Do we really want to be free?

Lately, we often talk about freedom. And we rarely think about what it is. Are we born free or do we gain freedom through experience? Must freedom be won without fail? And what does the freedom of a bachelor have in common with the freedom that a politician glorifies when he speaks to voters?

External manifestations

“All people are born free,” repeat (and have always liked to repeat) those who wished for a better fate for humanity. But there have always been those who felt that our relationship with freedom is not as simple as it seems at first glance.

Many generations of schoolchildren regularly revealed in their writings “the theme of freedom in Pushkin’s lyrics”, but only at a more mature age can one appreciate how many different faces of freedom coexist in Pushkin’s lines: natural (will), love, rebellious-romantic, liberal, poet’s freedom , finally.

Psychologists have their own view of freedom. For them, our innate freedom, to put it mildly, is not obvious. Simply because psychology associates freedom with our actions and not with ourselves. And as long as there are no actions, there is no point in talking about human freedom, or rather, there is no reason.

However, the child, having been born, performs many actions. And let’s say, in a loving family, a child sleeps if he wants to sleep, eats if he wants to eat, and also crawls, jumps and plays – also when he wants to. Does that mean he’s free? No, because all these actions are manifestations of spontaneity, direct impulses, explains psychologist Dmitry Leontiev.¹.

“Freedom correlates with spontaneity as a higher mental function with a lower one. The lower mental functions act by themselves, as if mechanically. Higher functions are what we do consciously, based on our own experience and ideas about how to act. And although outwardly the manifestations of higher and lower functions may be similar, their causes are often completely different.

So what actions can be considered true manifestations of freedom? Those that we do with a clear awareness of the consequences and a willingness to answer for them. And if, for example, under the window in the middle of the night a car sounds an alarm, then immediately dropping a flower pot on it is a manifestation of spontaneity.

But if, throwing, we are aware that now an angry neighbor will appear on the threshold with a tire iron in his hand, then this is already freedom. By the way, this means that to act freely does not mean to act well, freedom is not an evaluative category at all. Freely – that is, of one’s own free will, with full awareness of the consequences and readiness to answer for them – one can also commit very bad deeds.

Two sides of the medal

There is another unexpected side of freedom, if you look at it soberly: freedom does not exist in itself, but only in inseparable connection with responsibility.

Dmitry Leontiev, who has studied the psychological aspects of freedom for more than 25 years, offers an even more radical formulation: “Freedom and responsibility are one and the same if we are talking about their mature, full-fledged form. Two sides of the same coin, each of which does not exist on its own. And although we have heard that “freedom is a conscious necessity,” such a thesis still sounds strange to the Russian ear.

Dictionaries of the Russian language consider that the obvious synonym for the word “freedom” is not at all necessity, and even less responsibility. Freedom is synonymous with will. Meanwhile, in a sense, these concepts are opposite, says Dmitry Leontiev.

In the Western philosophical tradition, it is customary to distinguish between “freedom from” and “freedom for,” he says: “Freedom from” implies the absence of any restrictions. But their absence in itself cannot be the ultimate goal. And why fight with them, not understanding what to do next? Freedom is only valuable when we know how to use it.” Unfortunately, in our tradition this question always turns out to be secondary. The main thing is to break everything, and what’s next – we’ll see.

Down with restrictions!

The Russian will is precisely “freedom from”, a spontaneous impulse, and does not provide for any constructive continuation. In general, the fight against any restrictions is a striking psychological feature of our nation (which does not exclude our readiness to obey as well – as you know, extremes converge).

“Addiction to alcohol, so characteristic of Russia, means, from the point of view of psychology, precisely the rejection of self-control. And self-control is one of the limitations, only not external, but internal. We strive to avoid any control of ourselves.”

Searching for the causes of this phenomenon is a task for large-scale research. But it can be assumed that our stubborn desire for “freedom from” in the absence of “freedom for” is connected with history. Serfdom – and in fact slavery – was abolished in Russia only in 1861, later than in European countries.

In addition, freedom (with many reservations) was lowered from above, and not won from below. This is hardly the best way: there is no freedom without liberation. In our country, however, the path to gaining freedom and the ability to manage it has largely remained untrodden.

Parallel lines

Freedom and responsibility grow from different roots. The primary source of freedom is that same childish spontaneity. Responsibility is brought up in us by limitations: parental prohibitions, moral attitudes and religious teachings inherent in any culture, and, finally, our internal self-control.

These “parallel lines” do not intersect immediately. And sometimes they don’t overlap at all. But the point of potential intersection (and ideally merging) of freedom and responsibility is adolescence. Experimentally studying the relationship between freedom and responsibility since the late 1980s, psychologists have identified four types of behavior in adolescents: autonomous, impulsive, symbiotic, and conformal.².

Autonomous behavior is the optimal balance of freedom and responsibility; this is how those who can rightfully be called free people behave. In impulsive adolescents (usually boys), spontaneity of behavior clearly prevails over responsibility for their actions.

“Symbiotic” teenagers are ready to adapt to any requirements: ideal performers, they demonstrate a high level of responsibility and a clear lack of freedom. And finally, conforming teenagers prefer to just go with the flow – they lack neither responsibility nor freedom.

stable figure

A few years later, the social situation in the country changed dramatically. Many life guidelines and norms simply disappeared, they were replaced by completely different social requirements. “When we repeated our experiments in the mid-1990s,” says Dmitry Leontiev, “we saw that teenagers have become different. Freedom and responsibility have ceased to be the main parameters, and we have not found the former clear structure.

Since then, similar studies have been conducted several times with the participation of adolescents from various social groups, from children from orphanages to children from wealthy families. And each time, only one type was clearly defined: autonomous. “The fact of the matter is that these are free people who do not depend on the perturbations of society and the environment,” explains Dmitry Leontiev. In all groups and at all time stages, the number of those belonging to the autonomous type turned out to be approximately the same – 25%.

It can be assumed (although such a conclusion would be obviously too bold) that this figure indicates the percentage of potentially free people in society. In any case, in Russia.

Russian Europeans?

Indirectly, this assumption is confirmed by the data of sociological surveys. Sociologists Vladimir Magun and Maxim Rudnev have been studying the values ​​that unite Russians and residents of other European countries for many years.³. The concept of freedom does not appear among them, but there is a concept of independence close to it in meaning, and the importance of independent actions is lower for Russians than for residents of most European countries (Russians are in 18th place out of 25).

Compared to other Europeans, we, as a nation, do not like risk and novelty, are not very open to change, prefer self-assertion to the values ​​of caring, and put safety first.

And yet it turned out that 22% of our fellow citizens⁴ share common European values. It is curious that these people are quite evenly distributed by professional and social groups, as well as by place of residence. This refutes the conventional wisdom that “Russian Europeans” belong entirely to the elite or “creative class” and live inside the Moscow Ring Road.

Another important finding is that these 22% have much more in common with the inhabitants of France or Sweden than with the other 78% of their fellow citizens.

Main value… not for everyone

So, sociologists and psychologists agree that there are not so many people who are autonomous “by nature”. How and why these 22–25% grow up free both in orphanages and in loving families, in what ways freedom and responsibility are combined in them, is a question to which there is no answer yet. Although the surprising stability of the results makes us think about the biological prerequisites for freedom. But this is nothing more than a guess.

Perhaps even more important is something else—how and why do the remaining three-quarters of our fellow citizens manage without true freedom? “Freedom is an optional phenomenon, not obligatory for everyone,” states Dmitry Leontiev. – You have to grow up to it. Freedom is not one of the basic psychological needs of a person and does not guarantee well-being at all.

How much and what kind of freedom does each of us need? Everyone has their own limitations and their own needs. Today’s life demonstrates this quite clearly. Almost everyone is sure to have acquaintances who voluntarily squeeze themselves into the rigid and often ugly corporate culture with its dress codes, attendance hours that exceed the number of hours in a day, team buildings and choral performances of the company anthem.

And there are certainly others who are inspired and infantile, following their own desires and almost never thinking about the consequences. Neither of them are free. But both of them may well feel quite comfortable.

And if our inner lack of freedom interferes with us, we always have ways to ease the pressure of external circumstances, our own character and personal history. Moreover, psychologists are sure that freedom is optional, but the main value.

choose your path

“For me, the connection between freedom and psychological well-being is obvious,” sums up Dmitry Leontiev. – A person who chooses his own path feels better. And if this is not done, then sooner or later the lack of freedom will make itself felt. Psychosomatic health problems, a feeling of emptiness in your life.

Another thing is that it is very difficult to be free. Gives responsibility. In addition, in Russia, freedom is hindered by the fear that lives in us historically. And in the West – hedonism, the opportunity to exchange this freedom for a new portion of material wealth. In a word, it can be considered that to be free or not is a matter of taste.

With exceptional accuracy, this idea was formulated in an interview by the sculptor Ernst Neizvestny. He said, “In a free society no one can make a man not be a slave.”

¹ Doctor of Psychology, professor at Moscow State University named after M.V. M. V. Lomonosov, head of the laboratory at the Higher School of Economics.

² E. Kaliteevskaya, D. Leontiev “Ways of formation of personality self-determination in adolescence.” Questions of psychology, 2006, No. 3.

³ V. Magun, M. Rudnev “Basic values ​​of Russians in the European context”. Social Sciences and Modernity, 2010, no. 3–4.

⁴ Based on 2013 data.