Can freedom be seen as a sign of social status? It is interesting to debate whether such can be the case. Philosophers have argued that freedom is being part of a community. Also interesting to note that the concept of freedom has changed over time, not to mention the concept of freedom of will. Freedom nowadays is usually associated with not being tied to any rules or regulations, or that one can act as wanted within a specific framework. However, in the context of my thesis it is interesting to denote the etymology of the word free, and its significance.

"We can start with etymology. Both the Romance and the Teutonic roots reveal certain significant affinities. The Latin word "liber" means both a free man and a child. The English word "free", along with the German "frei", the Old Saxon and the Old High German "fri" and Gothic "freis" are connected with "friend" and its g~ nates and meant originally dear. The two roots have developed in opposite directions - the Roman paterfamilias described his children as liberi because they were the freed men of his household, those whom love had emancipated from his absolute sway, whereas the Teuton recognised as free those whom he held dear to him, those who were his friends, but the end result is the same: freedom was originally a matter of status; to be free was not to be free from legal restraint nor to be free to do what one liked, but to be recognised as a full member of the community, a person who counts, an enfranchised member of society."

Taken from: Language of Liberty in Maurice Cranston and Peter Mair, eds., Language and Politics, Brussels, 1982, ISBN 2-8027/0294/7 Bruylant, D/1982/0023/7, pp.199-212.