Passage 1: “Relational views take for granted the plausible presumption that the Self is related to others in various ways; who we are and how we identify ourselves is never a practice that is achieved alone. As such, they reject the kind of individualism associated with ‘some liberal and especially libertarian conceptions of autonomy’ and recognize, instead, that individual identities are shaped by agents' social relationships and social determinants like gender, class, and race.” (Lee, 4)
Response: This passage resonates with me because I am very interested in how culture and social context shape people's psychological experiences. I do not think that being influenced by other people necessarily means that a choice is less authentic or less “ours.” As someone who has lived in both Chinese and American cultural environments, I have become especially aware that the idea of what it means to make a choice “for yourself” can look very different across cultures. In a more interdependent context, considering family expectations or maintaining relationships may be an important part of what someone genuinely values rather than simply an outside force interfering with autonomy. At the same time, relationships and cultural expectations can also become restrictive. What I like about this passage is that it avoids treating social influence as automatically good or bad. Instead, it makes me want to ask a more specific question: under what conditions does our social environment help us develop and express what we value, and when does it begin to limit what we feel able to choose?
Passage 2: “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. Although we might say that all preferences are in some sense formed within the limitations of possibility, ‘not all preferences are unconscious, pathological responses to oppression.’ An unjust world might effectively ‘socialize us to prefer conditions or options that are bad for us.’” (Lee, 5–6)
Response: This passage resonates with me because it makes me think about how difficult it can be to separate what we genuinely want from what we have learned to want. I am especially interested in the idea that socialization does not only restrict people through explicit rules or pressure; it can also shape their ambitions, expectations, and sense of what is realistically available to them. For example, someone may decide not to pursue a certain career or opportunity and experience that decision as completely voluntary, even though years of gender expectations, family messages, or social feedback may have influenced what they see as appropriate or possible for themselves. At the same time, I think the passage is careful not to suggest that every socially shaped preference is automatically inauthentic. That tension is what I find most interesting: if all preferences are shaped by our environments to some extent, how do we determine when social influence becomes restrictive enough to undermine autonomy?
Passage 3: “In other words, accounts like Oshana's do not offer us a way to address the fact that ‘practices that liberals believe inhibit the development of women's autonomy…might in fact express the ability of these women to choose their own values and commitments.’ (Lépinard, 2011, p. 207) ... As Christman mentions, it is one thing for theories of autonomy to acknowledge our relatedness, but it is quite another to claim that we can only be autonomous ‘if related in certain idealized ways.’ (Christman, 2005, p. 151) The message here is that we ought to be careful not to espouse an idealized relationality at the cost of recognizing the possibility of autonomy for agents who find themselves within imperfect social relations.” (Lee, 8)
Response: This passage resonates with me because it challenges the tendency to assume that there is one ideal way of being autonomous. I think this is especially important when people from one cultural background evaluate the choices of people from another. It can be easy to see a practice that conflicts with our own values and conclude that the person participating in it must lack agency. However, people can still exercise autonomy while living within relationships or social structures that are unequal or imperfect. I am especially interested in this idea because of my interest in cross-cultural psychology. Psychological concepts developed primarily in Western contexts can sometimes be treated as universal standards, which may lead culturally different behaviors to be interpreted as dependent, unhealthy, or deficient. This passage reminds me that recognizing social constraints does not require us to deny someone’s agency. We can critically examine the conditions surrounding a person’s choices while still respecting their ability to understand, negotiate, and make meaningful decisions within those conditions.