Class and Autonomy
The life chances of individuals and families are mostly determined by their position in the market and occupation is taken to be its central indicator; this is occupational structure and socioeconomic status (SES) (Rose, 2005). Although occupation is central, SES encompasses educational attainment, financial security, perceptions of social status and class, quality of life attributes and opportunities afforded to people (American Psychological Association, 2017).
Individual autonomy is an idea that is generally understood to refer to the capacity to be one’s own person, to live one’s life according to reasons and motives that are taken as one’s own and not the product of manipulative or distorting external forces… (Christman, 2020).
Autonomy serves as the model of the citizen whose interests are reflected in those principles, such as in the claim that liberties, opportunities and other goods are fundamental to flourishing lives no matter what commitments, life plans, or other particulars the person might obtain (Christman, 2020; Kymlicka 1989; Waldron 1993). This is a libertarian, Kantian view of rational autonomy (Johnson and Cureton, 2019); knowing what is in one’s interests or to what one may be entitled to, having the skills, resources or opportunities to pursue them and having the disposition to be motivated to act in pursuit of them. This could be represented as a scale ranging from oppression or heteronomy which can determine an individual’s choice, through partial independence in which an individual can exercise some degree of autonomy to maximal freedom in which an individual is able to achieve all one’s personal wishes.
Inherent motivation suggests that ensuring individuals have control over key aspects of their lives like health, education, housing, employment and family life is important (Stevens et al, 2011, p. 273). “Autonomy is central to the intrinsic motivation for pursuing policies that promote choice” (Burchardt, Evans and Holder, 2014, p. 1). If an individual has fewer options, or a variety of disconcerting ones, they are less autonomous.
The issue of autonomy, including, but not limited to, choice, shows systematic inequalities in who enjoys intrinsically valuable goods (Burchardt, Evans and Holder, 2014, p. 20). These inequalities can manifest, empirically, in various contexts and some can be considered more or less autonomous depending on class, race, gender or traditions, cultures and national norms. A woman may make choices and preferences that unconsciously accommodate oppressive social conditions (Stoljar, 2018). An individual may make a decision which unconsciously accommodates oppression by keeping a job she is overqualified for, for fear of aiming too high.
The philosophical problem that will be addressed regards how class affects availability of options and autonomy through examinations of concepts such as education, financial ability and professional options. A discussion follows of whether different interests between classes is more influential than class itself, the proceduralist view of autonomy and other factors that should be considered.
1. CLASS AND AUTONOMY
It seems that inequalities with regards to class do affect availability of options. I believe it is impossible for an individual to be purely autonomous; instead, some are more or less autonomous than others and autonomy can therefore be thought of as relational (Christman, 2020; MacKenzie and Stoljar, 2000). I am not stating that individualistic accounts of autonomy should be disparaged, rather that an individual can be judged as more or less autonomous in relation to others but can be judged more or less autonomous individually as well (Christman, 2020). If we were to focus on one individual who is homeless, regardless of his relation to others, we could still judge him more or less autonomous by changing factors that would influence his class.
Oppressive social conditions of various kinds threaten those abilities by removing one’s sense of self-confidence required for effective agency. Social recognition and/or support for this self-trusting status is required for the full enjoyment of these abilities (Anderson and Honneth 2005, p. 130; Grovier 1993, Benson 2005; McCleod and Sherwin 2005; Westlund 2014; Christman, 2020). It’s plausible to say that individuals from working classes have jobs that require less autonomy and decision-making and are less autonomous due to the job they do, rather than the opportunities of work available (Sayer, 2009, p. 12).
Individuals are responsible for their actions so long as there is no coercion and oppression, without this the autonomous individual is responsible for her life (Colburn, 2012). I would argue an autonomous individual, by this definition, is impossible; there are only those who experience more oppression than others. This oppression can be class-based oppression and thus class influences how autonomous an individual is. Colburn agrees partly here; “Many lives are blighted because of entrenched disadvantages for which people can’t be held responsible” (Colburn, 2012).
I argue, however, that every choice we make is entrenched by class and other factors. We are not fully responsible for our actions, only we are more or less influenced by factors such as class.
It’s obvious to state that children of the advantaged have more and better opportunities than children of the disadvantaged precisely because they are children of the advantaged (Swift, 2013, p. 187). These children have more opportunities for an elite education and the affordability of extra-curricular activities such as music tuition that poorer families may not be able to afford. This elite education, most likely, leads to higher paying jobs. This cycle generally repeats through generations. The same can be said for poorer children; a lesser quality education will, most likely, lead to lesser quality higher education or none at all, which will, most likely lead to a lesser paying job. This is defined as class fate – inequalities which are passed on through generations (Calder, 2016, p 131; Sayer, 2009). Families can therefore be thought of as agents of class perpetuation and causes of heteronomy (Calder, 2016, p. 131). Although most people believe that there are plenty of opportunities for upward mobility and individuals have only themselves to blame for their outcomes (Oddsson and Bernburg, 2017, p. 284; Huber and Form, 1973; Kluegel and Smith, 1986; Lane, 1986;), it is still objectively harder for an individual from a disadvantaged background to obtain a similar paying job to an individual brought up better off. This issue proves itself when intelligent children from families living in poverty find it harder to get into university than not so clever children from better-off ones (Swift, 2013, p. 183). This is proof that class does affect availability of options with regards to education, at the very least. If an individual from a poorer family has limited options with regards to higher education but an individual from a better off family has more options, then it seems the difference of class is a significant factor in the availability of choices. Although it is not simply a solution to increase access to education without increasing the number of opportunities. This would increase competition, reduce the number of available jobs and would lead to demands for still higher qualifications, which the lower classes would find it harder to achieve caused by aspects such as oppression and less financial support (Sayer, 2009 p. 14).
It can be argued that an individual cannot make a meaningful autonomous choice if the options available to them are all deeply unattractive – “between sleeping on the streets or in a hostel where you fear for your safety and your few belongings; or between relying on your frail life-long partner to bathe and toilet you…” (Burchardt, Evans and Holder, 2014, p. 62). The fewer and worse quality the opportunities afforded to individuals, the less autonomous they can be. Since class affects the opportunities afforded to individuals, it therefore negatively affects the availability and quality of choices they are able to make.
It should be mentioned that class can negatively affect the autonomy of those in the upper classes. Following traditions, wearing certain clothes and attending certain elite universities are all expected of a significant majority of wealthy, upper class individuals, thus their choices may be limited due to class. Such pre-requisites endow upper-class people with opportunities and benefits, but they are at the expense of personal authenticity and of their autonomy. This perhaps supports the view that optimal autonomy may fall somewhere in the middle of the class system.
2. DETERMINISM AND AUTONOMY
A definition for determinism follows;
The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law (Hoefer, 2016).
If we are to strongly believe this, the actions, thoughts and the words we speak are a matter of determination rather than free will. We are constituted variously by factors that lie beyond our reflective control but which structure our values, thoughts, and motivations (Christman, 2020; Taylor 1991). It seems plausible that class would influence decision making and the availability of choices an individual creates in her head if determinism is true and our decisions are pre-ordained. If this individual was poor, the available options she creates in her head would be different to the available options in an individual’s head who is wealthier. Given that there is always some degree of social determinism and causal necessity affecting a person’s freedom, class does seem to be one such determinant.
If autonomy “…implies the ability to reflect wholly on oneself, to accept or reject one’s values, connections, and self-defining features, and change such elements of one’s life at will” (Christman, 2020) then class must be a factor if we accept determinism. Those elements that an autonomous individual should be able to change at “will” are lessened and harder to change the further down the class system the individual finds himself. For example, an individual with a lesser quality education may struggle to effectively reflect wholly on oneself and therefore may lack the ability to change aspects of his life that an individual with a better quality education could.
3. PROCEDURALIST VIEW
The proceduralist view of autonomy states that requiring minimal competence (or rationality) along with authenticity, where the latter condition is fleshed out in terms of the capacity to reflectively accept motivational aspects of oneself, are central to autonomy (Christman 2020; Dworkin 1988, Freyenhage 2017). The only manner to determine an individual’s autonomy is to gauge the authenticity of the choice made. This view explores the procedure with which the individual came to her decision. This view of autonomy is adopted, according to it’s defenders, because doing so is the only way to ensure that autonomy is neutral toward all conceptions of value and the good that reasonable adults may come to internalise (Christman 2020; Dworkin 1988; Freyenhage 2017). If social class limits one’s ability to decide thus authentically, then social class and autonomy are causally linked and in direct proportion to each other.
This view holds that autonomy could be applied to those who are restricted or oppressed under certain life conditions and are therefore pressured into internalising oppressive values and norms (Christman, 2020). For example, an individual brought up to believe his ambitions must be limited to working the job his father works. This is problematic for many reasons and shows that in this example, he cannot be considered autonomous due to the harsh or strong influences out-with their control, i.e. class, even if he “authentically” made their choice. It is difficult to explicate what such procedures might look like. Theseprocedures can be available to anyone, wherever they fall on the class or autonomy spectrum. However, based on the educational aspects of the class system expressed above, it is likely that those with higher quality education will be more able to gauge the available choices they have. The procedure could be similar to a checklist covering various factors that influence their decision such as money or family commitments and therefore, class would affect this procedure and the factors considered.
An individual from a poorer family may authentically choose to attend a pub with cheaper drinks, rather than attend a bar where drinks are expensive. The individual had the option to go to both but chose the former relatively authentically by weighing up options such as where her friends are, how much money she has to spend, how close each is to her home etc. Therefore, this individual is autonomous, the view goes. However, what made the individual choose to go to the pub rather than the bar? If money was a factor, then it can be argued that the individual did not have the choice to attend the bar due to diminished funds. Although the individual could choose to go to the bar, her financial situation influenced her decision not to, therefore her class affected her decision and limited her choices.
4. INTERESTS OVER AUTONOMY
An objection to this view is that class affects interest rather than autonomy. Interests can be a strong indicator of class (Trippenbach, 2011) such as musical taste, clothing, the restaurants and bars she attends, the food she eats and experiences she has. Instead of saying class limits an individual’s availability of options for higher education for example, perhaps class alters an individual’s desire to study at an elite university or work a higher paying job. In terms of work, “…division of labour restricts good quality work to a subset of jobs, then many—particularly those who are disadvantaged by class, gender or race—might reasonably consider it not worth the effort of pursuing them” (Sayer, 2009. p. 7). An individual from a poorer family may be more likely to study at a lesser quality higher educational establishment because that’s what interests her, although a higher quality educational establishment might have never been on her radar. Whereas, an individual from a better off family may be more interested in subjects attributable to better quality educational establishments. Conceivably, individuals limit their own choices due to their class.
This objection is flawed however as if class affects interests, then it still impacts an individual’s choice. We cannot know what an individual may have chosen had she been from a better off family. Therefore, class may influence interests and the choices we make but it also impacts the choices available to us. Thus, having less and lesser quality choices are more likely to be attributable to the working classes, making them less autonomous. Further, choices an individual believes she has may be limited by the individual rather than the actual broad range of choices she has but it still follows that class influences this. For instance, an individual may not believe she has the choice to study at Oxford due to her class, even though her grades might allow it. Either way, an individual not having the option to study at Oxford or the individual believing she does not have the option are both scenarios that are influenced by class.
5. CONCLUDING REMARKS
The premises below summarise the core arguments explored above;
1) Class is scalar social status
2) Autonomy is reasoned self-determination
3) Authenticity (self-determination) is a necessary proceduralist factor of autonomy
4) The factors of class are causal determinants of degrees of personal autonomy or heteronomy
5) However a) class is only one social-structural influence on personal autonomy (others include gender, race etc.)
6) However b) many of the choices made by individual people of lower and higher classes are constrained by social forces and are less authentic
7) However c) family autonomy and tradition also inhibit personal autonomy, for lower and upper classes more than for upper-middle class individuals
8) However d) insofar as autonomy regards choices available and class affects the choices available, such heteronomy restricts opportunities for lower-class individuals much more than for both middle- and upper-class people
9) Therefore, social class does necessarily and causally determine aspects of personal autonomy, but other factors are also influential and the correlation is not directly proportionate; upper-middle class people seem to enjoy optimal autonomy, although this will need to be explored further.
Class does affect autonomy and our available options but there are other contributing factors. It is not enough to simply state that class affects autonomy and the available options without an exploration of these. For instance, the differences in interests is a factor that alters the choices an individual creates in her head which could limit or expand these choices. It is not enough to state that an individual’s choice and procedure before making the choice was authentic and therefore she is autonomous as factors such as class, out-with her control influenced her decision.
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. American Psychological Association, 2017 https://www.apa.org. Education And Socioeconomic Status Factsheet. [online] Available at: <https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/education>.
2. Anderson, J., & Honneth, A. 2005 Autonomy, Vulnerability, Recognition, and Justice. In J. Christman & J. Anderson (Eds.), Autonomy and the Challenges to Liberalism: New Essays (pp. 127-149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511610325.008
3. Benson, Paul, 2005. “Feminist Intuitions and the Normative Substance of Autonomy,” in J.S. Taylor (ed.)
4. Burchardt, T., Evans, M. and Holder, H., 2014. Public Policy and Inequalities of Choice and Autonomy. Social Policy & Administration, 49(1), pp.44-67.
5. Calder, G., 2016. Family Autonomy and Class Fate. Symposion, 3(2), pp.131-149.
6. Christman, John, "Autonomy in Moral and Political Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/autonomy-moral/>.
7. Colburn, B., 2012. From Social Liberty To Liberal Policy: Ben Colburn’S Social Liberal Values Part 3. [online] Caron's Musings. Available at: <https://caronlindsay.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/from-social-liberty-to-liberal-policy-ben-colburns-social-liberal-values-part-3/>.
8. Freyenhagen, Fabian, 2017. “Autonomy’s Substance,” Journal of Applied Philosophy, 34(1): 114–129.
9. Grovier, Trudy, 1993. “Self-Trust, Autonomy and Self-Esteem,” Hypatia, 8(1): 99–119.
10. Hoefer, Carl, 2016 "Causal Determinism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/determinism-causal/>.
11. Huber J, Form WH, 1973 Income and Ideology: An Analysis of the American Political Formula. New York: Free Press.
12. Dworkin, Gerald, 1988. The Theory and Practice of Autonomy, New York: Cambridge University Press.
13. Johnson, Robert and Adam Cureton, 2019 "Kant’s Moral Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/kant-moral/>.
14. Kluegel JR, Smith ER, 1986 Beliefs About Inequality: Americans’ View of What Is and What Ought to Be. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
15. Kymlicka, Will, 1989. Liberalism, Community and Culture, Oxford: Clarendon.
16. Lane RE, 1986 Market justice, political justice. The American Political Science Review 80(2): 383–402. Crossref.
17. Mackenzie and Stoljar 2000b, “Introduction: Refiguring Autonomy,” in Mackenzie and Stoljar 2000a, pp. 3–34.
18. Oddsson, G. and Bernburg, J., 2017. Opportunity beliefs and class differences in subjective status injustice during the Great Recession in Iceland. Acta Sociologica, 61(3)
19. Rose, D., 2005. Socio-economic Classifications: Classes and Scales, Measurement and Theories. European Association for Survey Research Conference, [online] Available at: <https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/files/esec/presentations_and_publications/Measurement_Socstrat.doc>.
20. Sayer, A., 2009. Contributive Justice and Meaningful Work. Res Publica, 15(1), pp.1-16.
21. Stevens, M, Glendinning, C, Jacobs, S, Moran, N, Challis, D, Manthorpe, J, Fernandez, J-L, Jones, K, Knapp, M, Netten, A and Wilberforce, M (2011) ‘Assessing the role of increasing choice in English social care services’, Journal of Social Policy, 40 (2): 257-274.
22. Stoljar, Natalie, 2018 "Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/feminism-autonomy/>.
23. Swift, A., 2013. Political Philosophy. Hoboken: Wiley.
24. Taylor, C, 1991. The Ethics of Authenticity, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25. Trippenbach, 2011 from - Hill, A., 2011. Hobbies Key To Class, Says Study. [online] the Guardian. Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jan/26/hobbies-british-class-survey>.
26. Waldron, Jeremy, 1993. Liberal Rights: Collected Papers 1981–1991, New York: Cambridge University Press.
27. Westlund, Andrea, 2014. “Autonomy and Self-Care,” in Veltman and Piper (eds.)
7. WORKS CONSULTED
1. Friedman, 2003, Autonomy, Gender, Politics, New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Mackenzie, Catriona, 2008. “Relational Autonomy, Normative Authority and Perfectionism,” Journal of Social Philosophy, 39(4)
3. McLeod, Carolyn and Susan Sherwin, 2000. “Relational Autonomy, Self-Trust, and Health Care for Patients Who Are Oppressed,” in MacKenzie and Stoljar (eds.)
4. Meyers, D.T, 1989, Self, Society and Personal Choice, New York: Columbia University Press.