Liberty’s ‘essential ingredient’

The world is, at times, divided into optimists and pessimists. There are the Pangloss of the situation (those I call ‘shallow liberals’) who believe that everything will be for the better as long as we are 'free'. On the other side, there are the Scrooges of the radical left who see the world as a fight between oppressed and oppressor where freedom is a smokescreen for the powerful to rule. The liberty of the former is isolation and indifference, whilst the equality of the latter is imposition and sameness.

Yet, both liberty and equality are ideas that take shape with modernity. The liberty of the ancients cannot be compared to what we think of liberty, especially because it lacked the ‘essential ingredient’: equality. After all, if some have more freedom than others, then the latter’s freedom is being denied. It is, therefore, ironic that philosophers and politicians have been debating over liberty and equality as if they were mutually exclusive rather than integral to each other.

The comments’ discussion on my post on the proposed Hooters’ restaurant for Cardiff is perhaps an example of that, so I’ll make some clarifying points.

1. We are entitled to freedom, but that doesn’t mean we’re free. It’s a subtle but important difference. It’s still very much the case that some have more freedom and more choice than others. Money is one factor that tips the balance but, by no means, the only one.

2. Failure to recognise this denies freedom for those at a disadvantage. There are still employers who exploit their employees (be it pay, hours, and other conditions). What the tabloids forget when they scream about, for example, the EU directive on working hours, is that they promote profits ahead of rights under the banner of freedom.

3. In a society where women's bodies are still merchandising, women will have the ‘option’ of using their bodies for economic gain. Under the illusion of freedom one finds herself compelled/induced to sell herself. There are certainly instances where the woman has a lot of discretion, but largely she has not. It's the culture and the imbalance of power that decide what can be marketed.

4. When freedom comes with too many strings attached, it’s no longer freedom. To believe that we are still talking about freedom is like believing in fairies. Go and look at the bottom of your garden, don’t mind me if I don’t follow.

5. Here comes J.S. Mill who thought that when there is no level playing field, there’s no freedom. He complained that although women were not compelled to marry, they had no other option in reality and that marriage was “bondage”. Sounds familiar?
Capitalism gave us freedom but, for Mill, it’s all “trampling, crushing, elbowing and treading on each other’s heel”. We know too well what unrestrained capitalism brings, yet the shallow liberals are seduced by a simplistic idea of freedom (so that you don't have to do anything to bring that about), and by the capitalist promise of ‘freedom, prosperity and democracy’.

6. The idea of freedom the shallow liberals purport lacks substance. It's a formal freedom that is detached from the cultural and economic context in which we live. It is also mostly reduced to freedom of expression. This fails to take into account that our rights and freedom are not grounded on freedom of speech/expression, but in the dignity of human beings. When we deny human dignity we deny our liberties.

7. Human rights are more than laws and treaties, but for those who asked, human dignity is enshrined in Art. 1 and 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Fair working conditions are enshrined in Art. 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 2 of the European Social Charter; Art. 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

On the ‘Hooters’ question’, opposition does not necessarily means an outright ban. The company could change its practices and stay tacky without dehumanising its staff, they could be categorised as a lap-dancing establishment thus having different rules applied to them. The most ridiculous aspect, however, is that local opposition on ‘moral grounds’ doesn’t count. What’s the point of a committee (in this case Licensing) of democratically elected councillors if they cannot hear about their constituents’ concerns? If it’s all about the ‘rule book’, then do away with the committee. Silly me thinking that my freedom of speech could compete with the right to profit!

Monicelli once made the beautiful film I Compagni (Comrades) about the beginning of union movements. A prostitute asks the ideologue/organiser (Mastroianni), who is hiding from the Police, why he does what he does. He replies “so that you won’t have to do what you do”.

Shallow liberals and the ambiguity of sex

Hooters, the American restaurant chain, whose ‘trademark’ are scantily dressed waitresses (men need not apply), has lodged a licensing application in Cardiff. ITV reported that the plans were “voraciously” (how about ‘vehemently’?) opposed by the Cardiff Feminist Network who are against its “promiscuous clothing” (how about ‘undignified’?). Leaving aside the unfortunate use of words, should a restaurant/bar be blocked because of its uniforms?

Some of my fellow lib dems don’t think so and don’t see the fuss, after all if you don’t like it, don’t go there. Indeed, but what about the members of staff? When the ban on smoking in public places was being discussed, an important point was made about the staff: they couldn’t choose. Some might be fortunate enough to turn down a job, but not all and especially now. Shouldn’t the law ensure dignity at work?

I must declare my ‘interest’: I’m not a member of the Cardiff Feminist Network although I’m an ‘associate’, so to speak. I’m on the Facebook group and have received tons of messages in the last few days. Mind you, when I asked a question and was ignored. I’m also a fairly active member of the Welsh Liberal Democrats, although I retain complete autonomy over my thinking as you can tell from my blog.

This has nothing to do with party policy, it's liberal philosophy. I feel that the comments made by some lib dems betray a shallow liberalism that ignores issues of power, equality and morality. Let me explain.

Let’s imagine a restaurant where the waiters are all black people wearing worn out clothes and fake chains around their ankles. Would that be objectionable? After all, people still participate in ‘slave auctions’ for charity. Nobody gets really sold to anyone else, it’s just a bit of fun. Except the fake slave auctions make you forget that people are traded every day. As it has been pointed out, trafficking is a far more pressing concern for feminism, but that fails to see the connection of trafficking with a culture where women are sexual objects. It is this culture, where scantily dresses waitresses are just a bit of fun, that makes you forget of the dignity of human beings and sustains trafficking.

Sexy clothing, however, is not necessarily exploitation. Sex is not just political, it’s also personal. If people want a vulgar display of nudity, it is for them to decide. That's the ambiguity of sex, which makes any judgement a possible threat to private sexual mores. However, there's nothing private about a restaurant. Furthermore, because sex is not just about power, this issue is not just about women, but all of us. It’s about the society we want.

A fundamental principle of liberalism, which I hold dear, is the freedom to express oneself even if it offends. We should not impose our morality on others; yet liberalism is not neutral. A liberal society is one where the dignity of individuals is preserved.

To turn a blind eye to undignified working conditions is to let the powerful impose their social norms on us. I don’t understand why it’s all right for Hooters to impose their view of human beings on their staff, while it’s not all right for the law to ensure that employees are treated fairly. It is no longer all right to make racist comments because we have 'imposed' the idea of equality on our society. Yet, it seems that the ‘pornification’ of society is still ‘all right’. I, for one, beg to differ.

Childhood innocence and faith

I've recently watched the film Whistle down the wind and was a bit taken aback. The first 30-40mins are superb. It is a wonderful portrayal of childhood innocence. The children are spontaneous and funny, but the film thesis is problematic. It is the story of two children finding a man in their barn and believe he’s Jesus. The innocent and naïve faith of the children is contrasted with the world of the ‘grown-ups’ who don’t know anything and wouldn’t understand the miracle.

The film goes on as a parable of Jesus coming to earth, not being understood and then taken away by the police. That would have been fine had the man been someone who had been falsely accused or someone with a political/social agenda. However, as the man is one wanted for murder, the parable is deeply flawed.

It seems to be saying that the naïve faith of the children is true faith, yet it is such naïve faith that leads children to follow a murderer. There is no growing up and no grown up faith. It is a banal faith with no quest.

When a mosque is not a mosque

Finally something to blog about. A friend of mine posed the question whether the project of the Islamic Cultural Centre to be built near Ground Zero should go ahead. Caldwell on the FT made the point of the location of the mosque being insensitive to the victims of 9/11. He argues that whilst Islam should not be seen as responsible for 9/11, the atrocities were committed in the name of Islam and, therefore, the building would inflict pain to the relatives of the 9/11 victims.

I agree that the building may cause offence, but also that to prevent a religious building from being built not to ‘offend’ betrays the deeply rooted American idea of freedom. America is built on the idea of freedom of conscience and diversity. As it has been observed, this could be an opportunity to show the face of moderate Islam and strengthen it. I fear this is the wrong analysis. Any official endorsement of a type of Islam is the kiss of death. It sounds too much like official vetting by local government. Whilst fundamentalism is an issue (not only for Islam), I don’t think a Mayor or any other public body can or should scrutinise religious doctrine.

More importantly, the current dispute is too much about ideas rather than reality. Places are indeed replete with the meanings we ascribe to them. However, each one of us gives them a different meaning, be it banal or deeply significant. Picadilly Circus doesn’t mean much to me, except crowds, but the back lanes of Grangetown do! In fact I have a ‘Western-style’ fantasy (please note it’s only a fantasy! Not to be carried out!). I walk down the lanes, rifle in hand. It’s hot and humid, there’s rubbish strewn across a lane, a drop of sweat goes down the side of my face … Bang! Damn seagull, it made it! But I digress.

Meanings are arbitrary, personal and, sometimes, shared, but, above all, they change constantly. It is problematic enough to ascribe a common meaning to Ground Zero, but giving any to the ICC is simply nonsensical. Those who argue for its construction see the ICC as a symbol of religious freedom and tolerance; yet this confers an enormous responsibility and burden for the people who will use the building. Are we asking them to be representatives of peace?

Those in favour of this location appeal to America ’s ‘sacred’ dream of freedom and, thus, turn the mosque into a symbol of this dream. They unwillingly imposed their own meaning onto a space to be inhabited by a real community. This mosque is no longer a mosque. Its community will have to contend with the mixed emotions and hopes of the public and, above all, live up to the ideas permeating Ground Zero.

Caught up in symbols and dreams we forget that respect for each other begins from the lives of real people. Freedom does not exist in symbols but in the tireless effort of meeting others.