Passage #1:
While procedural approaches can be considered advantageous because it is tolerant of the different preferences that people may develop within their respective social environments, some theorists have criticized procedural accounts on the basis that they are “disposed to be permissive” about certain decision-making inputs, making them too lenient about autonomy. (Piper, 2016, p. 771) Jean Keller says, for example, that a major concern for feminist theorists is the phenomenon of girls and women who undergo “socialization processes that curb their ambitions and abilities, make them excessively dependent on the approbation of others, and induce them to over-identify with the goals of others…,” with the apparent result that their personal autonomy is undermined. (Keller, 1997, p. 153)
One of the socialization processes that is undermining autonomy, in my opinion, is the resurgence of content on social media platforms praising traditional gender roles, especially within heterosexual relationships. Currently, whenever I browse social media, I see a lot of content that subtly praises relationships where one partner is subordinate to the other. Constantly viewing content that praises this subordination (without thinking very critically about it) conditions us to believe in it, reducing our personal autonomy. An example of this I’ve observed is videos of women “turning their brain off” around their partner. This is not the same as being able to relax around a partner; it's having their partner make decisions for them, which is a reduction in autonomy.
Passage #2:
By contrast, weak substantive views do not place any direct constraints on an agent's decision-making inputs. They may, however, require that agents hold certain self-regarding attitudes, such as self-respect, self-trust, and self-esteem or self-worth. (Mackenzie, 2017, p. 522; Schemmel, 2021, p. 109) On this latter model, there aren't any moral or epistemic norms that the agent is required to endorse directly, but “her choice-making ought nevertheless to demonstrate certain psychological traits.”
I find the concept of weak substantiative views on autonomy requiring self-regarding attitudes interesting. In my personal experience, I did lose some of my personal autonomy during periods when I lacked self-regarding attitudes. During my time at Bryn Mawr, I’ve dealt with imposter syndrome regarding my own abilities, which resulted in a decline in self-esteem. As a result, I made decisions that negatively affected my work. These decisions were not entirely autonomous because I could not consider all of the factors of a decision due to imposter syndrome and low self-esteem. For example, I had to rush my internship applications because I had decided earlier (during a bout of imposter syndrome) that I wasn’t good enough to apply for any internships.
Passage #3:
While this is not to justify that we should think of everybody as autonomous willy-nilly, we could aim to highlight that granting people autonomous standing is a matter of principal importance because it “fixes what others are permitted and obligated to do or refrain from doing.” (Anderson, 2014, p. 355) … In other words, labelling and treating people as though they are autonomous would warrant the kind of respect that accompanies autonomous individuals, thereby helping those people to become autonomous.
I really like this passage and think it’s quite true that treating others as autonomous helps them become autonomous. For example, as I got older, my parents started to let me make my own decisions, which helped me develop a sense of autonomy and find my own identity and personal values. Now, I feel comfortable deciding what’s best for me and can consider the effects of external factors on my decisions, further enabling my autonomy. Without my parents treating me as autonomous, I don’t think I would’ve become as autonomous as I am.