“Damn it, it’s MY Body That’s at Stake”: Autonomy, Sociality, and Imperfect Choices

My family were swapping medical grievances one evening: flawed diagnoses, unwanted side effects, useless procedures. “Damn it, it’s my body that’s at stake” was one protest. As a species, we are quick to feel protective of more than just our health. Insert “my life,” “my rights,” “my money,” “my freedom.” When alarmed, we rush to defend our autonomy from relatives, employers, government, banks. Don’t tread on me.

But we work the other side of this interaction too. We uphold—because we benefit from— social codes and expectations against would-be rebels. “Don’t forget to invite that cousin you don’t like. Family first.” “You’re going to wear that?” “Showing up is eighty percent of the job.”

We carry both the autonomous nonconformist and the social enforcer inside us. The roles take different forms in different cultures, but they are in our genes. Our autonomy is our expectation that we can exist independently from others, that we can make our own decisions, solve problems ourselves. But that doesn’t mean we expect to go it alone. We are groupies, as contradictory as that seems to autonomy. The biological term is sociality. Sociality doesn’t refer to being sociable or friendly. It refers to the inherited tendency to form groups, sometimes highly organized groups. Social ants work for the queen, bees signal each other how to get to honey, wolves hunt in packs. Stronger together.

But as inherited traits, autonomy and sociality aren’t so perfect together. Most species inherit more of one than the other. Cats go solo, while ants hatch already equipped for their roles as workers, soldiers, or queens. The blessing and the curse for humans is that we have high levels of both. It feels right to us to decide what is best for our self—at the same time that we’re reluctant to risk our social support. The result is ambivalence. “Should I take the statin/invite the cousin/change my shirt/get my lazy self to work?”

Here, says sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson, is our spiritual turmoil and our humanity. When our loyalty to our clan, party, religion or other group clashes with our sense of our individual well-being, we feel angry, sad, confused, frightened, or betrayed. Near the close of the fifth chapter of Sociobiology (2000 edition), Wilson summarizes the dilemma with a passage from the Bhagavad Gita, the Hindu epic from 300 B.C. E. Here, the god Krishna steers the chariot of the reluctant prince Arjuna to an impending battle in which Arjuna’s relatives and closest friends will be fighting not with Arjuna but for the other side. Wilson writes about

ambivalence as a way of life in social creatures. Like Arjuna faltering on the Field of Righteousness, the individual is forced to make imperfect choices based on irreconcilable loyalties—between the “rights” and “duties” of self and those of family, tribe, and other units of selection, each of which evolves its own code of honor. No wonder the human spirit is in constant turmoil. Arjuna agonized, “Restless is the mind, O Krishna, turbulent, forceful, and stubborn.”

Krishna-Arjuna-battle (hinduhumanrights.info)

Arjuna hesitates on the Field of Righteousness (hinduhumanrights.info)

I first read that passage years ago but it comes back to me when I hear protests and arguments. We are Arjuna, come to the field of life with two strengths that work to our advantage but also get in each other’s way. I understand people better, myself included, when I listen for the rumbling, ageless tension of self versus group beneath our “imperfect choices” and “irreconcilable loyalties.”

Comments?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s