Can Freedom Become a Constraint?

By Mina Basheer

Opinion | Culture & Ideas

Freedom is an enduring human aspiration. People have struggled for it throughout history, and individuals continue to seek it in different forms throughout their lives. Yet behind this seemingly straightforward idea lies a paradox: Is freedom simply the absence of restrictions imposed by others, or can our own beliefs quietly limit it?

We are not born with the convictions that will eventually shape our understanding of the world. As we grow, our families, communities, and education teach us what is right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable. These influences are essential to developing awareness. The difficulty arises when inherited beliefs become unquestionable truths, leaving us unable to distinguish between what we have consciously chosen and what we have merely grown accustomed to believing.

This paradox brings to mind French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau's famous opening statement in The Social Contract: “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.”

Rousseau was examining the social and political constraints surrounding human freedom. His words, however, invite me to consider another kind of limitation, one that develops not through external authority but through the way we think.

A person may consider themselves knowledgeable and independent while refusing to question their deepest convictions. Knowledge itself is not the enemy of freedom. On the contrary, it broadens our understanding and expands our choices. The problem arises when conviction hardens into certainty that leaves no room for doubt or alternative perspectives.

This is what I call hidden intellectual captivity: believing we are thinking independently while allowing unexamined assumptions to shape our judgments.

In his novel I Am Free, Egyptian author Ihsan Abdel Quddous explores the relationship between freedom, personal principles, and the goals to which people devote their lives. His work raises a compelling question: Does commitment to our principles make us prisoners of them?

I believe the answer depends on the nature of that commitment. There is a meaningful difference between someone who embraces a principle after careful reflection and someone who fears questioning it. Holding firm convictions does not diminish freedom, but refusing to reconsider them when circumstances or evidence change may prevent us from seeing beyond our existing assumptions.

We encounter this contradiction in everyday life. Someone may defend freedom of expression yet refuse to listen to opposing views. Another may champion individual choice while pressuring others to follow their decisions. How can we claim freedom for ourselves while struggling to accept it when others exercise theirs?

Freedom does not require abandoning our principles, nor does it grant us the right to violate the rights of others. It does, however, require the ability to reconsider our beliefs without feeling that our very identity is at risk.

Perhaps absolute freedom is impossible in a world shaped by relationships and responsibilities. But that does not prevent us from becoming more intellectually independent as we learn to distinguish between remaining faithful to our convictions and becoming rigidly attached to them.

Are we free because we believe in our ideas, or because we have the courage to question them?