Heidegger’s Being and Time comments on this aspect of society when he discusses the fallen Dasein in the They. The They is described as everyone and no one at one with an inability to assert one’s individuality. Similar to society, one can loose one’s individuality in their everydayness and pre-established norms and values can easily restrict one’s freedoms as they are nearly impossible to redefine, unless you are Gandhi, King, or Mandela. Likewise, the angst that Heidegger refers to stems from questioning one’s being as with the Dasein as one is confronted with possibility and uncertainty, the possibility that is eliminated with societal norms and values that guides how one should exist.
Sartre’s "Bad Faith" also eludes to societal norms and values with his discussion of facticity, that is everything in the life that serves the background of our freedom or limits our freedom, such as language and culture. He suggests that we should transcend this facticity, those laws and restrictions that society consists of, and become an être-pour-soi, a being for itself.
Philip Roth’s The Human Stain clarifies a fundamental connection to the concept of society and existentialism when Faunia states, “Close all the doors, before and after. All the social ways of thinking, shut ‘em down. Everything the wonderful society is asking? The way we’re set up socially? ‘I should, I should, I should’? Fuck all that. What you’re supposed to be, what you’re supposed to do, all that, it just kills everything” (Solomon 375). Faunia asserts the restriction of freedom that society holds on all individuals in an attempt to follow norms and values. Existentialism frequently points to society as the cause of limitation and constraints, as Faunia notes, and it is these restrictions that existentialists strive to transcend.
If we can conceptualize society as the main cause of human limitation and we begin to understand what societal norms and values exist within our own lives, I believe we will not only be able to better understand existentialism, but also ways in which we may be able to find some sense of freedom. For example, many articles I have read discuss American’s obsession with the economic institution over all others in comparison with other states in addition to the highest homicide rates in the world. What norms and values then does America hold, through what mechanisms were they created and how are they replicated from generation to generation. If we want to apply philosophy, I think these types of questions are important to ask if we are to understand what exactly restricts our freedoms.
7 comments:
This post is really interesting in that it does what it seems like many existential philosophers forget to do: place the individual in a society that has its own rules and morals.
Whether we like it or not, as a "free" person in society, we have to follow certain rules, certain norms, which severely limit our freedom. For example, I hate trying to find a parking spot in the EV lot because there is almost never any spot open. I would love to make my own parking spot or just park at the curb, but i can't. Why? Because there are rules against this, which result in a rather steep fine given by campus safety.
I also have to follow certain societal norms like respect. I could never just walk into a classroom, yell "fuck you!" at the professor, and walk out. Though an existentialist would argue that of course I could, it's only up to me to do this, society and life have engrained so many of these norms into my brain that I know that the repercussions of this action would be bad enough that I will regret giving into this "freedom".
I think what I have realized in this class is that human beings have freedom... but in a very limited sense, depending on the society and culture they live in. I just cannot believe that a human being has absolute and true freedom because all I have to do is look at our society, or go to the further extreme of a Muslim country where women are severely limited in many freedoms that I take for granted, and I know that absolute freedom is a nice ideal but not something realistic.
I don't think that Heidegger and Sartre are necessarily rejecting norms. Though Heidegger warns against fallenness, he describes being-among-others as a natural aspect of human life. Dasein must experience being-among-others, but they must be careful to maintain their Being as an issue, not falling prey to the norms of the They. Norms are societal constructs, and insofar as we exist within society it seems that we utilize these norms. We just can't let them define our beings.
To Ursula: freedom doesn't mean that we can do whatever we please whenever we please. It simply means that we are fundamentally in control of what happens to us; there is always the option to do otherwise. Freedom is, to some extent, obstructed by external factors like rules and social mores, but Sartre would say that these are merely obstacles. If what you want is barred from you by a rule or law, you can decide whether or not that rule has value for you and, if it doesn't, surpass it. This does not mean that you don't suffer the consequences for your actions. On the contrary, because you are a free individual, you are wholly responsible for what you do and what happens as a result.
"Absolute and true freedom" is a pretty vague, abstract idea. In the case of Muslim women, their freedom is limited to the extent that they submit to the patriarchal society that they live in and follow its rules because the alternative is death or something comparable. But the key here is that they have a choice, even if the choice is do die. It is their ownmost possibility. If they don't want to live in that society, they don't have to. I believe there are less drastic alternatives (nothing is so black and white as that), but the idea is there.
We can submit to society's rules and regulations, but we don't have to. Believing that we have no other choice is the very act of falling prey to the They.
Mark - I'm not sure I see the distinction you've drawn between non-absolute freedom and absolute freedom. You say that freedom is not absolute in the sense that we can't choose to do whatever we want, whenever we want. Rather, you argue freedom is the ability to fundamentally control what happens to us. Then you say that external factors can limit our freedom.
It seems to me that we are habit forming creatures who have no choice but to take on the characteristics of our environment. Thus our behavior is mediated by the effect of our environment on us. Often times these effects come in the form of societal norms. In some cases we obey the norms and in others we don't, but in either case they mediate our action. If non-absolute freedom consists in our ability to fundamentally control what happens to us, and this human condition removes that ability, then there are two things I don't get. First, I don't understand how your modified definition of freedom fits into human reality. Our freedom is not simply limited by physical barriers to our action, but rather by how we are conditioned or habituated to make decisions when those barriers become apparent. Thus, because our decision making process is governed by external limitations, it seems very difficult to simply "control" what happens. Second, non-absolute freedom seems no different from absolute freedom in that like absolute freedom, it cannot account for the social factors that have contributed to our development as decision making agents. Thus, I would like it if you could say more about how non-absolute freedom differs from absolute freedom.
I think this really applies some of the existentialist text that we've read in a way that is easy to grasp. Great post. How do you think Sartre would respond to your assertion that Society is the major cause of human limitation? I feel he would wholeheartedly agree with you, and would even go so far as to state that it forces us to constantly attempt to simply be what we are- from waiters to students- in the mode of being it (Bad faith).
My question is when is it socially acceptable to break these norms and express your absolute freedom? I definitely see Ursula's point, sometimes it seems like we don't have a choice, finals, after all, are inevitable. I know there are ultimate consequences to breaking societal norms and in the true existential way you would have to own up to those consequences...so is there some sort of degree of breaking norms that is socially acceptable?
To me, social norms can kinda suck sometimes. Especially when it comes to little things like what to wear (too preppy, too casual, too naked) or how to talk (y'all, wicked sweet, like...totally). I've been moving around the country all my life and I just remember having to adapt to the new kids and how they acted, talked and dressed. It was really stressful for a 6th grader moving from Maine to Texas.
So do you adapt? Or do you break the norms? How do you know when to do either?
You know what? I think that we're being a little too nit-picky about some of the basics of Existentialism. The assumption that we have freedom is pretty easy to swallow, but I can definitely see how circumstances that sort of cloud our ability to use that freedom must also be accounted for.
I just think things like societal norms aren't necessarily so horrible. In the scope of Existentialism, they might not be the a priori "right" way to structure your life, but like the "crags" we need to create freedom for ourselves, we need societal ethics to be able to create our own values. We just can't automatically assume them to be correct(?). Oh, man. What have I done? I think I've explained myself into confusion.
Now I'm beginning to think that if our infant selves were just plopped in a dark, empty place and forced to grow up without any sort of communication, we wouldn't be able to create any meaning, would we? The social constructs (or perhaps just the interactions with others--ah HA! mitsein) that we're ragging on right now allow us to develop personal meaning in our lives.
Post a Comment