is, as absence of coercion … and “coercion” is defined in such a way that the
activity of the state alone appears as coercion. The less the state intervenes
the greater the freedom, and vice versa. Fundamentally the ideal is that of
a society without a state, for the state is the enemy of freedom.
Freedom and the
State
Neumann agrees in
general with this definition, but adds key qualifications. His core
reservations involve the overemphasis on the state as the “enemy of freedom.” Sometimes
governments protect freedom. First, a government
may actually protect freedom, rather than threaten it: I cannot agree that
the state is always the enemy of freedom. … For it is conceivable — and, thank
God, not so rare — that the state defends freedom, externally and internally.
Peace as a punctuation mark in eternal war
Democratic Liberties Only Belong To The Bold And Vigilant: Justice Chelameswar
Private threats to
freedom and the majoritarian problem
Second, the state is
not the only threat to freedom. Non-governmental actors - private collections
of people, including corporations, religious groups, or perhaps, in a
democracy, a simple 51% voting majority - may also threaten freedom, and who
then will protect the freedom of the minority?
After all, we know
from history how frequently and brutally private groups have tried to force
their value systems upon a people. How then, then, do minorities find
protection? Is it not the proper task of the state - as the representative of
universal interests - to restore the balance which is engendered by the
egoistic interests of private groups?
Necessity to
justify state action still key
Despite the threats
from private groups, Neumann maintains that freedom from state coercion is thus
“necessary, but not sufficient.” It is critical, though, and with the legal
presumption in place that government action is always a potential threat, the
state must then “justify its interference with freedom in each case” in the
face of “a presumption in favor of freedom and against state coercion.” (American
courts implement this presumption with constitutional and common-law concepts
like levels
of scrutiny and the precedent behind the so-called “police power” when
analyzing the actions of state and federal governments.)
Freedom requires
knowledge
And third, says
Neumann more abstractly and philosophically, freedom requires knowledge. To
get this knowledge — to be free to act, in essence - requires knowledge of
“external nature,” “human nature,” and “the historical process.”. All three
kinds of knowledge are necessary for freedom, meaning that “the natural
scientist, the humanist and social scientist, the psychologist thus all have
the same rank and the same significance.”
Each kind of knowledge
may also be used to restrict freedom (think of the possibilities created by the
telephone, or the Internet, to both enable new possibilities for individuals to
act and for the state to restrict or surveil).
Historical
knowledge
In particular, historical
knowledge is necessary to freedom — in a rather utilitarian and
practical sense (although Neumann is leery of allowing in too much
utilitarianism because he worries that the state may “prescribe what it
considers useful” — consider the battle over funding science/technology and the
neglect of the humanities by both political sides — thus potentially harming freedom).
I say “utilitarian” and “practical” because Neumann maintains that the
utilization of scientific or psychological knowledge for good or for ill
depends on the historical situation — and understanding that situation requires
historical knowledge.
In other words,
history helps us understand the context in which we act and thus to make
decisions about how to apply our knowledge of the natural and the human world.
Without historical understanding, effective practical decision making becomes
difficult or impossible. This is the classic, but frequently ignored, concept
that science may build an atomic bomb, but that the humanities provides
critical insight into any decision to use it. Ignoring history is thus ignoring
critical data; ignoring critical data leads to bad decisions.
In conclusion,
inquiry and knowledge are key
As Neumann makes
clear, historical knowledge is not privileged over knowledge of the natural or
human realms (i.e., biology, computer science, psychology, sociology, political
science - these are all equally key to freedom). But recognizing the
value of this knowledge, while, key, must not lie in the hands of state actors,
as this risks the state deciding on utility - and thus threatening (individual)
freedom. Only scholars - as individuals - can decide what form of
scientific/knowledge-seeking inquiry is legitimate if freedom is to be
preserved.
And only political systems that “respect and enforce the civil
rights of the individual” actually “promote scientific inquiry” (though that
has not necessarily been true throughout history). In short, Neumann, a
witness (and eventual participant in the Nuremberg trials) to the atrocities of
the totalitarian Nazi regime, at one time a socialist (but not Soviet)
sympathizer, argues that in the contemporary world at least,
freedom requires knowledge, not simply the absence of state coercion.
https://inpropriapersona.com/articles/franz-neumann-importance-history-freedom/see also
The Manifesto of the Anti-Fascist Intellectuals: Written by Benedetto Croce (1925)
Peace as a punctuation mark in eternal war
Pratap Bhanu Mehta - The biggest casualty in the Alok Verma affair has been the SC’s authority
