I’ve been thinking about different ways of categorizing people, especially politicians. The following brief table is meant to indicate the group that I think is the most problematic.
The basic ideas here are simple:
Some people need community and some people do not. The idea here is that some people need significant, meaningful engagement with others to lead a good life and some do not. Importantly the nature of that engagement can vary widely—for example, some need to have loving supportive relationships and some will not and some need to have people to oppose and some will not. (These are not meant to be normative claims about anyone; I prefer one way to live than the other, but can see why people would prefer the other.)
Some people live better lives if they have autonomy and some people lead better lives if they have heteronomy. The idea here is that some people do better if they make choices—both about actions instrumental to some goal and about the goals they choose—independently of others and some people do better if they make those choices in some way dependent on others. (Again, these are not meant to be normative claims about anyone; I prefer one way to live than the other, but can see why people would prefer the other.)
I think these ideas are both simple and true but realize each will face an objection.
To the first idea, some will say “everyone needs community.” I actually doubt that, but don’t think it matters. It is sufficient for my purposes if some of us need community more than others; the idea could easily be put in scalar terms and talk of those in the upper quadrants as having a greater need for community than those in the lower quadrants. Perhaps some have so little need of community that they are better off being hermits. I take no stand on this.
To the second idea, some will say “everyone needs autonomy for a good life” and possibly add “saying someone is heteronomous or needs heteronomy is insulting.” I am tempted to answer this objection the same way I answered the previous objection: while everyone has some need for autonomy, those on the left have a greater need for autonomy if they are to live good lives than those on the right. That would be the less controversial response and is likely sufficient for my purposes.
Though I don’t think my point here requires the following response, I want to indicate that I think the second objection is simply mistaken. Despite the claim of many Rawlsian liberals today, so far as I can tell, it’s simply not true that everyone is capable of leading a good autonomous life—so some have no need for it whatsoever. I’m not saying we shouldn’t try to help everyone become autonomous (presumably through education). I won’t take a stance on that here, but I will say there are times when it becomes obvious that an individual will lead a worse life autonomously than they would if they lived heteronomously. We may want to pretend otherwise, but we all know people who, left to their own autonomous devices, make bad life choice after bad life choice and who are—even by their own lights—unhappy because of it. For at least some of these individuals, they likely would have been better off following some path laid out by their family, their church, or via some other mechanism. This is not meant to be any sort of endorsement of paternalism even for those individuals whose lives would be best lived heteronomously. On my own view, such people should be able to choose that life if they want. If they want to strive for autonomy, then, I’d say they should be allowed to do so. (Perhaps there is a paradox here, but I do not think it substantial: heteronomous individuals make choices even if those choices are not made autonomously. Indeed, even autonomous people make many non-autonomous choices. No one could be expected to make every choice autonomously. There is nothing wrong with that.). Still, if all of that is too much to accept, assume autonomy is a scalar concept and the concern is with a certain sort of highly autonomous individual (a subset of those in the upper left quadrant).
With those objections addressed, I want to make the big point here. That is simply that there is always likely to be a subset of those in the upper left quadrant who are happy to use their abilities to take advantage of others, perhaps especially those in the upper right quadrant. (I am not sure the lower right quadrant isn’t an empty set.)
The subset of those in the upper left quadrant that are of concern—call them the real villains—need a community of people, but perhaps primarily as followers or people to be abused. The real villains might be charismatic religious leaders or populist ideologues. They need a community as much as those in the upper right quadrant, but not to help them determine what to do. Presumably, the need is to satisfy some personal desire. Perhaps a desire for power over others.
I should be clear: there are likely people in the upper left quadrant who are not villains, who have no desire to have power over others and there are likely still other people in the quadrant who may have such a desire, but only with the best of intentions toward those others. The subset of concern here is only those people who want power over others for their own gain. (I might also be concerned about those who want power in order to help others, but I leave that to the side.)
The heroes of this story, in my own view, is the subset of people on the lower left quadrant (again, I am not sure the lower right quadrant isn’t an empty set) who are willing to get involved enough to work against the villains. To be clear, I think there are very few actual villains, but they have come to prominence in recent years. Unfortunately, I don’t know that we have enough of the heroes.