Are You Free?

Carmen Wolfe

Vanderbilt University Are you free?

Brave men face war for its preservation; diligent women protest for its acquisition. Oppressed nations crave it; Americans demand it. Freedom. This ideal inspired the beginning of our nation, underwriting nearly all political documents and legislation. However, as society aims to become truly independent and free to exist in full control of themselves, scientists raise the question of ultimate freedom. Though we may be free of external oppressions, are we free of our genetic structures? Edward O. Wilson, a researcher and major proponent of genetic predetermination, claims that nearly all aspects of the human body are encoded at birth in a double helix mystery (as cited in Wolfe, 1996). Though environmental pressures may cause these genetically imbedded settings to vary slightly, all aspects of the human mind and body will eventually return to their genetic default settings (Wolfe, 1996). This assumption raises questions concerning human freedom in a variety of topics including education, moral choice, emotions, self knowledge, and language.
Are we free to acquire knowledge and succeed in the world? As scientists struggle to understand human learning, the discovery of the largely genetic influence on an individualís intelligence proves probable, yet has been bitterly received by society (Wolfe, 1996). As an extension of the early twentieth century ìAmerican Dreamî spirit, contemporaries want to believe that through hard work and dedication, any man or woman can achieve great levels of success. Motivational speakers travel the country advocating the idea that personal struggle will always produce results (Wolfe, 1996). History, and now scientific intelligence testing derived from brainwaves, has proven that this simply is not the case. Some researchers propose that intelligence and even success may be genetically predetermined with only slight leeway for personal betterment of conditions (Wolfe 1996). Identifying the intellectual potential of individuals at a young age might enable students to be suited to appropriate schools, yet such divisions have dangerous potential to create an elitist society governed by the genetically endowed. This implication holds close ties to Huxleyís prophetic novel, Brave New World, in which genetic trait creates a caste system intended to improve efficiency and quality of life. Bioethics may soon face controversy surrounding this new topic, requiring constant monitoring to ensure the maintenance of personal liberties and guard against genetic discrimination.
Are we free to control our emotions? Research has proven emotions to be chemical and neural responses to certain stimuli, induced without conscious deliberation (Damasio, 1999, p.51). Though the outward expression of emotions can be partially suppressed, the internal manifestations will automatically occur in the viscera and internal milieu (p. 49). Furthermore, studies of more than two thousand twins conducted at the University of Minnesota indicate that an individualís happiness is largely determined by their genes (as cited by Wolfe, 1996). Though extremes cause oscillation above and below this predetermined range, science now challenges that despite our best efforts, one will eventually revert back to ones predetermined level of happiness and contentment (Wolfe, 1996). A debate emerges concerning whether to alert the public to this knowledge. Would knowing that one is doomed to misery make one even more miserable? Society tends to reject these scientific findings in favor of theories of positive thinking widely advocated by inspirational writers. These motivators challenge that ìevery morning, you choose your attitude for the dayî (Bickel & Jantz, 2000, p.85). The choice remains for individuals to decide whether to accept scientific fact, or cling to hopeful epigrams. This charge leads into additional questions of freedom.
Are we free to make our own choices? Certainly some choices such as birthplace and family are predetermined, but most perceive current options as an open choice to be decided in regards to each individualís conscience. Scientific data, however, supports the hypothesis that even moral choice is governed by predetermined tendencies located in the hypothalamus (Wilson, as cited by Wolfe, 1996). The implications of this assertion suggest that our choices are not entirely acts of free will. This startling news causes great alarm in some spheres, yet is widely embraced in others. The religious community tends to reject this notion on the basis that one must decide of his or her own accord to follow certain precepts and commandments. Christians hold the opinion that God has granted human beings free will to accept or reject His existence and personal choice to determine moral standards. Conversely, modern society readily accepts scientific data supporting the predetermination of choices because it provides a biological scapegoat for immoral or unlawful conduct by declaring them as genetically predetermined acts. Responsibility for personal actions seem to be passed from the individual to the individualís genetic composition (Wolfe, 1996).
In addition to moral choice, the choices leading to violence and disorderly conduct have been found to contain an element of genetic predisposition. Frederick K. Goodwin, head of the federal Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration, proposed a Violence Initiative based on his research on primates. Goodwin projected that in any given society, a certain number of males were genetically inclined towards crime and mischief (1992, as cited by Wolfe, 1996). In these individuals, the genetic tendency for guilt remains incomplete, creating an opportunity for violence without remorse (Wolfe, 1996). Further studies also suggest this correlation between biological determinants and inclination toward violence. In an acclaimed article, Andrew Sullivan proposes that this tendency also relates to the relative abundances and affects of certain chemical hormones in the body. Though no direct correlation has been found between testosterone and crime, a complex relation may exist, incorporating both physiological affects and environmental influences (Sullivan, 2000, p. 162). Goodwinís initiative proposed the identification and treatment of criminally-inclined humans, but interest groups quickly squelched this proposal by claiming a violation of personal liberties (Wolfe, 1996). Reminiscent of this brief proposal was this summerís blockbuster hit Minority Report in which crimes are detected and prevented before they occur. Though taken to extremes, the film explores the complex issues of free will and moral choice in a thought-provoking atmosphere, intriguing the mass public and instigating personal evaluation of the subject. Humans strive to understand their core beings, though the answers to these questions seem to be reached only by searching deeper and deeper into the bottomless rabbit hole of the human mind.
The biological mystery of the human mind poses additional questions of a more intangible level. Are we free to know ourselves? Humans are separated from animals by their ability to distinguish themselves and carry on first person dialogue in a state of consciousness (Damasio, 1999, p. 10). Mentally healthy humans retain the undeniable freedom to be aware of their surroundings and develop a concern for the self. Nevertheless, though we are free to gaze in wonderment on our existence (p. 4), the mind often uses a screen to hide certain factors of internal introspection (p. 28). We are neither responsible for the maintenance, nor aware of the constant activity associated with supporting the day-to-day activities necessary for sustaining life in our mortal bodies. Regardless of our attention to a heart healthy diet, this muscular organ beats more than one hundred thousand times each day without our conscious prompting. The deepest concentration of our minds cannot stop this incessant pulsation; we have no control over this aspect of our bodies. As reflected by the earlier illustration, ìputting your mind to itî will not always accomplish the task. Freedom to know ourselves extends to a point, yet ultimate control remains just out of grasp for our own health and safety.
Though genetic determinism limits some freedom, it can also expand the ramifications for other widely accepted rights. While the First Amendment guarantees speech as a personal freedom, researchers have proven the human right to communicate more powerful than any political document. Are we free to speak in an effort to pass information between individuals? We are not only free to speak; we are genetically compelled to speak. According to research presented by Steven Pinker, language is an instinct developed as a ìbiological adaptation to communicate informationî (Pinker, 1994, p. 19). The fact that the actual technical aspects of language escape our awareness is the first indication that speech is instinctual. When participating in conversation or reading an essay, the individual words and grammar disappear as individual components as they blend to create images in the receiverís mind (Pinker, 1994, p. 21). The use of language is so instinctual, that one barely recognizes its pervasive presence. One must return to the bare structure of language to be able to fully analyze this aspect of life as an instinct rather than a learned behavior propelled by environment.
Pinker suggests the probability of certain modules of the human mind that control such skills as language and face recognition. Scientists refer to a babyís natural inclination to speak, though the sounds may be unintelligible, without environmental stimuli (Darwin, 1871, as cited by Pinker, 1994, p. 20). This propensity is compared to the natural instinct to smile when happy and cry when upset (James, as cited by Pinker, 1994, p. 20). Additionally, children respond to the linguistic influences of role models by deciphering grammar patterns rather than repeating sentences verbatim. Since a vast amount of words can be placed together in endless combination, the brain must obviously contain a type of program by which to build an infinite number of sentences (Pinker, 1994, p. 22). This program that seems to be innate in all humans has been referred to as a universal language. This universality persists even through distinct languages such as French and Chinese, and allows language to further expand freedoms by bridging cultures, countries, and classes. The genetic necessity of language unites all people and bolsters the cause for promoting free speech.
The reality of genetic determinism pervades our everyday lives and imposes on our personal freedoms. Though the evolving research may prove alarming, one must realize the importance of such discoveries. Only by recognizing our genetic limitations can we expand to our full potential. Genetic determinism both limits and defines personal freedoms. By evaluating our relative freedoms, we find that though genetics dictates many physical qualities, research will build confidence in our ability to fully understand ourselves and our surroundings.

References
Bickel, Bruce & Jantz, Stan (2000). God is in the Small Stuff for the Graduate. Uhrichsville, Ohio: Promise Press. 85.
Damasio, Antonio R. (1999). The Feeling of What Happens. New York: Harcourt Brace & Company.
Pinker, Steven (1994). The Language Instinct. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.
Sullivan, Andrew (2000). The He Hormone. In Timothy Ferris (Ed.), The Best American Science Writing (pp. 154-170). New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.
Wolfe, Tom (1996). Sorry, But Your Soul Just Died. Forbes Magazine.

Acknowledgements

I acknowledge the help and contribution of ideas from class discussions during Psychology 115W freshman seminar entitled ìHuman Knowledge Acquisitionî at Vanderbilt University. Information was incorporated from class notes and exercises completed during class and as assignments outside of the classroom.
I acknowledge assistance from the world wide internet in determining the correct format for an APA paper. I used the Royal Windsor Society for Nursing Research web site at http://www.windsor.igs.net/~nhodgins/apa_format_guidelines.html to find examples for citing sources such as magazine articles and novels.
I acknowledge the contribution of ideas from my sister Valerie Wolfe in the form of editing a final draft of my paper. I also acknowledge discussions with Adam Richter on topics in psychology related to my paper.