What Free Will?
The following could be called my personal/political doctrine in infant form. Any who know me are well aware of my beliefs in the effects of institutions upon consciousness. It’s a very materialistic (re: Marxist) idea. I believe in free will to the extent that an individual’s personal decision bears a direct effect on their future, and that there is no unavoidable, predetermined fate. However, the way a person perceives, thinks, and acts is determined by environmental factors: family, religion, government, culture, etc. In short, individual ideology is a product of environment. As for labels go, this philosophy could be dubbed institutional determinism; but don’t get too caught up on labels. The following is my thoughts on this matter. It begins with a short poem I wrote.
We’re all products of our environments.
Slaves to the systems we inhabit.
Owned by our good and bad habits,
what we have to have and what we can’t stand having.
Burdened by the Bible and inspired by a song,
longing for the promise land and being scared by hell.
Made suitable for society, we’re mere civilized savages.
We’re never truly free. All sentient beings are conditioned by their environments. The ideas and modes of thinking that define our ideologies are ineluctably beat, battered, and cooked by the institutional structures that surround us. By institutions I mean a whole host of actors, namely schools, governments, and families; however, the list is by no means restricted to these three. These institutions are responsible for what we think, how we think it, and what we do about it. The way we act at home, in public, and in private are resultant actions of our ideologies. Nothing we think is ever entirely unique. We may add to or take from, but we never really come up with anything essentially our own. Sounds scary, doesn’t it?
Well, it isn’t all bad. Without well structured institutions to mold a person’s mind we would be left with something probably closer to the state of nature – not a desirable condition. Ideas about civil rights and liberties, social propriety, the rule of law, and all sorts of positive ideas would be eclipsed by basic human needs and wanton desires. We’re taught good habits, like buckling our seat-belt, looking both ways before crossing the street, and not spitting in public. Our ideas about the “good” and “bad” and the acceptable and unforgivable are handed down in the form of parental discipline and lecture hand-outs. We’re told that sharing is good and casual fornication is bad; we’re conditioned to think that opening the door for a woman is chivalrous and cutting someone off is rude. In short, we’re made into civilized savages beings.
On the adverse contrary, there are myriad of odious components to the way institutions affect our ideology. In short, it seems that societies with bad institutional structure breed poor human beings. Take for example pre-abolition America. The idea that slavery is an acceptable treatment of property a human being is a glaring example of how institutions can propagate and inculcate perverse ideas. There are also more insidious ways that ideologies can be affected. Take for instance Machismoism. The notion that men are not only physical superior (an indisputable, and non-sexist fact in my opinion) but also intellectually superior. Of course societies that teach male superiority can still function effectively and look, on the surface, as a highly developed, modernized system. But what are the ramifications of such ideas? How is the female ideology affected? I can’t imagine that a female living amongst male chauvinists will be very assertive or confident, especially around her male compatriots. As for males, an idea that they’re “always right” certainly impairs rational thinking and leads, I would think inevitably, to sexists attitudes and behaviors. So, we can also be made into poorly behaved animals.
What about changes in ideology? Who pioneers the movement towards ideological shifts in thought? Is it accomplished by “great people” of history, or is it simply the accumulation of larger social movements? To this, I can’t say nor do I really want to dwell on it – not now anyway. Suffice it to say that our ideas about equality and the way we treat women (and the way women treat men) are resultant ideas given to us by the systems we inhabit.
With writing this I acknowledge that my ideas are not wholly unique (maybe not unique whatsoever) and are mere reflections of what has been taught to me, primarily through my upbringing, university education, and reading – how materialistic, right? Furthermore, I seem to be alluding to some impersonal standard of desirability or “goodness” in my critique of what is favorable and deplorable of one’s ideology. Where does this standard come from? Is it from some idea of natural, inalienable rights? Or is that just an idea given to me by the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights? At this point, I have no definitive answer. I will, however, leave you with this interesting quote by Pascal used by Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser.
“Act as if you believe, pray, kneel
down, and you shall believe”
Nice poem.
I am a little more hesitant to give institutions credit for good or bad social norms. I think that they largely serve to codify and entrench social views. Most of them are inherently conservative in that way. But historically, institutions are unlikely to lead the charge in enacting change (either for good or for bad).
For example, slavery, which you cite, was not created by institutions. The idea of one person owning another as property has been around since recorded history began. Institutions did, however, perpetuate the slave trade a little longer than it otherwise would have survived given changing ethical and economic conditions in the 19th century.
That being said, there aren’t any other single sources you can point to that do influence as much as institutions do.
David, as to your critique of the institutional effect on ideas and social movements, I have a question. If not from halls of universities or the pulpits of political parties (both institutional structures), where do great ideas for change and evolution come from? Honestly, I don’t have a definitive answer. As I said, “What about changes in ideology? Who pioneers the movement towards ideological shifts in thought?”
As for slavery, I most certainly admit that institutions may not have created the concept (I think it’s a by-product of human beings being closer to the state of nature). I do, however, think that bad institutions perpetuate such bad ideas, as you said. The inability for the U.S., despite its intellectual maturity, to eradicate slavery in its early years is the effect of poor institutional structures preventing more enlightened ideas from taking hold. I cited this as an example of institutions failing to civilize their subjects.
I don’t have a better single source to identify where those types of changes come from. I did admit that institutions are the easiest single sources to identify. I just think that they come gradually through chaotic interactions in society. Eventually some changes are picked up through agents of agitation like Universities, but the agitation is only effective if the audience is receptive to it in the first place.
I’m not disagreeing with you. I am just agreeing with your point a little more hesitantly.
I really like this new comment-reply format.
I will preface this by admitting that determinism, in its various forms, gets on my last epistemological nerve. However, as little sense as it makes to me, at least I can always fall back on one fact: if determinism is right, I have no choice but to make this comment.
In my understanding, all forms of determinism amount to the same idea. We are all acting out a script written either by our chemical makeup, our societal conditioning, or a supernatural fate. I’ve heard it argued by proponents of all three of those catalysts. If nothing else, at least determinism gives strict macro-evolutionists and die-hard Calvinists some common ground.
Scientifically speaking (and I mean scientific in the definition #3 way), determinism is the ultimate expression of cause and effect. Most of the arguments against it rely on a narrow view of complexity. For example, “if determinism were realistic, then all coin flips would have the same outcome if you used the same coin and started on the same side.” Of course, that doesn’t fly. Differences in starting velocity, air pressure and density, trajectory, etc., account for different outcomes. In that way, I appreciate one deterministic value, and that is the concept that “chance” is a meaningless word as we often use it.
Unfortunately, while cause and effect is helpful for examining most phenomena, it cannot explain everything to the level that a deterministic outlook requires. For instance, cause and effect cannot be extrapolated infinitely. If we follow every event backward in time, there has to have been an initial set of conditions at some point that were themselves un-caused, as it were.
Even more difficult for me, however, is the ability to accept why any self-proclaimed determinist would ever argue the point. The only way that making the argument can possibly change anyone’s mind is if the argument itself is untrue. Any listener will either agree or not agree and they will have no choice but to come to the conclusion that they do. Stated another way, the only reason for a true determinist to argue their point is for the sake of truth itself. The sobering outcome of that fact, for me, is that truth has no inherent value if it has the power to transform neither actions nor state of mind. Since truth is impotent to transform in a pre-determined world, why waste time declaring it?
Lloyd, although your reply is well written and interesting, I’m afraid it misses the point. I’m not entertaining the notion that everything is predetermined. I am talking about ideology, and the way in which ideologies are formed. My position is far from the ridiculous notions of fate, destiny, and providence. You could say I am discussing “societal conditioning,” as you call it. But it certainly doesn’t follow that any position in society is already determined. I’m talking Marxism, not Calvinism.
Perhaps you just read my title (which is a little misleading, I admit). It was selected mainly for its attention grabbing potential. If you read through my entire article you’ll find that I’m not talking about the inevitability to alter the future. In the first paragraph I attempted to preempt such a view. I said, “I believe in free will to the extent that an individual’s personal decision bears a direct effect on their future, and that there is no unavoidable, predetermined fate.” I am discussing how external factors influence our internal decision making capabilities, habits, and ideas.
Quite contrary to fate, I argue that institutions are responsible for molding the minds of their subjects. The most obvious of all institutional structures is the state. Institutional state apparatuses such as families, schools, churches, and governments, to name a few, are instrumental in shaping individual ideologies. This, in turn, results in particular habits, interests, and ideas. They aren’t pre-determined and inevitable, just predictable.
It could be alternatively read as the way in which human beings were made civil, if you will.
I call it “institutional determinism.” This is my own label. Perhaps I’m better off calling it “institutional constructivism.” The latter label suggests more of a building process rather than an already determined course. But read the content, don’t get stuck on the label.
S.C.
I was concerned about using the determinism label frequently, as you did mention that it might not be the best for your view in the beginning. (Rest assured, I did read the entire post carefully before replying.)
While you did state that you believe individuals have free will as far as their own future, it seems to me that the rest of your article contradicted that statement. For example:
…the way a person perceives, thinks, and acts is determined by environmental factors: family, religion, government, culture, etc. In short, individual ideology is a product of environment.
The ideas and modes of thinking that define our ideologies are ineluctably beat, battered, and cooked by the institutional structures that surround us.
These institutions are responsible for what we think, how we think it, and what we do about it.
This might be the biggest one:
What about changes in ideology? Who pioneers the movement towards ideological shifts in thought? Is it accomplished by “great people” of history, or is it simply the accumulation of larger social movements? To this, I can’t say nor do I really want to dwell on it – not now anyway.
You do make a convincing case that institutions strongly influence our perceptions, thoughts, and actions. However, it does not seem to me that this article made any case that our ideologies are inextricably defined by those institutions. My understanding is that this type of determinism, if we want to call it that, is one of your presuppositions. It is that underlying foundation to which I am responding.
Fair enough. I admit, I am prone to state things in the extreme. However, I still think that grouping my ideas about institutional determinism into the same pool as fate is a bit unfair.
Let me reiterate the main point: I’m talking about ideology. What I think about, how I think about it, and what I do about it are actions inextricably linked to our ideologies. Being the relatively afflunet Westerner I am, my thoughts are concerned with higher education, money-making, and my level of comfort. My Eastern companion in rural China thinks about his next meal, whether there will be a drought, and whether that kink in his neck is going away. Our environments are fundamentally different, thus making our ideologies similar different. However, it doesn’t follow that any future condition is predetermined; it simply means that our lives are fundamentally different, so we think in a fundamentally different way.
As for your quotes. I still don’t agree that fate necessarily follows. Being a product of or affected by doesn’t imply predetermined fate. I concede that my choice of words are a little strong. I can see how one may conclude that I throw chance and probability out the widow. However, underneath it all, chance and probability are very much alive. Perhaps it would be better said that given a particular culture and set of institutions it is probable that this certain type of ideology will prevail and that individuals of that ideology are prone to act in a certain way. I’ve got no quibbles with an alternative explanation similar to that.
As for what you deem “the biggest” argument of my own that seems deterministic, let me say this. The “Great People Theory” and the ideas behind larger social movements have in no way a direct link to determinism. Admitting that the Great People of antiquity change the course of history is by no means saying that they were destined to reign. I can say the Alexander the Great, as a Great Person, changed the course of history without saying that he was destined to do so. The same argument goes for greater social movements, like the Enlightenment or Democracy. These ideas were an accumulation of decades of thought, resulting in massive paradigm shifts and changes in ideologies. Was it destined to happen? No, certainly not.
You’re ability to criticize effectively, and your ideas about determinism, (let’s call them facets of your ideology) are results of your education (see: institutions: family, church, school). But I wouldn’t dare say that you were destined to talk to me about it.
I agree with Lloyd, although I’d like to take it to an extra point. It is my contention that anyone who wants to make any truth claim cannot believe in determinism. Let’s examine:
A) Free will is an illusion. Our beliefs/actions are controlled by external factors.
B) Person X explains that (A) is the case
C) But (B) only occurs because of (A)
Therefore, no one can know whether or not (A) is true to begin with. If all our beliefs and actions are controlled by external factors, then claiming anything is pointless. Not simply because no one can help but agree or disagree, but also because no one can know if they are right. (A) undermines any ability to make meaningful claims to knowledge.
Look at it this way – let’s add another statement in.
(A1) = Free will is real, our beliefs/actions are affected by external factors but not determined. We can override our external factors.
Now, imagine that (A) is actually true, and person X claims (A) is true. Meanwhile, person Y claims (A1) is true, while (A1) is actually false. Regardless, both person X and Y are externally caused to believe and state (A) and (A1) – they can’t help but think it. Because all beliefs are caused by external factors, no belief can actually be examined on an external level. That is to say, a person can never look from the outside and examine a claim objectively, because every mental tool they are working with, from logic to evidence, is tainted by the truth of (A). So if (A) is true, you can never know that (A) is true, nor that (A1) is false. To put it simply, the person who believes (A) is cutting off the branch they are sitting on, epistemically speaking.
That doesn’t sound very appealing to me. That’s why I say no one who actually wants to make meaningful truth claims believes (A). In fact, they have to work off the assumptions of (A1) in order to claim (A). If we can’t externally and objectively examine our truth claims, then all truth claims are meaningless.
Of course, I only say that because (A) is true.
I really appreciate the comments. But I feel you guys are playing basketball while I’m throwing darts. This isn’t a truth claim, and this is not about determinism, in the sense that human beings are predetermined to act in certain ways. It’s a reflection on the way society makes humans civil and the process by which it happens. This is materialism, not destiny.
Maybe I’m just misunderstanding, and I apologize if I am, but isn’t materialism a truth claim? And materialism to me is just the problem at hand. And this isn’t to miss the point – when we’re talking about why humans act in any civil way, discussions about truth and free will are extremely important. Because civility is only relevant if people have the choice to be that way. In my understanding, it’s a question of morality – the basis for it and all of that. If morality/civility is simply a social construct, then I have a hard time punishing the uncivil.
Haha. When I hear the term “Truth Claims” I immediately think Alexander Campbell, the Church of Christ, and the American conservative south. (Oh, how institutions have affected me here) It was perhaps a gut reaction to refute any such connection. My theory is merely hypothetical and in development. I also know that the term “truth claim” can mean a few other things. So, if by truth claim you mean to say that I am attempting to formulate some concrete doctrine by which to view the world, then yes, I suppose I’m adhering to a truth claim.
Why do you have a hard time punishing the uncivil even if morality/civility is simply a social construct? Isn’t the whole legal structure a social construct? Even if it purports to adhere to some lofty notion of justice (divine or not), what is that? Justice is a term define by and carried out by society and its many institutions. Don’t you think a civil society is preferable to an uncivil one, even if it’s all made-up by the minds of men? Perhaps that causes you some grief, but I don’t think most people would lose any sleep over it.
But, again, you guys are still way off the mark. There’s nothing incompatible with what I’ve said about institutional determinism/constructivism and the notion of free will. For example, I did acknowledge that in my “theory” I seemed to be alluding to some impersonal standard of “goodness.” Is this an allusion to some moral or philosophical absolute? Perhaps, but I hate those types of discussions — they’re far too platonic, inconclusive, and deductive. All I’m saying is that you’re a lot less “free willed” than you think. And, for the most part, you’re better off.
Here’s a good essay entitled “How Development Leads to Democracy.” I think it hits home on the fact that environment affects ideology, which naturally influences the decision making process. The authors shows that as humans start thinking more about comfort and less about basic survival, their disposition towards their role in the state is likely to change. They show that as the level of affluence in a country rises so too does the psychology of the mind. As people move from subsistence to comfort, their views on politics change accordingly.
It does better justice to my views than I can do for myself.
Alas, Lloyd and Taylor, forgive me if at any point I’ve come across as rude, rancorous, or (God forbid) close-minded. I’ve certainly enjoyed the discussion and hope you two will continue to stop by the blog.
L Taylor:
You seem to be criticizing a different way of thinking because it introduces inconveniences into your way of thinking. A true determinist would have no problem concluding that their beliefs resulted from a combination of factors that lie beyond their control. Whether or not this imperils the very existence of (or ability to be knowledgeable of) truth, well.. We already know that our perception is severely limited by the circumstances we find ourselves in. I personally have little problem making the leap to the “extreme” in adopting a determinist ideology.
Loyd-
“Unfortunately, while cause and effect is helpful for examining most phenomena, it cannot explain everything to the level that a deterministic outlook requires. For instance, cause and effect cannot be extrapolated infinitely. If we follow every event backward in time, there has to have been an initial set of conditions at some point that were themselves un-caused, as it were.”
I think you are giving “cause and effect” too little credit; I would argue that it is the central foundation of human understanding. The problem you introduce is essentially two conflicting trains of human knowledge. We know that events have causes behind them, but we also know that matter cannot be created from nothing. (This is very likely an overly simplistic view of the issue, so please call me out if you think I’m wrong) It seems to me that if we had to ‘throw out’ one of these claims as false, it would be better to throw the second one so as to minimize the impact on our accepted system of thought.