The David Riesman Lecture on American Society

THE AMERICAN VIEW OF

FREEDOM: WHAT WE SAY,
WHATWE MEAN
Orlando Patterson
I discovered the works of David Riesman some forty
years ago when, as an undergraduate in economics at the University of the West Indies, I had just
c o m p l e t e d my assigned reading in a sociology
course on the culture of modern industrial societies. This was a section from The Lonely Crowd, a
book that had been published only a decade previously, but from the perspective of a 20-year old,
had a publication date vaguely associated in time
with my other assignment, Tocqueville's Democracy in America. The Lonely Crowd and the other
work of David's that was available in our little library, Individualism Reconsidered, had a profound
and lasting effect on me and my thinking. It wasn't
simply the fact that coming u n d e r the spell of David
Riesman meant, all of a sudden, that it was all over
with economics for me, but rather the nature of
that influence. Riesman's style of sociology--his
integration of the analytic and the interpretive, the
macrosociological and the microsociological, the
social and the cultural and his vigorous pursuit,
especially in his many elegant essays, of that Jamesian equipoise between the impulse of the individual
and the sympathy of the c o m m u n i t y - - w a s to become my o w n model.
But there was something else that was to have
an even deeper impact on me. While no scholar has
been more scrupulous in grounding his arguments
in facts--especially those facts gained from experience, observation, and the documents of life-David Riesman, nonetheless, has never confused
sociology with applied statistics. And it has always
been his firm belief, as it was to become mine, that
sociology, whatever its claims to be a social sci-

ence, is nothing if not a moral science. And this is

because the object of our study, human beings, are
quintessentially normative, impassioned and usually non-rational agents caught in endless plots and
mysteries that they themselves have written, and
because we w h o study them are ourselves human,
there is no escaping, and every reason to applaud
and embrace, a complete engagement with the
moral dimension of social facts.
Riesman has had two major preoccupations. One
has been his attempt to understand the culture of
modern America. America, he once wrote, is "not
only big and rich, it is mysterious." Now that was
an intriguing thought. I had always thought that
places like Jamaica and Haiti were the mysterious
ones, and that inscrutability pointed eastward. But
all great social scientists, like all good writers of mystery, have the capacity to make the familiar unfamiliar
and mysterious. Reading Riesman ensnared me into a
fascination with America and an abiding intellectual
need to penetrate the mysteries of its culture. So here
I am, thirty years at it, and still fascinated.
Any understanding of America however, must
come to terms with its central value and ideal, which
also h a p p e n s to be the second major t h e m e in
David's work: America's preoccupation with freedom. All of Riesman's work is shot through with a
deep engagement with the problem of freedom and
its meaning in American life. In particular, with
those"areas of freedom" that foster autonomy. One
of David Riesman's greatest concerns has been that
modern capitalistAmerica had spawned a mass culture that threatens to violate and destroy what he
holds most dear: personal autonomy. The pressures

THE AMERICAN VIEW OF FREEDOM

37

of the mass media, of the peer group and of the

many identity-groups inkanerica, he saw relentlessly
steering Americans toward an other-directed conformism that was devastating for any true meaning
of freedom.
All of which brings me to my subject. Freedom.
America. The two terms go together like a drum
and its drumbeat. If there is one thing that all the
great and small thinkers, and all the great and small
leaders of America from its Founding Fathers onwards are agreed on, it is that freedom isAmerica's
most cherished ideal and the foundation of its greatness. What's more, that America cherishes and experiences freedom more than any other country on
earth. In 1792, James Madison wrote in a vein of
national triumphalism that persists to this day: "In
Europe, charters of liberty have been granted by
power. America set the example and France has followed it, of charters of p o w e r granted by liberty.
This revolution in the practice of the world may,
with an honest praise, be p r o n o u n c e d the most triumphant epoch of its history and the most consoling presage of its happiness."
There has been no letting up in this celebration
since then, whether it was Emerson acclaiming h o w
"freedom all winged expands";the national anthem
proclaimingAmerica to b e " t h e land of the free and
the home of the brave" or the national song exulting on the "sweet land of liberty"; the Battle Hymn
of the Republic which co-opted Jesus Christ himself in the celebratory lines, "He died to make men
holy, let us die to make men free"; the Statue of
Liberty with its stirring invitation to the p o o r and
unfree of the world; or America's claim to be the
leader of the free world in the struggle against communism during the era of the Cold War.
The obsession with liberty persists in our time.
One interesting statistic will illustrate the point.
During the 12 months between October 1, 1999
and October 1, 2000 there were, in the nation's
top 50 newspapers, a total of 89,000 references to
freedom inAmerica by the nation's journalists.
Well then, let's take it as given that we are the
sweet land of liberty par excellence. But what does
it all mean? Many thoughtful people have been
puzzled by this question the most famous being
Abraham Lincoln w h o lamented in 1864 that: "We
all declare for liberty, but in using the same word
we do not all mean the same thing.'There were good
reasons for Lincoln's puzzlement and that of other
thoughtful Americans.
Take first, what I have called the paradox of the
confounding fathers. Why was it, h o w could it have

38

SOCIETY 9 MAY/JUNE 2001

been, that nearly all the Founding Fathers, and certainly the greatest of them--Jefferson, Washington,
Madison--men w h o fought for and laid the foundations of the nation's freedom, and celebrated it in
some of the finest prose written by statesmen, were
not just slaveholders but large-scale slavemasters
w h o all went to their noble graves holding hundreds
of their fellow human beings in bondage?And there
was the related paradox that confounded Lincoln,
not just the fact that the Southern half of the country had gone to war to defend slavery, but that they
genuinely believed that they were doing so in defense of their liberty--the liberty to enslave a sixth
of the nation.
The paradoxes of freedom are not, however,
confined to the American past. Consider the following features of modern America. Why is it that
this land of the free and the brave is the only modern country to execute its citizens? And why is it
that the former governor of the state that has had a
virtual carnival of executions, and w h o is n o w president, was not once called to question by his opponent on this issue?
Why is it, how can it be, that this sweet land of
liberty has the highest rate of incarceration of any
nation on earth, with 1.9 million of its citizens behind bars as of June 30, 1999? Why is the incarceration rate for Euro-American men seven times greater
than the average European rate?
Why, in this sweet land of liberty have we locked
up 4617 of every 100,000 African American men?
How can we explain the amazing discrepancy between the incarceration of Afro-American men and
Euro-Americans.
And then there is the scandal of p r i v a c y in
America. Privacy, as Justice Louis Brandeis observed
in 1928, is "the most comprehensive of rights and
the right most valued by civilized men.'Today, however, the United States has the worst record of protection of privacy of all the advanced industrial nations. Our government permits more wiretapping
and eavesdropping on our calls than any other civilized nation, and the vast body of data it collects on
each and everyone of us is not protected by any
comprehensive laws of privacy. Every citizen faces
invasion of his or her privacy each day from all quarters o f t h e p r i v a t e s e c t o r . And e a c h n i g h t
telemarketers ruin our dinners. Our medical records
are not secure. Employers are permitted to monitor the most private aspect of employees'lives while
at work. The Internet poses enormous new threats,
and no one is so naive as to believe that their e-mail
is private.

Finally, a n d m o s t p e r p l e x i n g o f all, is t h e dismal

state o f o u r p a r t i c i p a t o r y d e m o c r a c y , t h e v e r y found a t i o n o f any free society. O f far g r e a t e r c o n c e r n is
t h e n e a r c o m p l e t e c o n t r o l o f t h e legislative p r o c e s s
and of the campaign system by special moneyed
i n t e r e s t s . C l o s e l y r e l a t e d to this, i n d e e d p a r t l y a
c o n s e q u e n c e o f it, is a n o t h e r fatal f l a w in o u r
d e m o c r a t i c s y s t e m : t h e d i s m a l s t a t e o f v o t e r part i c i p a t i o n . I n 1996 less t h a n h a l f t h e e l i g i b l e voters e l e c t e d Bill C l i n t o n to office, t h e w o r s t turno u t in 70 years. Even m o r e t r o u b l i n g are v o t e r
t u r n o u t s for c o n g r e s s i o n a l elections. W i t h an average v o t e r t u r n o u t o f 38 p e r c e n t in legislative elections, t h e U n i t e d States ranks n e a r t h e b o t t o m o f
d e m o c r a c i e s in t h e n u m b e r o f eligible v o t e r s w h o
e l e c t t h e i r legislative b o d i e s . Voter p a r t i c i p a t i o n is
m u c h h i g h e r in o t h e r i n d u s t r i a l i z e d c o u n t r i e s . In
Italy, t h e average t u r n o u t is 87 p e r c e n t ; in S w e d e n ,
84 p e r c e n t ; in Australia, 82 p e r c e n t ; in Spain, 78
p e r c e n t ; i n Germany, 73 p e r c e n t ; inTurkey, 71 percent; in t h e U n i t e d K i n g d o m , 69 p e r c e n t ; a n d in
Canada, 56 p e r c e n t .
But that's n o t t h e w h o l e story. A viable d e m o c racy r e q u i r e s n o t just r e a s o n a b l e t u r n o u t o f v o t e r s
b u t also a vibrant civil society. A n d as R o b e r t P u t n a m
a n d o t h e r s have r e c e n t l y w a r n e d , t h e r e has b e e n a
drastic d e c l i n e in civic p a r t i c i p a t i o n a m o n g Americans in r e c e n t d e c a d e s . O n e m a y d i s a g r e e w i t h Professor P u t n a m a b o u t t h e r e a s o n s for this, o r t h e
e x t e n t o f t h e decline, b u t n o o n e q u e s t i o n s his basic a r g u m e n t that A m e r i c a n s p a r t i c i p a t e less t h a n
p r e v i o u s l y in civic a s s o c i a t i o n s a n d that t h e n a t i o n
ranks l o w e r t h a n m o s t o f t h e o t h e r m a t u r e d e m o c racies in this area, as in so m a n y o t h e r s .
All of w h i c h has l e d m e to ask, w h a t is this freed o m o f w h i c h w e are so p r o u d ? T o u n d e r s t a n d w h a t
A m e r i c a n s say a n d m e a n b y f r e e d o m , w e m u s t first
realize that it is w h o l l y i n a d e q u a t e to t h i n k of freed o m solely as an idea o r a set o f beliefs. That it
c e r t a i n l y i s - - a n d I shall c o m e to w h a t I t h i n k is inv o l v e d s h o r t l y - - b u t any u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f f r e e d o m
m u s t b e g i n w i t h t h e fact that it is a cultural system.
This cultural s y s t e m has four i n t e r r e l a t e d d o m a i n s
a n d e a c h t e n d s to b e t h e s p e c i a l c o n c e r n o f differe n t k i n d s o f scholars a n d i n t e r p r e t e r s .

The Semantics and Ideology of Freedom

T h e r e is, o f c o u r s e , a vast b o d y o f analytic a n d
p r e s c r i p t i v e literature o n t h e n a t u r e o f f r e e d o m . I
w o n ' t s p e a k for t h e rest o f m y c o l l e a g u e s in t h e social s c i e n c e c o m m u n i t y , b u t it s h o u l d b e o b v i o u s
to a n y o n e w h o has r e a d m y w o r k s o n f r e e d o m that
I take this t r a d i t i o n seriously. All great c u l t u r e s o f

f r e e d o m have, m u s t have, a g r e a t t r a d i t i o n o f disc o u r s e o n f r e e d o m as an integral c o m p o n e n t , a n d

A m e r i c a has b e e n f o r t u n a t e in that s o m e o f its greatest t h o u g h t s o n f r e e d o m c a m e at t h e b e s t p o s s i b l e
time, w h e n it w a s i n s t i t u t i n g its c o n s t i t u t i o n , a n d
f r o m m e n o f a c t i o n w h o also h a p p e n e d to b e m e n
o f great w i s d o m a n d r e f l e c t i o n .
At t h e s a m e time, w e m u s t n o t e that t h e r e is a
constant danger of exaggerating the significance of
w h a t t h e s e e x p e r t s a n d s p e c i a l i s t s say a b o u t freed o m . Even m o r e i m p o r t a n t to me, as a h i s t o r i c a l
s o c i o l o g i s t o f culture, is t h e s e c o n d d o m a i n o f freed o m , that is, its r e p o r t e d p r a g m a t i c s .

The Reported Pragmatics

By t h e r e p o r t e d p r a g m a t i c s o f f r e e d o m I m e a n
s i m p l y w h a t lay p e o p l e say a n d m e a n b y f r e e d o m .
T h e r e is a l o n g t r a d i t i o n o f s u r v e y w o r k g o i n g b a c k
to t h e p o l i t i c a l s o c i o l o g i s t S a m u e l S t o u f f e r w h i c h
p r o b e s A m e r i c a n s ' v i e w s o f t o l e r a n c e b y asking
t h e m h o w t h e y w o u l d r e a c t to c e r t a i n situations
s u c h as h a v i n g a c o m m u n i s t o r a gay p e r s o n t e a c h
in o n e ' s l o c a l h i g h s c h o o l . W h i l e I f i n d t h i s tradit i o n o f s c h o l a r s h i p useful, m y p r o b l e m w i t h it is
t h a t it is f o c u s e d t o o n a r r o w l y o n t h e q u e s t i o n o f
t o l e r a n c e , w h i c h is only o n e d i m e n s i o n of f r e e d o m ,
a n d it p r e j u d g e s t h e issue o f w h a t A m e r i c a n s m e a n
b y f r e e d o m in t h e v e r y n a t u r e o f t h e q u e s t i o n s
asked.
A n o t h e r w a y of a p p r o a c h i n g t h e issue is s i m p l y
to ask p e o p l e w h a t t h e y m e a n b y f r e e d o m a n d t h e i r
o t h e r v a l u e s . A small, b u t d i s t i n g u i s h e d g r o u p o f
s c h o l a r s , m o s t n o t a b l y R o b e r t Lane, J e n n i f e r
H o s c h c h i l d , H e r b e r t McClosky, D a v i d Hale, Dennis C h o n g a n d a f e w o t h e r s , h a v e d o n e so. I h a v e
b e e n w o r k i n g in a s i m i l a r v e i n o v e r t h e y e a r s ,
through in-depth interviewing, observation, and
a m o d u l e o f q u e s t i o n s I d e s i g n e d w h i c h w a s adm i n i s t e r e d o n m y b e h a l f to a n a t i o n a l s a m p l e o f
A m e r i c a n s b y t h e N a t i o n a l O p i n i o n R e s e a r c h Cent e r in its G e n e r a l Social S u r v e y for t h e y e a r 2000.
N o w an i m p o r t a n t p r o b l e m that c o m e s i m m e d i ately to m i n d is t h e n a t u r e o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p bet w e e n t h e specialists' v i e w s o f f r e e d o m a n d t h o s e
o f lay p e o p l e . No o n e has a d d r e s s e d this p r o b l e m
m o r e e l o q u e n t l y t h a n Professor Stanley Cavell w h o
o p e n e d his b y n o w classic p a p e r e n t i t l e d "Must We
M e a n W h a t W e Say?" w i t h a n o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t ,
w h e t h e r he i n t e n d e d it o r not, has b r o u g h t joy to
t h e h e a r t s o f all s o c i o l o g i s t s w h o study t h e role o f
ideas a n d beliefs in h u m a n cultures. "That w h a t w e
o r d i n a r i l y say a n d m e a n , " h e w r o t e , "may have a
d i r e c t a n d d e e p c o n t r o l o v e r w h a t w e can philo-

THE AMERICAN VIEW OF FREEDOM

39

sophically say and mean is an idea which many philosophers find oppressive'And he adds, "There is,
after all, something oppressive about a philosophy
which seems to have uncanny information about
our most personal philosophical assumptions.., and
which inevitably nags us about them" He notes further, that w h e n ordinary or lay persons say things
they "do not, in general, need evidence for what is
said in the language, they are the source of such
evidence."Amen.
Now, in making these remarks, Professor Cavell
was not in the act of talking himself out of a job. As
he later points out, "It is exactly because the language w h i c h contains a culture changes with the
changes of that culture that philosophical awareness of ordinary language is illuminating." With
this I entirely agree, w h i c h is w h y my w o r k on
the historical sociology of freedom embraces deep
study of what p h i l o s o p h e r s of freedom have had
to say. However, Cavell is quite emphatic in his
view that w h a t p h i l o s o p h e r s say about specific
expressions can never be any more privileged than
what butchers and bakers say. And he was willing to c o n c e d e that w h e r e we are talking about
such specific expressions the issue is "straightforwardly empirical, " and the exploration of semantic pragmatics advocated by Mates, of w h o m
he was otherwise quite critical, becomes relevant.
It is with this concession to empiricism that I take
my leave of Professor Cavell's paper, w h i c h developed into an exceedingly subtle and illuminating discourse on the p h i l o s o p h y of ordinary language.
The Observed Pragmatics of Freedom
In addition to the elicitation of meaning from
what people say about freedom, we can also infer a
great deal of what they mean by it from what they
do w h e n they tell us they are being free. I have
gotten at this in two ways. One is to have people
tell me what they are doing w h e n they feel most
free. The other way is what I call the observed pragmatics of freedom. I refer here to the things people
do and say in their everyday life of freedom w h e n
they are not being asked to talk about freedom, but
are doing it naturally; in other words w h e n they are
engaged in behavioral acts of freedom rather than
speech acts of freedom. This is the least studied
domain of freedom, but may well be the most important.
Indeed, America's claim to be the preeminent
land of freedom rests largely on the fact that its citizens in their ordinary lives are more preoccupied

40

SOCIETY 9 MAY/JUNE 2001

with freedom than any other group of people. Freedom is existentially meaningful to Americans to a
degree u n k n o w n elsewhere. Americans in their
dealings with relatives, lovers, spouses, employers or just strangers on the streets are constantly
drawing on and using the v o c a b u l a r y of freed o m - p r o t e c t i n g their private spaces, keeping
other people out of their faces, screaming at their
parents to leave them alone before they can barely
speak, demanding to be left to do their o w n thing,
loudly asserting their rights to almost every imaginable area of life, in other words, to use one of my
favorite phrases from Aeschyllus' play, The Persians-perhaps the first great work on the theme
of f r e e d o m - - t h e y are endlessly "bawling their liberty."
In addition to observational methods, I have followed the lead of Erving Goffman, the great sociologist of everyday life, in making use of reports in
the nation's newspapers as a major source of information on this domain of freedom. On-line data
sources n o w make it possible to conduct such studies in a systematic, statistically informed, way not
possible w h e n Goffman wrote. With my assistant,
Matt Kalinder, we are n o w in the process of analyzing a 3 percent sample of the 89,000 reported cases
of freedom-acts mentioned earlier.
Institutional Context and Dynamics
The institutional context and dynamics of freedom are the mainstays of political science and political sociology. The political system, the judiciary, and the various organs of government and
the institutions of civil society are the structures
that both facilitate and limit the expression and experiences of freedom by citizens and h e n c e its
meaning. I have spent a good part of the past 18
years drawing on the vast empirical and theoretical literature on this domain of f r e e d o m in my
quest to understand the rise and diffusion of freedora in the modern world, which is the subject of
the second of my two-volume historical sociology
of freedom.
Clearly then, in attempting to understand what
Americans mean by freedom I did not arrive with a
clean slate or an innocent head. I had a model of
what I think freedom means, based on previous
work on the history of freedom in the West and in
America, and one of my objectives is to test whether
this model is confirmed by modern layAmericans'
view of freedom. So let me n o w very briefly summarize my conjecture or model of freedom and of
the way it has evolved in American history.

The Primal Model of Freedom

In m y e a r l i e r w o r k I have t r i e d to s h o w that freed o m is a c o h e r e n t triad o f values w i t h d e e p r o o t s
g o i n g b a c k to t h e v e r y b e g i n n i n g s o f W e s t e r n civilization. I a r g u e d that, w h i l e t h e r e have b e e n certainly c h a n g e s o v e r t h e m i l l e n n i a o f this value's history, o n e c a n d e t e c t c e r t a i n clear W i t t g e n s t e i n i a n
c e n t r a l t e n d e n c i e s o r f a m i l y r e s e m b l a n c e s in this
v a l u e . I u s e d t h e m e t a p h o r o f a c h o r d a l t r i a d sugg e s t i n g t h a t t h e p r o t o t y p i c a l value has always b e e n
a c o n f i g u r a t i o n o f t h r e e c u l t u r a l notes, t h e s e b e i n g
negative f r e e d o m o r the a b s e n c e of restraint o n o n e ' s
c a p a c i t y to p u r s u e o n e ' s desires. Secondly, positive f r e e d o m , w h i c h is t h e d e s i r e a n d c a p a c i t y to
d o w h a t e v e r o n e w a n t s , s u b j e c t to t h e laws, includes the exercise of power over oneself--selfcontrol, self-determination and personal independence-as
w e l l as p o w e r a n d i n f l u e n c e o v e r
o t h e r s . And, thirdly, t h e r e is t h e n o t e t h a t is t h e
f r e e d o m to p a r t i c i p a t e in t h e g o v e r n m e n t o f o n e ' s
society.
N o t e that t h e r e is a simple, y e t p o w e r f u l c o h e r e n c e in this triad. W h a t h o l d s t h e m t o g e t h e r is,
h o w e v e r counter-intuitively, t h e n o t i o n o f p o w e r .
We are free to t h e d e g r e e that w e are n o t u n d e r t h e
p o w e r o f a n o t h e r p e r s o n o r f o r c e ( n e g a t i v e freed o m ) ; to t h e d e g r e e that w e have t h e o p p o r t u n i t y
a n d t h e c a p a c i t y to e x e r c i s e p o w e r o v e r o u r s e l v e s
a n d o t h e r s (positive f r e e d o m ) ; a n d to t h e d e g r e e
that w e share t h e c o m m o n p o w e r , p a r t i c i p a t e in
t h e p u b l i c p o w e r o r g o v e r n m e n t of o u r s o c i e t y (dem o c r a c y ) . N o w w h i l e t h e triad has b e e n h e l d b y all
peoples who cherish freedom, over the centuries
t h e r e has b e e n a clear t e n d e n c y for different classes
to e m p h a s i z e o n e o r o t h e r n o t e w h i l e p l a y i n g t h e
o t h e r t w o less e m p h a t i c a l l y so to speak. N o n e t h e less, an i m p o r t a n t feature o f t h e t r a d i t i o n o f freed o m is t h e fact that until t h e e n d t h e 18th century,
a n d e s p e c i a l l y in R e v o l u t i o n a r y A m e r i c a , d e m o c r a c y w a s always h e l d to b e an integral p a r t o f any
conception of freedom.
Is A m e r i c a n d e m o c r a c y still an integral p a r t o f
f r e e d o m o r is it c o n c e i v e d o f as s o m e t h i n g in conflict with, o r r e m o v e d from, it? Revolutionary rhetoric in favor o f d e m o c r a c y c o o l e d r a p i d l y in A m e r i c a
as t h e e m e r g i n g capitalist elites c a m e to fear that
t h e p r o b l e m of g o v e r n m e n t was n o t h o w to prot e c t t h e m a n y against t h e few, b u t r a t h e r h o w to
protect the few--especially property owners and
c r e d i t o r s - - a g a i n s t t h e many. C o u n t e r i n g t h e tend e n c i e s t o w a r d mass d e m o c r a c y that b e g a n w i t h
t h e J a c k s o n i a n era, w a s a r e l e n t l e s s elitist movem e n t in favor o f a m i n i m a l i s t capitalist d e m o c r a c y .

This v e r s i o n o f d e m o c r a c y w a s e x t e n s i v e l y inclusive, b y w h i c h I m e a n that it w a s willing to emb r a c e all g r o u p s o f p e r s o n s , i n c l u d i n g Afro-Americans a n d i m m i g r a n t s b u t r e s i s t e d a n y d e e p e n i n g

o f c i t i z e n s h i p , e i t h e r b y w a y o f e x p a n d i n g opp o r t u n i t i e s for p a r t i c i p a t i o n b e y o n d t h e v o t e o r
a n y e x t e n s i o n o f t h e n o t i o n o f p o l i t i c a l citizenship a n d e q u a l i t y to t h e d o m a i n o f social security.
I n d e e d , it s e i z e d e v e r y o p p o r t u n i t y to d e m o b i l i z e
t h e c i t i z e n r y a n d e m a s c u l a t e t h e p o w e r o f t h e vote.
Several p o w e r f u l w e a p o n s w e r e successfully used
t o w a r d this end, b u t I will m e n t i o n o n l y two: t h e
ideology of minimal government and the uniquely
A m e r i c a n legal d o c t r i n e o f judicial review. T h e ideology of minimal government entailed a historic
c h a n g e in t h e W e s t e r n , a n d A m e r i c a n , c o n c e p t i o n
of freedom, a fragmenting of the chord of freedom,
if y o u like, w i t h t h e rise o f c a p i t a l i s m a n d its intell e c t u a l h a n d m a i d e n , liberalism. I n A m e r i c a , t h e r e
w a s a swift d e s c e n t f r o m t h e r e v o l u t i o n a r y ideal o f
f r e e d o m being, in g o o d part, active c i t i z e n s h i p in a
v i r t u o u s r e p u b l i c a n state, to t h e m i d - c e n t u r y liberal v i e w o f t h e state as a sinister p o w e r , t h e greatest t h r e a t to o n e ' s liberty. Liberty a g a i n s t t h e state
e m e r g e d as t h e central t h e m e in t h e n o r t h e r n conservative c o n c e p t i o n of f r e e d o m . T h e state b e c a m e ,
at b e s t a w a t c h m a n , at w o r s t a p o t e n t i a l m o n s t e r
under the control of corrupt politicians after
p e o p l e ' s h a r d e a r n e d money.
This w a s r e i n f o r c e d b y the p r i n c i p l e o f judicial
review. Increasingly, liberty c a m e to b e i n t e r p r e t e d
as a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l i m i t a t i o n o n t h e l e g i s l a t i v e
b r a n c h o f g o v e r n m e n t . This b e c a m e so e n t r e n c h e d
a p r i n c i p l e i n A m e r i c a n law a n d c o m m e r c i a l life that
b y t h e early 20th c e n t u r y it w a s h a r d f o r A m e r i c a n s
to g r a s p t h e n e w n e s s , a n d p e c u l i a r l y A m e r i c a n ,
n a t u r e o f this legalistic t w i s t o n t h e n o t i o n o f personal f r e e d o m .
T h e q u e s t i o n s that I w i s h to a n s w e r then, are
these:What notions of freedom do Americans now
hold? W h a t e x p e r i e n c e s d o t h e y have in m i n d w h e n
t h e y b e h a v e freely? W h a t relation d o e s t h e n a t i o n a l
b e a r to t h e e x p e r i e n t i a l ? W h e r e , if a n y w h e r e , is dem o c r a c y in w h a t c o n t e m p o r a r y A m e r i c a n s say a n d
m e a n b y f r e e d o m a n d in t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e s o f it?
More generally, h o w d o e s m y m a t r i x o r m o d e l o f
f r e e d o m h o l d u p in t h e light o f t h e s e findings?

Findings
First, let us e x a m i n e w h a t A m e r i c a n s n o w say
a b o u t f r e e d o m . Most A m e r i c a n s (70 p e r c e n t ) t h i n k
that t h e i r c o u n t r y m e n have e i t h e r c o m p l e t e o r a
g r e a t deal o f f r e e d o m . W o m e n r e p o r t g r e a t e r free-

THE AMERICAN VIEW OF FREEDOM

41

d o m in the nation than m e n do. However, w h e n

asked about their o w n freedom, more m e n than
w o m e n claim to be very free. Speaking of themselves, as o p p o s e d to the nation at large, a substantial p r o p o r t i o n of M r i c a n - A m e r i c a n s - - o v e r 40 perc e n t - - f e e l that they have only a moderate amount
of f r e e d o m or are not really free, c o m p a r e d with a
q u a r t e r of all Euro-Americans and 36 p e r c e n t of
o t h e r ethnic groups.
There is one striking finding w h i c h e c h o e s a
tragic a s p e c t of the nation's h i s t o r y of f r e e d o m
t o u c h e d on earlier. W h e n asked ff there is more
freedom n o w than in the past in the nation at large,
moreAfro-Americans and w o m e n than Euro-American m e n say that they have more freedom now. This
is what we would expect, given developments since
the 1960s. What is really interesting is the fact that
fully 27 percent of Euro-American men claim to have
less freedom n o w than in the past (including many
w h o admit to still having a great deal of freedom).
How do we explain this discrepancy? I suggest
that it may well be a vestige of the nation's history
of the relationship b e t w e e n race and freedom. For
a substantial n u m b e r of Euro-American men, freed o m is still a zero-sum p h e n o m e n o n measured in
terms of the amount possessed by Afro-Americans
and other previously e x c l u d e d groups ( w h i c h may
include w o m e n ) . The p e r c e i v e d loss of freedom in
the nation at large is thus a direct function of the
perceived increase in freedom e x p e r i e n c e d byAfroAmericans and other minorities.
It came as a something of a surprise to me that
the most frequently m e n t i o n e d e x p e r i e n c e of freed o m among m o d e r n Americans is that of moving
about. And in this regard, the automobile takes pride
of place. Among the responses w e r e the following:
"Traveling from coast to coast;""Driving around in
a convertible;" "Driving my truck on the highway
with Bruce Springstein on;" and:"The ability to jump
in my car and do what I want to do as long as I
d o n ' t interfere with other p e o p l e or p r o p e r t y [and]
w h e n I got off the airplane after spending two years
overseas."
Actually, as s o m e o n e d e e p l y familiar with David
Riesman's work, I should have p r e d i c t e d all this.
One of Riesman's most brilliant essays, co-authored
with Eric Larrabee and p u b l i s h e d originally in 1956
was called"Autos inAmerica:' In that essay he m a d e
an e x p l i c i t link b e t w e e n the car and A m e r i c a n s '
s e n s e of f r e e d o m w h e n he w r o t e : "The car not
only e n h a n c e s the f r e e d o m of p e o p l e to m o v e
w e s t and s o u t h w e s t (and to Florida) but h e l p s
s h a p e the image of the g o o d life that t h e s e subur-

42

SOCIETY 9 MAY / JUNE 2001

ban states symbolize, a life in w h i c h at w o r k or at

play one always has one's car beside one as a potential escape mechanism." My survey data confirm the
continuing relevance of this observation. Even more
insightful was Riesman's discussion of the role of
what he called"the imaginary getaway"in theAmerican imagination. Riesman also n o t e d that the auto
was of special i m p o r t a n c e toMro-Americans and to
the Euro-American working class because of the freed o m it offered from their respective e x p e r i e n c e s of
constraint and racism. Writing before the civil rights
movement, he notes that, forMro-Americans the
car was the "first victory over Jim Crow trains and
buses, not to m e n t i o n a substitute for d e c e n t housing."And to the Euro-American factory w o r k e r " t h e
car offers freedom not only to change jobs and drive
to a plant 50 miles away but also to c o m p e t e w i t h
the foreman for status satisfactions that the job does
not provide."
Nearly 50 years later, these insights still hold.
My favorite illustration of this is the Mrican-American respondent from our pretest interviewing. Freedom, he said, was "sitting in my car outside." He
meant outside his home. Talk about having it all
ways. There is his home, with w h a t e v e r security it
has to offer. But here he is in his car, ready for the
quick getaway. He isn't moving, mind you. This is
not your working class Euro-American in his picku p t r u c k o n t h e h i g h w a y l i s t e n i n g to B r u c e
Springstein. He is just sitting there; but he is ready
for the quick getaway.
There is one other surprising feature of the responses about movement as the e m b o d i m e n t of freedom. ManyAmericans said that the ability to move
from one state in the U.S. to another was the most
i m p o r t a n t aspect of freedom for them. I found this
odd, since I, p e r h a p s from my educated, Northeastern perspective, had always assumed that this
was by n o w a taken-for-granted area of American
life. Not so. Ordinary Americans still think it is a
unique and wonderful feature of their c o u n t r y and
an important c o m p o n e n t of their experience of freed o m that they can get up and move from one state
to another w h e n e v e r the spirit moves t h e m without needing a passport. This is possibly a reflection
of the continuing impact of immigration on the national imagination, even among older generation
Americans.
I noted that security, including equality, ranked
low in Americans' definition of freedom. However,
w h e n talking about f r e e d o m as a lived e x p e r i e n c e ,
in contrast w i t h purely notional views, this n o w
ranks s e c o n d of all e x p e r i e n c e s mentioned, being

16 p e r c e n t o f all m e n t i o n s . A m o n g t h e r e s p o n s e s
are t h e following:"Having m y o w n p r o f e s s i o n ; ' ' H a v ing m y o w n m o n e y a n d my o w n place;""My ability
to sustain myself;" "It's so m a n y things: it m e a n s to
m e I w o n ' t b e called a nigger, h a v i n g to sit o n t h e
b a c k o f t h e b u s a n d c a n live w h e r e I w a n t to."
T h e s a m e d i s c r e p a n c y is f o u n d w i t h c i t i z e n s h i p ,
the third most important category of experience
m e n t i o n e d , o r 13 p e r c e n t o f t h e total. I s h o u l d
p o i n t o u t that this is a b r o a d c a t e g o r y of experie n c e s i n c l u d i n g voting, political p a r t i c i p a t i o n , civic
p a r t i c i p a t i o n and s i m p l y p a t r i o t i c e x p r e s s i o n s of joy
at b e i n g an America. Even so, it is r e m a r k a b l e that
p e o p l e c h o s e this c a t e g o r y o f e x p e r i e n c e so freq u e n t l y in light o f its n e a r a b s e n c e from t h e i r notions o f f r e e d o m .
Leisure activities a n d i n n e r e x p e r i e n c e s are t h e
fourth r a n k e d categories o f b e h a v i o r associated w i t h
b e i n g free. A m e r i c a is a s p o r t - b e s o t t e d c o u n t r y so
w e s h o u l d h a r d l y b e s u r p r i s e d at t h e s e results. O n e
B o s t o n i a n said, sweetly, that his g r e a t e s t experie n c e o f f r e e d o m w a s " g o i n g to t h e Red Sox g a m e at
F e n w a y Park w i t h m y son."And t h e r e are still m a n y
disciples o f H e n r y D a v i d T h o r e a u today, p e o p l e w h o
feel m o s t free w h e n e x p e r i e n c i n g t h e joys o f nature, this b e i n g 3 p e r c e n t o f all m e n t i o n s .
A m e r i c a o r i g i n a t e d in t h e fierce Puritan s e a r c h
for a h o m e , a N e w J e r u s a l e m , in w h i c h to w a g e t h e
i n n e r struggle for t h e salvation o f t h e i r souls. T h e y
h a d a highly d e v e l o p e d , if p a r a d o x i c a l c o n c e p t i o n ,
o f w h a t t h e y called ' o r d e r e d l i b e r t y " A n d as Sacvan
B e r c o v i t c h has e l o q u e n t l y a r g u e d in The Puritan
Origins of the American Sel./~ t h e i r p r e o c c u p a t i o n
w i t h t h e i r i n n e r spiritual self led, unwittingly, tow a r d the s e c u l a r A m e r i c a n p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h cons c i e n c e a n d individualism. A m e r i c a r e m a i n s t o d a y
t h e m o s t r e l i g i o u s o f t h e a d v a n c e d i n d u s t r i a l soc i e t i e s a n d it is t h e r e f o r e i n t e r e s t i n g to e x a m i n e
t h e e x t e n t to w h i c h t h e s p i r i t u a l e x p e r i e n c e is
a s s o c i a t e d w i t h f r e e d o m . Eleven p e r c e n t o f all
m e n t i o n s fall into this category. E x a m p l e s o f i n n e r
e x p e r i e n c e s m e n t i o n e d are: "My r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h
G o d " ; " F r e e d o m in C h r i s t ' ; a n d "My b o r n - a g a i n exp e r i e n c e , yes, w h e n I w a s w o r k i n g and p r a i s i n g
t h e Lord."
T h e r e is a slightly g r e a t e r m e n t i o n o f negative
e x p e r i e n c e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h f r e e d o m (9 p e r c e n t o f
total) t h a n t h e 7 p e r c e n t o f m e n t i o n s in definitions
given o f t h e value. T h e a n s w e r s h e r e are intriguing.
A n u m b e r o f w o m e n said t h e e x p e r i e n c e that m a d e
t h e m feel m o s t free w a s getting d i v o r c e d f r o m t h e i r
h u s b a n d s , although, let m e h a s t e n to a d d that this
w a s a little less t h a n 2 p e r c e n t of all w o m e n . Fur-

t h e r m o r e , for w h a t it is w o r t h , v e r y nearly the same

n u m b e r said that falling in love a n d getting m a r r i e d
w e r e the e x p e r i e n c e s that m a d e t h e m feel m o s t free.
Somewhat more troubling were those women who
gave as t h e i r m o s t m e m o r a b l e m o m e n t o f f r e e d o m
t h e day t h e y b e c a m e a w i d o w . As o n e w o m a n said:
" B e c o m i n g a w i d o w has given m e n o o n e to ans w e r to."
T h e c a t e g o r y "social, " w h i c h ranks equally w i t h
t h e negative, i n c l u d e s all r e f e r e n c e s to e x p e r i e n c e s
such as b r i n g i n g u p children, c a r i n g for o t h e r s ,
having a loving r e l a t i o n s h i p , a n d d o i n g g o o d o r res p o n s i b l e acts. Here, p e o p l e find f r e e d o m in caring i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h others.
Finally, t h e r e is the c a t e g o r y o f e x p e r i e n c e s called
c h o i c e . Here w e refer to t h o s e r e s p o n d e n t s w h o
claimed, e v e n after b e i n g p r o d d e d , that c h o i c e w a s
an act quite i n d e p e n d e n t o f any p a r t i c u l a r experie n c e w i t h w h i c h it w a s associated. T h e s e v i e w s
were sometimes quite sophisticated. Occasionally
s u c h p e r s o n s s o u n d e d like Austinians t h i n k i n g o f
s p e e c h acts, s u c h as t h e p e r s o n w h o said, "I have a
c h o i c e to choose." More typical w a s t h e p e r s o n w h o
m a d e it clear that d e c i s i o n m a k i n g w a s t h e f r e e d o m
act he h a d in m i n d b y saying: "Just d o i n g w h a t I
c h o o s e in m y life, m a k i n g m y o w n d e c i s i o n s - - t h a t ' s
it!"
T h e findings I h a v e r e p o r t e d so far refer to t h e
n a t i o n at large. As can w e l l b e i m a g i n e d , t h e r e are
i m p o r t a n t variations a c c o r d i n g to g r o u p s and I have
time to m a k e o n l y a f e w c u r s o r y o b s e r v a t i o n s here.
First, t h e r e w e r e significant g e n d e r d i f f e r e n c e s alt h o u g h n o t as great as o n e m i g h t have i m a g i n e d .
It is in t h e e x p e r i e n c e s t h e y a s s o c i a t e w i t h freed o m that t h e m a i n e t h n i c g r o u p s in A m e r i c a differ.
For Euro-Americans, m o v i n g a b o u t , social s e c u r i t y
a n d c i t i z e n s h i p are t h e t h r e e m o s t i m p o r t a n t cate g o r i e s o f e x p e r i e n c e s m e n t i o n e d , in t h a t order,
w h e r e a s for A f r o - A m e r i c a n s t h e y a r e s e c u r i t y ,
n e g a t i v e f r e e d o m a n d i n n e r f r e e d o m . This is m o r e
consistent with what we know of Afro-American
life. It also m a k e s s e n s e that security, b e i n g able to
m o v e a b o u t and c i t i z e n s h i p are t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t
c a t e g o r i e s o f m e n t i o n s by o t h e r groups, m a n y o f
w h o m are r e c e n t i m m i g r a n t s o r t h e c h i l d r e n o f immigrants.

Freedom Alive and Well?

F r e e d o m is alive and p e r v a s i v e in A m e r i c a . T h e
long-held claim that it is t h e n a t i o n ' s p r e - e m i n e n t
s e c u l a r value c e r t a i n l y h o l d s up. W h a t ' s m o r e , as I
have a r g u e d , it is n o t just a value b u t a cultural
system that offers m e a n i n g to all a s p e c t s o f p e o p l e ' s

THE AMERICAN VIEW OF FREEDOM

43

lives. And with one major exception, my model of

American freedom has been largely confirmed.
The culture of freedom is alive. But is it well?
Earlier, I argued that America was the only Western
nation that did not repair the great fragmentation
of the Western chord of freedom by liberalism during the 19th c e n t u r y - - t h a t divorce of democracy,
the sharing of social and political power, from the
domain of freedom. There have been many attempts
to do so, to be sure, most notably in the New Deal
and the struggle for what Roosevelt called the four
freedoms. But there has been a renewed assault on
this only partly successful attempt at re-integrating
the negative and positive notes of freedom with the
equalitarian note of democracy.
My study indicates that the assault on the chord
of freedom was only partly successful. As we have
seen, the classical liberal attempt to define freedom in wholly negative terms against the state was
not a success in America. Americans, we can n o w
state with some confidence, overwhelmingly conceive of, and experience, their freedom in positive terms. Freedom means doing what one wants;
it is the capacity to choose; it is the ability to define one's goals, to fashion oneself as one pleases,
and it is the p o w e r to be able to do all these things.
Negative f r e e d o m is alive, to be sure, as it should
be. But only a m o n g a small, if very vocal minority, is it primarily liberty against the state. Instead, it is liberty against oppressive social and
personal f o r c e s - - t h e interpersonal dimension of
my m a t r i x - - a n d for some, the struggle against
inner forces and demons. What working m e n and
w o m e n are most c o n c e r n e d with are liberty from
the o p p r e s s i o n of the assembly line, the alienation of de-skilled and underpaid work, and the
petty tyrannies of the foreman or factory manager.
What w o m e n w a n t is liberty from those private
forces that are determined to keep them in their
traditional places and attenuate their choices. What
Afro-Americans and other disadvantaged minorities
want is liberty from discrimination in the private sector and from inherited institutional constraints.
And they want these negative liberties in order
to exercise positive p o w e r in and over their lives.
They want these negative liberties in order to be
e m p o w e r e d in their communities, in order to be
positively free in their society. For they n o w see, as
clearly as David Riesman saw 50 years ago, that
"power indeed is founded in large measure on interpersonal expectations and attitudes." In all these
respects, and in spite of all the ideological camouflage, freedom is both alive and well in America.

44

SOCIETY 9 MAY/JUNE 2001

But note that the freedom that is alive and well is

largely confined to the private, inter-personal domains of life. And herein lies our problem.
There is one respect in whichAmerican freedom
is so unwell that it threatens to bring the whole
culture of freedom down if something is not done
about it. For while the attempt to define freedom
wholly in negative terms against the state failed, the
second prong of the classical liberal attack on democracy was devastatingly successful in America.
And this was the demobilization of the electorate
as well as the sustained propaganda that the state
was an evil Leviathan, hostile to personal interests
and social security, and the view that small government and less government is necessarily better government, that democracy is nothing more than the
least of all evils. But as David Riesman once wrote:
"It is hard to find satisfaction in a society w h o s e
best defense is that it is less evil than some other
social form."
It is the success of two centuries of assault against
democracy that accounts for its enfeebled state in
America today. Now there is a long tradition of scholarship in political science that blames the so-called
apathy of the electorate for the dismal state of democracy: their presumed lack of civic obligations;
their lack of education; their love of television and
whatnot. And, m o r e recently, rational choice
theorists have added a n e w twist to the old political science game of blaming the masses for the
state of democracy by arguing that failure to vote is a
rational decision, given that the costs of voting for
each individual outweighs any perceived benefit.
These views are perniciously wrong. It is important to note that Americans are not turned off democracy per se, as my survey clearly shows, but
against politicians. The history of voting behavior
demonstrates that people w h e n not demobilized
and w h e n politically engaged by meaningful politics will participate. As Francis Piven and Richard
Cloward have correctly observed: "When politics
matters people behave as if it matters. Apathy and
lack of political skill are a c o n s e q u e n c e , not a
cause, of the party structure and political culture that is sustained by legal and political barriers to e l e c t o r a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n . " W h a t e v e r the
causes, the broken and sick state of our democracy is a fact, and it threatens the o t h e r freedoms
that we claim to cherish. The persistent, unrelenting rhetoric of small or minimal or downsized
government not only fails to acknowledge the fact
that the American government is actually relatively
small w h e n measured in terms of its vast national

product, and when compared with other modern

g o v e r n m e n t s , b u t fails to n o t e that small, u n r e s p o n sive g o v e r n m e n t s c a n b e as devastatingly intrusive
as any b i g g o v e r n m e n t .
T h e s u c c e s s f u l assault o n d e m o c r a c y has simply
m e a n t that w e have c l o s e d t h e front d o o r of particip a t i o n a n d r e s p o n s i v e g o v e r n m e n t w h i l e leaving
o p e n t h e b a c k d o o r to a g o v e r n m e n t that has b e e n
c a p t u r e d b y special i n t e r e s t s and u n e l e c t e d lobbyists of e v e r y stripe. We have c l o s e d t h e f r o n t d o o r
to a g o v e r n m e n t t h a t c a r e s e n o u g h a b o u t p r i v a c y
a n d o t h e r areas o f p e r s o n a l f r e e d o m to p a s s a c o m p r e h e n s i v e a n d e n f o r c e a b l e p r i v a c y act, w h i l e
l e a v i n g t h e b a c k d o o r o p e n to t h e m o s t e g r e g i o u s
assaults on our privacy and personal liberties by
agents of the state and self-serving elements of
t h e p r i v a t e sector. We h a v e c l o s e d t h e f r o n t d o o r
o n t h e c o n c e p t i o n o f f r e e d o m as e q u a l j u s t i c e ,
effective welfare and social security guaranteed
b y a c a r i n g , c i v i l i z e d state, w h i l e leaving t h e b a c k
d o o r w i d e , w i d e o p e n to c o r p o r a t e w e l f a r e , t h e
s e i z u r e o f o u r n a t i o n a l lands, o u r air w a v e s a n d
o u r o t h e r n a t i o n a l p a t r i m o n L a n d to e v e r y c o n c e i v a b l e f o r m o f p l u t o c r a t i c c o r r u p t i o n o f o u r legislature.
The culture of f r e e d o m is alive in o u r private lives,
b u t as long as o u r d e m o c r a c y - - t h a t critical third
n o t e of this great cultural c h o r d - - r e m a i n s f l a t t e n e d
and d i s c o n n e c t e d , o u r o t h e r t w o n o t e s o f f r e e d o m
are in d a n g e r o f b e c o m i n g w h a t t h e sad Janis Joplin,
song says, n o m o r e t h a n a state o f having n o t h i n g
left to lose.
Instead of b l a m i n g t h e p e o p l e a n d t h e i r a p a t h y
for this grim state of o u r d e m o c r a c y , w e w h o are
a m o n g t h e l e a d e r s o f this great c o u n t r y o r are training t h o s e w h o will b e c o m e its leaders, s h o u l d h e e d
David Riesman's a p p e a l for w h a t he calls a "saving
r e m n a n t " o f a u t o n o m o u s p e r s o n s alert to t h e dangers that a sick d e m o c r a c y p o s e s to the entiretT of
our freedom, alert to the indisputable sociological fact,
and here I quote him that"People can b e c o m e d e e p l y
attached only to a society w h i c h takes account of their
longings for c o n n e c t i o n w i t h each o t h e r ... [and] to
the degree that capitalist individualism has fostered
an ethic of callousness, t h e result has b e e n to und e r m i n e all forms o f individualism, g o o d a n d bad."
A n d m a y I add, all forms o f f r e e d o m .
O r l a n d o P a t t e r s o n is J o h n Cowles P r o f e s s o r o f Sociology a t H a r v a r d University. This article is b a s e d
o n the H a r v a r d SocioR~), D e p a r t m e n t ' s s e c o n d ann u a l D a v i d R i e s m a n Lecture on A m e r i c a n Society,
w h i c h w a s d e l i v e r e d o n O c t o b e r 31, 2000.

AMERICANSTUDIES
POLITICALPHILOSOPHY
AND CULTURALRENEWAL
COLLECTEDESSAYSOF FRANCISGRAHAMWILSON

Francis Graham Wilson

H. Lee Cheek, Jr., M. Susan Power,
and Kathy B. Cheek, editors
0-7658-0045-4 (cloth) 2000 263 pp. $49.95 / s

THE RADICALRIGHT
THIRD EDITION

Daniel Bell, editor

With a new introduction
by David Plotke,
and an afterword by Daniel Bell
0-7658-0749-1 (paper) 2000 570 pp. $29.95 / s

CULTUREAND THE RADICAL

CONSCIENCE
Eugene Goodheart
0-7658-0737-8 (paper) 2000 179 pp. $24,95 / s

THE NEW AGRARIANMIND

THE MOVEMENTTOWARDDECENTRALISTTHOUGHT
IN TWENTIETH-CENTURYAMERICA

Allan Carlson
1-56000-421-5 (cloth) 2000 197 pp. $29.95 / s

THE CIVIL WAR

AND THE PRESS
David B. Sachsman,
S. Kitrell Rushing,
Debra Reddin van Tuyll, editors
0-7658-0008-X (cloth) 2000 584 pp. $49.95 / s

Order from your bookstore or direct

from the publisher.
(*Available from Transaction in North America only.)

Toll free (US only) 1-888-999-6778

or fax 732-748-9801

TRANSACTION
PUBLISHERS
RUTGERS--THESTATEUNIVERSITYOF HEWJERSEY,
DEPT.AOILS,35 BERRUECIRCLE, PISCATAWAY,NJ08854
IN THEUK--3 HENRIETTASTREET, COVENTGARDEN,LONDON
WC2E8LU TEL:+44 (0)20 7 240 0856 ORFAX:+44 (0)20 7 379 0609

THE AMERICAN VIEW OF FREEDOM

45