Institutions constitute citizens’ freedom from domination rather than causally producing it

Evidence

The striking thing about the relationship of the institutions to the nondomination that they put in place, however, is that it does not have the same causal character. The people who live under the institutions do not have to wait on the causal effect of the institutions in inhibiting potential interferers before they enjoy non-domination. To enjoy such non-domination, after all, is just to be in a position where no one can interfere arbitrarily in your affairs, and you are in that position from the moment that the institutions are in place. True, it is bound to take time and some causal interaction for your non-domination to become a matter of common awareness, and for potential offenders to be deterred. But the non-domination as such precedes such causal sequences. It comes into existence simultaneously with the appearance of the appropriate institutions; it represents the reality of those institutions in the person of the individual. … The presence of certain antibodies in your blood makes it the case that you are immune to a certain disease, but it does not cause your immunity, as if the immunity were something separate on which we had to wait; the presence of those antibodies constitutes the immunity, as we say. By analogy, the presence in the polity of such and such empowering and protective arrangements makes it the case that you are more or less immune to arbitrary interference, but it does not cause that immunity; it constitutes it. To be immune to a certain disease is to have antibodies in your blood— maybe these, maybe those—which prevent the development of the relevant virus. The presence of the antibodies represents a way of realizing the immunity; it is not something that causally leads to it. To be immune to arbitrary interference, to enjoy non-domination, is to have inhibitors present in your society—maybe these, maybe those— which prevent arbitrary interference in your life and affairs. And the presence of suitable inhibitors—suitable institutions and arrangements—represents a way of realizing your non-domination; it is not something that leads by a causal path to that non-domination. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 518

Categorization

• DEFINE: Clarifies the constitutive-vs-causal distinction at the heart of non-domination, via a medical immunity analogy.
• XREF: connects to: Political freedom is constituted by institutions, not by the absence of actual interference — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 22; Freedom requires a well-ordered institutional framework to reduce domination. — Adelin-Costin Dumitru, Forging the Resistive Republic: Social…, 3; Polycentric governance structures enable citizens to resist domination through multiple remedies. — Adelin-Costin Dumitru, Forging the Resistive Republic: Social…, 9 (+18 more)

Broader Connections

• Freedom as non-domination is constituted by institutions, not caused by them. #corroborates (1.00) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 1238
• Freedom can be reconceived as non-domination rather than non-interference or self-mastery #corroborates (0.80) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 1207
• Power creates freedom, not the other way around. #contradicts (0.72) — Ibram X. Kendi, Stamped from the Beginning, 273