Autonomy

Central thesis

Autonomy is not the elimination of dependence.

We often speak of freedom as though it began with decision. Yet many decisions arrive already partly shaped by the material, relational and institutional conditions in which we live.

Rent, debt, income, someone to support, compulsory travel, rare skills, a health system or a support network are not background details: they directly change what it is actually possible to choose.

Autonomy means making the architecture of dependence visible, reducing dependencies that capture choice excessively, and building real margins for refusal, reorientation, cooperation and correction.

Central question

What do we depend on in order to choose — and which dependencies make that choice more or less real?

A person may be legally free and materially unable to say no. Another may possess a great deal yet depend on one income, one provider, one tool or one relationship so strongly that one rupture would destabilise their entire life.

In short

Real autonomy is relative, situated and multidimensional.

It depends on time, income, housing, health, skills, support, infrastructures and especially on the possibility of not being captured by a single compulsory passage. It may be individual or collective. Savings can create a margin; debt can commit future time; a public service or cooperative may make a person more autonomous than costly isolation.

The criterion is never the appearance of independence, but the effective capacity to act and correct one’s trajectory.

01 · Dependence

Our choices often begin inside our dependencies.

Asking “what do you really want?” becomes abstract if we do not immediately ask “what do you depend on in order to choose?” A job may pay a mortgage, childcare and essential health coverage. Leaving it is not merely following or betraying a desire; it changes an entire architecture.

Saying that someone “prefers comfort” may be accurate, but it may also conceal very different realities: security, income prestige, fear of downward mobility, obligations toward others, absence of alternatives, or a habit that has itself become costly.

Mapping a dependence does not remove responsibility. It prevents us from judging a choice as if it appeared in a vacuum.

The map may later show that a constraint is weaker than it seemed, or that a dependency has become unnecessary. But that conclusion must be produced by examination, not assumed by a morality of willpower.

02 · Independence

The fully autonomous individual is a fiction.

Every life rests on people and systems that produce, care, transport, teach, repair, administer, clean or supply. Even someone who grows food, repairs objects and seeks self-sufficiency still depends on land, tools, materials, knowledge, energy, care and networks.

Trying to do everything oneself can reduce autonomy by turning every need into a personal burden.

Autonomy is therefore not measured by the number of things done alone. A reliable network may be more robust than fragile self-sufficiency. An accessible public infrastructure may reduce a dependency more effectively than an expensive individual solution.

The problem is less “depend or not depend” than: which dependencies are visible, reciprocal, diversifiable, contestable and repairable?

03 · Quality of dependence

A dependency’s quality matters more than its mere existence.

Concentrated dependence on a single employer, platform, bank, supplier or relationship can make a life vulnerable. A breakdown, dismissal, price change or rupture may then close several possibilities at once.

Diversifying some capacities can reduce fragility: several skills, transport routes, repair options, support networks, savings, outlets or simply one realistic alternative.

But multiplying every alternative also has costs: time, complexity, money, maintenance and attention. Autonomy is not an indefinite accumulation of options.

A useful margin is a possibility that can actually be mobilised, not a theoretical collection of doors one could never really use.

04 · Money and debt

Money can create a margin of refusal; debt can commit future time.

Reducing money to status or greed hides one of its concrete functions: available money can buy time, care, training, repair, a period without work or the possibility of leaving an intolerable situation.

Savings may be less an accumulation than a capacity to say no.

Debt produces the opposite movement without being bad by nature. A loan can make housing, education or activity possible. But it also writes an obligation into the future. The more repayment depends on one precise income, the more some reorientations become costly.

So ask of debt: what does it make possible, what does it require, and what room does it leave? And of savings: is accumulated security actually enlarging the field of choice, or does the threshold for “enough” keep receding while more time is sacrificed?

05 · Possession

Owning can free a use and create new obligations.

Having one’s own tools can allow repair without waiting. Owning a home can protect against some rent increases. A vehicle in a poorly served area can make work, care and relationships possible. In these cases ownership increases capacity.

But every possession must also be stored, maintained, insured, repaired and sometimes repaid. A larger home requires more energy and domestic work. A car opens mobility while creating costs and dependence on infrastructure.

Owning is never only having; it is also maintaining.

This avoids two symmetrical moralities: accumulation as success and minimalism as virtue. The functional question remains: does this object genuinely increase capacity, or demand more attention than it returns?

06 · Sufficiency

Sobriety matters only when it is not deprivation under another name.

Not owning a car in a dense, well-served centre is not equivalent to being unable to afford one in a place without transport. Choosing a small comfortable home is not overcrowding. Voluntary reduction from a position of security is not lacking what is necessary.

Confusing chosen sobriety with deprivation easily turns privilege into virtue.

Reduction can nevertheless increase autonomy when it lowers income pressure, maintenance load or dependence. Repair can build competence; sharing can lower cost; cooking can save money.

But every solution also moves something: time, coordination, equipment, conflict of use, learning. The question is therefore: does this reduction genuinely increase room to live, or merely move the cost?

07 · Refusal

A freedom that can never say no remains fragile.

Declared freedom remains poor if refusing a condition immediately creates material catastrophe. Leaving a job, contesting a rule, interrupting a dependency, retraining or considering a move all require concrete margins.

These margins may be financial, relational, institutional, territorial or technical. Someone may cross a period without income thanks to relatives, a solidarity fund or a public service. Another person may have more money but no support in a crisis.

Security is not only an individual stock. It can also be a collective architecture that makes refusal less dangerous.

Autonomy does not guarantee that the possibility of refusal will be used. It means only that the field of possibilities is not entirely captured by a single necessity.

08 · Collective autonomy

Autonomy can be collective without becoming blind dependence.

Solidarity funds, public services, cooperatives, shared workshops, close networks or collective transport can provide capacities that an isolated individual could not acquire alone at reasonable cost.

But a collective solution is not automatically emancipatory. Sharing requires coordination, trust, rules and sometimes conflict arbitration. Shared housing or a common vehicle can be powerful in one setting and become a source of tension in another.

Mutual aid is not the opposite of autonomy; it can be one of its conditions, provided its rules remain visible and revisable.

Robust collective autonomy therefore seeks not to abolish dependence but to prevent capture: know who decides, how to leave, how to repair, which alternatives exist and how costs are distributed.

09 · Levels of action

Responsibility must remain proportionate to the real level of action.

A discourse on autonomy can become misleading when political problems are turned into personal advice: budget better against housing prices, walk against car dependence, optimise spending against insufficient wages.

Individuals do not choose rent levels, transport organisation, work schedules or technical standards alone. Their acts can modify part of the field, not the field itself.

But the opposite would be equally poor: if everything is declared structural, no personal action seems meaningful.

The decisive question is: at what level does the problem I am actually trying to solve exist?

Reducing a personal debt, learning a skill or testing another organisation may be relevant. Transforming infrastructure, a housing market or a collective rule requires other scales of action. Both levels can coexist without being confused.

10 · Proof-act

The proof-act of autonomy is a margin actually gained.

A declaration of independence is not proof of autonomy. Verification begins when a concrete action genuinely changes the field of possibilities: simulate a budget before reducing working time, spend one hour a week training, test another transport option, reduce debt, delay a compensatory purchase or create another route of support.

These acts should not become moral ordeals or premature irreversible decisions. Their function is to produce information and increase a real margin of choice.

Condensation question: Which concrete dependency most narrows the possibilities here, and what proportionate, reversible test could enlarge the capacity to refuse, cooperate or reorient?

Related topics

Body · Responsibility · Finitude · Work · Love · Spirituality