To get started, it’s helpful to understand what these terms mean. Agency refers to our sense of control in our lives - believing we have direct influence and capability to handle what we’re engaged in. Autonomy is one’s independent ability to choose for themselves. These two are similar, in that both refer to a person’s choice and ability to influence outcomes concerning themselves.
Imagine a child playing on a community soccer team. What do you see? A child
having fun, running, playing, etc. What expression to you imagine on the child’s face?
Now, shift your gaze to the parents. What are they doing? Now, the coach… What
experience is each of the characters above having? Is each having their own
experience? Are the parents and child living vicariously through the child, due to
projecting their own wishes and perceptions of reality onto this child? Or, are they
taking ownership of that child’s experience - giving orders, setting expectations,
controlling time, activity, and interaction? Are the parents and coach attempting to
live up to some expectation of how they’re supposed to be or be seen?
Imagine a rising star in a law firm. They are on a clear and evident path toward
partner, and will likely have their name on the letterhead someday. What does their
day-to-day look like? Are they given orders, and follow them. Do they insert their
own creativity, thoughts, experience into their performance? What expectations do
they have - do what they’re told, or tap into innovative ways to get the job done? How
much stress does this lawyer experience? Now, change the gender of this rising star.
Does your image shift at all?
Imagine a married couple with children. The wife wants to be taken more seriously,
and seen as an equal. She has felt less connected to her partner, and has communicated her observation to him repeatedly. The husband wants peace in the family, and strives for things to be easier. I wonder how each of them are defining their respective needs - being taken seriously or valued and having peace. Each has had a lifetime of conditioning to be who they are, and interprets the other through the lenses of their respective lived experiences.
If the wife wants her husband to be more present and connected, but is frequently frustrated by his inability to do it, she may communicate her frustration as shame and disapproval. The husband hears his wife’s critique as a moving target he’ll never reach, to which he reacts with more avoidance, thicker protective walls, maybe even shutting her down or belittling her. Since
connection is timid between them, thereby deemed unsafe, they both turn to their children to satisfy these needs. Each parent competes for their children’s attention and affection, overshadowing their intention to be attuned to their children’s needs. Are the parents playing out stereotypical gender biased roles? Is one responsible for the other not getting their needs met? Are they just too different to thrive as a couple?
Perhaps some of you can imagine the experiences of these hypothetical people above. Some of you may not have to imagine at all, because you closely identify with one of them. Others may be wondering what all this rambling is leading to. What all of these vignettes have in common is that at least one of the characters in each of the three stories is lacking agency and autonomy, or at least perceives they have been stripped of them. In this case, perception is just as important as fact, as it influences both interpretations of interactions and reactions to them. Believing we have at least some degree of control or influence over our outcomes is paramount in how we, not only behave, but how we experience value and our ability to accomplish a given task - esteem and efficacy.
If the child’s coach has everything laid out for him, dictating the moves he should make on the pitch, when he should shoot, how he should dribble, to whom he should pass the ball, then the child develops no sense of agency and autonomy. When placed in situations where action is required, he learns that others know better than he, and that there are consequences for charting his own path. Long-term, we see this lesson play out beyond sports. That child grows up to become an adult with little confidence in his ability to make good decisions. Making a mistake is too costly; it’s best to just defer to someone else. As an adult, the outside message is that he should “man up,” make decisions, lead, be confident. Internally, these messages translate to not being good enough, questioning identity, and dissociating or avoiding. If pushed hard enough, avoiding may be accompanied by lashing out or exhibiting aggression in some way to get people off his back.
The star-to-be lawyer may be trusted to make good decisions, therefore, allowed to shine when those decisions lead to desired outcomes. Mistakes may be interpreted as one-offs, because this person is highly competent, and will likely learn from them. Part of why this person is so competent, is that confidence is strong. They maintain a core belief that they will do the best they can with what they have, will likely reach a reasonable outcome, and will at least grow when desired outcomes are not met. They’ve had experiences with caregivers and leaders in their life giving them space to explore, to try, and to see the other side of making mistakes. “Messing up” is not the end of the world nor a thief of their identity, but an opportunity. Yes, frustration, disappointment, and sadness may still occur, but these feelings are seen for what they are - information, not facts.
I wonder, if changing the gender of this person shifts anything. How many of you automatically envisioned a man in this scenario? Does a woman pursuing advancement in a male-dominated profession get interpreted the same way when she takes risks, asserts agency, or makes a mistake?
Each person in the couple described above is having their own experience of self and
their partner. The wife interpreting her husband as another man thinking less of her or minimizing her, because she is a woman shapes her response to him. The husband is reacting to being told he must be vulnerable in order to make the relationship work, and then being met with criticism of not doing it correctly. This moving target activates protective parts of him who use his power in status to protect his identity, ego, and esteem. The fact is, most men in the present don’t subscribe to aspects of traditional masculinity often labeled as “toxic.” Many researchers have found this to be true time and time again. So, why does this power dynamic still play out? The answer is in the questions - Power. When the objective or intended outcome is power, no one gets the connection they seek and need. When feeling powerless or helpless, a
protective part may get activated to utilize strategies for regaining power, rather than seeking connection. Each person listens with intent to defend rather than understand and connect. Protective parts of one person activate protective parts of another, all the while, everyone is missing connection.
Why Agency and Autonomy are Important
So, is the secret sauce agency and autonomy, and, if so, how are we supposed to achieve them? Well, agency and autonomy allow for the genuine and authentic person to show up. We have confidence in who we are and our abilities. We are able to find meaning in difficult situations, which helps us navigate them rather than avoid or attempt to “conquer” them. When we feel safe enough to let our true self shine through, we allow ourselves to willingly enter into vulnerable spaces. This vulnerability communicates to others that we are safe, and can be trusted, therefore, connection is possible. When we feel connected, we believe someone has our back - we are not alone in our struggles nor our triumphs. We have extra support when we’re
feeling less than our optimal self, and we have humility that keeps us from thinking we own the world when we experience wins.
You’ve likely heard that connection is at the root of all human experience. This is because we are conscious beings who thrive in community. To be exiled from the tribe is death. In sports, there is often a team. Even in independent sports, like golf, swimming, or cross country racing, there are coaches, trainers, supporters, peers - we are not alone.
Alone is not the same as lonely, and is not antithetical to connection. As Michael Easter, author of Comfort Crisis and Scarcity Brain, points out - we can forget how to be alone, which is equally detrimental. We will inevitably encounter solitude. If we become so dependent upon external validation, external feedback, and company of others, we may find ourselves stuck in those moments alone. Knowing you have sincere connections is part of what gets you through the isolation. In fact, one is more likely to find moments or aspects of joy in isolation when we can rest on knowing we have meaningful connections outside of isolating moments. We are able to tap into our own agency and autonomy, because we have practiced and honed skills to do so.
Unlike the athlete whose coach belittles and yells at her in order to prepare her for “the real world” or the parent who hovers over their son in order to protect him from all the dangers that await, teaching people the skills to survive and navigate situations, accompanied by giving them space to actually utilize and practice them (and make mistakes), are what builds resilience and healthy identity. We take that authentic and genuine self into community where we attract others drawn to who we really are, rather than investing energy into maintaining a facade. These connections give us comfort, guidance, and validation for who we already are. We do not need to live in a state of flux where we change who we are to appease whomever we’re with at the moment.
You may be reading this thinking I’m suggesting that parents and coaches should just let kids be free-range with no boundaries or expectations, or that adults are already great, therefore, don’t need guidance. These sentiments couldn’t be farther from the truth. Researchers have shown that children thrive with structure and boundaries, as do adults. The difference is the degree to which guidance and structure exist. Expectations have to be realistic, based in facts of where one starts and where they’re trying to go. Guidance has to be meaningful and purposeful, not hierarchical or authoritarian. When we hijack ownership of someone's challenges, we strip them of the chance to find their effective way of navigating them, thereby, building confidence and motivation.
To get the most out of an employee, a manager can set realistic expectations for the role, provide the resources and training for that person to succeed, and have meaningful, informative nudges if the employee steps out of line. To raise a confident, competent, and conscious human, a parent must set realistic expectations and goals that evolve to reflect the child’s growth. Parents must find balance between helping their child discover identity versus grooming their child to assume the parent’s identity. For a relationship to thrive, we must have clear communication of needs, realistic expectations of self and partner, and allow vulnerability so that each partner
can feel safe being themselves, rather than maintain an appeasing facade out of fear they’ll be abandoned for authenticity. Healthy relationships include healthy Self and the collective.
How autonomy and agency look in therapy
Perhaps, you've heard of self-determination theory. You will most certainly recognize it in a therapy session. This pillar of psychotherapy refers to one's ability to make choices for themselves, and are motivated from within to make these choices. Edward Deci and Richard Ryan explain this intrinsic motivation in their book Self-Determination and Intrinsic Motivation in Human Behavior. Their research showed that people are self-motivated to act when they perceive necessary change out of need for growth. Not doing so is indicative of some barrier that can be addressed, rather than a desire to dwell in pain or discomfort. Humans need new experiences, and we need to feel like we have mastery, or at least capability, to navigate certain challenges. External forces are not discounted, here. Instead, this theory merely suggests that we are not solely motivated by external expectations, rewards, or consequences.
For clinicians and healthcare providers, consider differences in outcomes in mandated clients compared to people who reach out on their own accord. It's no coincidence that mandated anger management groups, alcohol and substance treatment, and court-assigned counseling all show little sustainable change in participants' lives. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 82 percent of people released from state prisons are arrested again within 10 years. When we simply punish, but do not provide skills and experience for new expectations, we deprive people of autonomy and agency. Approximately 45 to 56 % of people being treated for substance use disorder will relapse, according to National Institute for Health. There must be some sense of internal meaning attached to change. External influence or coercion is not enough. What does one get from using the substances? Do the consequences of their use outweigh what they perceive gaining from it?
Self-determination is why your therapist doesn't simply give you all the answers to your inquiries - that and the fact that we don't actually know everything. We have biased lenses, just like any other human. Believe it or not, a therapist telling you to do something doesn't actually make you do it. Instead, our job is to help you identify meaning in the changes you want, and then develop realistic expectations for self, others, and environment. As you gain more information, experience, and confidence, change happens, and can become its own motivation.
Comments