The illusion of liberty and autonomy
My friend @marstrina sums it up nicely:
At the end of the day I think the fundamental philosophical difference at stake in this contestation is about social embeddedness: does our image of ourselves require external referents & feedback, or is it self-generated and unique?
The attraction of the latter view is the illusion of liberty and autonomy it offers. But a world populated entirely by self-contained individuals whose innermost selves are neither accessible to nor influenced by anyone else is a zombie dystopia, if you stop and think about it.
That whole idea that we can transcend social embeddedness to be self-generated and unique and oh so special makes my skin crawl. It’s Trumpism, basically. It’s egotism, it’s grandiosity, it’s delusional self-adoration.
Absolute liberty and autonomy are indeed an illusion, and one that people are supposed to grow out of as their prefrontal cortex matures.
Updating to add:
It is possible to have a reasonable amount of perceived liberty and autonomy within the social embededness; the problem is, so many people want it to be absolute. We can be ‘ourselves’ (whatever that means) only to ourselves. Even when we think we are able to be our true, authentic selves with other people (such as, say, with my spouse), there is still a great deal of external verification and a great deal of social performance going on. We don’t always recognize that, because we slip into it so much as a normal part of our life that one could argue that it is, in fact, being ourselves. It’s just one of our selves, the one that is appropriate for the given situation.
The irony of the trans movement is that they are seeing themselves as unique and different and special and totally themselves by conforming to a particular societal standard that just happens to be the societally defined role for the opposite sex. In other words, it isn’t legitimately themselves, it is legitimately a social construct that they prefer over the social construct that is expected as a result of their biological sex. They aren’t special; they haven’t made up a whole new way of being. They have just adopted a set of characteristics that has a pre-determined “gender” on it (a set of characteristics the ones perceived by society to fit into that group has rejected) and now are demanding that this particular set of characteristics means they are, in fact, what society has deemed these characteristics to mean. They are conforming, not being special. They are refusing to act out, to be special, to be different. Being their own unique selves would mean adopting those things they like about the opposite sex’s expectations while living within their own sex and actually doing things differently than society demands.
Ah, but if you really want to break the rules and be totally special, then claim to be the opposite sex while rejecting the role social standards has set for that sex. A female can declare herself a gentle, effeminate gay man; a male of course would be a butch lesbian. Doing anything else is more conforming because everything else makes some sort of sense to the average person. But what could be less average, and more unique, than following some sort of internal criteria which only you can follow?
I can’t see any other motivation. But then, I wouldn’t.
Reminds me of the scene in Life of Brian, with Brian preaching to the crowd:
Brian: You’re all individuals.
Crowd: Yes, we’re all individuals.
Brian: You’re all different.
Crowd: Yes, we’re all different.
Lone voice: I’m not.
I learned a long time ago that one of the most non-conformist stances you can take is to admit that, one way or another, you conform. Just about anyone who blusters on about how they don’t conform, don’t go with the flow, take the path less traveled, it’s a safe bet that they’re following some tribe.
What a Maroon – and one thing is, a lot of us don’t conform in some way. There is some way we are maybe just a bit different, or have different tastes. But all of us tend to conform in some way, in most ways. We do what is expected. If you truly are non-conformist, it tends to be other people who point it out, not you.
One of the things I learned from reading some of the books of cold reading tricks is how much alike I am with most other people. Many, though not all, of their standard cold reading techniques would hit something that is true about me, including having a scar on my left knee (which apparently is the most common place to have a scar), and having a 2 in my house number (in fact, I have had a 2 in my house number for the past 3 places I’ve lived, and maybe more, except I’ve forgotten some of the addresses that were a long time ago). No, we aren’t all the same, but we aren’t all that different, either.
Ha! I don’t have a scar on my left knee. That makes me the most specialist snowflake!
I love that particular Life of Brian joke. Love it. Always have.
I think that joke actually spurred my interest in philosophy (by of making paradoxes entertaining. )