Antipower: the Road to Liberty and Equality
How do you achieve liberty and equality in a time where the people have been robbed of it completely?
As protests continue across the nation, we face the familiar dilemma of how to balance liberty and equality. In this article, we take a look at two prominent figures in political theory; Phillip Pettit and Alex Gourevitch. An analysis of their theories; Antipower and cooperative production has yielded that the rule of law, culture, and a practicing democracy are all necessary components to achieve a balance between the two. Antipower focuses on freedom from domination or subjugation of another by having equal control over the law. On the other hand, Gourevitch acknowledges and extends this idea, stating that the entire structure needs to be changed. This change can be enabled through a system of cooperative production. Meaning workers gain equal control over the points of production as well as how the working environment functions. This approach claims to solve the ultimate form of domination most of us face, wage slavery. By being one’s own master, there is no domination.
The equal control of the law is at the center of liberty and equality, serving to protect the individual and the group. This point can be argued by using the theory of Freedom as Antipower. Secondly, the idea of the need for a culture that supports the individual and the group is crucial to the success of balancing liberty and equality in a democracy. Phillip Pettit’s theory of nondomination is a foundational stepping stone for Alex Gourevitch's theory of structural change. However, it is important to acknowledge that in order to have a system of cooperative production, there must be a law and culture that enables it to have legitimacy.
In attempting to explain the balance of liberty and equality, I will be taking a republican approach. Starting with Pettit, he claims that there is a strong association between freedom and nondomination. He describes this in the Roman context using the word liber (free person) and the opposite of liber, servus meaning slave[1] From a republican point of view, freedom was not living in servitude to another and taking that a step further, “not being subject to the arbitrary power” or mercy of another. Within this sentiment, Pettit takes the contrary of freedom to be subjugation specifically, the ability of interference. He goes on to define liberty as “emancipation from domination”[2] embodied through slavery. Pettit argues that domination can only happen by “one agent” either a person, corporation, or collective agent. The dominating agent cannot be a structure or a system. The dominated agent, on the other hand, can be a person or a group of persons. That being, “one agent dominates another, only… he or she has a certain power over that other.” The “certain power,” is the power to interfere in another’s business and inflict certain damage intentionally[3]. So much, that the dominated agent is subjugated to the will and even the coercive threat of that will. The interference is intentional when the dominating agent, has the knowledge of their capabilities to dominate over the choices of a known entity.[4]
For the sake of the argument, a personal example that I have experienced in my time was working for a local company (wage slavery) but that's another topic. In this company, I was assigned to a boss that left me unrestricted in completing my duties. Essentially, I had complete creative freedom, or so I thought. I realized after reading Pettit that the freedom that I had at my work was dependent on my boss’s favor. I could not exercise my basic rights or liberties, in this case, my creativity without my boss willing it to be so. While I am free in the sense of noninterference, I am still subject to the will of my boss. Pettit refers to a quote from Richard Price describing my situation, “Individuals in private life, while held under the power of masters, cannot be denominated free, however, equitably and kindly they may be treated.”[5]. In short, I was operating at the mercy of my boss. This further influenced my actions even though she is not interfering at all. The threat of her interference forces me to be kind and tolerant etc. making me unfree, as described by Pettit.
The balance between equality and liberty for Pettit comes from freedom by the law or as he describes (anti-power). The second portion is freedom as noninterference. Noninterference is then concerned with the relationship between authority and freedom while being less concerned with authority and power relationships. Anti-power makes up where noninterference lacks as it is very much concerned with power and is less concerned with authority[6]. In order to harness both, we as a whole must have an equal share in controlling the law we abide by. In this notion of collective bargaining by the law, the individual is protected from tyranny. This is because of laws that focus on liberty (individual freedom) are themselves on a shaky foundation.
Their foundation relies on another to ensure them, meaning that we depend on the will of the autocrat or the Bill Gates of the society to help push good laws that help us. The will of either could change and with that change the laws that help support us.[7] In order for we the people to guarantee freedom that is not reliant on another, a system must be in place that allows control over the law that gives us the individual freedom. Furthermore, there must be a culture in place that supports that. Pettit describes three critical points that will allow us to have the right ingredients of a system where people can share equally in the law while securing their individual rights. First, compensating for the imbalances by giving the powerless protection against the resources of the powerful. Second, regulating the utility that the powerful male of their resources. Thirdly, by giving the powerless empowering resources of their own (institutions).[8] This is how minorities (ethnic, religious, etc.) have a check on the will of the majority. Conversely, this is also how the majority has a check on the minority, in our country’s context, the top 1% (elite).
The manifestation of the three ingredients mentioned previously starts with having a representative democracy (electoral) and institutions that support individuals and groups by being protective and regulatory. This helps in having an active providing democracy in where its people are vigilant and have the capabilities to challenge what policies and laws are being in place. However, it is to be acknowledged that not all laws and policies can appeal or please everyone.[9] Yet if they are fairly brought to be and it is just the democracy works then that is not domination. On the other hand, if a person or group is blamed for pushing that law then that is an unfree society where domination still remains. Finally, Pettit proposes a way to measure if there is liberty (individually) and as a group. Pettit claims “there is no anti-power, then. Without a shared awareness of anti-power”[10] and he goes on later to say that anti-power is enjoyed when a person goes with being able to look the other in the eye… without fear or deference.”[11] Until one is able to do that, then they are living in a society where they do not enjoy their fullest freedom either as an individual or part of a whole.
In transitioning to Gourevitch, he addresses the problem of structural domination, specifically in the workplace. He also argues against basic income (UBI) as an inadequate form of ensuring economic nondomination. The reason being that the very concept of structural domination is the greatest testament to why UBI is wrong. Moreover, he argues that the property system can be one of domination.[12] This is through the ability to identify specific agents which are the ones that have intention within the system because of the productive assets being distributed. Finally, Gourevitch advocates that the system of wage-labor should be swapped for a system of cooperative production where workers have control over the means of production.[13] In class, we had discussed what that may look like. We used the system of slave owners who cooperate to ensure slavery still remains, although they may not act together, they practice the concept of unequal interdependence. The example was that slave master A owns slave a and slave master B owns slave b. Despite slave master A and slave master B not colluding at all, just by the fact there are both slave masters, they still contribute to the slavery of other slaves. This is because they keep the system running and existence by merely owning a slave.
Now according to Gourevitch, we are oppressed and unfree as workers because we don’t have any other choice other than to sell our labor. The reason for the lack of choice other than to sell one’s labor is a product of property absence. Property absence, meaning that access to any land or tools as an alternative is unavailable. The reason it is unavailable is that there is poor distribution among the people and the unequal control over the means of production. This type of wage slavery and is known as the system of structural domination. [14]Secondly, workers found themselves to be subjugated “to the arbitrary interference of new masters, bosses, and owners.”[15]That subjugation expressed itself in many different ways, but it ultimately affected the choices of workers about their work activities. The distinction of the economic aspect from the private one is where one’s labor was bought and sold as a commodity highlighting the dependence of workers on the wage-labor system.
The way to combat that and the balance of liberty and equality is through cooperation. Cooperation in the sense of having equal control over the means of production and thus ensuring one’s freedom by that. Through having equal control over the means of production by a system of cooperation “will eventually make every man his own master, every man his own employer.” [16]In that sentiment, by not having to rely on the will of another, one is free from arbitrary interference and domination.
I can also personally sympathize with Gourevitch’s point of view, however, where I find it to be unsatisfying is that his point of view will lead to instability. Instability in the sense that the only way to achieve complete transformation is by destabilizing the “system” we currently live in. Through having equal control over the law, we can craft effective policies in a fair and just manner that addresses the inequalities in the workplace. I would also argue that the cooperative system Gourevitch is advocating for (if I understood it correctly) is in a way subjugating arbitrary interference in and of itself. It forces the laborer to also be an equal manager thus conflicting with the freedom of my choice. I am still at the will and mercy of my fellow managers in the cooperative system.
As a necessity for both freedom as nondomination and a system of cooperation, the culture must exist that supports either of those views in order to work. If there aren’t at least one of the elements required, an active liberal democracy, empowering institutions, etc. then you will still have domination, be it structural or personal. Equal control over the law ensures that we can have an influence on shaping law and policy. Through shaping policy and law, we are able to ensure our individual liberties while not relying on the will of any agent to make those laws for us. If the law doesn’t turn out in our favor, then it can be simply boiled down to a little misfortune. That is if and only if we were able to make our own choices free from interference (intentional or unintentional) and the arbitrary subjugation of another’s will. Thus, maintaining stability and preventing the tyranny of the majority or tyranny of an elite minority. As a final note “if freedom is construed as anti-power rather than noninterference, then we do not have to see the rule of law…as itself as an abrogation of liberty”[17]
Citations
[1] (Pettit,1996 pg. 576) | [2] (Pettit,1996 pg.577)
[3] (Pettit,1996 pg. 578) | [4] (Pettit,1996 pg.580) | [5] (Pettit,1996 pg.586)
[6] (Pettit,1996 pg.598) |[7] (Pettit,1996 pg.592–593)| [8] (Pettit,1996 pg.589–590)
[9] (Pettit,1996 pg. 591–592)| [10] (Pettit, 1996 pg. 594)|[11] (Pettit, 1996 pg.595)
[12] (Gourevitch, 2013 pg.592)| [13] (Gourevitch,2013 pg.594)
[14] (Gourevitch, 2014 pg.607–608) |[15] (Gourevitch, 2013 pg.595)
