A theoretical research in Freedom policy

In this article, I elaborate a theory of “freedom as a path”. Although the theoretical basis of the article is based on John Dewey's theory of social learning as planning, it put forward new arguments in terms of requirements for a policy of freedom in Iran. I argue, paradoxically, that freedom could not be (and should not be) defined. It has to be considered as a "commitment to a vague concept of freedom" for building an undefined future. Freedom is not an aim in itself, as it was in Iran since Iranian Constitutional Revolution, 115 years ago. At first, freedom is a path that a person finds the meaning of his life. Freedom is not a static and definable concept, but a dynamic and fluid concept depending on the individuality and the context. Second, this individual meaning of freedom depends on the society and the historical context. The argument of this article consists of the vagueness and path, and its consequences for the policy of freedom. Considering freedom as a path simultaneously solves several intellectual problems: it resolves the issue of balance of power by acceptance of superiority, which means it avoids extreme relativism because it accepts simultaneously norms, reason, and power. In this path, individuals merit based on their source, their talent, their capacities, etc. It also solves the problem of judgment. We cannot “judge” the degree of freedom of a society based on the norms of the other societies. It depends on the readiness of a community to commit to a “goodness of a vague notion of freedom” to live together. It is somehow an intellectual maturity of humans. As a result, what is achieved is an agreement for living together; that is a “policy of freedom”. The concepts and definitions of positive and negative freedom are in conflict with "freedom as a way". The path basically assigns the state of freedom to the situations, to the power, to the norms, to the wealth and resources of the actors involved. If we define freedom, we cannot see it as a path.
T
This article is an essay. It is an analytical, interpretive or critical literary composition that deals with a freedom concept from a limited and personal perspective. Meanwhile the arguments of this article are supported by existing literature. In this way, we have modeled the method of Isaiah Berlin in his famous work "Four Essays on Freedom". (Isaiah Berlin, 1969) In addition, I approach to the question of freedom as a “wicked problem” which necessitate a process oriented, interactive, and constructivist approach to solve the problem of freedom. Thus, one cannot use a predefined notion of freedom as a basis for the "policy of freedom". In this article, we use expressions such as "we Iranians", "Iranian society" and the like. Such terms lack "scientific accuracy"; We are aware of this. However, a general ruling cannot be issued for such matters, because although no general ruling will ever include "all" Iranians, it cannot be "completely" rejected and quantitatively or qualitatively confirmed. It is obvious that we do not mean to issue such rulings in absolute terms. But what is meant by these rulings is a "dominant tendency" or "general trend" among a significant number of Iranians, which can be considered as a source for issuing political action based on experience and expert agreement or on the basis of expert conscience and reasoning. It is not necessarily a cause for a political action.