Government and The Psychological Need for Autonomy
END
GOVERNMENT WORLDWIDE! Or rather, encourage and practice self-government and
personal accountability. What is really meant by such a statement? Why should
government end? Doesn’t government provide for us some of our basic human
needs, like safety, subsistence, and social order? Many people today would respond with a
resounding “Yes!” Governments produce roads, provide clean water, generate,
adjudicate, and enforce law – if government doesn’t provide these necessary
social services, who or what will? The answer to this question is at once
simple and extremely complicated, far too complex to be translated into
effective public policy. The people who will provide for our basic needs will
be (and has always been) none other than you and me, us and them… every single
being, together.
As an individualist anarchist, it
may seem strange that I arrive at this conclusion of the power of collective
action. Perhaps it is imagined that the typical individualist suffers from some
sort of solipsism, a tyrannical ego, or some combination of the two. I contend
that my fascination with individualism, as a relatively new intellectual
tradition, is a reflection of my fascination with the source or foundation of
life. My perceived experience of life is all that I have; the concepts which
populate my mind are formed by the activity of my own brain. When it comes to
the formation of personal identity and self-concept, or all concepts really,
all social or endogenous exchanges are factors. This fact, however, does not
negate the deeply personal experience of life. Now, what does all of this have
to do with ending government and social harmony? Quite a lot!
The basic
human need which is expressed by individualists worldwide is that of personal
autonomy, independence and freedom. It is important to consider the ways in
which governments, defined as groups of people who participate in the
centralized planning of a larger society within a geographic region, are
unaware of or outright deny this basic need. Plans require means, economic or
otherwise, and governments typically acquire these means in a variety of ways.
One harmful method, in terms of providing for this basic need for autonomy, is
the practice of taxation. Taxation is
a compulsory levy imposed on a population by its government. It is argued that
taxation is unavoidable, a necessary evil of any well functioning society – but
if the stated goal of a government is to increase social harmony and to provide
for basic human needs, it has failed from the start. When the means contradict
the ends, or the ends are used to justify some means, there is dissonance. To
claim that something created and imposed by human beings is unavoidable is
essentially to undermine the human capacity of choice. A whole host of internal
contradictions, bizarre psychological dilemmas, are the product of denying
one’s own personal choices. The consequences of self-denial can be devastating
(e.g. self-destructive practices like drug abuse, unrestricted consumerism,
violence, self-imposed isolation or even suicide). I leave it to the reader to
consider the ways in which the U.S. government and its multi-million dollar
corporations have encouraged or discouraged the practice of self-affirmation
and personal choice in the average American.
According to the Humanist psychologist Abraham
Maslow, human beings are subject to a unique hierarchy of needs. At the bottom
of this hierarchy, physiological needs like subsistence, safety, and
procreation motivate action. As people gradually satisfy each tier of Maslow’s
hierarchy, they approach the highest need – that of self-actualization.
Self-actualization is described by Maslow in his paper A Theory of Human Motivation as “the desire for self-fulfillment,
namely, to the tendency for him to become actualized in what he is potentially”
(pg. 10). His hierarchy is a good starting place; however it says nothing about
the means to achieve such needs. Should
we depend on the generosity and benevolence of others to accomplish our
lower-tier needs until we have reached a point where we can finally begin to
create a healthy self-concept for ourselves? I argue that self, or ego, is an
ever-present element of our existence and is formed by all of our actions, even
those that contribute to lower-tier needs like subsistence. Therefore, it is
important for people to act in their own interest and to understand their
actions as contributing to, or detracting from, the health of their egos.
The plea of the anarchist is not to
ignore basic needs but to find a non-hierarchical, fair, or voluntary means of
meeting those needs, a social organization which does not depend on an
unquestioned authority. Many, many minds, men and women from cultures all
across the globe at different periods throughout history, have wrestled with
the possibility of sustaining such a society.
It is arguable that human history, Western or otherwise, has been
nothing but a cyclical process of achieving anarchy then escaping it into an
unsustainable government. What compels a government, initially established to
satisfy basic needs, to turn on its people, its goal, and itself by increasing
its use of force, seeking to increase its own power over others? Perhaps it has
something to do with autonomy and freedom of choice – the basic human need it
frequently overlooks. Implicit in this desire to increase power over others is
the assumption that others can be perfectly manipulated, managed, or molded. It
is easy to identify this assumption in the reasoning of all governments, from
nation states to tribal/family heads – the superiority of one individual or
groups choices over another’s, and the subsequent justification of the use of
force. But this is not reason at all, nor is it in service to the basic needs
of life. With that said, it is very likely that an anarchist society will be
one of plurality, reflecting the complexity of human choices and the variety of
human thought. But the consequences of an action should always lie with the
actor; this is the best basis for personal growth as well as the growth of a
society. In the words of the American libertarian author Albert Jay Nock in his
book Memoirs of a Superfluous Man:
“If one takes care of the means, the end will take care of itself.” (pg 307).
No comments:
Post a Comment