Freedom in the republican tradition means non-domination rather than merely non-interference

Evidence

This discussion of the liberty-servitude theme in the republican tradition should serve to support the claim that freedom is conceived of there as non-domination, not as non-interference. For it is a commonplace of the tradition that masters may be kindly and may not actually interfere with their slaves. Algernon Sydney (1990: 441) could write, for example, in the late 1600s that ‘he is a slave who serves the best and gentlest man in the world, as well as he who serves the worst’. And Richard Price (1991: 77-8) could add in the century following: ‘Individuals in private life, while held under the power of masters, cannot be denominated free, however equitably and kindly they may be treated.’ But if even the slave of a kindly master—the slave who suffers no interference—is unfree, then freedom must require the absence of domination, not just the absence of interference. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 186

Categorization

  • DEFINE: Defines the core republican conceptual move: unfreedom can exist without observable interference.
  • XREF: connects to: Freedom as nondomination yields radical policies and democracy through contestability rather than consent — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 35; Civic republicans define freedom as non-domination, not mere non-interference — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 68; Republicanism offers a third way of understanding freedom beyond liberal and populist models — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 107 (+10 more)

Broader Connections