On February 3–4, 2025, the University of Innsbruck, Austria, hosted the conference “(Un)Freedom in Global Perspective: Actors – Perceptions – Agencies.” Organized by the Department of Modern History (Institute for History and European Ethnology) and coordinated by Elena Taddei and Florian Ambach, the event brought together scholars to explore the complexities of freedom, unfreedom, and agency in historical and comparative perspectives.
Focusing on the modern era (c. 1450–1920), the conference sought to challenge static and binary concepts of freedom and unfreedom, instead emphasizing the fluidity and nuances of agency across local, regional, and global frameworks. Participants were encouraged to move beyond simplistic dichotomies and explore how individuals perceived, navigated, and negotiated unfreedom in contexts of slavery, captivity, serfdom, and other forms of oppression. This thematic approach framed the discussions around critical questions: What defines (un)freedom for individuals and collectives? How is it perceived and represented? What strategies were used to enforce, contest, or maneuver within these conditions?
The conference featured panels that explored the continuum between freedom and unfreedom, questioning whether these conditions were temporary or permanent, reversible or irreversible, linear or abrupt. Scholars examined the agency of the unfree, shedding light on how individuals and communities resisted, adapted, or even leveraged their status for social, political, or economic mobility.
Particularly thought-provoking debates emerged around the questions: Does unfreedom always equate to ‘social death’? Could individuals reshape or redefine their status within existing power structures? How are technologies and mechanisms of coercion produced in materiality?
Bringing together diverse case studies, the conference sought to identify overarching trends and their manifestations across various spaces and contexts. By examining nuanced experiences of (un)freedom, it aimed to foster comparative perspectives and offer new insights into the historical continuities, transformations, and lived experiences of (un)freedom.
Diversity of Perspectives and Participants: Enriching the Dialogue
One of the most enriching aspects of “(Un)Freedom in Global Perspective” was the sheer diversity of its participants—both in academic backgrounds and geographic representation. Scholars from institutions across Europe, America, and Africa brought expertise from fields such as history, anthropology, political science, and literary studies, fostering a truly interdisciplinary conversation.
The exchange of ideas thrived on the mix of early-career researchers and established scholars, creating a dynamic space where fresh perspectives met deep expertise. Adding to this richness, the conference’s broad thematic scope—spanning the Mediterranean, the Atlantic, the Indian Ocean, and the Pacific—ensured that discussions reflected a wide range of historical and regional contexts. This diversity not only deepened the debates but also reinforced the need for global and comparative approaches in understanding (un)freedom across time and space.
Photo by the conference organizers. Unless otherwise noted, all photos in this post are by the author.
A key facilitator of this geographic and institutional diversity embraced by the conference was its hybrid format, which allowed researchers currently based in different parts of the world to join the discussion also via video calls.
The Participation of BCDSS: Collaborating with the Debate on (Un)Freedom
The Bonn Center for Dependency and Slavery Studies (BCDSS) played an active role in the conference, showcasing its interdisciplinary approach to the study of dependency and unfreedom across different historical contexts being well represented by three of its members: myself, Turkana Allahverdiyeva, and Professor Michael Zeuske.
As part of Panel 7: “Transatlantic Reflections of (Un)Freedom and Resistance,” my presentation, “Maritime Bondage: The Dual Role of Slavery and the Fight for Freedom on Board Slave Ships,” explored the participation of enslaved sailors aboard Portuguese slave ships in the early 19th century, particularly on routes between Brazil and the Mina Coast. Through case studies such as the seizure of the São João and the recapture of the Boa União, I examined how these sailors navigated the transatlantic slave trade, sometimes finding ways to exercise agency, secure limited freedoms, or pursue personal objectives despite the deeply coercive system they were part of.
Turkana Allahverdiyeva took part in Panel 6: “(Un)Freedom, Gender, and Family”, presenting “Agents of Change: Slaves in the Family Setting of Early Modern Crimean Khanate.” Her talk explored key aspects of her doctoral research, which examines non-elite household slavery in the Crimean Khanate. Drawing from Kadiasker court records from the early 18th century, she approached how enslaved individuals in Crimean society could act as agents of change within familiar structures, offering valuable insights into the intersection of gender, family, and dependency.
Professor Michael Zeuske delivered the conference’s keynote lecture, titled “Global Histories of Slavery and the Self-Representations of Slaves.” His presentation delved into narratives and self-representations produced by enslaved individuals, challenging conventional historiography that often marginalizes their voices.
The themes explored at the conference—particularly the rejection of binary and static views of freedom and unfreedom—align closely with the BCDSS’s core mission. The event provided an invaluable opportunity for BCDSS researchers to engage in critical discussions, share insights, and gain new comparative perspectives on dependency and coercion. Such exchanges not only enrich individual research projects but also foster the collaborative networks essential for advancing the study of asymmetrical dependencies in historical and contemporary contexts.
Exploring the Complexities of (Un)Freedom in the Next Volume of Innsbrucker Historische Studien
Following the thought-provoking discussions at the “(Un)Freedom in Global Perspective” conference, the University of Innsbruck has announced the upcoming Volume 37 of Innsbrucker Historische Studien (IHS). Much like the conference itself, this publication will explore the complex historical dimensions of (un)freedom, bringing together diverse case studies, methodological approaches, and theoretical debates. By compiling key insights from the event, this volume will provide a broader academic audience with access to the discussions that unfolded.
Drawing on the frameworks developed by Marcel van der Linden and expanded by Matthias van Rossum, the volume will examine how individuals entered, navigated, and exited systems of coercion, bondage, and asymmetrical dependency. This perspective moves beyond just labor relations, considering other forms of coercive regimes that have shaped societies throughout history. The volume embraces a flexible conceptual approach, recognizing that different sources and analytical perspectives require varied focal points rather than a rigid framework.
Key Themes in the Upcoming Volume:
Multiplicity of (Un)Freedoms
The Continuum Between Slavery, Forced Labor, and Asymmetrical Dependency
Life Stories and the Temporality of Bondage
By bringing together these diverse perspectives, Volume 37 of IHS will offer fresh insights into how coercion, enslavement, and negotiated autonomy played out across different historical and geographic contexts. The goal is to foster a comparative understanding of (un)freedom, revealing how it was conceptualized, experienced, and challenged over time.
Set for publication at the end of 2025, this volume will be a major contribution to global historical studies, reflecting the rich interdisciplinary approaches and evolving research on dependency and unfreedom.
How Asymmetrical Dependency Helps Us Understand Unfreedom
A key takeaway from the conference was the value of historical research to understand asymmetrical dependencies and unfreedoms.
When we think about unfreedom, we often picture slavery, serfdom, or indentured labor—legally defined statuses that clearly separate the “free” from the “unfree.” But reality is far more complex. The concept of asymmetrical dependencies challenge this binary view, showing that unfreedom exists on a spectrum rather than as a fixed condition. Many people throughout history and today may not be legally enslaved but still find themselves trapped in coercive social or economic relationships due to systemic inequalities, lack of alternatives, or structural violence.
At its core, asymmetrical dependency highlights power imbalances in human relationships—whether in economic, political, or social contexts. Consider domestic workers with no legal protections, debt-bonded laborers who can never repay what they “owe,” or so-called “free” workers in colonial systems subjected to brutal control. These examples show how many forms of dependency mimic slavery in practice, even if they aren’t legally defined as such. This broader approach allows us to understand how unfreedom operates beyond strict legal categories, shaping lives in subtler but equally oppressive ways.
What makes this perspective even more valuable is its ability to recognize agency within constraint. Unlike views that depict the (un)free people as completely powerless, asymmetrical dependency helps us see how individuals navigate, resist, and sometimes reshape their conditions. Whether through small acts of defiance, economic maneuvering, or legal battles, people in dependent relationships often find ways to push back. By shifting our focus from rigid definitions of slavery to the fluid and contested nature of dependency, we gain a deeper understanding of how systems of unfreedom persist and evolve over time—not just in history but in our world today.
Why These Conversations Matter Today
The discussions at “(Un)Freedom in Global Perspective” were not just about the past—they offered critical insights into the present. Themes of forced labor, racialized incarceration, and economic coercion remain urgent today, reminding us that unfreedom is not just a historical condition but an ongoing reality for many. The conference challenged us to see freedom not as a fixed achievement but as a continuous struggle, shaped by legacies of oppression and resistance that still shape modern societies.
As we continue to explore these questions, we must also consider the ethical responsibilities of writing histories of unfreedom. How do we center the voices of the unfree, ensuring they are not just objects of study but active agents in the narratives we construct? The conference didn’t offer simple answers, but it opened up essential conversations that will undoubtedly shape future research on enslavement, agency, and historical memory.
