Time to find an answer to a question I posted awhile back: autonomy from what or whom?
Autonomy means literally “to give oneself his or her own law.” For the time being, I am addressing autonomy rooted in psychology, ethics, and philosophy, or even metaphysical philosophy. There is much more to address in terms of politics, but lets start with the mind and the soul! (An aside: In economics, autonomous consumption is consumption expenditure when income levels are zero, making spending autonomous to income. This made me laugh aloud in light of my impending lack of income).
Thank you Wikipedia for the following info, much of which Ive cut and pasted below:
Psychology
Self-determination theory (SDT) is a macro theory of human motivation and personality that focuses on the degree to which an individual’s behavior is self-motivated and self-determined. According to several key studies, three psychological needs motivate the self to initiate behavior and specify nutriments that are essential for psychological health and well-being of an individual, and are said to be universal, innate and psychological. They are as follows:
- Competence – effectiveness in dealing with the environment a person finds themselves.
- Autonomy - universal urge to be causal agents of our own life and act in harmony with our integrated self. However, psychologists Deci and Vansteenkiste note this doesn’t mean to be independent of others.
- Relatedness - the universal want to interact, be connected to and experience caring for others.
Two researchers, White and deCharms, proposed that the competence and autonomy needs are the basis for intrinsic motivation’s and behavior. This is a link between peoples basic needs and their motivations.
The following related experiments are from 1971:
EXPERIMENT I
“This experiment tested the hypothesis that if an individual is intrinsically motivated to perform an activity, introduction of an extrinsic reward decreases the degree of intrinsic motivation to perform the task.
Twenty-four undergraduate psychology students participated in the first laboratory experiment and were assigned to experimental (N=12) and control group (N = 12). Each group participated in three sessions conducted on three different days. During the sessions the participants were engaged in working on a puzzle which was assumed to be an activity that college students would be intrinsically motivated to do. The puzzle could be put together to form numerous different configurations. In each session, the participants were shown four different configurations drawn on a piece of paper and were asked to use the puzzle to reproduce the configurations while they were being timed.
The first and third session of the experimental condition were identical to control, but in the second session the participants in the experimental condition were given a dollar for completing each puzzle within time. During the middle of each session, the experimenter left the room for eight minutes and the participants were told that they were free to do whatever they wanted during that time, while the experimenter observed during that period. The amount of time spent working on the puzzle during the free choice period was used to measure motivation.
As Deci expected, when external reward was introduced during session two, the participants spent more time working on the puzzles during the free choice period in comparison to session 1 and when the external reward was removed in the third session, the time spent working on the puzzle dropped lower than the first session. All subjects reported finding the task interesting and enjoyable at the end of each session, providing evidence for the experimenter’s assumption that the task was intrinsically motivating for the college students. The study showed some support of the experimenter’s hypothesis and a trend towards decrease in intrinsic motivation was seen after money was provided to the participants as external reward.”
(EXPERIMENT II wasnt all that interesting, so Ive left it out. Instead, here is a photo break courtesy of Nina Elder).
EXPERIMENT III
“Experiment III was also conducted in the laboratory and was identical to Experiment I in all respects except for the kind of external reward provided to the students in experimental condition during Session 2.
In this experiment, verbal praise was used as an extrinsic reward.
The experimenter hypothesized that a different type of reward, i.e. social approval in form of verbal reinforcement and positive feedback for performing the task that a person is intrinsically motivated to perform, will enhance the degree of internal motivation even after the extrinsic reward is removed.
The results of the experiment III confirmed the hypothesis and the students’ performance increased significantly during the third session in comparison to session one, showing that verbal praise and positive feedback enhances performance in tasks that a person is initially intrinsically motivated to perform. This provides evidence that verbal praise as external reward increases intrinsic motivation.
The author explained differences between the two types of external rewards as having different effects on intrinsic motivation. When a person is intrinsically motivated to perform a task and money is introduced to work on the task, the individual cognitively re-evaluates the importance of the task and the intrinsic motivation to perform the task (because the individual finds it interesting) shifts to extrinsic motivation and the primary focus changes from enjoying the task to gaining financial reward. However, when verbal praise is provided in a similar situation increases intrinsic motivation as it is not evaluated to be controlled by external factors and the person sees the task as an enjoyable task that is performed autonomously. The increase in intrinsic motivation is explained by positive reinforcement and an increase in perceived locus of control to perform the task.”
More recent studies have focused on topics such as SDT and awareness, vitality, and self-regulation.
From their experiments, the authors/researchers of these studies concluded that “when individuals act mindfully, their actions are consistent with their values and interest. Also, there is a possibility that being autonomous and performing an action because it is enjoyable to oneself increases mindful attention to one’s actions.”
All of this is to say that I aim to be more articulate about my desires (intrinsic motivations) to be in New Mexico, or more generally, to be more intentional about my life (behaviors). I recognize an overall awareness of why I make certain changes and decisions – whether they be to relocate, to end/begin relationships, or even to implement certain regimens. But Ive always attributed them to either fate, serendipity, or just a feeling that its “something Im supposed to do” (as in called to do, not forced to do). Prrreeeety much the definition of “intrinsic motivations and behaviors.” But when my neurotic side gets the better of me, I fixate on wanting to know the reasons “why” I do things. Studies like these teach me and help maintain a healthy perspective.
The Necessarian endeavors are self-regulated (autonomy), yet rooted in wanting to feel connected to something bigger than myself (relatedness), and proving to myself that I can do it (competence). To some people, this may sound like a “finding myself” conundrum but for me it feels more involved than that – and certainly less self-centered. Im learning that autonomy is more about our relationships with people and positioning in situations, more so than it is ’bout goin’ it alone. I continue to keep all of this in mind as I begin to identify the correlations amongst self-determination (and therefore succession), position (physical location and mental attitude), and territory (land ownership and nomadic pursuits).







Notice the cob ovens in the foreground.



