Freedom: A Ruly History?

Annelien De Dijn's book Freedom: An Unruly History presents a bold and innovative thesis about the history of freedom. According to De Dijn, our modern belief that individuals should be allowed to pursue their own goals without undue interference from the state was born much later than is usually assumed. It is conservative liberals in the nineteenth century who championed this new, negative understanding of freedom at the expense of an older, more political and collectivist use of the term. My article raises three critical questions about this thesis. i) De Dijn suggests that the triumph of individual freedom can be attributed to a single factor, to be found in nineteenth century politics. Does this not overlook the many other cultural factors involved? ii) Is there indeed a sharp conceptual and chronological opposition between collective and individual freedom, as De Dijn claims, or might individual freedom have evolved in a more gradual manner from collective freedom? iii) De Dijn's book appears to champion the classical ideal of freedom as collective self-government. Is it wise to favour collective self-government over individual liberty, or should we admit that these two ideals complement and maybe even need each other? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]