deserve. We’ve also seen that alternative justifications for the outcomes we observe in the world – such as the deterrence argument to justify punishment, and the contribution and incentive arguments to justify extreme inequality – do not stand up to scrutiny.
The distribution of penalties and privileges is ultimately a product of power. Power defines what counts as a crime, who should be punished and how severely. Power shapes the laws which set the rules of the market, strengthening the bargaining hand of some and weakening it for others. The highly skewed distribution of power in our world is central to any explanation of the outcomes we see around us. But how is this unequal distribution maintained? How is it that vast inequalities of wealth and power have survived, even flourished, in the democratic era? Why have people not used the equality of the voting booth to redress the blatant inequalities beyond it?
In Part One we explored the limits on our innate freedom. In Part Two we look at the limits on our political freedom. Numerous social forces vie to shape who we are and influence what we do. Making sense of these methods of control is an important part of changing them. Part Two will take up this challenge.
•
PART TWO
THE ILLUSION OF CONSENT
4
Control
Sitting in a field, you notice an ant struggling to climb a long blade of grass. It falls, and then starts the climb again, diligently persevering until it reaches the top. Why might the ant be doing this? What will it gain? Nothing, actually. Its brain has been modified by a tiny parasite, known as a lancet fluke, that needs to find its way into the stomach of a sheep or cow in order to complete its reproductive cycle. The fluke is manoeuvring the ant into the position where it is most likely to be eaten.1 It is not conscious of what it is doing (it has no brain of its own); it is simply endowed with features that affect the ant’s brain in this way. Similar parasites infect fish and mice, among other species.
Creatures like the fluke control the brains of other organisms directly. Most species exert control by manipulating the signals that reach a brain. The mirror orchid tricks male wasps into delivering their pollen to other flowers by resembling a female wasp. Its deceptive appearance and scent exploit the sexual urges of the male to its own advantage. In fact, the imitation scent is even more intoxicating and alluring than the real thing, leaving male wasps unable to resist doing the orchid’s bidding. Other creatures, such as moths, lizards and octopuses, exhibit remarkable powers of camouflage which enable them to deceive predators and prey alike.
In nature, the struggle to survive and the drive to procreate maintain a relentless battle for control. Some species exert control by brute force, others have evolved more subtle strategies. Organisms fight to the death to access the myriad forms of energy locked up around them – in sunlight, plants, flesh and bone. The outcome of this endless struggle determines which creatures gain control over the resources available, including that most valuable resource: other organisms.
Ultimately, all conflicts arise from the desire to control the future. Today’s struggles shape what tomorrow will look like. When two aims are incompatible, for one to succeed, the other must fail. The human realm has its own conflicts: the control of slaves by their masters; the persecution of one race by another; the subjugation of women by men; the manipulation of the illiterate by the educated; the exploitation of workers by bosses; and the oppression of poorer nations by richer ones. Like the struggles of other species, human conflict is a battle to determine who gets to do what with the resources available, including that most valuable resource: other people.
We all have visions of the future that we’d like to realise – some grand, some modest – but shaping the future is no easy task. Under our direct and immediate control we have the movement of our limbs and the production of speech, but even these physical and cognitive resources are subject to strict constraints. We can only be so smart and so strong. Our power to act on the world is tightly bounded. One way to transcend our individual limits is cooperation – another is control (and the line between the two is often blurred). If we control not just our own limbs and speech but those of others too, we increase our capacity to bring about the outcomes we desire. The will of a single individual can be channelled through the bodies and minds of many. Alone, a president cannot invade another country, but, positioned at the top of a hierarchy giving him control over a vast army, it becomes possible. Unaided, a media mogul may not be able to sway an election but, as the head of an organisation that directs the activities of hundreds of journalists whose words reach millions of people, it becomes conceivable.
Pyramidal structures concentrate power in the hands of those who sit atop them. This power is always open to abuse. It enables the ideas and priorities of a small number to be imposed on the lives of millions – ideas and priorities that have a strong tendency to include wide-ranging privileges for those doing the imposing. However, the attempt to control people always risks provoking resistance, one born of the power possessed by every one of us: the power to choose. Although we are not ultimately responsible – because we make choices with a brain we didn’t choose – we do still make choices. And this power to choose is extremely valuable, the starting point for all the freedom that is available to us.
Choices present an opportunity to those who control them and can pose a threat to those who do not. Unavoidably, they affect the balance of power in society and it is power that determines the future. Just as the power of the river shapes the landscape, the power of choices moulds our social reality. The work we do, the politicians we vote for, the products we buy, the groups we support, the words we say – all of it produces ripples of effects that either reinforce or change the way things are. Every choice becomes part of the chain of causality, transforming the collective reality and altering the course of history. This becomes even clearer when we realise that a choice to do one thing is at the same time a choice not to do something else. The choice to work is a choice not to strike. The choice to buy a sports car is a choice not to give that money to charity. The choice to spend billions preparing for war is a choice not to spend that amount on feeding malnourished children. We are condemned to make choices. We cannot avoid taking sides, consciously or otherwise, in the ubiquitous power struggles that characterise our world.
Every choice that is made has two aspects: the situation being faced (the way the world is) and the identity of the chooser (the way the chooser is). In other words, who we are, as well as what we are faced with, determines how we will act at a particular point in time. The decisions we make emerge from the interaction of identity and context. Control of a person’s actions can be achieved by shaping either of these elements. Understanding how is central to understanding freedom.
Shaping context
Given who we are, we make the choices we do because of the circumstances we find ourselves in. Choices are not made in the abstract; they are made in concrete situations, at particular times, in particular places. These particulars matter. The greater the limits on what we can do, the narrower the range of potential behaviour. Some constraints are imposed by the laws of physics, others by those of society.
The ultimate way to reduce someone’s options is to cut short their life. To kill someone is to extinguish their capacity to act on the world. Short of that, the direct application of coercive force, such as imprisonment or physical restraint, dramatically curtails the options available. Threats of physical or emotional punishment can exert control by raising the perceived costs of certain choices. Cultural values can restrict access to many desirable things: a parent can withhold affection, peers can withhold respect, and society at large can deny acceptance and status. Controlling the context of a choice reduces the number and appeal of the options available to a chooser: behaviour is then channelled in the desired direction by shutting off options. While cultural incentives
