On Social Determinism
Posted on | December 4, 2009 | 1 Comment
Social determinism is a dangerous excuse for not trying.
While it’s true that we are all born with the burden or gift of our respective histories, these histories alone cannot dictate success or failure. That is to say, the pre-conceptional past encourages making choices that we might consider more immediately viable, but it does not rob us of the ability to choose the eventually phenomenal. Social determinism is that gentleman who opens the door for fatalism, suggesting that there’s no use in trying if you’re born at a low enough rung – the suitor quips, “Let me get that for you, dear. You’re doomed either way.”
It not only forgives the thief, but it defends him, saying, look far enough into this one’s path and you’ll see justification. But does this math of balances fulfill our sympathies? If it does, we should all be just as willing to consider the numerous environmental factors that lead to rape, or to murder, or to genocide. Determinism unravels reason by offering math and proofs why this or that choice isn’t really so. But if reason is the root of our capacity for respect, then the suggestion that reason isn’t owned by individuals can only lead to a lack of self-respect. It is through the hyperopic lens of determinism that we can forgive the rapist, the murderer, the tyrant. This philosophy is a social prototype for regress, held up from its legs by the two groups who benefit from it most: the exploited and the exploiting. For the mob, it is an excuse for failure. For the tyrant, it is a justification for evil: a philosophy that shows us that we’re captives but not to whom we’re captive. Or as Nietzsche asserts in The Antichrist, “One must not let oneself be misled: they say ‘Judge not!’ but they send to Hell everything that stands in their way.”
When we allow ourselves to become automatons, moved by our environment like pebbles in a strong current, we can no less lambast our Hitlers and Stalins than laud our Lincolns and Gandhis. Black and white cease to exist in this new and contrived world, overwhelmed now by a vast, collective grey stealing all credit and absorbing all blame for the actions of its individual citizens. It’s true that we’re all born bearing the load of our fathers and ancestors, but the difference between the determinist and the willing is that the determinist crawls through life with a crushing awareness of this load’s weight, while the willing recognizes the load for what’s inside: a collection of experiences assisting him in his personal choice on the path to greatness.
I say, travel boldly and learn as much as you can. Examine for yourself what the substance of reality is. But before you act on the values you create for yourself, be sure that your actions are performed with reason, lest young faith condemn you to an older, wiser remorse. Truth is to reality as the stars are to the earth: pretty, but irrelevant. I have nothing against faith, but we must not fool ourselves into thinking it is on equal ground with reason. Faith is the will not to know. Though there will always be gaps in human comprehension that some choose to fill with this unsure trust, to enact first judgment against others based on faith in any god, country or cause will consign in the course of history your alleged leap nearer to a long, uneasy stumble. He who claims he knows for sure what is true and absolute will only go on to demonstrate how dangerous unchecked stupidity can be.
For even if truth and justice exist, it is our perceptions that make up the whole of human nature, and we can figure for ourselves by examining our individual and collective past what we and our brethren have done to be proud of, and that over which we share a common regret. Choosing to learn from our past, rather than resign ourselves to it, is what separates the doing from the done.
Comments
One Response to “On Social Determinism”
Leave a Reply
February 18th, 2010 @ 1:11 am
I sense a tinge of existentialism in this writing. Great stuff. Social determinism is the ultimate denial of liberty, but it’s not surprising that a lot of people subscribe to it(most of the time unknowingly). I believe the reason for this is that many people simply don’t like the idea of freedom. Some like orderly, authoritarian environments.
I know what you’re thinking: to say that is in itself a socially deterministic argument. To clarify, I’m not saying that they are bound to this way of thinking. I’m saying that those people freely make the choice to deny their freedom.
Back to my point, the reason that social determinism is so popular is because the idea of freedom is scary, certainly at first. When coming to the realization that you are completely free, and you are not bound by anything, it can certainly be a very frightening prospect, because the freedom to act also means that you are responsible for all the consequences of your actions, which is not something everybody can man up to. But once you pass the frightened phase, and realize that this freedom also means that there are endless possibilities, the freedom that you were once frightened of becomes enlightening and empowering. I may just be echoing Sartre here, but I thought I should comment on something that I strongly agree with you on. Cheers.