On Tuesday evening, Rachel and I were discussing the extent to which members of a certain personality cult are responsible for their actions. As we talked, Rachel said that the root of our disagreement was probably in a disagreement about free will; namely, she thinks people have more freedom of will than I do. At the time, I agreed.
I thought about it more on Wednesday and I have a more satisfying framing for this.
The “personal responsibility” point of view sits in a too-empty cosmos. The individual stands alone, obviously influenced by others and constrained in ways, but ultimately The Decider. This cosmos consists of humans and not much else. While it does allow for a spectrum of opinions on the degree of freedom of the will, it is fundamentally a cosmos aimed at answering the question of responsibility.
An animate cosmos, on the other hand, is full to the brim—and most of the population isn’t human. In this cosmos, an “individual” isn’t really any such thing. The individual is a nexus of swirling forces, shaping and being shaped. There is no person apart from the intersection of these forces.
In an animate cosmos, there are spirits of depression and addiction and greed. There are also spirits of music, mountains, and meditation. Every being has a role. Some of these beings may be hostile to humans; some may seem hostile but only from a certain point of view; some may be entirely beneficent.
Every being is co-creating in relationship. Crucially, this co-creation can be conscious or unconscious. Unconscious co-creation can be a human ridden by a hostile spirit; worlding is happening, however evil. Conscious co-creation can be a human working with a muse to write poetry. Take this as literally or metaphorically as you want. Works either way.
The framing of will as free/less free/unfree is not particularly relevant in an animate cosmos. Better to think in terms of conscious or unconscious co-creation. Many of the people in “that certain personality cult” are being ridden; they are prime examples of the line “people don’t have ideas; ideas have people.” This is how ideology functions—and ideology is by no means limited to this or that group. People in the mode of unconscious co-creation are unwitting tools put to uses not of their own choosing. It’s not that they don’t have “free will”; their wills have been captured. (People of course should bear the consequences of their actions. I hope that doesn’t need saying.)
Other people are awake to the forces shaping their lives, in more or less conscious relationship with them. This consciousness gives them more freedom of movement. Because of their consciousness, they can identify these powers and either give or withhold consent to them. They can work with them to mutually beneficial ends or they can refuse co-operation if the powers are destructive.
An animate cosmos is to the conscious a joint project unfolding in relationship. To the unconscious it is one damn thing after another.