What Is The Difference Between Autonomy And Heteronomy?
Have you heard these two terms? Do you know what they really mean? Do you understand the difference between autonomy and heteronomy? That’s what we want to talk about today.
Jean Piaget was a Swiss psychologist and pedagogue who studied in depth the subject of moral judgment in children. He developed, I dare say like no one else, the concepts and difference between autonomy and heteronomy. These concepts refer to how a person learns and applies social norms. From his perspective, this ethical development is closely linked to the development of intelligence and should lead us from a state of moral dependence on others to a state of independence.
According to Piaget, when a child is born, he does not have enough brain development to understand the concepts of “good” and “bad”. This phase is called “anomie”, that is, there is no kind of moral conscience or anything like that. The baby simply acts on his needs, regardless of whether what he does affects others, except when trying to get a specific reaction.
As the child grows, he becomes aware of the moral value of his actions. Your parents, your teachers, and all authority figures are responsible for instilling these values in your children. The small, then, acts according to what these people approve or disapprove of. This is what is called heteronomy.
Later, when the child completes the process of brain development, a new developmental phase appears. It evolves and , little by little, it reaches autonomy in ethical and moral terms. This means that the child learns to act based on what his own conscience dictates, and that is where the difference between autonomy and heteronomy lies.
The evolution of rules
According to Piaget’s perspective, the concept of “rule” evolves according to moral development. The rule is the mandate that, in principle, seeks to implement positive behavior for an individual and/or a human group. It is more legitimate (universal) when it seeks to avoid conflicts, promote growth, respect and, above all, justice. This explanation is valid to differentiate such rules from destructive rules.
What exists in principle is a “driving rule”. This is characterized by following basic instructions. The adult intervenes directly or physically to make this happen. An example is when the child is walking towards a dangerous place and the adult interferes to stop it.
What comes next is the “coercive rule”. It corresponds to early childhood years. At this stage the child follows the norm simply because an adult imposes it. It doesn’t cross her mind to question it, since what an adult dictates in the field of morals practically has a sacred character. For the child, not complying with a rule, no matter how absurd, is an error that must be followed by punishment. This is the stage of heteronomy.
Then the “rational rule” appears. This is not dictated by another person, but by the individual himself being in agreement with others. In this case, there is awareness about the value of the standard that is complied with. If the rule or norm is irrational, the individual has the capacity not to comply, as he acts autonomously and not in function of an authority. Obedience is no longer unconditional.
The difference between autonomy and heteronomy
For those who stayed in the heteronomy stage, what is good is what most people do, in line with an authority. The individual thinks that if it is in effect it is because it is right. He does not observe the content of a moral norm, but who issues it. This applies not only to children, but also to adults. This explains why many people and societies are able to act against themselves according to a norm.
When one is in a position of heteronomy, one does not analyze a decisive moral factor: intention. The only thing aimed at is the result of the conduct, not its cause or motivation. Piaget asked a group of children to judge two actions: in one of them, the child had spilled paint on a tablecloth, unintentionally, but the stain was gigantic. In the other, a child had intentionally dropped a drop of ink. Regarding who had acted the worst, the children responded that it was the one who had caused the biggest stain.
One of the characteristics of heteronomy is exactly that: rigidity. Intentions, contexts, and motives are not analyzed. The only thing that is observed is to what extent the standard was fulfilled. This is what many adults do in cases of infidelity or non-fulfillment of a goal or in relation to any wrongdoing behavior.
In autonomy, on the other hand, intention is a decisive factor. Just like justice. If a behavior is against the norms but promotes justice, it can be considered valid. It is believed that moral is everything that promotes equity, cooperation, respect for others. Whether or not this is enshrined in the norms of others, it takes a back seat. In this sense, we would certainly build better societies if we evolved based on the development of individual autonomy.
We hope that it was possible to convey a little of the difference between autonomy and heteronomy, and about how these two concepts are present in our daily lives and in our society.
