The pursuit of freedom in the 21st century 
In a world which seeks to dominate, our strength lies in the embrace of our individuality, our unique human potential, and our relentless evaluation of the norms which define our reality.

The institution of slavery has known no bounds historically or geographically. One only needs to explore the earliest recorded human civilizations for proof; from the Hammurabi Code of 1754 BC, to ancient Egypt, to Biblical narratives that produced some of the most influential narratives on slavery and freedom, like the emancipation of the Israelites by the hand of Moses.

At the most fundamental level, the intention to exert immoral control over another human being, in a way that deprives them of agency and free will, originates from an unrestricted rampage of “animus dominandi.” It is the  desire for power, a realist term popularized by international relations theorist Hans Morgenthau, who regards the quality as the “root of conflict and concomitant evil.” 

Just as the state is an extension of the individual, the same characteristic that leads states to gain and demonstrate power over others can reign in the individual, an ideal echoed by the Greek historian and general, Thucydides. In the Melian Dialogue, Thucydides wrote concerning the Athenians who were sieging the city of Melos and even the human projections encapsulated within the Greek pantheon: “Of the gods we believe and of men we know, that by a necessary law of their nature they rule wherever they can.” 

Attempts to realize ambitions for domination, however, range in their realization, due to natural limitations, moral boundaries, or cultural norms—all of which can both constrain the depths of human evil or reinforce its proliferation. The latter route, unfortunately, reigned in gargantuan societies which were built on the corrupted pillar of slavery. Empires like Greece, Rome, and the colonial powers behind the transatlantic slave trade relied on millions of bodies to do everything, from serving their food, to building their monuments, to entertaining them with blood. 

Slavery in the Modern Era 

If there is truth to the claim that slavery and similar forms of human exploitation are inspired by a dark human nature—driven by lust for power and greed, a willingness to defy moral principles, and surroundings which will not prevent such practice but allow and even codify it—it is no surprise that such abuse continues until today.

According to Anti-Slavery International, 50 million individuals experience some form of modern slavery, which is defined as “when an individual is exploited by others, for personal or commercial gain. Whether tricked, coerced, or forced, they lose their freedom.” 

The organization lists various types of modern slavery, including human trafficking, forced labour, debt bondage, descent-based slavery, child slavery, forced and early marriage, and domestic servitude. While the institutions and systems which underpinned slavery over the past centuries and millennia may differ, the core impact of slavery remains the same: to undermine an individual’s agency. 

Pseudo-Slavery 

The foundation pertaining to the core ideal of slavery is what I will use to make the argument that we all are susceptible to such fetters. Obviously and undoubtedly, this pseudo-slavery I will explore is not comparable to the evil inflicted upon individuals in the past and present through legitimate slavery. However, if slavery is defined by its interference with self-determination, the 21st-century world—replete with the global interconnectedness brought about by the internet, economic interdependence, and technopolarities—is guilty of more than a few instances of wrongfully influencing human free-will.

While there may be various ways through which the external world influences individual choices and actions, the overarching theme I have selected to apply regards the notion of social customs, and how they calcify into chains which may bind and limit human potential. 

This idea of customs and the following study originates directly from On Liberty, an essay written by the English philosopher John Stuart Mill, with aid from his wife Harriet Taylor Mill. 

Mill, a proponent of utilitarianism—the philosophy that seeks to maximize the greatest good, happiness, and wellbeing for as many as possible, equally—was specifically interested in the limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual. 

While historically the people feared unrestrained political authority, the rise of rights and democratic institutions diminished fears of tyranny, as democracy brought with it the ideal of self-governance, or at least, the domination of the majority. The issue lies in the fact that “the ‘people’ who exercise the power are not always the same people with those over whom it is exercised” and this majority “may desire to oppress a part of their number.” 

This line of thinking, which can rightfully be applied to legislation and undermines the interests of minority demographics, props up discussion about another type of infringement which Mill is interested in: the tyranny of social norms which pressures individuals to conform at the risk of condemnation and suffering. Mill argues that this tyranny is even more threatening than that of the political because of how it is so finely intertwined with our daily lives through relentless definitions of what is socially acceptable. 

It is here that the idea of pseudo-slavery takes root. While many of us may not face the infractions of truer forms of slavery, we are not always as free as we would like to believe.

Mill foregrounds his perception of norms by noting that we will always be subject to external power—specifically from the state—but that it is necessary to develop a standard of determining how and when such interference is acceptable. This idea echoes when Mill notes that decisions regarding how we live our lives are not made in a vacuum. Instead, our choices are the culmination of our surroundings: the “likings and dislikings of society.” In that sense, even the choices we may see as our own are not truly produced by our own will but instead represent multitudinous inspirations and pressures through our various sources of education and socialization. 

Besides this innate type of interference, a more practical way that we lose our agency is due to the bindings of the social tyranny Mill discusses Social customs, which dictate what is acceptable and what is not, force individuals to alter the ways they think, act, and ultimately, live, to avoid being punished for deviation. Unlike political tyranny, which possesses more official and tangible forms of retribution—like prison-time or corporal punishment—social tyranny punishes proportionate to the violation of a social ideal: to isolate and exclude individuals, forcing flight from the group as payment for violating the ideas that underpin the collective. Ultimately, these notions of what is right, and the pressure they apply, can bind individuals, preventing them from claiming true agency over their lives. 

Freedom to Think and Speak 

Mill particularly  dwells on a specific, critical manifestation of agency: thought and speech. Both thoughts and their expression are treated as intrinsically linked; thoughts can only truly be examined and developed after they are conveyed through speech or writing. The right to engage in both at will is a freedom which Mill desires humanity to have, as he writes that even if just one individual has an opinion contrary to the rest of humanity, “mankind would be no more justified in silencing mankind,” if they were to try to restrain the one person.

Here, the argument against social customs which infringe on freedom merges with the freedom of thought and expression—a right which is often fought against, especially when backdropped by political tyranny. Moreover, this is where we can better understand why social customs must be pushed against. 

It should be noted at this time that Mill is not attacking customs, which are fundamentally connected to group identities and, tying in another philosophical perspective, would have bridged Rousseau’s state of nature with the emergence of the first human tribes, as discussed in Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men. Nor is this an argument for anarchy, as Mill acknowledges that a valuable existence “depends on the enforcement of restraints upon the actions of other people.” Instead, Mill seeks to oppose social tyranny for the purpose of advocating for unadulterated freedom. 

Moreover, this claim should be prefaced by stating that Mill is not claiming that all opinions are valid. However, he does argue that even invalid, repulsive ideas must be allowed to exist. To fortify this claim, Mill provides specific reasons as to why opinions which dissent from that of the majority should be permitted. 

The first reason is premised on the fallibility of human nature and poses the possibility that the dissenting opinion is actually the correct one. Tying in the power of speech to test thought, it is imperative to allow such opinions to be voiced so society can compare them to their own perceptions to judge their validity.

Secondly, Mill argues that value can be gained from erroneous ideas, as there may be kernels of truth even from unappealing views. Moreover, the process of evaluating these ideas is such that we can emerge with new ideas, which fortify our prior logic and bring about a “clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.” 

The third and fourth reasonings are closely intertwined and deal with the criteria for an opinion to be wholly true: our ideas stay alive when we constantly evaluate them through meaningful thought. Without challenges to the norm, such ideals can morph into customs we fear— a “dead dogma” which society follows not because they know and believe in its intrinsic value but because they have been trained to. 

Real life examples to substantiate these claims originate from a myriad of individuals who proposed ideas which challenged contemporary norms—individuals like the Greek philosopher Socrates and Jesus Christ, both of whom were put to death because of the conflict their ideas had with societal norms. In this regard, Mill seeks to increase freedom of thought for the “eccentrics” of our time. Individuals who truly have a unique ability to inspire monumental change, and whose prodigiousness in a society is “proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigour, and moral courage” it contains. It is our responsibility to create a society that does not snuff out such flames but nurtures them so that they may consume and change the world as we know it for the better—a sharp contrast to the domination of one ideal where humans become like sheep, “lost in the crowd.”  

A strong philosophy-based example of the importance of enabling the challenging of norms is found in A Vindication of the Rights of Woman: with Strictures on Political and Moral Subjects, an essay by the British philosopher and women’s rights advocate Mary Wollstonecraft. In the essay, Wollstonecraft highlights the lacking and haphazard education of women in eighteenth-century Europe, which emphasizes attractiveness, beauty, and charm for the purpose of marrying well, while failing to exalt virtue and reason. 

What was then a proposition for equal access to high-quality education for both sexes is now practiced all around the world, showing how attitudes and norms can indeed change, underlining the value of being open to new perspectives. 

Freedom to Act 

Just as ideas should be kept free from binding, Mill extends the same right to actions. Just as the reality of human fallibility should prevent the enforcement of one way of thought, individuals should be free to experiment with other modes of life, allowing the collective to evaluate what is optimal living. 

Again, this does not mean to imply that every way of life is correct—it does, however, take the utilitarian view that emphasizes human happiness, which requires self-determination, and societal progress. 

Besides giving individuals full free-will, there is another, perhaps an even greater, reason for emphasizing individuality: the potential to develop our unique abilities and become “well-developed human beings.” Such agency is a weapon in the hands of humanity—a feature that makes us different from other living creatures and, at least as of now, machines. According to Mill, an individual who embraces individuality has “a character” while he who allows his life to be fully shaped by the world he experiences “has no need of any other faculty than the ape-like one of imitation.” 

The argument goes that blindly following customs wastes the potential of our abilities to act independently, create, and alter our surroundings. Again, the idea of human development as the ultimate outcome appears as a pressing reason to embrace the mosaic, as an environment nurturing the application of human talent will often breed ideals—whether philosophical, religious, social, or technological—which optimally will offer better approaches to life. 

The Embrace of Individuality Through Relentless Evaluation 

On Liberty’s emphasis on individual freedom serves a critical purpose in regard to our discussion of modern pseudo-slavery. While we may not be bound with physical chains that restrict our movement or face threats of physical punishment, we are never completely separated from collective ideals of what is mainstream, which often impact our approaches to living, even if such norms may not be optimal. 

The concern with social conformity does not just regard the most overarching ideals in a nation—ones which are birthed from history and blanket a region’s culture. They also include norms which develop in smaller groups: cultural pockets, religious settings, classrooms, and more today than ever, the unlimited spaces created on the internet and social media. These forums inject values into their groups, creating standards and norms by which their followers are judged and judge others. 

Just as broader social customs can create moulds which limit human individuality, improper engagement with such groups can also lead to a pseudo-slavery, where individuals submit to ideas without properly evaluating them to ensure their truth. 

In essence, to Mill, every way of life and thought is free to exist in our society. However, this does not mean we must embrace every way of life, but that we must critically evaluate every belief, regardless of its source or implied importance. Especially those which have been instilled in us by virtue of identity features we naturally come upon, like what country or family we were born into and what that means for us in terms of the values and cultures which become our realities. 

Just as Mill’s emphasis on individuality opens the world to every approach to living, it also demands that we take full control of our own individuality, and fully express said individuality by freeing our agency from interferences created by the systems and norms that we consciously or sub-consciously submit ourselves to—placing us under a form of bondage that incapacitates our self-determination. 

In this regard, the cliche which claims ignorance is bliss is far from wrong. 

It’s easier to accept the beliefs we’ve lived with our whole lives without taking them out of the unspoiled packages they were gifted to us in and putting them through the dirty process of evaluation. It’s easier to submit to the norms that underpin the social circles we want to enter and belong in. It’s easier to not challenge the status quo, especially when we stand to benefit from such standards. 

While all these choices may be the simpler options, they all translate into a form of mental slavery—ways through which we are prevented from fully realizing our human potential by freely giving ourselves to ways of living we have not tested nor understand. 

This process is not guaranteed to reverse everything you thought of as correct, since every custom and norm has or had some substance to it. But, it may very well alter some perceptions, or at least give you a new lens through which you can see the world. Even if you, after carefully examining your beliefs, come out with every approach intact, you will emerge different, with beliefs now not founded in routine, normalcy, or despondency, but made of life that echoes ideals worth dying for. 

“Truth gains more even by the errors of one who, with due study and preparation, thinks for himself, than by the true opinions of those who only hold them because they do not suffer themselves to think.”