I just finished reading Moby Dick, a great tale written in a wordy but interesting style. The story raises important psychological issues relating to the desire for revenge, for adventure, and for belonging. I am especially interested in the issue of conflict between freedom and belonging. Twenty or so men give up much of their freedom in order to join the ship crew. Giving up their freedom to make behavioral choices ultimately leads to their doom.
A loss of freedom occurs almost every time we join a group, whether by entering a marriage, taking a job, for instance in the military, or joining a religious, political, or social group. We give up freedom in exchange for various benefits, including a sense of belonging.
Some individuals, as Erick Fromm pointed out in “Escape from Freedom,” seek to reduce their level of freedom because freedom makes them anxious. Some individuals want to be told what to do, even what to think. So it is important that a group gives us as much freedom as we want (but no more).
I have tried various ways to solve the conflict between my desire for freedom and my desire to belong. For example, I have worked mostly at universities in teaching/research roles that give me wide freedom in what and how I teach and in what I study and how. This situation gives me a sense of freedom (autonomy), while I benefit from the support inherent in belonging to the organization. In exchange for this freedom, I work hard to carry out the goals of the university. This exchange of contribution to the group for freedom plays a similar positive role in romantic and other family relationships. One might say that we earn our freedom by using it responsibly.
The political effects of the unmet desire for freedom are obvious in the widespread rebellions occurring in nations with oppressive governments. On a smaller scale, the effects of the unmet desire for freedom are often obvious in failing romantic relationships.
The exchange of freedom for belonging can work out well if we choose a group that provides us with important benefits, including the amount of freedom we desire, and we give the group valuable contributions (including allowing others in the group to do what they think best).
Have you seen the exchange of freedom for belonging go bad? What were the causes? The solutions? What psychological methods have you seen help the exchange work out well for everyone?
John Malouff, PhD, JD
Associate Professor of Psychology
When I first married I felt the exchange of freedom for belonging was good as I gained many benefits (including feelings of security and stability). I was happy to exchange independence and the ability to make my own decisions for these benefits and I think my partner was too. However, as the marriage progressed the balance between freedom and belonging changed.
I wanted to pursue a personal goal and my partner wasn’t happy. I was caught between trying to satisfy the desire to meet my goal and the need to stay in the relationship. I was out of balance and felt an ever increasing need for the missing factor, namely the ability to make my own decision (without being accountable to another person). In the end, we were unable to compromise and the relationship ended.
Compromise could have been a solution, but this wasn’t possible in our case. In the end the sense of belonging became restrictive.
Gaining my freedom means I can pursue the ‘excitement’ that comes from being on my own and make my own decisions. At some point, however, I suspect my independence will lead to a need for more togetherness.
Perhaps next time my partner and I might talk about what it means to be together before committing. For example, I might discuss the importance of pursuing personal goals (and he may have additional ideas). Perhaps then you can satisfy and keep in balance both parties desire for belonging and freedom.
Hi K. Here is a sentence I like to hear from others: “Do whatever you think is best.” I imagine that others would like to hear that directed at them. I can picture couples benefiting from discussing autonomy before getting too involved.
I’m a male (if that’s relevant), and I’ve always philosophisd that if I can be me, and my lover can be her, then all will be well.
Ah well, if only life were so simple.
Here’s a fantasy. My lover knows the following things about me: “I love her; she is my primary emotional and physical interest in my life; I am completely honest with her; I at times feel attraction to other women; I do not act on this interest (for various reasons, e.g.: it would hurt my lover; it would prevent me from experiencing a deepening of my relationship with my lover); I would at times like to act on this interest; I will never act on this interest as a way of avoiding difficulties in our relationship.”
Ah, what do you make of that!
In my experience, no woman I’ve been in relationship with can accept this. I’ve learnt that I can philosophise, or I can be in relationship. I’d prefer to be in relationship. So I compromise. I sacrifice freedom for belonging. In this case, it is an easy choice. Being able to be with other women is a SMALL concern, comparaed to the joy and rewards of being in a loving relationship.
Another scenario is this: I’ve been in a relationship with a controlling, judgmental, condescending woman. Of course, she has her story, but this is my write-up so you’re hearing mine. If you can accept that she WAS, by standards that you would accept, controlling, judgmental, and condescending, the question arises: why did I stay with her? Answer: I chose to sacrifice freedom for the need to belong.
At what point do we each draw the line?
The philosophical side of me says we need NEVER draw the line. As the gestalt founder Fritz Perls says, I need only be me, you be you, and if we shall meet, then it is beautiful, if not, then so be it.
The more human, relationally-needy side of me says: I AM me, and you ARE you, and we ARE different, so let’s compromise.
There are 1001 self help books with their rules about where to draw the line. You, I, and our friends, will each have our opinions about which lines are healthy and which are arrogant or self-depreciating.
For my part … with my controlling partner, I eventually realised that “being myself” AND “being afraid of being alone” was a more noble, a more meaningful way of being than “being in relationship” AND “being a slave”.
Self-help advice makes this sound easy. But from my experience, these are not easy decisions to make.
I’m a romantic, so I continue to believe: If I am I, and you like me, and if you and you, and i like you, then all shall be well.
Hmmm, if I may edit the last line of my previous post:
I’m a romantic, so I continue to believe: If I am I, and you like me, and if you are you, and i like you, then may we compromise on the things that don’t matter, and be free in the things that do.
Hi Christopher,
I understand that we sometimes feel attraction for others when in a relationship. I also understand that in many, probably most, relationships the idea of your partner being attracted to someone else is threatening and therefore, unacceptable. I agree, the freedom to pursue someone you find attractive is a sacrifice worth making in a good, established, relationship.
Like you, I’ve been in a relationship with a controlling partner. Looking back, I willingly handed over the freedom to control my own life. As you say, ultimately these decisions are our own choice, but what happens when your life becomes too restrictive.
You ask “at what point do we draw the line?” It would be wonderful if we need never draw the line, but that would probably require two very mature individuals who are both willing to compromise. If your partner is unwilling then I think you have no choice but to draw the line. If you don’t (and you are forced to give something up) you run the risk of eventually becoming resentful. Perhaps, eventually, you’ll draw the line anyway.
In my case, it was a win-lose situation. Freedom vs. Belonging? No contest really — I trusted my instincts and made my escape! Although it was probably the saddest, hardest decision I’ve had to make I have no regrets. A few years on and, ultimately, my decision was a good one. Like you say “being yourself” and “unafraid of being alone” is a good place to be compared to a restrictive relationship.
Although I wouldn’t describe myself as a romantic (I’m probably missing out on something there!), I am an optimist and would like to believe that compromise is a solution that would allow each partner to satisfy their needs for freedom and belonging. Your last (edited) statement sums it up well!
I do have a question though — Is there an alternative solution if compromise doesn’t work?
Hi Kimberley,
Thanks for your reply.
Sorry for being pedantic, but I got the sense from your repsonse that you think we may or may not have to “draw a line”. My view is that we simply DO draw lines — well, unless we are like Fritz Perls, who did not draw lines, but who also died a lonely man.
I think that to the extend that we want to belong, we NECESSARILY compromise on freedom. I don’t see a problem with this. It is simply a question of being aware of this necessity and making a conscious choice about WHERE we draw the line. E.g., on behalf of Fritz Perls, I’d say that he was very conscious of drawing a line, and that he chose to draw it very close to the side of freedom over belonging. That, I guess, worked for him, and despite how you and I might psychoanalysie him, we can at least say that he made his choice. He valued freedom over belonging.
Hey, I smile at your misreading of my statement “being alone AND being afraid of being alone”. You read this as “being alone and being UNafraid of being alone”. For sure it is great to be UNafraid of being alone. For me, though, there is a really challenge around BEING afraid of being alone, and YET chosing to be alone even so.
Re your question “Is there an alternative solution if compromise doesn’t work?” You’re teasing, yes? Do you really think I know something you don’t?
I’d say that we simply DO compromise. No way out of it. In mature relationships, we compromise on issues that either don’t matter or on which we freely recognise as issues that we want to work on (e.g., I want to freely have sex with other women, AND i freely choose to compromise on this because I genuinely value something else more highly: i.e., a committed, loving relationship. Another issue might be whether or not one’s partner makes coffee in the morning. And etc.). In less mature relationships, we compromise our integrity for the feeling of belonging to a relationship. Some relationships might LOOK like they don’t involve compromise. E.g., a relationship in which there is a lot of fighting. But to take that example, I’d say that each person either ENJOYS the fighting (i.e., they aren’t compromising anything), or has decided to compromise on their need for peace. In short, I’d say that if compromise doesn’t work, then the solution is simply, and unavoidably, to leave and move on.
What do you think? Is there an alternative solution if compromise doesn’t work?
I am glad to hear that you enjoy the freedom that academic environment gives you. But what if your research or beliefs conflicted with the developmental framework set by your university and your current culture? What if your research led you to discover a controversial theory? Will you publish? Steven Pinker mentioned few of the social psychologists that didn’t fare well after publishing controversial data at their time. It’s not just in psychology but in any academic environment. Science has become a religion with a very efficient inquisition department.
You only have freedom in any group/institution as long as your actions confirm it. If you’re happy to blind yourself to the fact you can go as far as the wall of your prison stands, I guess this is “perceived” freedom.
Hi Christopher and Shane. If can’t earn enough freedom in a group, if compromise doesn’t work to get you the freedom you want, and if you can’t change the group, you may have just two options: Stay or go. Some individuals, such as citizens of oppressive countries, don’t as practical matter have the freedom to go.
Hi John
Can a person become a member of a group and feel obligated to stay because of a need for affliation even if they views, opinions etc may not be the same as that group? Maybe the feeling of loneliness or being ostricised will cause that person to stay? I read this blog and starting thinking about people in strict religious groups etc and wondered whether they sacrifice their right to freedom because of a need for belonging? I go on these tangents sometimes and I may be totally off track but Im just a curious creature 🙂
Cat
Hi Cat. Yes, that can occur. Also, some individuals want very little freedom b/c freedom makes them anxious.
I think people are more likely to give up a certian degree of freedom in order to belong more readily at different stages of life. For intance, my boyfriend will soon finish his degree and must move to another state to pursue his career. Meanwhile I have another four years of study planned, at leats two of which must be completed where we are now. I think he would like me to go with him and has mentioned the idea a few times. As much as I would like to continue to belong in the relationship, a move would severely damage my own career prospects. Because we are both quite young I am less inclined to sacrifice the freedom to pursue my own goals than I might be later in life after already have a chance to accomplish something and be ready to settle. I think as people get older they begin to focus less on what they want from life and more on who they will spend their life with.
From the political side of things such as the overthrowing of oppressive governments mentioned, it’s interesting that studies in social psychology have found too much freedom to be socially undesirable. For instance in the replication of the Stanford prison studies, when prisoners and guards decided to commune and share power equally, three prisoners began to conspire to take power. This was referred to as a vacuum of power and demonstrates that although people like to experience freedom, they prefer to be free while belonging to a system of power or some kind of government. I think it is generally accepted that freedom without law (control) is just chaos.
Hi Christopher and Shane. If can’t earn enough freedom in a group, if compromise doesn’t work to get you the freedom you want, and if you can’t change the group, you may have just two options: Stay or go. Some individuals, such as citizens of oppressive countries, don’t as practical matter have the freedom to go.
average age of marriage