Morgan Charrette

Mrs. Wold

ERWC, Per. 5

17 March 2019

An Essay of Freedom and Safety (Senior Year Revision)

American writer and social critic H.L. Mencken had once written, “The average man

does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe.” Examining this statement within the

realms of our own modern society, as well as applying it in light of the individual versus the

social environment of the individual, calls into questions its validity. The world exists in dualities

and in a way freedom and safety are those of each other, though they also are components of two

unique categories. They are, like most things in this world, a paradox that upon further

examination reveal themselves to be even more complex than expected. Like how the surface of

a body of water ripples, they extend their definitions out in many ways that exist within their

own circumstances and situations as perceived by people alike and unalike.

In opposition to Mencken’s statement, freedom may go hand-in-hand with safety--to be

free is to be safe and vice versa. This is the most apparent observation between the two.

Generally, it is effortless for people to connect freedom with safety in their minds because one

can be derived from the other. It can be freedom from the abstract or the concrete, the mental or

the physical. You are free of shame, therefore you are safe from regret. You are safe from a

harrowing situation, therefore you are free of the consequential pain. Often, the public, the

media, the widespread mass of those around us--this ​lense with which we filter what is

acceptable and unacceptable through the eyes of others before deeming what’s suitable to
ourselves, favors the orthodox. We gravitate towards simplicity, it is easier to allow others to

think for us at times. The orthodox, within the category of mainstream, is deemed safe--because

it is familiar and there is comfort to be found there. If you comply to what is usually expected

and accepted by the majority around you, you are free of being labelled outcast because you are

acting within what has been labelled “safe.” On the flipside, the individual would perhaps be

safer from the mental repercussions of forcing themselves into their society’s labels. Scrutinizing

this logic, Mencken’s claim becomes more transparent as both ideas of freedom and safety

become narrower and narrower.

It is important to also realize that the opposing idea to freedom and safety being related,

further enforces the weakness of the claim that man only wants safety and not freedom. This

opposing idea present itself as: Safety does not always mean freedom. The discrepancies of this

also lie amongst the specifics, though admittedly a bit more at a surface-level. You can be safe

without being free. You can be safe from a toxic relationship, though not free of its aftermath.

The consequences of something are not always tangible but may present themselves in tangible

forms. At times, the most dangerous characteristic of it is not the action that follows, but the

memories that have the capacity to haunt you afterward. This is a realm of safety without

freedom. The individual is not free from their thoughts--thoughts are inescapable, even at the

present when what troubles you is not forthright upon you in that moment, there may always

exist a certain anxiety or insecurity in the consciousness. Much as those who struggle with

mental illness, such as depression, may physically be safe and in a position where they are given

all the means to live a normal life, they are still caught within their own mental affliction.
 The most blatant fallacy of Mencken’s quotation is that the fight for freedom is almost

never a safe one. For centuries people have fought for freedom and therefore safety, have fought

for safety and therefore freedom. The desire to be free in order to pursue a safe society, to be safe

in order to pursue a free society. In a way, when examined in this sense, freedom and safety are

similar in how they can often be stamped out in favor of the human necessity to have control.

The desperate desire to have control--over one’s own life, over others, over fate--has always

been a threat to either. Though it’s more obvious in sight of freedom, one cannot have true safety

if they are constantly held in a state bound to the conscientious of another. Could you have true

peace of mind, be free of worrying over your well-being, when constantly at the mercy of

another human force? In war, much like love and peace, freedom and safety come at a cost and at

times, can be the expense of one another. Is there ever really any freedom of choice when it

comes to war? Is there ever any true safety from all once the battle is over? The perplexing

derivatives of one another, safety may bring out opposing forces who’s very battle-cries are that

of the well-being of others, while also limiting their freedoms. Liberty can bring forth

complications that compromise the safety of its own image at its most basic form--causing those

to question: At what expense?

To say that man would rather be safe than free implies a certain priority that belongs to a

generalization--not taking into account the choice of the individual who may have their own take

on the idea, based on their own world-experience. It also unintentionally halts the pursuit of

anyone wanting both. Most of all, it discredits the fact that freedom and safety are what we

define them as. Only we, both singular and as a whole, can determine what is either “safe” or

“free.” They are human-assigned terms, created within the pre-existing expectations and
confines. They are as fragile as they are solid--given the weight of what we wish to bestow.

Their complex duality like any other example of life, appear only through the human perspective.