In an age where the pursuit of absolutes seems almost instinctual, it is crucial to acknowledge that there is nothing absolute about anything. The idea of absolutes, whether in freedom, justice, or truth, is a comforting illusion, yet it remains just that — an illusion.
Life, laws, and societal norms are deeply entrenched in context, and it is within this context that they derive their true meaning and relevance. Take, for instance, the concept of freedom. We often hear the rallying cry for “absolute freedom” as though it is a universal right that stands above all others. However, the reality is far more complex. Freedom without limits is not freedom; it is chaos. To live in a society means to navigate a delicate balance between individual liberties and collective responsibilities. The very laws and regulations that some might see as shackles are, in fact, the frameworks that allow freedom to exist in a sustainable form. These laws are not arbitrary constraints; they are the pillars that support the edifice of a functioning society.
“Absolute freedom” is a term frequently championed by libertarians as the ultimate ideal—a state where individuals are free from all constraints. But is this concept truly feasible, or even desirable? In theory, absolute freedom suggests an unrestricted existence where individuals act solely according to their own will. However, does such an ideal ignore the complexities of social interactions and the inevitable need for some form of regulation (be it self regulated or socially regulated or legally) to ensure collective harmony? Could the pursuit of absolute freedom overlook the balance required to protect vulnerable individuals and maintain societal order? The question then arises: Is absolute freedom a realistic expectation, or does it merely serve as a philosophical ideal that fails to account for the nuanced realities of human coexistence?
Consider the core of democratic societies — the freedom of speech. It is a principle that is often touted as absolute, yet no society has ever truly practiced it in an unbridled form. The right to speak one’s mind is cherished, but it is invariably weighed against other societal needs, such as public safety, national security, and the protection of vulnerable groups. These considerations are not impediments to freedom; rather, they are essential components of a balanced and just society. The context in which speech occurs determines its boundaries and ensures that one person’s freedom does not become another’s oppression.
This interplay of context and freedom is not limited to the public sphere. In our private lives, too, absolutes dissolve when confronted with the complexities of human relationships. The idea of absolute love, for example, is a poetic ideal, but love in reality is subject to multiple variables and is dynamic — mutual respect, trust, understanding, and compromise. Without these, love cannot flourish. What is true for love is true for all human interactions; they are governed by a nuanced understanding of context, rather than by rigid adherence to absolutes.
The law, often viewed as a bastion of absolutes, further illustrates this point. Laws are created to govern behaviour and maintain order, but they are not static or unyielding. They evolve with society’s changing values and circumstances. The interpretation of laws often hinges on the specific context in which they are applied. What is deemed just in one situation may be considered unjust in another, highlighting the inherent flexibility of legal principles. The concept of justice itself is fluid, shaped by cultural, social, and historical contexts, rather than being an immutable truth.
In the digital age, where information flows unceasingly and the boundaries between public and private are increasingly blurred, the demand for absolutes becomes even more perilous. The expectation of absolute security, for instance, is a mirage. Security measures, whether in cybersecurity or physical safety, are always a compromise, trading off certain freedoms for the promise of protection. The challenge is not to seek an impossible absolute but to find a balance that respects both individual rights and collective welfare.
As we navigate a world fraught with complexities, the pursuit of absolutes can lead to dangerous oversimplifications. The idea that there is an absolute solution to every problem, an absolute truth in every debate, or an absolute right in every conflict, ignores the rich tapestry of human experience. Our world is one of shades and nuances, where context matters more than absolutes.
Societies have always struggled with the elasticity of what constitutes “absolute,” particularly when these interpretations are shaped by changing cultural, political, and technological landscapes. The tension between maintaining a semblance of consistency in core values and adapting to new realities often leads to societal friction. For instance, the concept of absolute moral values, which might have been widely accepted in one era, can become a source of conflict as society evolves. The shifting perceptions around issues like gender roles, sexual orientation, or even freedom of expression exemplify this struggle. What was once seen as an absolute moral standard can be challenged by emerging social movements, leading to debates, resistance, and, at times, polarisation.
This struggle is further complicated by the fact that different segments of society often cling to different interpretations of these so-called absolutes. In democracies, where pluralism is a core value, the elasticity of these interpretations can lead to significant challenges. One group may advocate for absolute freedom of speech, while another demands restrictions in the name of protecting vulnerable communities. This clash of interpretations can manifest in legal battles, social unrest, or even the erosion of social cohesion. The difficulty lies in finding a common ground that respects diverse perspectives while maintaining the integrity of societal values.
Moreover, the rapid pace of technological advancement has exacerbated these challenges. Digital platforms, for example, have redefined the boundaries of privacy, freedom of speech, and security, forcing societies to reconsider what constitutes an absolute in these areas. The internet’s global reach means that cultural and legal norms from different regions collide, creating a patchwork of conflicting interpretations. The result is a society that constantly negotiates and renegotiates its understanding of absolutes, often struggling to keep pace with the changes. This elasticity, while necessary for adaptation, can also lead to uncertainty and instability, as societies grapple with the implications of these evolving interpretations.
The pursuit of absolutes blinds us to the reality that meaning is found in context; it is the interplay of nuance and circumstance that shapes our deepest truths. We must move away from the seductive notion of absolutes and embrace the contextual nature of reality. True freedom, justice, and truth are not found in rigid, unyielding principles, but in the thoughtful consideration of context.
Dr Srinath Sridharan is a policy researcher and corporate adviser. X: @ssmumbai
