[lit-ideas] SOS -- Autonomy and Influence
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 08:21:48 -0700
Autonomy has been taken into areas I don't recognize; so let me back up. On
5-19 I posted a note entitled "Autonomy and Individuality - the Modern
Self?" In it was Alain Renaut's definition of Humanism which included a
brief definition of "autononomy":
"Humanism is basically the valorization of humanity in its capacity for
autonomy. What I mean by this - without, of course, claiming any
originality in the matter - is that what constitutes modernity is the fact
that man thinks of himself as the source of his acts and representations, as
their foundation (read: subject) or author. (This is why, by the way, the
antihumanistic passion common to various genealogical practices of the 1960s
so often involved criticizing the idea of the author.) The humanistic man
is one who does not receive his norms and laws either from the nature of
things (as per Aristotle) or from God, but who establishes them himself, on
the basis of his own reason and will. Thus modern natural right is a
subjective right, posited and defined by human reason (as per juridical
rationalism) or by the human will (as per juridical voluntarism). Thus
modern societies conceive of themselves politically as self-established
political systems based on a contractualist scheme, in contrast to societies
where authority is established through tradition by means of the deeply
antimodern notion of 'privilege.'"
According to a review Omar posted, Taylor doesn't use Renaut's emphasis but
he does consider "autonomy" something good. Renaissance man thought of
himself as being virtually unlimited: the source of all his acts and
representations. Renaut and Ferry were concerned that certain philosophers
described impingements upon this autonomy. They called these philosophers
"Anti-Humanists." These Anti-Humanists say that man may have thought he
was the source of all his acts and representations but he was mistaken.
Social institutions and forces, the subconscious and the mercurial nature of
language indicate that he was deceived. He is not the source of all his
acts and representations. He has been influenced in ways he doesn't
completely understand and those influences are the sources of most if not
all of his acts and representations.
Renaut & Ferry's views, rejecting the views of the anti-humanists, represent
my presuppositions fairly closely. Now as to a conflict between autonomy
and community I considered that in what was probably a bad example. What
came to mind was a poem and my career in aerospace, especially times in
which I seemed to be functioning autonomously. My management issued orders
which they intended to be the source of my actions. However, exercising
free will I chose to be my own source of my actions and chose to do what I
thought was right. But as I thought out loud about this I ended up
thinking as I said in the note 5-20, 1:42, that my supposed autonomy was an
"empty boast" and while I seemed to be acting autonomously my manager who
issued the faulty instructions was probably in more trouble with the
community, i.e., McDonnell Douglas, than I was.
Ferry & Renaut's concerns were that certain philosophies have caused us to
think we are less autonomous than we really are (or perhaps really could be
). Their arguments included: we are not controlled by a deterministic force
impelling us toward Communism. There is no subconscious which makes
decisions unknown to and against our conscious will. Social institutions
such as prisons and mental institutions are not the malevolent forces
Foucault believed them to be. And language is not the deceptive tool
described by Derrida but is capable of or at least has a potential for
precision.
But after reading the reviews various people have posted I don't see
Taylor's concern about "autonomy" to be what I meant (i.e., the concerns of
Ferry and Renaut) when I asked the question. Perhaps what Taylor means is
closer to what Harold bloom meant in A Map of Misreading and The Anxiety of
Influence. No poet is utterly autonomous. Whoever he is, he is not the
sole source of his poetic representations. He has been influenced by one or
more poets preceding him. The same sort of thing, perhaps, could be said
of a person growing up in a given community. As he grows, the community
teaches him various things so that when he reaches adulthood he can be said
to be a product of that community. Perhaps he rebels. He was raised a
Catholic and as an adult rejects Catholicism and fancies himself an atheist,
but when you ask him about his opinions he will voice, or at least have,
opinions that relate to the community. Something went on back there that he
didn't like so now he is an atheist.
But suppose he was raised in the Catholic community and then sent off to
college where he became an atheist? College is also a community and is also
capable of influence. He has moved from the influence of his home town
community to the college community and prefers the latter insofar as issues
of religion are concerned.
So what can be said about his autonomy? Bloom would say that no one escapes
influence, but we should at least take responsibility for those we allow to
influence us. This is difficult to do because we loose track. Mike, for
example recommended Richard Rorty's Contingency, Irony and Solidarity, but
he didn't say that Rorty had influenced him. He said that he agreed with
Rorty. Perhaps this is what we all do. We develop our presuppositions in
our Communities (home town, college, USMC, etc) and then we hone them.
Perhaps Mike likes Rorty because he does a good job of expressing certain
ideas that Mike already more or less had.
Lawrence
Other related posts:
