Autonomy Versus Determinism Debate example essay topic

'To what extent can I determine my own destiny?' Discuss in the light of theories, ideas and research encountered in the course. Do I act as I do through choice or are my actions influenced by factors beyond our control? This uncertainty has concerned psychologists for decades, consequently giving rise to the 'Autonomy versus Determinism' debate. By definition, autonomy is the belief that we are free to make decisions and thus control all of our actions, however determinism contradicts this view by suggesting that all of our actions are entirely determined by the external and internal forces operating on them. Nowadays It is now commonly documented by most psychologists that it is a combination of both autonomy and determinism that determines our behaviour however this leads to another question, 'to what extent can I determine my own destiny'?

In order to answer this question this essay will firstly explore the autonomy versus determinism debate and consider how and why human action is determined and also if determinism prevents autonomy. This debate will be explore through different psychological perspectives. The tri modal theory by Richard Stevens will show how these perspectives can be integrated in an attempt to try and understand human action. The determinist view that our behaviour is the result of some previous experience suggests that we have no free will to control our actions. As a result humanistic social psychologists have wholly rejected this idea and instead clearly supported the idea of autonomy. Autonomy basically means that we are free to choose what we do and that our behaviour is not constrained in any way.

Carl Rogers (Wetherell, Still 1996: 101) and Abraham Maslow (Stevens 1 1996: 152) enthusiastically believed that people implement choice in their behaviour and that the idea that we are not in control of our behaviour deprives us of our human characteristics. Rogers sees our personal world as being unique and believes it is sustained and improved by exercising autonomy. Maslow also supporting autonomy believes in a hierarchy of human needs i.e. when our basic needs such as food, sleep, security, love, self esteem are met it is then that we can focus more fully on developing our personal potential which leads to self-actualization. Maslow found that 'peak experiences' (moments of high excitement, deep meaning etc) were times of intense self actualization.

Csikszentmihalyi (Stevens 2 1996: 157) did a similar study, his 'flow experiences' was interested in how people felt when they enjoyed themselves the most, it emphasized 'the importance of absorbing activity and the focusing of attention for psychological well-being'. (Stevens 3 1996: 169) The Langer and Rodin study (1976) (Lalljee 1996: 121) based in an American nursing home shows the difference between two groups of elderly residents, those that were given the chance to be autonomous were found that being in control made a critical difference to their well-being and longevity. However the residents that believed their well-being was reliant on the nursing staff were found to be less happy and their mortality rate was higher. This highlights the fact that to have a happy life no matter what age we need to be autonomous. Those in favour of determinism believe that behaviour is the product of internal or external forces over which we have no control.

As a result, human behaviour is arranged and therefore determined. This idea is similar to that of scientific methods e.g. experiments. In an experiment we have the ability to manipulate the variables, according to determinism all behaviour is causal, by this we sense that the determinist feels we have the opportunity of controlling all human behaviour. Supporting the determinist view is the biological approach, according to biological social psychologists our behaviour is solely determined by our biological systems, they argue that we are genetically determined. Cox and Klinger 1988 (Toates 1996: 55) among others support genetic determinism, what they propose is that we are not only physically determined by our genes but that our genetic make-up determines our behaviour as well. The Cox and Klinger study of alcohol on rats and humans illustrated that there are individual differences on the ingestion of alcohol in regions of the brain.

It was thought that these differences may be genetic in origin and may determine if we had a tendency to be addicted to alcohol. Biological psychologists believe that 'behaviour depends upon the nervous system, but the state of the nervous system depends in part upon the environmental context, including social factors'. (Toates 1996: 82) The above statement leads us to consider the evolutionary approach and the social constructionist view that we are determined by society. Charles Darwin's (1859) theory of evolution attempts to explain the origins of bodily structures and behaviour, he states that 'in the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals because they succeed in adapting themselves best to their environment'.

(Darwin, cited in Burrow 1968) This is a very deterministic view arguing that our genes have control over behaviour as well as our physiological processes since they have been naturally selected over the generations. The social constructionists believe that the culture be are born into determines our destiny by shaping the self and our future relationships. Winch (1958) (Dallos 1996: 221) maintains that we all have a group of people that we regularly encounter and from this group we choose our friends he classes this as our 'field of eligible's'. As we can not choose when we are born, our parents, what culture we are born into, these decisions will influence our field of eligible. An example of how society can shape and determine our destiny is seen through the personal account by anthropologist Dourine Kondo (1990).

As a Japanese-American child Dorinne Kondo was socialized into acquiring an American cultural sense of self, however while working in Japan she found she was torn between the American culture she had adapted to and the Japanese culture she was trying to associate with. During her social interaction within the Japanese culture Kondo revealed an intertwining of the self with the social environment, she spoke about 'acquiring new patterns of thought, new internal monologues, self-descriptions and new positioning of self in relation to other people. ' (Wetherell, Maybin 1996: 224) Dorinne Kondo's social and cultural interactions has shown us that our social self is not fixed. The autonomy versus determinism debate has many serious implications. If individuals had autonomy over their actions, then psychology would not be a science as behaviour would not be causal and therefore there would be no need for researchers to ascertain the causes of behaviour by measuring the influence of variables. If, on the other hand, behaviour was purely deterministic we could not be held responsible for our actions, criminals could not be punished and society would deteriorate.

Furthermore, we would feel very helpless as we would be entirely at the mercy of our environment. It is important to note that it is impossible to design an experiment to find out which is the greater influence in human behaviour, autonomy or determinism, and therefore this debate may be more theoretical than it is scientific. The above accounts have shown how perspectives in social psychology have put forward their proposals as to how human behaviour occurs but these differing views have not helped find an answer to the question asked so in order to find an explanation as 'to what extent can I determine my own destiny' this essay will now consider the statement made by Richard Stevens that 'people can be both determined and yet capable of autonomy'. (Stevens 4 1996: 83) In trying to understand human action Richard Stevens has developed an integrated framework that attempts to make sense of the different actions involved in social psychological perspectives and the epistemologies that they involve. By interrelating the biological, symbolic and reflexive aspects of being human Stevens developed his 'Trimodal theory' (Stevens 5 1996: 77) as a model for understanding human action.

Stevens argues that there are three modes potentially involved in human action and therefore 'social psychology needs to operate with three different epistemologies', see table below. Mode Primary Secondary Tertiary Basis for action biological process symbolic process reflective awareness Influence on action genetic inheritance meanings assimilated from society and childhood reflecting on awareness of actions and consequences Assumes determinism determinism autonomy Epistemology nomothetic hermeneutic transformational Aim of epistemology To explain To interpret To facilitate possibility Criteria truth coherence / plausibility enhancement / facilitation Kind of science natural social or personal moral Examples psychophysiology psychoanalysis / social construction ism existential / feminist psychology Richard Stevens - Trimodal Theory Stevens structure explains that in the beginning of life we are shaped by biological factors we have inherited genetically. As evolutionary factors were shaping the human race, language emerged and human brain size increased, a fundamental change occurred which shifted the basis of human action from biological to symbolic. The human race could now not only symbolism their outer world but their inner world too and by achieving a sense of self-awareness we unknowingly have launched into the third mode of human action - reflexive awareness. The arguments above on autonomy or determinism can be inserted into Stevens tri modal theory. The primary mode demands a nomothetic epistemology and its basis for action is from the biological perspective, a natural science.

The Cox and Klinger study explains a causal relationship between our genetic make-up and our susceptibility to alcohol, thus assuming that we do not choose to be alcoholics but our genes determine it, this fits nicely into the primary mode. Moving into the second mode Stevens moves from the biological to the symbolic. There are two studies from above that fit this secondary mode. The 'field of eligible's's tudy by Winch and Kondo Japanese field study. Instead of looking for causal explanations these studies pay attention to interpretation and both require a hermeneutic epistemology and move away from the natural sciences to a more social or personal science. As well as society influencing our actions Stevens secondary mode suggests that childhood experiences also participate.

Freud would fully agree with this as he 'believed that childhood experiences, in particular early, forbidden sexual events and feelings, continue to exert an influence on the developing psych'. (Thomas 1996: 167) Freud's early notion of erotic transferences has recently been developed to deal with transferences of other features of early experiences with other people and relationships e.g. the attachment / relationship we have with our parents throughout our early years affects the relationships we go on to have in our adult lives. This mode has shown that it upholds determinism but it shifts from genetic determinism to state that we are determined by our upbringing and the society we live in. The final mode is the tertiary mode which is based around reflexive awareness and supports autonomy. Throughout our evolutionary process human beings have advanced from being able to symbolism their outer world to symbolizing their inner world also, this has enabled us to develop a sense of self awareness and reflexive awareness. Phenom enologists, humanistic and existential social psychologists suggest that to be a person 'is to possess reflexive awareness.

An extraordinary feature of being human is our potential capacity for self-awareness - to be aware of our thoughts, feelings and ourselves'. (Stevens 6 1996: 153) The Langer and Rodin study above has shown that having agency and free-will is crucial to our well-being and survival. William James (Stevens 7 1996: 156) argues that our sense of self and will gives us the ability to direct thoughts and actions, he sees this as core aspects of conscious experience. This essay has offered ideas, debates and research from different social psychological perspectives on autonomy and determinism.

Stevens tri modal theory although being a very recent development in social psychology can help make sense of these perspectives in terms of the source of actions they highlight and the epistemologies that they involve. In answer to the question asked - 'To what extent can I determine my own destiny?' - There are valid arguments on both sides of the debate. Rogers and Maslow and other psychologists that support autonomy argue that we are responsible for our own actions and are free to choose how we want to behave. However, if we have complete autonomy then we will have no reason to behave in any way resulting in entirely random behaviour. Since this is obviously not the case, and human behaviour is orderly to a certain extent, psychologists supporting autonomy see it as an act resulting from our character or personality as well as morals and expected roles.

With self-actualization being fundamental to the humanistic approach they unequivocally support autonomy. Considering the cultural environments we are born into it is evident that society exercises constraints over us through rules and regulations. Yet as individuals we can make our own choices as to what we believe is right and wrong. Although we are all influenced by the norms and values of the society in which we live, our behaviour is not completely determined by society; there is always an element of autonomy. Our actions, in turn, have influence over the social structures of our society.

George Mead (Still 1996: 31) 'describes the development of the self as though it were a 'hermeneutic circle' - the self is constituted through the Social, which is itself constituted by selves'. Throughout our lives we interpret the social world and then chose to act on these interpretations, but our options are constrained by the structure of the society we live in. To conclude this essay the final word must be given to Jerome Bruner on what he calls 'open-mindedness'. He recognises this as 'a willingness to construe knowledge and values from multiple perspectives without a loss of commitment to one's own values... It demands that we be conscious of how we come to our knowledge and as conscious as we can about the values that lead us to our perspectives. It asks that we be accountable for how and what we know.

But it does not insist that there is only one way of constructing meaning or one right way. It is based upon values that, I believe, fit it best to deal with the changes and disruptions that have come so much a feature of modern life. ' (Bruner cited in Stevens, Wetherell 1996: 367)

Bibliography

Burrow, J.W., ed. (1968), Charles Darwin: The Origin of Species, Penguin Books, LondonDallos, R (1996) Creating Relationships: Patterns of actions and beliefs.
In: Meill, D., Dallos, R. (Eds) Social Interaction and Personal Relationships. Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, The Open University Dallos, R (1996) Change and transformations of relationships.
Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, The Open University Lalljee, M (1996) The interpreting self: an experimentalist perspective.
In: Stevens, R (ed) Understanding the self. Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, The Open University Stevens, R 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 (1996) The reflexive self: An experiential perspective.
Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, The Open University Stevens, R 4, 5 (1996) Trimodal theory as a model for interrelating perspectives in psychology.
In: Sapsford, R (Ed) Issues for Social Psychology. Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, The Open University Stevens, R., Wetherell, M (1996) The self in the modern world: Drawing together the threads.
Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, The Open University Still, A (1996) Historical origins of social psychology: In: Sapsford, R (Ed) Issues for Social Psychology.
Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, The Open University Thomas, K (1996) The psychodynamics of relating.
Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, The Open University Toates, F (1996) The embodied self: a biological perspective.
Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, The Open University Wetherell, M., Maybin, J (1996) The distributed self: a social constructionist perspective.
Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, The Open University Wetherell, M., Still, A (1996) Realism and relativism.