Autonomy and heteronomy, an important difference

Jean Piaget He was a Swiss psychologist and pedagogue who studied the topic of moral judgments in depth. He developed, I would dare say like no other, the concepts of autonomy and heteronomy. These refer to how a person learns and applies moral standards. From his perspective, this ethical development is closely linked to the development of intelligence and should take us from a state of moral dependence on others to one of independence.

According to Piaget, When a child is born, he or she does not have sufficient brain development to understand the concepts of “good” or “bad.” He calls this phase “anomie”, that is, there is no type of moral conscience or anything similar. The baby simply acts according to her needs, without taking into account whether or how what she does affects others, unless she is looking for a specific reaction.

As the child grows, he or she becomes aware of the moral value of his or her actions. His parents, his teachers and all the authority figures are the ones in charge of instilling it in him. The little one then acts according to what others approve or disapprove. . This is what is called: heteronomy.

Later, when the process of brain development is completed, a new phase of development appears. The boy It evolves and little by little reaches autonomy, in ethical and moral terms.. This means that you learn to act based on what your own conscience dictates.

Autonomy, heteronomy and evolution of rules

According to Piaget’s perspective, the concept of “rule” evolves in accordance with development moral. The rule is that mandate that in principle seeks to implement positive behavior for an individual and/or a human group. It is more legitimate (universal) when it is aimed at avoiding conflicts, promoting growth, respect and, above all, justice. This clarification is valid to differentiate them from destructive rules.

What exists in principle is a “rule motor”. This is characterized because it simply follows some basic instructions. The adult intervenes directly or physically so that this is achieved. An example of this is when the child is walking towards a dangerous place and the adult intervenes to prevent it.

What comes next, according to Piaget, is the “coercive rule”. It corresponds to the first years of childhood. At this stage the child follows the rule simply because it is imposed by an adult. It does not occur to him to question it, since practically what the adult dictates in the field of morality has a sacred character. For the little one, breaking a rule, no matter how absurd, constitutes an offense that must be followed by punishment. It corresponds to the heteronomy stage.

Then the “rational rule” appears. This is not dictated by another, but by the individual himself in agreement with others.. In this case there is awareness about the value of the norm that is being fulfilled. If the rule or norm is irrational, the individual is capable of not complying with it, since he acts autonomously and not based on an authority. Obedience is no longer unconditional.

Justice, equity and cooperation

For those who stayed in the heteronomy stage, what is good is what the majority does, in accordance with an authority.. The individual thinks that if it is current it is because it is good. He does not look so much at the content of a moral norm, but rather at who issues it. This not only applies to children, but also to adults. This explains why many people and societies are capable of acting against themselves, even based on a norm.

When one is in a position of heteronomy, a decisive moral factor is not analyzed: intention.. The only thing we look at is the result of the behavior, not its motivational cause. Piaget asked a group of children to judge two actions: in one, a child unintentionally spilled ink on a tablecloth, but the stain was huge. In the other, a child intentionally spilled a drop of ink. When asked who had acted worse, the children responded that whoever had made a bigger stain.

One of the characteristics of heteronomy is precisely that: rigidity. No intentions, contexts, or reasons are evaluated.. The only thing that is observed is the extent to which a norm was complied with. This is what many adults do when faced with a case of infidelity, or failure to meet a goal, or any transgressive behavior.

In autonomy, on the other hand, intention is a decisive factor. So is justice. If a behavior goes against the rules, but promotes justice, it can be considered valid. It is considered that morality is everything that promotes equity, cooperation, and respect for others. Whether or not that is enshrined in the norms of others takes a second place. In this sense, we would surely build better societies if we advanced in the development of individual autonomy.

Against the march

In a world increasingly immersed in the norms, fashions, styles and ways of thinking that some sectors try to impose on us, autonomy can be frowned upon. Critical thinking, standing out from the herd and not following the rules, in some way, is being persecuted by a certain part of society. Heteronomy is the easy path to take. It is the path of acceptance. Autonomy implies independence.

Do we judge our surroundings? Do we question how everything is built and elaborated? Or do we just accept? Learning to analyze what surrounds us, without a doubt, is an interesting exercise to move from heteronomy to autonomy. Let’s consider which of our thoughts have been imposed or conditioned from outside or, on the contrary, have been conclusions that we have reached by ourselves..

You might be interested…