If Power Is As Pervasive As Some Philosophers Suggest, Is Freedom Merely An Illusion?

The question of whether or not freedom is an illusion because of the pervasive nature of power depends greatly on the accepted definition of both freedom and power. I am going to argue that this is not the case when freedom is regarded in the most broad, unrestricted concept, meaning the maximum possible autonomy, with particular focus on Lukes' third dimensional view of power. Ultimately I believe it is inaccurate to think of freedom in this way, because human nature itself seems to be a form of social contract, and there still remains to be, I believe, a restriction on autonomy because of this (if this restriction is an accepted limitation of freedom because of the exercise of power). Regardless of the nature of the political state; a natural state results in the same consequences. With this in mind, I will also argue that power does not always have to take a negative form, since it is at least partly innate within people, and therefore more complex than merely being a restriction on our freedom.

Firstly, I would agree with Foucault's view that it is not correct to suggest that power is always overt. He gives 3 possible dimensions of power: the first being a simple case of overt conflict of interest, the second being when an choice in a conflict is not even available to the individual, and the third being the idea that power can shape a society to the degree that an individual may not be aware of an option they would otherwise choose. I am choosing to focus on this third option, as I believe it has the most interesting relationship with the concept of freedom, as it is not overt. I do not believe that by accepting this pervasive view of power (and anything that affects all of society surely is pervasive) we must also accept the idea of freedom being an illusion, as it implies that power cannot be used in a p ositive way to encourage freedom. For example, if an individual campaigning to be in a position of authority to further awareness of a cause against, say, forced slavery gains power partly because they had a profession that is regarded -at least subconsciously- as giving them a greater moral sense (they may be a respected doctor for instance) and this individual chooses to take advantage of this to further their campaign, is this not a positive use of power that does not infringe on anyone's potential freedom, providing the motivations are 'right'? Granted this example requires the reader to accept that there are certain positions in society that come with some social benefits which are not necessarily apparent, but a different example of a similar case would also achieve the same results.

But is this acceptable? It could be argued that we do not maintain any autonomy when we accept this third-dimensional concept of power, and therefore we do not maintain any sense of freedom. Perhaps the idea alone of trying to defend this view is evidence of how we are being shaped by the power of the state as a whole in such a way that we do not question or go against it. Perhaps if we were in a natural state without government interference, we would not have such a broad concept of power, and power would be only overt, which would arguably allow us more freedom since we could at the very least see clearly what was in front of us. After all, it is easier to rise against a force when you know the full nature of it.

On the other hand, it could be argued that human nature is too complex to ever live in such socially simplistic dynamic. Power is rarely so simple, as this implies a clear causal chain of exchange and implementation of power, and it seems that is rarely the case given how complicated government structures can become. For example, if a dictator has power, where do they get it? If an entire state has power, where do they get it? Even without these overtly powerful figures in small, simple communities of people there is always an 'unspoken' language and exchange of power that goes on- human nature is complex enough to incorporate subtleties like threat or warnings which may go unsaid, but are still apparent (perhaps because of body language, tone of voice etc.). However, we could instead argue that this shows Lukes' third dimensional version of power is not power at all, but merely the effects of human nature in a social environment. In theory one could use Foucault's argument that we would eventually regulate ourselves to support this. After all, is it still an exercise of power in any form if the individual is the one exercising it on themselves? Granted it is because of how they came to regulate themselves that makes it power of some kind, but this could simply mean that power is embedded in our nature in such a way that we cannot escape it, or even that our basic nature acts in a similar way to power, but is something else more fundamental entirely.

Ultimately it seems the question depends on what your accepted definition of power and freedom is, which I believe will always be shaped by your experience and understanding, and therefore will not lead to one objective definition. If power has the ability to also shape us without our realising, then it is easy to see why one may feel that freedom is an illusion, since we are never fully in control of our choices. But I believe that power is ultimately linked to human nature, and is not something external of individual, so in a sense any power that shapes us is still within our control as an entire community. To accept that freedom is an illusion is to accept humans are fundamentally not as autonomous as we want to believe. Instead it seems to me that it is easier to accept idea that freedom is connected to our sense of power to begin with, and in fact you cannot have one without the other.