On Responsibility, Autonomy, and Being Absolutely Fed Up (A Final Exam, June 2021)

Note:

Written in June 2021 as a final exam for Making of the Modern World 15 — the last course in the sequence, submitted online, at the tail end of my sophomore year and what felt like the tail end of coherent reality. The question was essentially: how do you fulfill social responsibility while staying autonomous? I had Sartre, Eleanor Roosevelt, Mike Davis, and a year of pandemic fatigue to work with. The essay is more honest than most because exam conditions have a way of stripping out the performance. I've left it intact — exhaustion, idealism, and all.

The implementation of the term “society” inevitably brings up the question of individuality, especially with regards to finding a middle ground with the collective. In modern society, it is often seen as the individual's responsibility to pursue change, yet the collective’s role is seldom defined when it comes to tackling issues we face as a planet. The pressure to conform can overshadow our autonomy, especially with the advent of social media; the very fact that there is “cancel culture” speaks volumes about our generation’s reliance on words, pointing blame at the world around us, thereby shifting the focus off of our less-than-ideal situations or decisions. While it is important to individually pursue a better future towards the planet, it falls on society as a whole to create a foundation for change, thereby creating a balance between the two facets of humanity. 

In order to understand individual responsibility, we can discuss Jean-Paul Sartre’s doctrine of Existentialism. His definition of the philosophy is a “doctrine of action,” in which man is compelled to self-actualize rather than rely on external motivation (Reader 211). This is followed by the idea of understanding existence as a whole before finding an individual “essence,” or purpose (Reader 212). Essentially, Sartre states that man must first be present in the world, attempt to understand the requirements of living as part of humanity, then take actions towards the future they aspire towards. Of course, there may be certain impairments in this thought process, specifically socio-economic, but the individual is still responsible for their choices. This viewpoint is the perfect foundation for further development of a clear middle ground; it makes it clear that all actions must stem from the individual while utilizing the existing societal foundations in order to achieve progress. This can then be used as a framework from which to discuss the varying balance points of economic, environmental, and political action, thereby providing a definition of personal responsibility. 

To begin with, there has always been a mass mentality with regards to political spaces. In the past year alone, we have seen how the Trump administration misinformed the citizens regarding the Coronavirus pandemic. People across the nation claimed that it was a hoax, even refusing to vaccinate themselves, thereby hindering the development of “herd immunity.” This creates a pressing question: what is the role of the individual when faced with a seemingly unwinnable situation, wherein select people are preventing societal well-being? This question can be answered by Eleanor Roosevelt, who stated that the role of the government is in “supporting the wellbeing of its citizens” (Reader 97). The moment a governmental agency fails in that task, they have shifted the balance of responsibility to the individual, who aren’t equipped to handle the power. Roosevelt’s speech makes a distinction between mutual cooperation and reliance; there must be an exchange of power in return for safety, rather than dependence on a singular stream of information (Reader 98). This reliance was mirrored several times over the course of the pandemic, from dangerous chemicals being advertised as a cure-all, to the idea that it was a weaponized virus from China, sparking waves of anti-Asian hatred and violence. By utilizing the Roosevelt speech as the baseline, it becomes clear that in the case of political mass mentality, while it is the individuals’ prerogative to thoroughly process and judge information, the government has to bear the burden of responsibility for the wellbeing of their citizens and community. In this case, it is the society’s role to provide a foundational safety net from which the individual can innovate and uphold their duties as a member of society. 

From this comes the idea of socio-economic responsibility. We are constantly faced with statistics and images pertaining to underprivileged communities or those living in poverty. The problem is that it is often hard to make any significant contribution to the global community without being first established as an individual. To paraphrase Sartre, although we understand the existence of socio-economic inequalities, our limited essence doesn’t allow for us to risk our own wellbeing in order to help others. Still, the media and culture have placed an unfair burden on the shoulders of the individual. For example, Mike Davis’s “Planet of Slums” states that the economy was built to widen the gap between classes, disregarding the “life-threatening” conditions of slum dwellers (Davis 18). Davis continues to describe the struggles faced by the impoverished around the world, highlighting the importance of social activism. While I personally see the effects of living below the poverty line during visits to India, apart from dedicating time to volunteering, there is very little long-term change that I can affect. The overwhelming fact is that this problem is beyond the scope of “one” person’s capabilities. If a single, average, individual were to attempt to tackle the problem, it would require not only an extensive monetary investment, but the autonomy of that person. Another excerpt from Davis’ works, “SAPing the Third World,” describes various governmental and international policies that underhandedly exacerbated the problem. Ideas such as the Structural Adjustment Program went hand-in-hand with the engineered depression of the 1980s, but these attempts to first collapse the poverty line in order to create a better future for the collective had lasting effects (Reader 263). However, there is almost nothing a singular person could do to mitigate the effects of these problems, so it begs the question of where the responsibility lies. Tying the situation back to Eleanor Roosevelt’s speech, it becomes clear that, once more, there is only so much an individual can do without losing complete autonomy or dignity. Therefore, it is my belief that my responsibility towards issues such as political misinformation and global poverty is to simply dedicate time wherever possible to organizations that are attempting to make changes. There is little more that an individual can accomplish, because any further progress would require massive social backing, which is, at the moment, implausible. 

On the other hand, the line regarding environmental change is more balanced between man and society, since “eco-friendliness” can still be quantitatively measured in smaller communities. While, yet again, it is not economically feasible to expect an individual to shoulder the responsibility for any undertaking, there are actions that can be taken to be involved in the change-making process. As per Edward O.Wilson, due to the increase in “global crisis,” youth are more likely to be involved in environmental restoration, which shows a clear shift in the culture regarding planetary conservation (Reader 280). The article, “Is Humanity Suicidal,” continues with a list of issues, such as resource depletion, which must be rectified in order to have a better future (Reader 281). The biggest takeaway from Wilson’s writing is that although humanity is not entirely “suicidal,” we require a “redirection” of our efforts towards jointly solving environmental problems -- for example, many religious leaders are changing their outlook to emphasize the morality of environmental consciousness (Reader 282). On a more spiritual note, John Seed states that "we are the last generations of human beings that are going to be in a position to turn this thing around," it seems pertinent to start understanding the impact the individual has on the ecosystem (Seed 288). While Seed’s interview is more on the spirituality of connecting to the environment, he mentions certain philosophical outlooks that mirror Sartre’s expression of self-actualization.  While the idea of “becoming one with nature” is rather implausible since not everyone wants to lay in the forest and picture the earth as a warm blanket, it stands to reason that what Seed is discussing is how our essence should come from the very existence of the environment around us (Reader 288). In short, both environmentalists present a dire situation that can only be rectified by an individual’s choice to take action against the problems we face as a society. The society should then be compelled to respond by providing intellectual and monetary resources to further progress. 

While the easy route would be to simply state that “individualism” is a created concept, the reality is that almost no progress can be made without the support of the collective. The pressure each individual faces to conform to societal standards regarding pertinent issues has created an unfair environment that refuses to acknowledge the facts; it is impossible for one person to make a large enough difference. Of course, being somewhat of an idealist, I would love to imagine a future in which I have made a large enough change, thereby preventing environmental catastrophe or global poverty, but that is not feasible. Instead, it is the society’s responsibility to provide a foundation for success, whether it is through economic or intellectual support. We have seen a vast power imbalance this past year as a cause of the Coronavirus pandemic; where the American government should have stopped mass mentality and misinformation, it fueled the fires, leaving it to the individual to safeguard their wellbeing. Another large-scale issue, global poverty, is often pushed on the shoulders of the individual, claiming that it is our responsibility to single-handedly fix the lives of the impoverished. This is simply not possible, since economically it would be a herculean task, and would eventually strip away an individual’s autonomy. In both of these situations, it is imperative that society take responsibility for the issues, since there is no possible means for a singular person to provide a solution or make any long-term difference. However, it is also important to note that the individual is responsible for their choices, which translates to societal culture. Instead of blaming the world around for not shouldering responsibility correctly, the individual must hold everyone accountable, including themselves, for changing society’s definition of responsibility. This translates directly to environmental restoration -- only by showing singular change can the society as a whole change their perspective of their responsibility towards the planet. Essentially, there must be a middle ground. While in some cases it is drawn closer to the collective responsibility, there are times where, without losing autonomy, self-actualization is imperative in order to progress. One thing is very clear; I, as an individual, must hold myself to a higher standard than those around me, while simultaneously working to raise the bar all around. While there are certain endeavors that will never bear fruition, it is better to live a life of action rather than falling prey to the traps of peer pressure through the mediums of social media and a society that has yet to fully understand and shoulder its responsibilities.