Summary Of Michael Walzer's Passion And Politics
Michael Walzer’s Passion and politics begins by addressing the concept of freedom in liberalism, stating that, “the ideal picture of autonomous individuals choosing their connections (and disconnections) without constraints of any sort is an example of bad utopianism” (Walzer 1).
Explaining further, Walzer points out how all people are born with involuntary associations. These associations therefore provide constraints on individuals from birth. For instance, one does not choose to be born male or female, black or white, rich or poor, Russian or American. These are all groups that they become members of without having a choice in the matter, so while they may have the power to leave a group once, the fact that they never chose to be a member …show more content…
The first of which is being granted citizenship, or formal equality. Next members organize themselves as to gain more and more power until they eventually reach the Walzer’s final step in achieving full emancipation, “by escaping not only from oppression but also from the oppressed group. Now they are individual men and women, no longer subject to the discipline of a movement.’ (Walzer 28). This is a bold statement, suggesting that for one to achieve a more perfect freedom, they must sacrifice the group that got them to a point of having enough power to be able to make a decision on leaving the group. However, I agree with Walzer on this point. It’s impossible for an individual to break oppression when they are still viewed as a member of an oppressed group. This is not to say that they cannot still identify with that group and culture, only that when a community is fighting for equality they point out ways in which they are not treated as equals, and that the final step to achieve the equality they desire (this coming after all formal equalities) is to stop the movement. Simply put, if you behave like a movement, you will be treated like a
Explaining further, Walzer points out how all people are born with involuntary associations. These associations therefore provide constraints on individuals from birth. For instance, one does not choose to be born male or female, black or white, rich or poor, Russian or American. These are all groups that they become members of without having a choice in the matter, so while they may have the power to leave a group once, the fact that they never chose to be a member …show more content…
The first of which is being granted citizenship, or formal equality. Next members organize themselves as to gain more and more power until they eventually reach the Walzer’s final step in achieving full emancipation, “by escaping not only from oppression but also from the oppressed group. Now they are individual men and women, no longer subject to the discipline of a movement.’ (Walzer 28). This is a bold statement, suggesting that for one to achieve a more perfect freedom, they must sacrifice the group that got them to a point of having enough power to be able to make a decision on leaving the group. However, I agree with Walzer on this point. It’s impossible for an individual to break oppression when they are still viewed as a member of an oppressed group. This is not to say that they cannot still identify with that group and culture, only that when a community is fighting for equality they point out ways in which they are not treated as equals, and that the final step to achieve the equality they desire (this coming after all formal equalities) is to stop the movement. Simply put, if you behave like a movement, you will be treated like a