Self definition

Everything one does has elements of self definition, even when acquiescing to social norms and/or power structures that define a set of rules that we must work within (since one may either choose not to oppose them or make their decisions in accordance with these norms or structures). If that acquiescence is purely intentional, then one may very well have the capacity to self definition without needing to diverge from norms.

Although social convention may tend to act somewhat against self definition in the strictest sense, it is also a required context for identity since, as social beings, we ultimately define ourselves in relation to our own community and other communities. After all, what sort of genuine individuality could be expressed by defining oneself in comparison to a monkey? We define ourselves in comparison to, and in contradiction to, other humans.

Economic factors may exclude some people from self definition if they must spend all their time working for basic survival and have no remaining energy to explore their being as a creative and thinking entity.

Trying to define self definition is, truly, a self-defeating thing to try to do, since it would suppose that some individual could understand what that would mean for each person. It would refer to things that are contingent on one’s own passions, sense of rationality, and their current context and past experiences.

Being influenced or guided by social convention is not in itself a bad thing. Being aware of the ways in which we are shaped by our social circumstance allows us to be more intentional about how we choose to define our own social, political and economic context. Many people read Foucault and decide to reject the social and political power structures or regimes that they face in society. I do not think this is what he was trying to do. I think he was trying to make us more aware of them so we contemplate how to maintain our capacity to self definition without compromising our willingness to play an active role in maintaining the practical economic benefits offered by being a part of a society where people respect rules and conventions.

The capacity to self definition could arguably be the ideal goal of democratic ideals. This is certainly more meaningful than the principle of 50% +1 majoritarian principles, although they do tend to be a convenient shortcut to making some kinds of decisions.

In short, the possibility of genuine spiritual and economic freedom may exist even when bound by sets of rules and conventions that shape one’s daily decisions. That scope of potentiality, however, generally only exists when the individual’s ability to participate in efforts to shape those very rules and conventions is presumed to be a legitimate and desirable use of one’s spiritual, political and economic self.