Can we experience true freedom in our capitalist society? According to Professor Lea Ypi, the answer is no. She argues that structural forces restrain us from being able to make choices freely—without fear, bias, manipulation, or need. 

Ypi, the Ralph Miliband Professor in Politics and Philosophy at the London School of Economics, presented this provocative idea to a room packed with students at the Law School’s Dewey Lecture in Law and Philosophy on November 17.

The award-winning author has published several books on topics related to political philosophy and the concept of freedom, including a recent memoir, Free: Coming of Age at the End of History. The ideas Ypi shared in her lecture last month are part of a larger book project that she is working on, she said. 

The Law School’s Dewey Lecture, now in its 44th year, honors American philosopher John Dewey, whose ground-breaking ideas made a profound impact on the development of education across the United States in the early 20th century. Dewey was the University's first chair of the Philosophy Department in 1894 and the founder of the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools. The lecture series named for him was established with an endowment from the John Dewey Foundation.

“The Dewey Lecture honors our deep connections to philosophy and interdisciplinary thought,” said Dean Chilton in his introductory remarks. “It reflects the Law School’s founding principle that understanding law requires engagement with theoretical and philosophical foundations.”

Freedom of Agency vs. Freedom of Choice

Ypi began her lecture by describing human freedom, explaining that humans, unlike other species, experience freedom in connection with moral responsibility—an idea maintained by a prominent tradition in philosophy. 

This connection means that for humans to be held morally responsible for the choices we make, they must first have the freedom to make the morally right choice. On that account, freedom has both an internal and external component, Ypi said. 

“Freedom of agency is the freedom required to pursue what is morally right,” she explained. “It should be distinguished from freedom of choice which is the freedom required to select between different options.”

Ypi shared the familiar example of Ebenezer Scrooge from the classic Dickens novel, A Christmas Carol. Scrooge detests the joyous holiday, preferring the comfort of his riches over friends and family. By the end of the story, however, Scrooge realizes that his passion for money was not freedom—not a choice he made of his own accord, but an addiction. It is not until the chains of his addiction are broken that he is free to embrace the joy of human connection.

“The capacity to take a critical distance from ourselves and our preferences is a core aspect of the distinction between apparent and authentic freedom,” said Ypi. “Prevailing outlooks on freedom seem to fail to pay attention to the important difference between agency and choice.”

Ypi then turned to the charged issue of immigration to illustrate how focusing on choice ignores the deeper question of agency. Immigrants may have options—stay home, pay someone to help them cross the border, or apply for a visa—but structural forces such as poverty and fear constrain their agency, she said.

“We are all integrated with each other in this global structure of responsibility; we can’t realize freedom in one context without thinking about the implications of restrictions in another context.”

The Problem with Capitalist Structures

After defining capitalism as “a social structure characterized by private ownership over production and the pursuit of a profit incentive,” Ypi introduced the idea that capitalism creates structural domination—which comes in many forms. 

Structural domination refers to impersonal and anonymous systemic constraints that are maintained through economic rules, social norms, and legal frameworks—of which no one within the system has any real control. 

“This is why my argument is that capitalism undermines freedom as a whole, not just the freedom of workers,” explained Ypi. “Both the capitalist and the worker are unable to see themselves as autonomous agents able to freely determine the social order that they are asked to play a part of.”

A native of Albania, Ypi shared a recent experience she had at an Albanian dinner party with a high-ranking Albanian politician and high-profile businesspeople. In conversation, she asked them why they don’t use the power of their positions to create better systems that can improve Albanian society. Each person responded by pointing to a broader framework of limitations and circumstances that prevent them from making different choices. Even capitalists who wish to act ethically or change their behaviors are unable to do so because of constraints within the structure of domination, Ypi said. 

She further stated that capitalist structures create alienation, which is a disconnect between an individual’s moral sense and the social role they are required to play. 

“Alienation results from a divorce between freedom of choice and freedom of agency,” she said. “Both capitalists and workers experience alienation in a different way based on the scope of their social roles.”

Final Thoughts

The idea that capitalists lack freedom of agency does not mean they should be “let off the hook” and absolved of responsibility for the problems created by capitalism, Ypi said in concluding her lecture. 

She suggested that her analysis of structural domination opens up a different kind of critique of capitalism—one that focuses on social classes and roles, not on individual moral responsibility or “ethical business.” Because the problem, she concluded, is a structural one. 

“I hope that this alternative focus on domination by structures helps us think differently about collective agency,” she said. “Hopefully this also opens up a new way of thinking about politics.”