Self-determination is a well known construct in education and psychology, not least because of the ingenious work of Deci and Ryan. Responsibility is also an important construct, discussed from educational, psychological and ethical points of view. But what do you think about the conflation of these two constructs? Are there any promising thoughts or theoretical suppositions in your mind about its interrelationship? I would be very interested in your ideas.
Kind regards,
Johannes
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Reitinger,
Thanks for your interesting question.
It seems clear that self-determination is in some sense a presupposition of responsibility. Philosophically, this has often been formulated in terms of the postulate that "ought" implies "can." If there is something that one ought to do, then that must be something which one is able to do. You cannot be responsible for what you cannot control. Still, we want to recognize degrees of self-determination and of ability to control. Can we be responsible for things, developments, which are largely outside our control? That seems to be one side or element of your question. I think to add that people can be responsible in avoiding or declining the prospect of self-determination.
The question also seems to invite some reflection on responsible limits of self-determination. What comes to mind as an example is party affiliation. Joining up with a political party (I have none, myself, BTW) with some agreeable program, it seems reasonable to accept some degree of self-limitation, even conformity, for the sake of prospective larger purposes. The point might be reasonably extended to many other forms of association or joint commitments. On the other hand, loss of self, by submersion in a group will often be irresponsible.
Generally, self-determination cannot properly be understood as a prohibition of self-restraint. Without self-restraint, there is no virtue; and the value of self-determination should invite reflection on limits and responsibility.
H.G. Callaway
Hi Mr. Reitinger,
I really don't know much about both these notions, but doesn't responsibility emerge from our sense of self-determination? I mean, with other words, we feel responsible to our ethical stances in the case of self-determination.
From the perspective of mind, we always try to manipulate the outer world in a way that it fits our purposes. So, it seems fine to me to assume that in the presence of the notion of self-determination and a certain ethical stance, it is our responsibility to manipulate the conditions accordingly.
These all might be jibberish to you, sorry.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Reitinger,
Thanks for your interesting question.
It seems clear that self-determination is in some sense a presupposition of responsibility. Philosophically, this has often been formulated in terms of the postulate that "ought" implies "can." If there is something that one ought to do, then that must be something which one is able to do. You cannot be responsible for what you cannot control. Still, we want to recognize degrees of self-determination and of ability to control. Can we be responsible for things, developments, which are largely outside our control? That seems to be one side or element of your question. I think to add that people can be responsible in avoiding or declining the prospect of self-determination.
The question also seems to invite some reflection on responsible limits of self-determination. What comes to mind as an example is party affiliation. Joining up with a political party (I have none, myself, BTW) with some agreeable program, it seems reasonable to accept some degree of self-limitation, even conformity, for the sake of prospective larger purposes. The point might be reasonably extended to many other forms of association or joint commitments. On the other hand, loss of self, by submersion in a group will often be irresponsible.
Generally, self-determination cannot properly be understood as a prohibition of self-restraint. Without self-restraint, there is no virtue; and the value of self-determination should invite reflection on limits and responsibility.
H.G. Callaway
Dear Johannes,
I do think there are important impacts of both constructs on both teaching and learning. while you seem to base your work on Deci and Ryan - psychological constructs - I relate mine to pedagogical and phenomenological notions of "responsivity" (cf. Waldenfels 2004; Meyer-Drawe, 1987; 2008; Westphal, 2015 et al). Meyer-Drawe (2002) calls full autonomy an illusion since learning and teaching are always social, inter-subjective acts in which we always need to respond to claims from others (Waldenfels). Particularly, when referring to Levinas this relations becomes ethical - in the face of the other (im Antlitz des Anderen) we cannot but respond as human beings to each other. One could wonder how this is going to change in times when people look at their smartphones instead of each other's faces,
redards
Johanna F. Schwarz
Dear Tunc Guven Kaya, dear H.C. Callaway, dear Johanna Schwarz!
Many thanks for your responses! They are helping me to arrange my thoughts. Not least, you give me impulses for further inquiry.
Kind regards,
Johannes
Hi Johannes,
Thanks four your questions and posting
Let me begin by saying that the concepts of self-determination and responsibility are important issues, and have polemic, far-reaching psychological, educational, legal, and even moral implications. In terms of psychology, suffice it to say that because the concept of self-determination refers to one’s individual intrinsic motivation to initiate an activity for its own sake because it is interesting and satisfying in itself, as opposed to doing an activity to obtain an external goal (extrinsic motivation), such a concept is not accepted, for example, by behaviorists and neuroscientists, just to cite two examples. For the former, the variables of which human behavior is a function are in the physical and social environment. As such, radical behaviorists such as Watson and Skinner do not accept the idea of intrinsic motivation. According to neuroscientists, one’s behavior is a function of one’s brain, and thus it is not self-determined or intrinsically motivated. In terms of education, if there are intrinsically-oriented students, one may wonder about the role of teachers/professors in the process of teaching/learning. Of course, one can say that the teacher’s role is to help pupils to be more intrinsically than extrinsically determined.
However, such way of thinking, one may object, amounts to falling prey to an oxymoron. Actually, if students are intrinsically motivated because of an external aid, how can they be considered as self-determined or intrinsically- motivated?
In moral and legal terms, it makes much sense to think that the more one is intrinsically determined and motivated, the more one is morally and legally responsible for his/her behavior. In contradistinction, one may think that the more one is extrinsically determined or motivated, the less one is legally and morally responsible for his/her behavior. This shows that self-determination a la E. Deci and responsibility, be it moral, legal, or even causal, are deeply intertwined. In other words, the more you are intrinsically determined or motivated, the more it makes sense to say that: (a) you are the real actor of your behavior, in causal terms; (b) you are the only responsible for such behavior in moral and legal terms. Again, this speaks in favor of a clear relationship between self-determination and responsibility.
Note, however, that the concept of responsibility has different meanings. It suffices to say that to be responsible for a previous behavior we performed, displayed, or exhibited is quite different from, for example, to be responsible to others’ needs. If the former leads us to think mainly of causality and agency, the latter leads us to think mainly of one’s prosocial and moral duties and obligations.
This second meaning of responsibility is also related to the concepts of self-determination and intrinsic/extrinsic motivation. Let me put this in terms of Kohlberg’s theory of three levels and six stages of moral reasoning. Consider the following question: “Are you obliged to steal to save, for example, a human life?”
As I see it, different (intrinsic and extrinsic) reasons/motivations can lead an individual to feel obliged to steal/ not to steal to save a human life. In this example, we may think of pre-conventional (Stages 1 and 2), conventional (Stages 3 and 4) and postconventional {Stage 5 and 6) morally-oriented individuals. Think, for example, of an individual whose answer to the previous question is the following: “I am (feel) obliged to save a human life because I want to become a famous, important individual. If this were the case, then we would be, as it were, before a Stage 1, and extrinsically-oriented individual. That is, an individual whose motivations to be feel obliged to save a human life are external and egocentric in their very nature. Consider now the case of an individual whose motivation to not feel obliged to steal in such case is, for example, not to have problems with the police of his/her country. This individual could be considered a Stage 2, and also an extrinsically- motivated individual.
Consider now the case of an individual whose main motivation to feel obliged to steal in the example above is, for example, to receive approval from his/her peers, or to be considered a good, “nice guy” in conventional terms. Such individual would be a Stage 3-oriented individual and also an extrinsically-motivated subject. Consider now the case of a Stage 4-oriented respondent, whose motivation to not feel obliged to steal in such circumstance might be to maintain the democratic functioning of his/her country. Such respondent could also be considered as an extrinsically-motivated individual. Although extrinsically-motivated, these two types of, say, conventional individuals are less extrinsically-motivated than their pre-conventional counterparts. In fact, the motivation for maintaining the normal functioning of one’s own or even other countries is less egocentric, and hence, less extrinsically motivated than that, for example, of having possible problems with the police. This example shows that the concept of intrinsic/extrinsic motivation is not a nothing-or-all concept and phenomenon. In other words, there are different degrees of both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. There is also mounting evidence that shows that as development proceeds, individuals actively attempt to transform an extrinsic motive (e.g., to be competent due to others’ pressure) into an intrinsic one (e.g., to be competent because it is satisfying in itself). That an extrinsic motive may be transformed into an intrinsic motivation, only compounds the idea that extrinsic and intrinsic motives are not to be seen in purely dichotomous terms, but rather as two faces of the same coin (i.e., one’s motivations underlying his/her behavior).
When answering the above mentioned question (i.e., “Are you obliged to steal to save a human life?”) an individual may answer that s/h is (or feels) obliged to steal to save a human life because such obligation derives from his/her chosen moral principles, such as the golden rule. This individual would be a Kohlbergian postconventional individual, and also an intrinsically-motivated person. Consider the example of an individual who feels obliged to steal to save a human life because s/he is fully aware that one’s right to live is a fundamental right of every human being. Again, we would be before a Kohlbergian postconventional individual, and an intrinsically-determined or motivated person. As the late Kohlberg [see Colby & Kohlberg (1987). The measurement of moral judgment, Vols.1 and 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press] gave up of his initial Stage 6, the examples mentioned above could substantiate a Stage 5 or Stage 6-oriented individual and also a highly intrinsically-motivated person. Note that when confronted with a moral dilemma (e.g., “Should /should we not steal to save a human life?”), Stage 5 individuals tend to think that certain legal and even moral norms, such as we should not steal, are to be seen it relative rather than absolute terms. Stage 6 moral reasoners tend to check their moral options in terms of, say, the test of reversibility (i.e., “Would I advocate the same conclusion if, in a conflict of interests or welfares, positions were reversed?)” and of universalizability (“Did I reach a conclusion that would be acceptable for all at all times and places?”). As it is easily conceivably, Stage 5 and Stage 5- oriented individuals are more likely than their preconventional or conventional counterparts to be intrinsically-motivated. In other words, the more one is developed, for example, in terms of cognitive, social, emotional, moral development, the more one is likely to be self-determined or intrinsically-motivated. This is so, because as development whatever goes on, individuals become more capable of going beyond the external, perceptual, and visible features involved in a given problem, task, situation, and the likely. Needless to say, contrary to extrinsic motivation, intrinsic motivation has to do with personally endorsed and internalized values, motives, norms, principles, and the like [see, for instance, Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (Eds.), (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press].
I hope that I have got your points and questions and that this helps.
Best regards
2 Recommendations
8th Aug, 2016
Johannes Reitinger
University of Vienna
Dear Orlando!
Many, many thanks for spending time and so much intellectual power in answering my question. I am very glad about your hints and explanations. Reflecting Self-determination from varoius disciplines, recognizing it´s heterogeneous structure, and linking it to Kohlberg is really interesting and helpful to clarify my own considerations, indeed.
Best regards
Johannes
8th Aug, 2016
Madelaine Lawrence
RnCeus Interactive
At the core I see these two constructs as often being in conflict. Responsibility includes being responsible for self, in part, but also for others, for work, for a host of situations. Self determination often involves taking control of how we make choices and decisions based on our preferences and interests as well as being goal oriented and directed.
With students and patients, their responsibilities especially with adults often conflict with the time and effort they have to execute choices they have made for their own lives. I was working with a patient who wanted and for health purposes needed to stop smoking. His job was exceptionally stressful which hindered his ability to quit. He had family responsibilities and needed to keep the job. We want people to be responsible at the same time we want them to exercise free will and be motivated to direct their own lives. It seems we need to pay more attention to the conflict that can cause and help them work out the conflicts.
1 Recommendation
8th Aug, 2016
Akhila Chandrashekar
Christ University, Bangalore
Hello!
I read all the mentioned perspectives, but what I understand is that responsibility is a component of self-determination. The latter includes responsibility, perseverance, dedication, diligence, and self- compassion. Responsibility on the other hand has moral, ethical, social, cultural, political, and even familial aspects to be precise. Self- determination regulates the sense of responsibility in a way.
1 Recommendation
8th Aug, 2016
Omid Asemani
Shiraz University of Medical Sciences
In the name of Allah
in religious context the same relationship exists in the worship between believers and the God or god. oppositely to the secular societies where the personal autonomy and personal decision making and personal wants are dominant, in a proper religious based relationship followers autonomously and of course thoughtfully accept that a part of their free will to be authorized based on the orders and commands of the God whom that is the most almighty, the most knowledgeable, the most merciful and the most ... in this way, followers do their responsibility on a wise basis since what is obeyed as responsibility have been chosen freely and thoughtfully by the believers. believes know that what they are obeyed is the best and the wise that they can have or choose. the same way is true in our relationship with others. if we knowingly and thoughtfully (self determination) accept to obey some responsibilities (personal, familial, social etc.) the ones that should be logically obeyed we are in fact using our self-determination wisely.
1 Recommendation
9th Sep, 2016
Pratibha Gramann
De Anza College and Saybrook University
Self determination is surely a psychological quality, an inner quality. Responsibilities are of different types and one has the choice of whether he/she feels good about fulfilling or taking on a particular responsibility. When self determination is present, it can make a responsibility easier. There is also responsibility to oneself which can mean determinaion to live a particular way that brings psychological wellness regarding oneself. This can include the pace at which one lives their life that either increases or reduces stress and anxiety,
1 Recommendation
9th Sep, 2016
Pratibha Gramann
De Anza College and Saybrook University
It seems the relationslhip of self determination and responsibility involves the relationship of will and ego.
1 Recommendation
9th Sep, 2016
Pratibha Gramann
De Anza College and Saybrook University
Dear HG Callaway,
In your comment, I find meaningful the phrase 'degree' of self-determination. Likely there is a small, moderate, and intense degree of self-determination just as there seems to be generally three degrees of most qualities of mind. The following sentence in your statement, could you explain it further: I think to add that people can be responsible in avoiding or declining the prospect of self-determination.
5th May, 2017
John S Torday
University of California, Los Angeles
@All, in my reduction of vertebrate evolution, back to the unicellular state where it all began, The First Principles of Physiology determine the existence and perpetuation of life. As such, the cell is self-determined, but only exists and evolves because it adheres to those founding principles. So the cell only exists by exhibiting responsibility. That statement is temperized by the role of homeostasis (maintaining equipoise) allowing for lattitude in the expression of responsibility, or Free Will.
5th May, 2017
Pratibha Gramann
De Anza College and Saybrook University
to John Torday, Do you mean that the individual cell has 'Free Will or the expression of responsibility.' I have to really think about that one. Could you give some details to substantiate that view?
Pratibha Gramann
5th May, 2017
John S Torday
University of California, Los Angeles
To Pratiibha Gramann, sure, I can provide details to substantiate my view that the cell has Free Will and expresses responsibility, though I must warn you that this is an eclectic and technical answer. Before there were cells the Earth's oceans were being formed by asteroids striking the surface of the planet due to the lack of an oxidizing atmosphere. Those asteroids were composed of frozen water containing polycyclic hydrocarbons (fat). Lipids immersed in water spontaneously form micelles, spheres with semipermeable membranes, or protocells. Such membranes within the cell caused the alignment of ions on either side, positive or negative, like a battery, generating bioenergy through what Peter Mitchell has called Chemiosmosis. That energy within the cell allows it to exist in a negative free energy state, in contrast to the external environment, which is in a positive free energy state. Schrodinger ("What is Lfie", 1944) referred to the negative free energy state as Negative Entropy or Negentropy. This condition of the cell is maintained by homeostasis. Taken together, the negentropy, chemiosmosis and homeostasis are what I have called the First Principles of Physiology (FPP) (Evolutionary Biology, Cell-Cell Communication and Complex Disease. JS Torday and VK Rehan, Wiley, 2012- see attached). Homeostasis is the means by which the cell either remains the same or evolves. The cell must adhere to the FPP in order to maintain and perpetuate itself in an ever-changing environment.....that is the 'responsibility' component. Homeostasis allows for some attitude in the FPP, which is the Free Will component. All of life exists between these boundaries, or become extinct. I hope that this was helpful. If you have questions please don't hesitate to ask. And thank you for your interest.....
5th May, 2017
John S Torday
University of California, Los Angeles
To Pratiibha Gramann, after I posted my reply I noted that you are a Psychologist. Perhaps more to your interests(?) those micelles floating in the primordial oceans were warmed by the Sun and cooled at night. When lipids are warmed and cooled they will deform and reform spontaneously due to hysteresis, or chemical 'memory'. That may have been the origins of consciousness. I have attached a recent paper of ours on the evolution of the mammalian brain, based on Kurt Friston's concept of brain cooling and memory, fyi. Hope I haven't overstayed my 'welcome'.
5th May, 2017
Pratibha Gramann
De Anza College and Saybrook University
to John Torday, I think what you describe may be the scientific way of describing life and the universe. In ancient scriptures and that era of humankind, same was understood but in different style of language. Do you think that way? It can't be the first time humans have discovered the laws of the universe - I mean in this era.
Your 'chemical memory and the origins of consciousness' makes me think of the relationship of something/a material configuration's relationship to consciousness - as each material string, form, or action has a reflection or relationship to consciousness. How could there be an origin of consciousness. Consciousness was present from before the beginning of creation - otherwise how it have been created.
What do you think?
Pratibha Gramannn
5th May, 2017
John S Torday
University of California, Los Angeles
To Pratiibha Gramann, I agree with you that what I am describing is a scientific way of realizing what is in ancient scripture; however, there is a fundamental difference in that science is a method whereas scripture is belief. In another thread someone said that the ancients of India have known that the Sun, not the Earth is the center of the Solar System. But they did not have material evidence for that, so they did not extrapolate from that to the Big Bang theory, for example. I do not mean to be disrespectful, only to say that the power of science is in its ability to predict, free of the fear of deviating from a set of beliefs. Ultimately, fear of a higher power is limiting, whereas freeing the human spirit of invention is energizing. I see science facilitating that process. Sure science is fallible, but if I find myself going up some false path, I formulate a new hypothesis. I have done so for more than five decades, frustrated by the doo-loops of descriptive Physiology until I came upon a way of understanding the process of life in a linear narrative, starting from its unicellular origins instead of the 'just so stories' of descriptive Biology.
As for your comment about consciousness being present before creation, I think that that is correct based on the way that I have come to understand evolution as a series of pre-adaptations, or exaptations. That is to say, there must have been some form of consciousness or self-awareness before it was formulated either physically or biologically, the latter deriving from the former. There is now evidence for Time Crystals, the alignment of atoms through some unknown mechanism. Perhaps that self-organizational, self-referential process is the origin of consciousness.
I had a professor in college, Willem Pinnard, who taught Bucke's "Cosmic Consciousness" in his Psychology of the Mind course at Boson University, citing Gudjeff and De Chardins as sources......they, as you probably know, thought that consciousness was a continuum, and that even inert substances had consciousness. I personally find solace in this way of thinking about existence. Thank you for your feedback. Perhaps there is more to be said, so I welcome your thoughts and insights.
5th May, 2017
Pratibha Gramann
De Anza College and Saybrook University
to John Torday, You have included much here, and good thinking. Push to the edge to learn.
For the moment, here is one question in response to your first statement about science is method and scripture is belief. Could you go into this deeper!! Ancient scripture was in a different era prior to scientific method as we know it. Did it take all these centuries to discover what this universe and humankind is in fact about? Or could there have been insight gained from deep meditation that has no physical, mathmatical tools, but the tools of knowledge and inference and observation gained from the deepest samadhis? Is this belief?
Belief is holding on to a premise without any substantiation of the concept -- without making it one's own experience and knowledge, isn't it?
Response welcome.
5th May, 2017
John S Torday
University of California, Los Angeles
To Prathiba Gramann, I will respond by inserting replies in brackets...
Ancient scripture was in a different era prior to scientific method as we know it. Did it take all these centuries to discover what this universe and humankind is in fact about?
[The formal scientific method has only been in use for ~400 years. Science has been necessary to expunge many 'beliefs' from human thought and logic, like the Earth being the center of the Solar System, forcing all kinds of correlations. And then there was Haley' Comet, which created all kinds of beliefs cooked up by soothsayers, allowing the power elite to lord it over the common man based on fear instead of knowledge]
Or could there have been insight gained from deep meditation that has no physical, mathmatical tools, but the tools of knowledge and inference and observation gained from the deepest samadhis? Is this belief?
[The fundament of experimental science is duplication and independent confirmation or replication of data.....I frankly don't see how that is feasible based on belief.]
Belief is holding on to a premise without any substantiation of the concept
[see above...]
-- without making it one's own experience and knowledge, isn't it?
[I don't understand.....I assume that a belief is something that you do make your own.....because you believe it]
Apologies for being so strident, but I see science as empowering the individual to think objectively, whereas beliefs may seem empowering, but fail to predict. I have published extensively in the peer-review literature about vertebrate evolution based on cell biology, which is far more illuminating and predictive than Darwinian evolution, which is a belief system given that there is literally no experimental evidence for phylogeny. I will send you some of those papers if you have interest.
We need another 'Age of Reason and Enlightenment' given what's going on in the world today. Your thoughts?
Your thoughts?
Self-determination and responsibility: How do you describe the interrelationship between these two theoretical constructs?. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Self-determination_and_responsibility_How_do_you_describe_the_interrelationship_between_these_two_theoretical_constructs#view=5909fd96dc332d7daa6ad4b0 [accessed May 3, 2017].
5th May, 2017
Johannes Reitinger
University of Vienna
I am reading a very interesting discourse here. I did not guess that my question would motivate such an interesting exchange of ideas.
Thanks for following your thoughts!
Johannes
5th May, 2017
Pratibha Gramann
De Anza College and Saybrook University
to John Torday, My first thought: all mentioned is about the cosmic. What about the individual? In your own mind, is there sometimes silence, sometimes clarity, sometimes dullness? Is there enlightenment in individuals, your view?
When can personal experience give rise to truth, can it? Or is science the only avenue to truth? Papers mentioned may be interested, but I am overwhelmed with papers I'm writing and slide presentations; i will look into references you have mentioned, like Bucke's Cosmic Consciousness. Where to get this book? Yes Gurdjief was enlightened, it would seem. (more tomorrow....)
5th May, 2017
John S Torday
University of California, Los Angeles
To Pratibha Grammen, I will answer by interjecting my responses in [brackets]
My first thought: all mentioned is about the cosmic. What about the individual? In your own mind, is there sometimes silence, sometimes clarity, sometimes dullness? Is there enlightenment in individuals, your view?
[Starting at the end, yes I think that there is enlightenment in individuals. We all emanate from the same source, so our enlightenment is communal. As for stages of silence, clarity and dulness, based on my reduction of vertebrate evolution, such states are a function of stress, silence or dullness being the consequence of low or no stress conditions, whereas clarity is the result of stress under control. Raymond Maslow expressed such moments as 'peak experiences'. Learning requires some stress, but not too much physiologically, for example].
When can personal experience give rise to truth, can it? Or is science the only avenue to truth?
[I think people can experience 'epiphanies', but to my mind the only way to discover truths communally is through the scientific method]
Papers mentioned may be interested, but I am overwhelmed with papers I'm writing and slide presentations; i will look into references you have mentioned, like Bucke's Cosmic Consciousness. Where to get this book?
[Amazon]
Yes Gurdjief was enlightened, it would seem. (more tomorrow....)
Hope my comments were helpful.....Keep in touch. John
Self-determination and responsibility: How do you describe the interrelationship between these two theoretical constructs?. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Self-determination_and_responsibility_How_do_you_describe_the_interrelationship_between_these_two_theoretical_constructs#view=590a441348954c0e64651adf [accessed May 3, 2017].
Can you help by adding an answer?
Answer
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Ethics