What does it mean to be free?

[pointwithinacircle2]

From time to time I run across Masonic discussions about the use of the term "freeborn" in Masonic ritual. In the United States it is fairly common to think of this term as the opposite of slavery. This causes many people to question its use in our ritual. Today, in a random and unrelated Google search, I found a paper which I think describes freedom in a very Masonic way.

While a small excerpt from a rather long and scholarly paper cannot hope to convey the meaning of the whole I hope that you will enjoy considering the intent of the author. Should you wish to review the entire paper it is located here http://users.ugent.be/~frvandun/Texts/Articles/The Lawful and the Legal.html


Etymologists trace the origin of the word 'free' to an old Indian word 'priya' meaning: the self, or one's own, and by extension: what is part of, or related to, or like, oneself, or even: what one likes, or loves, or holds dear. Latin seems to have transformed 'priya' into 'privus' (one's own, what exists on its own or independently, free, separate, particular), 'privare' (to set free, to restore one's independence), and 'privatus' (one's own, personal, not belonging to the ruler or the state, private). The picture that emerges from these linguistic considerations is clearly focused on the person and his or her property, not on some conventional status within a well-defined social unit. Political society - which in Aristotle's view, is unified by a constitution (a "moral" convention), and not by the ties of kinship that define the family and the tribal village - may have forged a link between freedom and liberty, but this should not obscure the fundamental distinction. Logically speaking, freedom may well be a ground for claiming liberty under the constitution, but even if a constitution denies the status of liberty to a free person, it does not thereby automatically deprive him of his freedom. Conversely, if a constitutional convention grants liberty to a person, it does not automatically make him more free than he was before. The grant of liberty gives him full membership and status in the constituted political organization, and nothing more. Freedom belongs to the natural human being, liberty to a role player, a functionary in an organization. In modern terms, we might say, that liberty belongs to the "public sphere" (i.e. to one's involvement with the business of the state), while freedom belongs to the "private sphere" where people meet one another as free natural persons with full responsibility for their own actions, and not as legal or fictional persons ("citizens") who are likely to explain and justify their actions in terms of legally or constitutionally conferred powers and privileges.

Thus, free, in the original sense of the word, is one who exists by his or her own efforts, one who is independently active, "his own man" or who lives "with a mind of her own". The proper context for the application of the word 'free' is the context of human interaction, where 'freedom' denotes leading one's own life, or making one's own decisions.

 

[hanzosbm]

You raise an interesting point that I think bears some discussion.

While I agree with all of the points you've made about what makes one free, from a Masonic standpoint we have two common occurrences and I wonder if they are at all related or even intended.

We have, as you mentioned, the term "freeborn" and then we also have free in the context of (A)F&AM.

Does anyone have any information on the origin of the "freeborn" requirement?

 

[Browncoat]

Wording in our ritual is different, I don't believe I've heard the term "freeborn" used, but the meaning is the same.

Taken in context, I think it means that you are your own man. You are not beholden or indentured to anyone else. That by taking the oaths of Freemasonry, you are doing so of your own free will and accord, and not being made or coerced into doing it for anyone but yourself.

 

[Canadian Paul]

My understanding is that the term goes back to medieval times when a man was 'free' when he was not under the feudal obligation to a superior known as 'serfdom'. Only those free of such an obligation could be admitted to one of the craft gilds (or guilds). You could be born free or be born a serf but obtain your freedom in several ways, including simply living in a town for a certain period of time. In masonic terms, I think it means being free of any obligations that would conflict with the ones required of you as a freemason.

I note that the term 'free', rather than freeborn, is used here in the rituals I am familiar with.

 

[dfreybur]

Freedom and bondage are opposites in a wide assortment of ways. Being under an obligation to reveal secrets is one of them.

It's comparatively easy to address the physical aspects of bondage. With Stockholm Syndrome captives eventually become loyal to their captives. We see this as recently as Patty Hearst and the Symbionese Liberation Army. We see this as far back as the elderly war captive slaves in The Odyssey.

It's much harder to address the mental aspects of bondage. Why do certain clergy disapprove of us? Because we dare to teach free thought. No matter that few of us work at figuring out what our own mental bonds are. We dare to sit with our brothers and not ask them what religion they profess, and we are proud of that fact. We dare to sit with our traveling brothers and not ask them if they are revolutionaries or law abiding citizens, and we are proud of that fact. We practice a faith upon which all men agree, but there actually are men who don't agree and we march blithely on.

It is with good reason that fundie theocrats and police state tyrants ban our assemblies when they gain power. It has to do with the free thought that we teach even though we rarely discuss what it actually means. What it means to have good men teach, occasionally practice and on rare occasions discuss is terrifying to theocrats and tyrants.

 

[coachn]

Does anyone have any information on the origin of the "freeborn" requirement?

Yes. It (Freeborn) was a word used to partially clarify a specific phrase: Able of Birth

It denoted a person who was superior stock, capable of being cultivated into a Journeyman (aka Fellow of the Craft). When you add the whole capable limb clause to Freeborn, you have what the "Able of Birth" denoted.

What you get is "not an idiot, trainable and with all limbs intact and functional". It applied only to Apprentices, who at the time where pre-pubescent children (mostly males) and not to grown men.

It had nothing to do with serfdom or slavery. Those issues were handled by the "no bondman" clause. The "Free" in the compound word "Freeborn" has nothing to do with the word "free" as we understand it today. It originally meant "Superior, excellent, pure, Top Rate, etc..." and not "without constraint".

That being said, there is a huge dam of conjectures that have been written and accepted as gospel on this subject that doesn't come anywhere near what I just shared.

 

[Ripcord22A]

My understanding is that the term goes back to medieval times when a man was 'free' when he was not under the feudal obligation to a superior known as 'serfdom'. Only those free of such an obligation could be admitted to one of the craft gilds (or guilds). You could be born free or be born a serf but obtain your freedom in several ways, including simply living in a town for a certain period of time. In masonic terms, I think it means being free of any obligations that would conflict with the ones required of you as a freemason.

I note that the term 'free', rather than freeborn, is used here in the rituals I am familiar with.

In oregon it is freeborn