Article Freedom and oppression

Oppression is commonly deemed a problem of freedom. How though should we con-ceptualise the freedom-restricting nature of oppression? This paper aims to show that the unfreedom in oppression may be understood in terms of individual negative liberty. The controversial concept of collective unfreedom is not needed. Non-cooperation among the oppressed generates constraints on individual freedom. This non-cooperation is ultimately attributable to the exercise of social power by oppressors. It is in this sense that the resultant states of individual unfreedom are due relations of oppression. Keywords Freedom, oppression, social power, negative liberty, cooperation Berlin’s (1958/1969) metaphor for freedom was the number of doors open to a person, defining freedom thus in terms of available options. Subsequent reflections on negative liberty developed the locked door hypothetical. Cohen (1983) applied it to the freedom-curtailing nature of oppression thus: 10 people are locked in a room and only one of them can leave. If any person exits the room the door will seal, leaving the others permanently trapped there. Nobody is disposed to leave. Cohen tells us that this scenario is one of individual freedom together with collective unfreedom. It is true of each person that she is free to leave the room. However, the condition of each person’s freedom to leave is the unfreedom of all the rest to leave. Each is free to exit but only if others do not because the number of exits is small with respect to the number of people locked in the room. This is how we should understand the unfreedom seen in oppression, according to Cohen. Cohen employs the notion of collective unfreedom to convey the idea that it Corresponding author