I have a problem with willpower as an explanatory concept of behaviour. It is thoroughly ingrained in our understanding of discipline and self-management, a central part of Western philosophical thought. But, do we really do things because of willpower? Or, phrased in a more familiar way, is it really because we lack willpower that we are unable to do certain things (ex: quit smoking, exercise more)? To be sure, willpower is a slippery concept; we can use it to mean desire, some sort of personal motivating force ('will to power'), or commonly, inhibition and self-control. I am particularly intrigued with definitions of willpower within a disciplinary context, as pushing against and contorting our behaviours towards some directed purpose (ex: mobilizing willpower towards the completion of some task).
But how accurate are we when to attribute the failure to fulfill an ambition as a deficiency of willpower? There is an implicit assumption built into these causal explanations that identifies the source of the problem to certain conditions while ignoring others. It is tempting to think that the solution is simply more of what is lacking, more willpower, more desire: You didn't want it bad enough. Locating the site of intervention in the body facilitates this individualizing approach and finds resolution in . This is problematic because that which compels some behaviours while inhibiting others is not a quantitative matter, but rather a qualitative reality enmeshed and emergent through a complex economy of desire. Quite simply, we do things because we want to, but we want many things.
I think this point has the potential to turn willpower (which is often conceived as "free won't") on its head. At its core, the exercise of the will is desire enacted; the trading of proximal for distal goals. The willpower is reflected not as self-domination, but self-knowledge. Willpower should be thought less of a resource we expend or a currency we exchange, and more as an interest among many competing for our attention and our release. It does not replace or supercede rival bids, rather, the invocation of "willpower" brings to bear a particular narrative of individual autonomy, of personal triumph, of free agency. It is a toolbox that serves, but also obscures.
The individualization brought about through the discursive uses of this concept figure prominently in modern subjectivities. I am curious about the way in which our general acceptance of primacy of the will undercuts, by shaping and pro-offering a certain selection of solutions and management techniques, the ways in which we can live harmoniously with our environments, our work, and others.
But how accurate are we when to attribute the failure to fulfill an ambition as a deficiency of willpower? There is an implicit assumption built into these causal explanations that identifies the source of the problem to certain conditions while ignoring others. It is tempting to think that the solution is simply more of what is lacking, more willpower, more desire: You didn't want it bad enough. Locating the site of intervention in the body facilitates this individualizing approach and finds resolution in . This is problematic because that which compels some behaviours while inhibiting others is not a quantitative matter, but rather a qualitative reality enmeshed and emergent through a complex economy of desire. Quite simply, we do things because we want to, but we want many things.
I think this point has the potential to turn willpower (which is often conceived as "free won't") on its head. At its core, the exercise of the will is desire enacted; the trading of proximal for distal goals. The willpower is reflected not as self-domination, but self-knowledge. Willpower should be thought less of a resource we expend or a currency we exchange, and more as an interest among many competing for our attention and our release. It does not replace or supercede rival bids, rather, the invocation of "willpower" brings to bear a particular narrative of individual autonomy, of personal triumph, of free agency. It is a toolbox that serves, but also obscures.
The individualization brought about through the discursive uses of this concept figure prominently in modern subjectivities. I am curious about the way in which our general acceptance of primacy of the will undercuts, by shaping and pro-offering a certain selection of solutions and management techniques, the ways in which we can live harmoniously with our environments, our work, and others.
2 comments:
No excuses, do your damn pushups!
and I quote eric oosenbrug:
I have to do this
Post a Comment