Admittedly, my human interactions have been somewhat limited these days… most of what I see is gleaned from watching the constant stream of news and during our infrequent outings to resupply our home. I see some are being careful to adhere to recommended social distancing measures. I also notice that many more appear oblivious to the risks of stepping into another's personal space.
For 30 years I've been watching the ebbs and flows of our attempt at democracy and the increasing polarization of this latest period in time. One freedom march song in this country is the freedom to do whatever we please, whenever we please. Freedoms commonly mentioned during protests and social media include: drug use, unrestricted/untrackable gun ownership, the use of any non-renewable resource (oil, coal, plastics, etc.), and freedom of speech (to say anything to anyone). We also live in a society where we may not be aware of how often our enjoyment of life is supported by laws and social contracts that support a 'freedom from...' framework.
With the Covid-19 pandemic we have groups of individuals who are hurting, frustrated, and angry that there restrictions to movement that hamper their ability to work, pay bills, and engage in 'normal' life. The protester's rallying cry appears to be rooted in another freedom's march protest emphasizing a lack of personal freedoms while suggesting the restrictions have been put in place for political gain, an attempt to undermine the President, and counter to the liberties enshrined in our Constitution.
There is a not-so-subtle distinction made in constitutional law that is forgotten in the numerous protests and opinion columns posted in the last few weeks and months. Civil liberties are protections against government actions that would impinge on the right of any citizen. However, one purpose of government is to protect all citizen's rights, which creates tensions between one person's right and another's when they come into conflict. Most court cases involving civil and rights cases involve the plaintiff's right vs. defendant's right that may have been violated. It is a somewhat simplistic and anarchist view to believe that if we fight for allowing an individual to 'do whatever they please,' society would return to our constitutional rights and roots.
Most Americans think of civil rights and liberties as principles that protect freedoms all the time. However, in practice the tensions between liberties are always in play in human relationships. At home, I may have the freedom to yell and break my possessions in a fit of rage but when that impacts the safety of others in the household, I may be held accountable (in some cases even if no one was hurt and my excuse was just to vent)! In this example, family members have liberties and human rights to be free from psychological or physical harm.
Every social interaction is a potential negotiation between people (and sometimes society at-large) of a freedom to behavior or right and a freedom from behavior or right and this current moment of time is no exception. To enjoy my right to be free to protect my property, family, health, and life requires limits to another person's rights. Whenever I drive, I appreciate that I am protected from the rights (priviledge?) of another to drive recklessly or while intoxicated. When I go to work, I appreciate being with colleagues who are protected from workplace harassment (sexual harassment, racist and derogatory statements, unlawful firings, etc.).
In my marriage, I negotiate my personal freedoms to act as an individual while negotiating our relationship interests. These relational interests include supporting values of interdependency, respect, and mutual concerns. Although my individual interests are intertwined with our shared relational interests, I could focus exclusively on my freedoms to drink excessively, say whatever it is that I feel at every moment, offer no explanation of my comings and goings, but the consequences would be unacceptable to me (and to her).
Similar psychological and legal tensions are in play in all relationships and are now playing out on a public stage. Overly simplistic and anarchistic rationalization of the word "freedom" actually limits the rights of others have to live free from fear, anxiety, and harm. Admittedly, the attempts to litigate and legislate the tensions away are a stopgap measure that attempt to standardize socially moral behavior.
People thrive when they live free from unreasonable or incessant fear, anxiety, injustice, and harm. I work with my patients everyday on principles, tasks, and efforts to live more abundantly, with courage and patience, to find ways to cope with or eliminate unnecessary fears, anxiety, and biases. That is to enhance freedoms to act independently and productively while living free from what I call The Tyranny of the Impulse.
Impulsiveness is a "tendency to act on a whim, displaying behavior characterized by little or no forethought, reflection, or consideration of the consequences" (Wikipedia). This tyranny of impulsivity is a much greater risk to our freedoms than any temporary stay-at-home order that may be enacted for our safety. By allowing the Tyranny of the Impulse to override our considerations of society, we potentially lose the ability to create community, care for others, struggle with complex problems, and manage the outcomes of our lives.
As Americans, we've fought for our freedoms on the battle field. Equally important is our ability to preserve freedoms (and lives) by learning to resist the impulse to act on every feeling, to resist saying (posting, tweeting, repeating) everything and anything that comes to our mind, and to consider the bigger picture. Our psychological, physical, and community health depends on our own willingness to live free from the tyranny of our own impulses.
Comments