“A lesser degree of civil freedom gives intellectual freedom enough room to expand to its fullest extent.” This statement stood out to me in Kant’s “What is Enlightenment?” Civil freedom, or the absence of strict laws and rules that limit what people can or cannot do in a society, leads to a lack of intellectual thought, according to Kant. When there are restrictions that people must follow, their intellect thrives and grows. On the other hand, if people are able to act however they please, they don’t need to think too hard about much, because there is nothing to think about changing.
This statement reminded me much of the political climate in America right now. Many minorities are being restricted in what they can or cannot do, mostly implicitly. This disparity and unfairness, though clearly awful and unfair, has allowed such people to band together in huge intellectual and social movements, such as the Black Lives Matter movement, the Me Too movement, and the Pride movement. If no limitations or restrictions had ever existed, these groups may not have had the opportunity to join together in unity and solidarity with each other. Kant claims that this intellectual enlightening will ultimately lead to civil freedom: “Thus once the germ on which nature has lavished most care – man’s inclination and duty to think freely – has developed within its hard shell, it gradually reacts upon the mentality of the people, who thus gradually become increasingly able to act freely.” This is what we are seeing today; for decades, minorities have been marginalized and discriminated against. Now, as a result of the people’s increasing intellect, we are finally seeing equality and freedom surfacing.
Below is an image of a Black Lives Matter march in Seattle, displaying the enormity of this united movement.
I agree that violations against civil rights by government lead to amazing shows of people banding together to help others. But, many governments that violate the civil rights of their citizens also make efforts to curb people talking to each other and being upset with government through use of propaganda, martial law, and arresting certain lynchpin individuals. In situations where there are more restrictions placed on expression of political ideas, I think people would still eventually be able to bring about change through intellectual freedom, but it would probably come about at a much slower pace.
Interesting thought process in building a connection between Kant’s principles and American society. Yet when reading through your statements it seems to me that it tends to sound rather counterintuitive. You state that minorities are “restricted in what they can and can’t do” yet soon after mention large political movements. Wouldn’t one think that in a truly restricted society that these minorities would not be even allowed to form such movements without suppression. A better example of intellectual suppression of the peoples to be the Hong Kong protesters, whom as we see are actively suppressed by the PCR that’s just my take on it however.