When the term “I” is used, it does not represent the single unit of the body which writes these words, but rather a conglomerate of “I’s” within this body which compel this body to write. There is no “I” as it is understood habitually; this body cannot say that it has a choice in writing these words, or that it can determine what will be written. What this body writes belongs to the numerous people and ideas which live and engage within and with this body.
It is important that I start with this disclaimer, not to confuse, frustrate, or mock the reader, but because it represents the basic premises of this post: (a) humans belong to an organic system (the earth) whose existence is determined by the interactions among the life which it contains (in this dissertation I discuss human life), (b) any one human cannot exist, in its precise composition, at an exact point in time, without the existence of all other life forms, in their exact composition, at the same precise time, (c) every human is contained within the other, and each human is merely a representation of the earth and a vehicle for the earth’s expression.
It follows, from these premises (which I discuss in more detail subsequently), that it is impossible for human beings to have free-will or determinable actions. I am not proposing that humans cannot change the earth’s trajectory or existence, but rather that they cannot decide to change it. To illustrate this point, we can think of our bodies as organisms, much like the earth, dependent on the make-up of our individual parts. If I am born with a bad heart, for example, this heart will determine my body’s existence, but the heart cannot choose to be any other way, and it actually exists exactly as it should given its context (the external elements to the body such as historical time, geographical placement, diet, environmental conditions, etc.). Humans may think that they are freer than hearts because they can choose to change or to change their circumstances, and hearts cannot, given their inability, as far as we know, to think as humans do. But, because humans can think does not mean that they have more relative choice than hearts because choosing requires knowledge and knowledge is relative and tenuous.
In other words, we understand that humans have more consciousness than other life forms, but consciousness is relative, and we have to ask whether humans have enough consciousness about all issues that might pertain to the world around them (and inside them) to decide to effect change. Do humans know relatively more about their outer structures (earth) than what hearts know about their outer structure (the body, to give one example) in order to make their choice any more viable than the heart’s inability to choose? What I am suggesting is that choice is dependent on knowledge and knowledge is dependent on context. And, hence, if context determines choice, then choice, or free-will, is not possible for the individual, because the choice is made by context.
I am not saying we should stop recycling, for example, because we cannot determine that the earth will be better off if we recycle. What I am saying is that those who recycle have no choice in recycling; they have to do it if they do it, because their context (which includes knowledge regarding the earth’s existence) drives them to recycle. Humans, similar to hearts, cannot help but to do what they do in this earth because they are born into a particular body, in a particular context, which imprints upon them the limits of their existence. The point is, human actions are limited by what they know and what other resources they have available. It may appear as though humans have a choice within that framework, but when one starts to isolate every contextual factor that determines choice, we are left with the tenuousness of free-will and with the conclusion that there is only one choice a person can make at an exact time and place.
The point to challenging the concept of free-will is that it has individualized responsibility and hence contributes to marginality and oppression. The fact is that the individual unit and the whole exist because of each other and hence cannot be separated by order of responsibility or fault. Instead of separating, for example, one action (or person) from that action which is different or opposite, I understand that the opposing action is part of what makes the original action possible. As Butler, 2002 states, “Any opposition to the norm is already contained within the norm, and is crucial to its own functioning.” In conclusion, if we question and challenge the concept of free will, we may get closer to understanding that humans belong to each other and that whatever one person does is not based on free-will and that one human cannot be described as better than the other because we are all one in the same and we as a whole (context) are the ones that make the choice of action.
I find that most theories or philosophical approaches are deficient in explaining the relationship between human behavior and the world in which we live. Many theories remain either at the individual, inter-individual, or inter-group level, and not many address the relationship between life on earth and the earth itself and how this influences behavior. Additionally, theoretical approaches fail to give a long term (in earth years) explanation for behavior. For example, I initially found the idea of resistance quite appealing and inspiring because it reframed what is labeled as dysfunctional and constructed it into something functional, and even, empowering. However, with time, the notion of resistance began to unsettle me as it increasingly resembled the same essentializing and marginalizing discourse I was so opposed to. In other words, the notion of resistance is presently seen as something positive and strong, but, unfortunately, it also preserves the person resisting as one who is different and in opposition to those performing the acts that cause resistance. Rather than getting closer to de-stratification of human beings, using the term “resistance” creates another way of differentiating the oppressed from the oppressor, and worse yet, it is done, although unintentionally, under the guise of celebrating diversity and empowerment.
The ideas I propose regarding marginality, although validated by many scholars (Spivak, 1988; Said, 2002; Ghandi, 1998; Butler, 1990; Fannon, 1967; Corber, 2003), are rooted in very personal experiences of resistance. In the past, I reveled in my resistance; I understood it to be my power and my right. However, with time and much deliberation, I began to understand that my resistance was again, a manner in which to differentiate me from others at the center; I was once again the person who was different and in opposition. I became angry with my blind contribution marginalization. I understood that by resisting, or by always resisting, although definitely needed and functional, or even detrimental, in some circumstances, I was alienating myself from my oppressor.
I see danger in constructing differences (when coupled with judgment), or in continuing to hold on to established differences, whether it be with the intention of celebrating diversity or with the intention of maintaining current power hierarchies. Instead of understanding resistance as separate or causal from oppression, I understand it as one in the same. As I stated previously, I am not saying that understanding resistance as uniquely positive is, or was, not important. It is/was very important for me to understand this, but it is equally important that I, at the same time, understand the marginalizing processes of resistance.
I realized that I had to find a way to navigate these contradictions. As a result, I found myself developing a model, which I will call, Post-structuralist Organism. This model allows me to stay away from essentializing or marginalizing people and their behaviors. This model allows me to emphasize that there cannot be an alternate way of doing things, at a particular point in time and that there is no “I” in doing, and hence, responsibility cannot belong to the individual, community, or country.
I was inspired to create this model by the Post-structuralist’s work of Judith Butler and Jacques Derrida as well as from Complexity Theory. Post-structuralist Organism proposes that humans belong to an organic system (the earth) whose existence is determined by multiple and complex interactions among the earth’s internal and external forces[1]. Following the attributes of an organism, the earth develops different characteristics with each interaction among the forces it contains, and hence, renders the earth’s precise composition or trajectory nearly impossible to define[2] because each interaction catalyzes another creating a multiplicity of reactions and change, much like the exponentiation of numbers (Lerner, 2002; Barberis, 2003; Gilbert & Sarkar, 2001; Gribbin, 2005). This model proposes that, due to the impossibility of predicting the results of interactions, human action is constricted by lack of knowledge (as explained in previous section). Human action is also limited because, following Post-structuralist’s approaches, humans are one with their context or one with other life forms on earth. If can accept that the individual cannot be separated from the whole, then we can venture to say that human is action taken by the whole and not by the individual. Hence, this model proposes, free-will is unattainable. Furthermore, if we refute the existence of free-will and the inability of humans to have will to choose an action, we declare that humans cannot be responsible for their actions and that human bodies are merely vehicles for the expression of context (or the whole). Overall, the main point of this model is that humans can only act in accordance to how their environment (the whole) allows them to act and that they cannot determine which action they will take.
The Post-structuralist Organism model understands that our world was propelled to life by some unknown force and is continuously changing and evolving. As the “billiard ball” hypothesis (Newtonian physics) describes, once the universe was established, the rest has to follow. Newtonian physics argues that one can determine the events that will transpire after the “billiard ball” is launched (if all other circumstances are known). But, unlike Newtonian explanations, and like Complexity Theory[3], this model proposes that the organism (the world in this case) will continue (or change) randomly and undeterminably, due to the autocatalytic nature of an organism, meaning that each interaction catalyzes new interactions which then changes the earth’s composition[4], which then creates new interactions, and so forth (Lerner, 2002; Gilbert & Sarkar, 2000). In a similar vein, Gribbin, 2005 explains how life on earth constructs the earth as the earth constructs life and how “sensitive the seemingly stable physical environment of our planet is to the presence (or absence) of life, p. Gribbin, 2005.”[5] This model concurs with Cultural Determinism which states that “culture changes and develops in accordance to laws of its own, not in obedience to man’s desire or will, p. 136, Hatch, 1973.” Hatch, 1973 discusses White’s approach as one which understands that human results from
countless antecedent and concomitant…causes – both cultural and biological. When the causal forces for and against a particular act are equally balanced we refer to the individual’s plight as one of indecision, and when one causal force predominates over another we think of him as choosing between alternatives. Free will and choice is merely the way in which we experience this preponderance of one factor or set of factors over another, p.176
Although the Post-structural Organism approach concurs with White’s representation of free will (while expanding systemic boundaries from culture to earth), it disagrees with White’s belief that the function and purpose of culture is to make life secure and enduring for the human species, or that culture and individuals are sometimes in opposition to each other, or that culture must manipulate the individual to act in accordance to its own needs. White’s belief shows mechanistic approaches and, hence, does not coincide with this model’s more holistic or systemic understandings.[6] Post-structural Organism challenges the concept of free-will based on the fact that we are one with our context, not because we are separate from it.
If we accept that the composition of the earth is a subtle balance of all elements contributing to its existence, then it follows that each human is in subtle balance or existence with all other humans. As Gilbert & Sarkar, 2000 state, “it is required that the parts bind themselves mutually into the unity of a whole in such a way that they are mutually cause and effect of one another,” (p. 30). Likewise, it is impossible to do away with any one part of the earth without it affecting another part. We cannot simply state that we want to abolish injustice, for example, without understanding the function of injustice, its balance with justice, or even its inscription within justice. This model proposes that there is no division between people or things; that we are merely incidents of a greater unit. Hence, the existence of identities as individual units is questioned. The Post-structural Organism model incorporates Post-structuralist’s approaches which negate the existence of being as separate from others and state that actions cannot be separated into categories of difference as any action is dependent on its counter or opposite action (Butler, 1990, Lucy, 2004). Many feel that Post-structuralist approaches are dangerous to society as they can justify individual acts that are hurtful to others. Although this model does not individualize accountability, it believes that individual actions that are hurtful will be corrected. The fact that we have laws that punish individuals is part of our context and we cannot abolish them without unbalancing the system[7]. This model is not advocating that we get rid of punishment because individuals cannot be held accountable, but rather that punishment is part of the delicate balance inherent in this world. This model provides an alternative option, one in which we continue to have our laws and corrective measures, but we refrain from judging individual actions as they don’t belong to the individual. In other words, the individual will still endure the punishment but will not be judged for it. This model proposes that creating differences and dichotomous categories (good vs. evil), which is most often coupled with judgment, may be the vehicle utilized to preserve the current hierarchy of power which support the reality that individuals who do not belong to the more powerful, are penalized (Sullivan 2003; Epstein, 1988; Butler, 1990). “If actions, gestures, and desires are seen as the expression of an innate self, it becomes possible not only to interpret others, but also to evaluate, and categorize them, p. 83 Epstein, 1988.” As Epstein, 1988 states,
Dichotomous systems of thought serve the existing power structures and organization of society by reinforcing the notion of the ‘we’ and the ‘not-we’, the deserving and the undeserving. Gatekeepers of ideas and of resources have always affixed values to distinctions and, in their absence, create inequalities conceptually, p. 234.
This model follows Post-structuralist’s propositions which propose the non-existence of a division between the signifier and the signified (Butler, 1990) and state that one action cannot exist without its opposing action[8]. In addition, this model assumes that there is no individual, no “I,” involved in any action; there is no “doer behind the deed,” (Butler, 1990, p. 8). Furthermore, “without an agent, it is argued, there can be no agency and hence no potential to initiate a transformation of relations of domination within society,” (Butler, 1990, p. 34). For Post-structuralists, there is no individual that exists prior to its absorption in context (Warner, 1999, Butler, 1990). As Butler, 2004 states,
And so when we speak about my sexuality or my gender, as we do (and as we must) we mean something complicated by it. Neither of these is precisely a possession, but both are to be understood as modes of being dispossessed, ways of being for another or, indeed, by virtue of another.. although we struggle for rights over our own bodies, the very bodies for which we struggle are not quite ever only our own, pp.19 -21.
Prevalent in the majority of human behavior is the notion of “being different.” Finding difference between groups (women vs. men or Latinas vs. White women) is important and widespread. The literature explains that this phenomenon is important in the development of identity (Dean, 2000; Lacan), as well as in the existential development where, as Derrida from Lucy, 2004 states,
nothing exists outside of difference…this means that what a thing ‘is’ must include its difference or differences from what it is not; its difference belongs to ‘it’, inhabiting its identity. Everything differs, which is to say that everything defers. A thing differs because what it ‘is’ cannot be what anything else is, but also because what it is has to do with the fact that it differs from other things. To say that something is to say that it differs, p. 27.
Theorists state that a person cannot be without reference to another, or as Spivak labels, “identity-in-differential.” Identity development is a logical approach to understanding the need for individuals and groups to differentiate from each other. I would add that we have become consumed with the belief in the existence of individual identities, in the belief that an “I” lives within a body. The belief in individual identity has been upheld with such reverence, that our lives are driven by the quest for, and the security in, such an identity. However, securing individualized identity requires separation from the other, which in turn is most often done with judgment, and judgment secures marginalization and oppression. I am not advocating for humans to stop differentiating themselves from other humans, as this is functional, but rather I advocate for the displacement of judgment. I would like judgment to stay in the domain of being functional so that one is protected from things that are hurtful, but to be removed for the domain in which it creates a difference which carries value, and hence, is hierarchical in power. A wise colleague stated that when we create difference with judgment it is most often in reaction to fear. The powerful fear the loss of resources, hence they separate from the less powerful and create judgment; the less powerful fear oppression, so they separate from the more powerful with the same amount of judgment. As I write this section, I realize that fear is not a feeling that we can attribute to the individual. We cannot say that root to behavior is fear, but rather access to resources. If we all had equal access to resources, or if we were all assured the same quality and quantity of resources, the need for oppressive judgment may indeed be displaced. Acts of creating difference and making judgments, as well as feelings of fear, are all driven by our context. In other words, change the context, and the behavior will change.
[1] I refer to the earth as the ultimate organism in order to be able to visualize the ideas presented, but I do understand that I am isolating the earth when in fact it cannot be isolated from what lies outside the earth.
[2] The validity of this notion will be questioned once we find life in the universe similar to the one on earth. If we find other organisms similar to our own, we can probably determine with more accuracy (but not exactness) our development or trajectory.
[3] Complexity Theory or Chaos Theory state that we cannot predict outcomes within a complex system because the whole (the earth) and its elements (life on earth) are in interaction and that this interaction takes on a life of its own that is different from the elements interacting. Due to time limitations, I will not provide a detail account of complexity theory. Ideas for this are taken from Gilbert & Sarkar, 2001; Gribbin, 2005; Mainzer, 2004
[4] Mainzer, 2004 discusses the autocatalytic processes in reference to technology. Mainzer states that technology drives evolution and that each technological advance catalyzes the next.
[5] The notion of earth as a self organizing system where there is a co-dependence between itself and the life it contains is called Gaia. The author illustrates this when he explains that without the intervention of life, all the oxygen in the atmosphere would get locked away in less than ten million years. Gribbin, 2005”
[6] Once again I feel the need to stress that individualistic approaches have their importance and function, and that the model I propose is not any better or more functional. And, if I am to truly follow the tenets of this model, I must say that my ideas are one in the same as White’s ideas. I reconcile that I write a small piece of the whole, and hence I am the same as White, but it is the only thing I can do at this moment.
[7]Although not stated explicitly, the state of imbalance is necessary and inscribed with the state of balance. We often find that the reality of life is not one of harmony but of waves of balance and imbalance.
[8] I got this idea from Gribbins discussion on the interdependence of life and landscape and how the fate of humans at any moment in time depends on the interaction between humans and the earth.
