Everyone Needs a Balance between Individual Autonomy and Groupthink - Essay Example

Kantian notions of autonomy which include references to developing a sense of autonomy and purpose in life achieved through freeing one’s minds of immaturity have spawned a whole host of questions regarding the utility of education and the role of parents and society in the upbringing of children. Immanuel Kant was one of the leading thinkers of the so-called Enlightenment Era and his ideas regarding humans and our role in society have contributed significantly to our understanding of our place in the world. The emphasis of the Kantian thought process was to inculcate a spirit of inquiry and a process of freeing people from the bondages of immaturity and lead them to a situation where they would be able to think for themselves in a spirit of questioning and dialectic that truly enlightens the people. Though there have been severe criticisms on this notion of liberating the self and thinking in an autonomous manner, there have been voices in favour of Kantian thought, most notably from Wring. He went to the extent of stating that, ‘’It is difficult, in such a world, to envisage reputable programs of upbringing and education in which developing a measure of moral and intellectual autonomy does not play a central role’’. This paper attempts to answer the above question and critique the theory of autonomous aims for education that are at the heart of this debate over whether education should merely teach or it should liberate people. The aim of this critique is to debate the question fully by recourse to communitarian theories and other well known theories that include Wring’s thought processes as well as those salient points that Wring fails to mention. Wring’s ideas on autonomy can be criticized on many fronts. First, they are generalized hypothec with no basis in empirical or scientific validations and in order for a theory to be accepted as such, it should be validated by means of scientific methods of reasoning. (Saber& Khafajah, 2002) Therefore, Wring’s idea of autonomy can only be considered as an opinion until is proved true. This assertion leads us to the question as to what can be considered autonomy and what is the basis for making claims about autonomy. The point here is that the idea of autonomy cannot be separated from the historical periods that marked the evolution of the idea of autonomy. By separating it, Macintyre (l982 cited in Bridges, 2000) pointed out that we risk fragmenting the conceptual understanding of those contexts from which the meaning is derived. Autonomy came into being at a specific historical juncture to do a particular job. According to Bridges, the idea denoted separation of the moral and political will from that of the church and modes of political authority (Bridges, 2000). What this means is that the idea of autonomy was mainly related to the environment in which the assertion was being made and hence should be treated as such. In the modern world, the idea of autonomy is applied to the context specific environments that we are talking about and hence the idea of autonomy may mean different things in different environments. In other words, the idea of autonomy may not have the same meaning in all environments. The point here is that the notion of autonomy is context dependant and cannot be the same in all environments and contexts. When one talks about autonomy in the general sense, one gets a feeling that it means complete independence from the environment. However, the fact that there exist mutual dependencies between humans and the environments that they inhabit runs counter to a superficial reading of what Kant meant or what Wring talked about. A more nuanced understanding would lead us to the conclusion that what they mean is that after considering various strands of thought, the dominant theme that arises from this “jungle of opinions” should be a measure of a person and must be as specific as possible correlating to the self conception that the person has as well as resonating with the idea of the unique personalities that we inhabit. When one considers the issue of autonomy in the so-called real world, one is confronted with multiple realities that compete against each other and vie for the mind space that we devote when we have to arrive at a decision or reach a conclusion. For example, the worsening economic problems in many countries have resulted in negative changes in communities especially in the poorest ones (Al-Daheri, 2002). This is not a simple problem; on the contrary, it is considered one of the reasons for the increase in crime rate and even the most compelling reason for terrorism in the world (Al-Daheri, 2002). The processes of globalization have resulted in a world where there is uniformity across the countries in manner of dress and bearing and this “homogenization” of cultural mores has resulted in a severe backlash against what has been perceived as the forced “Westernization” of the world. (Al-Daheri, 2002) As the above paragraph shows, autonomy in this context raises several questions. Does it mean that children in these countries must alienate themselves from the western mores or succumb to the vagaries of modern education with its one-size fits all approach? Does it mean that the very western notions (Kantian or Wring’s) of having an autonomous moral code inculcated at a young age be the reasons for the children and teenagers to reject them? When one considers the history of struggles against colonial powers, we come across a history where the leaders among the oppressed countries were invariably western educated and spent a considerable time in the west. This is an ironic situation where the “Empire strikes back” with the very tools that the colonial masters thought would inculcate western values in the natives. The most obvious example of this is the Indian Independence struggle where the entire galaxy of leaders were western educated or educated in schools and colleges run by the British. The avowed aim of the British education system in India was to create a class of people having tastes like the British, manners like the masters except that they were of a different colour. Though the independence movement was led by some of these very products, the fact that the British succeeded in large parts among the general population is proof of the brilliance of such a move. Hence, the point that is being made here is that autonomy may mean different things to different people and it is highly context sensitive and environment dependent. As I briefly discussed the case of the Arab world where there is a reaction to the westernization of societies, the fact remains that autonomy and environment are intertwined and therefore, it cannot be said for sure that whenever people are given freedom the consequences will be positive. (Gandhi, 1940) Although advocates of the idea of autonomy say that there is no effective relationship between the environment and its individuals, there are many well known theories that illustrate the effects of environment on people. Burbles (1993 cited in Bridge, 2000) pointed out that ratiocinate abilities in young children are formed by the internalization of communication and interactions that they have with peers and parents from an early age. He also posited the fact that what we take as our individual intelligence is a function of the group intelligences that we have as part of the interactions with the environment. These intelligences are formed as a group of the possibilities that allow taking risks along with voicing opinions and formulating ideas and advancing tentative ideas formed as a result of the interactions (Bridges, 2000) Ignoring this relationship is like downplaying the fact of the dialogic nature of cognition and the multiple dimensions of social constructionism that have been formed as a result of the pioneering work done by psychologist Vygotsky. In addition, to others such as Bruner who said that much of our learning is socio-cultural and we tend to pick up cues and ideas from our environment as much as from within. The very nature of ideation that we inherit is a function of these interactions and forms the basis of the culture that the child may experience. The cognitive and social abilities of the child are formed as a prelude to linguistic skills. (Bakhurst &Shanker, 2001) The idea that people have the ability to reason and think without any guide is not reasonable, because as a biological entity we are unique but as a social and cultural being, we are conditioned in a structural and linguistic manner which means that the prolonged period of immaturity that children experience is designed precisely for them to acquire cultural and linguistic conversations as part of their interactions with the environment. (Bakhurst &Shanker, 2001) Knowledge is viewed through the prism of social and individual achievement and the very fact of cognition is seen as a function of the shared world rather than as something that exists in isolation or the solitary self. (Bridges, 2000) This brings us to an important assertion by one of the other architects of the Enlightenment, Descartes who famously proclaimed that “I think, therefore I am”. This is the classical dichotomy between man and matter that has haunted western thought and science for well over three hundred years and something that the emerging paradigm of interconnectedness seeks to disprove. Hence, the notion that intellectual autonomy means a separation of man from nature does not do justice to the concept. On the other hand, a certain degree of moral clarity and intellectual integrity arising out of autonomous thinking are badly needed in these days of moral ambiguity and relativism that seek to evaluate actions in a relativistic framework as opposed to absolute convictions of right and wrong. It says much about the prevailing intellectual and moral climate that matters concerning public importance like the debate over climate change are caught up in controversies where there is no autonomy in thinking and where the notion that whoever comes up with the most ingenious argument is deemed to be right. This goes against the grain of thought processes that seek to independently validate arguments and claims for and against a position with recourse to facts instead of resorting to dogma. It is in this light that the issue of intellectual autonomy has to be viewed and hence, the questions regarding communitarian views need to be kept aside when one considers this facet of the issue. The issue of intellectual autonomy is especially pertinent for those in academia as question have been raised about the purported independence of the scientists and researchers in view of the recent happenings (as discussed above) in the realm of climate science. The fact that our leading minds are in thrall of special interest and the hitherto independent nature of research has been vitiated goes to show the need for the intellectual independence. The fact that children need to be taught the importance of these issues at a young age cannot be more urgent. Hence, there is indeed a case for intellectual autonomy to be developed at a young age and inculcate a culture of scientific validations of statements. This is needed, especially, when we consider the fact that the first decade of the 21st century has been characterized by intolerance and religious strife. The two paragraphs above frame the question in an alternative argument that is at first glance, at odds with the theme of this essay so far. However, the fact that we live in times where intellectual autonomy and moral clarity are much needed leads us to another way of looking at the whole issue raised by the question of moral and intellectual autonomy. As Sankowski has pointed out, “discussions of liberalism and communitarianism are not, as some have thought, a debate between two clearly distinguishable competing orientations and autonomy, or free, rational self-determination, especially on an individual level, is a needed complementary value to community (both considered in their uses as normative moral concepts)”. (Sankowski, 2009) Hence, the point needs to be made that both the concepts of community and intellectual autonomy are needed as complimentary to each other. The role of the community in shaping an individual’s identity cannot be disputed. However, the fact that along with the development of selfhood in relation to one’s group or ethic race and not forgetting the all important aspect of development of self in relation to the individuals family, there is a need for certain autonomy intellectually in relation to the dominant themes of community. This is especially relevant as we have seen how extreme reactions to individualistic attitudes can lead to extremism and a “blow back” by the members in certain societies. The biggest challenge of our times is to develop an independent line of thinking when faced with competing and conflicting not to mention contradictory impulses arising out of the interconnectedness of the world. In this context, it is better to place the historical significance of the essay question. For instance, the period of the enlightenment was vastly different from the times of our age. Though there are some (Sen, 2009) who have characterised the present moment in time as a second renaissance, there are others (Khanna, 2009) who point to the increasingly fragmented world that we live in as an indication of the troubled times that we are passing through. The calling of our times is to have a lucid and well thought out course of action that acknowledges the competing influences and at the same time inculcates in the children a sense of inquiry and a spirit of questioning that goes beyond mere obedience to dogma and cant. With so much of uncertainty and chaos in the world today, the children of today and the future leaders of tomorrow do indeed need to be morally and intellectually independent if they are to make sense of the world around them and rise to the challenge of the times. It goes without saying that younger generations are the bedrock upon which the future of any country depends. Hence, countries and cultures have every right to protect these young minds from unwanted external influences and those attitudes that run counter to the prevailing wisdom. Wring has not considered these consequences when he said that each of us have but one life to live and despite the many differences between us, there is no reason to presume that a person’s life must serve the goals, interests and aspirations of others unless they explicitly choose to do so. Hence, it is perfectly acceptable and in the interest of each person to acquire the capacity to discern and choose to sustain the most desirable path for themselves”. (Bridge, 2000) There is no justification to what Wring is trying to say because of the fact that what is happening by means of non-transplantation of principles and ideas across generations is leading to much devastation and causing heartburn among the people in these generations. If one were to speak of rights without including references to the particular community values in which they are located, it would be like the use of isolated scientific and technical terms that are used without contextual understanding of the larger scientific discourse to which they represent and hence be bereft of meaning and without cohesion in their articulation (Bridge, 2000). In addition, we need to regard persons as members of groups from the start, their very being and identity constituted by such membership (Bridge, 2000). Individuals cannot succeed in their lives in a community if they work for their own benefit without constantly taking into account the feelings of others and their natural rights. This is the classic dichotomy that youth in the east face as they have to grapple with the issues pertaining to belonging to a group identity as well as maintaining their independence as those in the west do. This is the central paradox of our times that has resulted in much bloodshed and war as the civilizational conflict spills over into the streets. Even when Wring defended autonomy against criticism of the communitarian perspective, where he said ‘’the pluralistic modern world, however, offers us a vast range of values and possibilities of fulfilment...Autonomy is the ability to critically assess the possibilities our society offers and to choose judiciously between them’’. He also did not consider the fact that the choice of the person and his assessment of the matters are affected in one way or another by the environment where he/she grew up and that has a significant role in building his/her character. This in essence is the crux of this paper. The need to be independent given the plurality of the modern world and at the same time reconciling oneself to the communal impulses that are a part of our lives in many countries in the world. The following quote from a book by the Indian independence icon, Gandhi, makes this concept of maintaining autonomy when confronted with pluralism clear: “I will not shut my doors and windows to new ideas. On the contrary, I will allow the winds from afar to come into my room and I would refuse to be swept away by them”. (Gandhi, 1940, p.120) This paper has considered the essay question from both sides of the debates as well as thrown up some alternative perspectives about the issue from a wide variety of angles. There is a definite need for intellectual autonomy though the necessity to belong to a peer group and the attendant peer pressure is something that the youth of today face. As this paper has pointed out at several places, most of the authors cited in this paper do agree on the need to maintain one’s perspective in face of pluralistic pulls and pressures. The point here is not that pluralism has to be given the short shrift but more that the balance between individual autonomy and groupthink is necessary. It is pertinent to quote the Eastern perspective where “individuals are free to think whatever they want as long as they conform to social mores and participate in group activities” (Nehru, 1932, p.234) What this rendering of the reading means is that though we may have our social obligations and group activities, there is nothing that prevents us from having our independent line of thinking. In conclusion, this is the essence of what this critique has attempted: How to maintain intellectual independence and moral clarity without sacrificing ones role as a member of a community or a group. References Al Dhaheri, K., 2002. The role of Islamic education in terrorism. Published PH.D. Al Riyadh: Dar al Kotob. Bakhurst, D. and Shanker, S., 2001.Jerome Bruner: Language, Culture, Self. London: SAGE Publications. Bruner, J., 1977. The Process of Education: A LANDMARK IN EDUCATIONAL THEORY. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Saber, F. & Khafajah, M., 2002.The basics and the principles of scientific research. Alexandria: Matbat Al. Eshaa. Nehru, Jawaharlal. 1932. 2000 (Reprinted). The Discovery of India. New Delhi: Penguin. Khanna, Parag. 2008. Second World: Empires and Influences in the New World Order. New York: Allen Lane. Gandhi, M.K. 1940. My Experiments with Truth. New Delhi: SAGE Press. Sankowski, Edward. 2008. Liberalism, Communitarianism and Moral Education. Retrieved from: http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/PES-Yearbook/1999/sankowski.asp Sen, Amartya. 2009. The Idea of Justice. London: Simon and Schuster. Read More