My 3 best pieces, all in one place.

When it comes to philosophical debates and metaphysical ideas, theorists and everyday individuals alike often find themselves caught in a never-ending cycle of seeking concrete answers. The concept of agency is a particularly contentious issue, one that has challenged my own beliefs. I once staunchly believed that every person possesses agency from birth, a non-negotiable truth about human autonomy. However, as I engaged with the writings of theorists like Louis Althusser, Sidonie Smith, and Julia Watson, alongside texts like Brooke Gladstone’s The Matrix in Me and Kay Ryan’s “Houdini,” my understanding of agency began to shift. The concept of free will, once seemingly absolute, now appears as a constructed façade shaped by external influences.

Theorist Louis Althusser believes that we are “subjects,” and subjects are subjected to societies false concept of free will. Through institutions, we are influenced to believe we have free will when in reality, these institutions are coercing us to conform to certain behaviors, beliefs, and identities. These institutions are families, educational facilities and government although there are slightly less coercive institutions like social services and military. His claim is that agency is an illusion, a kind thought that makes humans feel better about themselves. To make people believe that we are not just another cog on a machine of clones to make the world go round. But, as humans, it is more or less a compulsory response to blindly follow influence and be practically obedient. Althusser’s claim rests upon the fact that humans follow herd mentality whether it is a conscious or a sub-conscious action, and it is impossible to close our minds off to outside opinions. From Louis Althusser’s 1970 essay titled “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes Towards an Investigation),” he writes on page 116, “All ideology hails or interpellates concrete individuals as concrete subjects.”  What I believe Althusser means by this, is that the practices and beliefs inherent to ideology produce a false sense of identity. Our conscious experience of the world and sense of individual personhood is always bound up in effects of the social institutions that have raised and educated us. We simply have no choice to the situation and belief systems that we are born and raised into, and the malleability of the human brain makes these circumstances wildly impossible to not interpolate who we are and what decisions we make. In my own life, I can see Althusser’s theory at work. My education system has played a significant role in shaping my beliefs, persuading me to reconsider my views on agency. As I engaged with Althusser’s ideas, I realized that my previous belief in complete autonomy was itself a product of ideological influence. This process of reflection exemplifies Althusser’s claim that individuals cannot escape the social and cultural contexts that shape their identities and choices.

Reinforcing Althusser’s claims, Robert Sapolsky’s article “We Don’t Have Free Will” introduces a scientific perspective on agency. Sapolsky argues that human behavior is entirely determined by biology and environmental factors, leaving no room for free will. He draws on findings from neuroscience to explain how our thoughts and actions are governed by unconscious processes in the brain. Sapolsky writes, “Free will is a figment of our imagination, and everything about our behavior is the result of the machinery of our brains.” This perspective aligns with Althusser’s notion of ideological interpellation, as both theories emphasize the external forces that shape human behavior. However, Sapolsky takes this argument further by suggesting that even the brain’s internal workings are beyond our control, driven by genetic predispositions and environmental stimuli. His view underscores the limitations of human autonomy, presenting free will as an illusion constructed by our desire for agency.

Opposing Althusser’s ideas, Michel de Certeau offers a contrasting perspective that initially challenged my newfound skepticism. De Certeau argues that individuals retain some degree of agency through “tactics,” or creative strategies for navigating and subverting the constraints imposed by social systems. For example, in his work The Practice of Everyday Life, de Certeau suggests that people find ways to assert autonomy in small, everyday acts. However, while de Certeau’s perspective highlights the interplay between agency and external constraints, it ultimately fails to account for the pervasive influence of ideology. Further picking apart de Certeau, Althusser argues that even acts of resistance are often shaped by the same ideological forces they seek to oppose. For instance, the decision to adopt a countercultural identity or reject societal norms is often informed by alternative ideologies that are themselves products of institutional influence. This reinforces the idea that free will is, at best, a limited construct.

Similar to Robert Sapolsky, Brooke Gladstone’s The Matrix in Me provides a scientific perspective on the debate over agency, reinforcing the idea that free will is an illusion. Gladstone draws on research in neuroscience to argue that much of what we perceive as conscious decision-making is actually driven by unconscious processes. She compares the human brain to a computer, programmed by genetics, upbringing, and external stimuli. This view aligns with Althusser’s claim that individuals are shaped by ideological systems, suggesting that even our thoughts and preferences are products of conditioning rather than genuine autonomy. Gladstone’s argument is particularly compelling because it bridges the gap between philosophy and science. Her discussion of cognitive biases and the brain’s susceptibility to external influence underscores the limitations of human agency. For instance, she cites studies showing that people often rationalize decisions after the fact, convincing themselves that their choices were deliberate when they were actually automatic responses to external stimuli.

While previous sources tap into a scientific lens, Ted Chiang’s short story “What’s Expected of Us” offers a speculative fiction perspective on the illusion of free will, using the concept of a futuristic device called the Predictor. The device lights up one second before a person presses a button, demonstrating that the action has already been determined. Chiang uses this scenario to explore the psychological consequences of determinism, illustrating how people lose motivation when they realize their actions are predetermined. Chiang’s story resonates with Althusser’s theory by highlighting the tension between our desire for agency and the reality of external control. The Predictor, much like ideological systems, exposes the limits of human autonomy, forcing individuals to confront the fact that their choices are not entirely their own. This aligns with Sapolsky’s argument that our actions are governed by forces beyond our control, whether biological, ideological, or both.

Adding another literary dimension to the conversation, Kay Ryan’s poem “Houdini”, using the metaphor of the famous escape artist to explore the human desire for freedom. The poem suggests that, like Houdini, we are constantly seeking to break free from constraints, only to find ourselves bound by new limitations. Ryan writes, “He is the king / of escaping / without ever leaving.” This line captures the paradox of agency: even when we believe we have escaped external influence, we remain trapped within the structures that shape our thoughts and actions. Ryan’s poem resonates with Althusser’s theory by highlighting the cyclical nature of human behavior. Our attempts to assert independence often lead us back to the same patterns of influence and conformity. This literary perspective adds emotional depth to the philosophical and scientific arguments, illustrating the existential struggle to reconcile our desire for agency with the reality of our limitations.

Through the perspectives of Althusser, de Certeau, Gladstone, and Ryan, it becomes clear that agency is not an inherent quality but a constructed illusion. While de Certeau’s idea of “tactics” offers a glimmer of hope for autonomy, the pervasive influence of ideology and unconscious processes ultimately undermines the notion of free will. This realization has profound implications for how we understand ourselves and our place in the world. Rather than clinging to the illusion of agency, we can embrace a more nuanced view of human behavior, acknowledging the role of external forces in shaping our identities and choices. By doing so, we can begin to navigate the complex interplay between individual autonomy and societal influence with greater awareness and intention.

Works Cited:

Althusser, Louis. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes Towards an Investigation).” Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, translated by Ben Brewster, Monthly Review Press, 1971, pp. 85–126.

Chiang, Ted. “What’s Expected of Us.” Nature, vol. 436, no. 7050, 2005, p. 150.

Gladstone, Brooke. The Matrix in Me. W.W. Norton, 2024.

Ryan, Kay. “Houdini.” The Best of It: New and Selected Poems, Grove Press, 2010.

Sapolsky, Robert. “We Don’t Have Free Will.” Los Angeles Times, 17 Sept. 2023, www.latimes.com.

Smith, Sidonie, and Julia Watson. Reading Autobiography: A Guide for Interpreting Life Narratives. Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2014.

“How Free Are We? Louis Althusser on Ideology & Subjectivity.” The Collector, 2 Oct. 2024, www.thecollector.com/louis-althusser-ideology-subjectivity/.