One of the fundamental characteristic features of all the philosophers is to ask questions.
They ask endless questions which never seen to have concrete answers, but certainly have endless objections and objections. This is why many are fascinated by the subject of philosophy and also the same feature contributes for the hatred against it. Since its origin, philosophers left unlimited questions and many are still deeply involved in adding to the pool many unanswered questions. Interestingly there is still no agreement among the philosophers on the question of ‘What is Philosophy?’ itself. Such is the nature of philosophy. It is tough to reach an agreement on any question in philosophy even if it is debated for centuries.
One such question debated in philosophy since its origin by all the giants of that subject is the ‘concept of man’. This is a very significant question because aim of the philosophy is to, as Marx said, “go to the root of the matter” and “for man however the root is man himself”. and Sudipta Kaviraj wrote a two-part essay where he tried to trace the evolution of this concept exploring diversity in its evolution from the declarations made by Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hegel, Mill, Marx and Engels and how this concept was influenced by various epochs of human history like periods of continuous wars, feudalism, capitalism, industrialisation, and movements of democracy. It is a fascinating read which ended up with no conclusions! Not surprised. But there is some agreement on one facet of concept of man among many philosophers: Man is functional. He performs some or other function. His functions are either defined naturally based on his inherent nature, or by god, or by other people or institutions above them or by circumstances or by himself. Each philosopher defined his own ‘Man’ and his functions.
What is most radical among them is Rousseau’s ‘Man’. Though his concept of man is liberal being, it is in all senses most radical pronouncement. What is a Man to Rousseau? “A man is somebody responsible for his acts- capable of doing good and evil, capable of following the path either of right or of wrong”. Rousseau envisaged a man who exercise absolute liberty and is free. For Rousseau, “to say that a man is a man, and to say that he is free, are almost the same”. He is critical of the man who is not free to an extent that he declared that such a man will cease to be a man. “If a man is not free, if a man is not responsible for what he does, if a man does not do what he does because he wants to do it, because this is his personal, human goal, because in this way he achieves something which he, and not somebody else, at this moment desires- if he does not do that, he is not a human being at all…. The essence of man almost more than his reason, depends upon the fact that a man can choose, choose between alternatives, choose between them freely, be uncoerced”. If a man is not free, he becomes “a thing, a chattel, an object in nature, something from which no accountability can be expected”. Reflecting on the Rousseau’s conception of man makes one thing very clear- it is very tough to quality as a man of his conception.
Is it really possible for such a man? Is it feasible to have a complete free man? Will a free man act virtuously? Wouldn’t a society of free men led to complete anarchy? – many such questions arise immediately with a simple reflection on Rousseau’s conceptions. But at this point it is equally important to recognise the fact that no man would oppose the notion of completely being free. That is the aim much of the humanity is chasing for.
Keeping aside the investigation into pros and cons of having a complete free man, it is necessary to see if there can ever be free man. If the answer to this question is no, then it is not necessary to look at its pros and cons. Many philosophers advocated that the society is a ‘structure’ whose survival depends on performance of several different tasks by the individuals residing in it and these different tasks are given a hierarchy. People at each stratum or layer (these two words will be used interchangeably) in the hierarchy are obliged to perform certain tasks as directed by the people belonging to the strata above them. People in a particular stratum consciously believe or made to believe that they are free to perform certain tasks which they want to do. This is a complete illusion because the things which they think they are free to do are actually offered to them by the people above them. People in an upper stratum decide on what the people lower to them should do and draw a boundary of that tasks and make everything beyond that invisible. People in the lower stratum, who live in that boundary live in an illusion that they are free to certain level and to perform whatever they want. But they are actually performing the tasks as directed and as necessitated by the people above them.
Society’s structure is the summation of the people at different stratums. No individual living in that structure can claim to be free and can perform the tasks which he wanted to do. Society as a whole is ‘series of coercions in disguise’. This ‘structure’ erases the possibility of free man. So, to see if there is possibility of free man, it is necessary to break or change this ‘structure’. Thankfully this ‘structure’ is not an indestructible one, it is a product of man’s creation and destroying it, even if it is toughest, not an impossibility. But it is dangerous to suggest the breaking of this ‘structure’ and all individuals jumping out of it because it raised itself to the level of indispensable through its perpetual survival for centuries. So, is free man an impossible ideal? Not yet.
One of the interesting things about philosophy is the role of mathematics in it. Many great mathematicians are also great philosophers. There is a special fondness towards mathematics among many philosophers. Philosophers tried to find methods of philosophising, explanations and justifications for philosophical concepts through mathematical tools. Descartes, Galileo, Gottfried Leibniz and Newton to name few.
One such mathematical tool, more specifically a statistical tool can help us to chase for the ideal of free man. It is the concept of range. Literally, it is a gap between two limits or values. The hierarchical ‘structure’ of the society has range between different stratums. This is a social reality. The indispensable ‘structure’ is not insulated against the possible changes in the range between various layers in it. The range can increase through the perpetuation of inequities, instruments of domination and exploitation and reiteration of status quo of the individuals. Range can also be decreased. When we think about reducing the range between layers in the structure, one immediate question which need to be addressed is- who can reduce the range?
One of the unique things about the ‘structure’ is that it is assimilative, it is not a static one. People in one layer can be assimilated into another, upper layered into lower and vice versa. Let us imagine ‘structure’ of society as a series of concentric circles. Each layer is bound to have a concentric circle and it is assumed that each concentric circle represents the limits of the activities or tasks that can be performed by the people in that circle, which they assume as their freedoms. There are circles of ‘coercions in disguise’. The circles corresponding to each layer is drawn by people in the upper layer and as it is already said above, the residents of upper layers make it invisible for the residents of the lower layer to look beyond their circles. It makes it clear that the people in the lower layers have smallest circles of activity and going up, each layer have a much bigger circle.
This also meant that, compared to a lower layer resident, upper layers are aware of the sphere of activity beyond the circles they have drawn for the lower layers- this facet opens up the possibility of assimilation. The approach of assimilation is a top-down approach, rather than the bottom-up.
People residing in the upper layers can redraw the circles with a much bigger radius of activities and this opens up the possibility of assimilation and also reducing the range between the stratums. Upper layers are not devoid from the capability to redraw the circles. For centuries, residents of the upper layers have continuously squeezed the radii of lower circles and assimilating the squeezed-out portions of the later into themselves, leaving the least possible sphere of activities for the lower stratums. Now, in the process of assimilation, it is necessary that the residents of upper layers redraw the circles. If the same process occurs across all the spheres, then range between the layers reduce and its value move towards ‘zero’. Range as Zero is the state of free man. Will we ever reach range of zero? – this question should be better left to time to answer, but the possibility is shown here that it is not an impossibility. So, free man is not an impossible ideal. But qualifications that has to be fulfilled for it are not so easy. Why will upper layer residents accept to take up the task of assimilation and redrawing?
The answer to this lies in history. There are instances in the history or the history itself to a larger extent is a process of innumerable assimilations. The sections which took up the task of assimilation are, as called by Dipankar Gupta, ‘Citizen Elite’ or ‘Elite of Calling’. In his work ‘Revolution from Above: India’s Future and the Citizen Elite’, Gupta developed the thesis of citizen elite and limits its scope to democracies. But this thesis, though these is a substance of utopia, can be applied to whole humanity. These elites work, not just for the maximization and fulfilling of their interests, but sometimes go against their interests, have a vision to pull up the bottom. Their actions must be two folded: assimilation and range suppression, simultaneously. Primarily, they should work in redrawing the spheres of lower layers by providing more opportunities and goad the lower layer residents to move up reducing the range. This collective action across the layers is the move towards the creation of complete free man. This, I believe, should be the purpose of man.
Every individual living in the society’s ‘structure’ put himself at work to attain the goals of assimilation and range reduction, which can finally result in creation of free man. In this process, the indispensable ‘structure’ is not only changing or reforming, but eroding without damaging man. Ideal of free man is a dream is far, but not unreal or non-existent. Achieving that ideal depends on man’s action and it is certainly, the fundamental virtuous purpose of man.