[lit-ideas] Re: SOS: Autonomical risk

  • From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 13:42:20 -0700

I?m seeing ?autonomy? as being an act rather than a potentiality.  One is
autonomous because one is functioning independently of the community.  I?m
not seeing autonomy as being synonymous with free will, or as someone
considering functioning independently and then choosing not to.

 

From my own experience in Aerospace, I can?t claim that I always functioned
autonomously.  I needed to stay employed; so I preferred not to.  But I
recall occasions when I functioned autonomously.  I was the experienced
old-timer who knew the work better than the young manager with the MBA.  I
functioned autonomously enough of the time so that some co-workers referred
jokingly to me as the ?Helm Aircraft Company,? however I conformed enough so
that I worked 39 continuous years for Douglas which became McDonnell Douglas
which became Boeing.  Someone might say with some justification that my
self-described autonomy was an empty boast if I could do that.  The young
boss making the wrong decision was as likely to get into trouble as the
old-timer refusing to take his direction.

 

Lawrence

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Robert Paul
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 12:42 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: SOS: Autonomical risk

 

Lawrence Helm wrote:

 

> Sinclair Lewis with /Babbitt, /made /conformity /a dirty word, and yet 

> people still desire to be accepted members in good standing of their 

> communities.  Organizations of all sorts want their members to /conform 

> /to a greater or lesser extent.  So how valuable is /autonomy? / Or 

> perhaps a better question would be ?what sort of person most values 

> autonomy??

 

> A member-in-good-standing at a local church is going to be one who 

> conforms to the beliefs and practices of that church.  To call a church 

> member ?autonomous? is almost a contradiction in terms.  If someone 

> disagrees with the doctrine and practices of his church, he will almost 

> certainly not remain a member.  He cannot be /utterly /autonomous and be 

> a conscientious member at the same time. 

 

I'm not sure why not. A person could certainly choose to be the sort of 

person who adheres to the beliefs and carries out the practices of a 

church to which she belongs. (Or not.) To be autonomous doesn't entail 

that one be a rebel or an iconoclast. Suppose I'm on a committee to 

revise the dress code for Mutton College, and that the committee's 

decisions are arrived at by a simple majority vote. I favor green socks 

and purple waistcoats but eventually the committee decides on purple 

socks and green waistcoats. Have I somehow lost my autonomy if I abide 

by this decision, or must I, to preserve it, wear green socks and a 

purple waistcoat anyway?

 

As for disagreeing 'with the doctrines and practices of his church,' and 

not remaining a member, the autonomous person might well (as many 

Catholics have done, and as many Anglicans are now doing) 'work for 

change from within,' as the cliché goes; or he might say to hell with it 

and leave. But remaining autonomous requires neither one nor the other.

 

> On the other hand a historian writing an original work of history will 

> strive to be autonomous in the sense that he will seek to avoid being 

> influenced by previous historians? opinions; otherwise he will be called 

> a disciple.  The same thing would be true in other fields.  Russell 

> wanted Wittgenstein to be a disciple but the latter /was /autonomous and 

> could not subordinate his thinking to Russell?s. 

 

Wittgenstein indeed turned out to be a surprise and soon a headache to 

Russell, but that he wanted him to remain a disciple isn't clear. He 

wanted to give over the hard thinking to 'his German,' as he kept 

calling him, so that he, Russell, could rest his brain while 

Wittgenstein carried on the great work. To his dismay, Wittgenstein 

turned out to believe that the great work was entirely mistaken.

 

Robert Paul

Reed College

------------------------------------------------------------------

To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,

digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: