Freedom of Choice

The question of whether or not a human being is capable of freedom of choice is an exceedingly complex one. Not only does it hinge on the biology of the individual, including such matters as constitutional factors, his inner vitality, his elasticity, primary autonomous ego functions, and the like, but multifarious restrictions are inevitably imposed on the person by all the influences of his local environment as well as the expanding echelons of his culture.

It goes without saying that his family exerts the primary social influence upon him, followed to a somewhat lesser degree by the impact of school and neighborhood, and then in still further diluted form by town, city, state and federal government, not to mention the state of the world.

No doubt Freud had biology and society in mind when he described the essence of all neurosis as revolving around the genetic development and viscissitudes of the sexual instinct and the influence on the personality of the trinity of child, mother and father, and society at large.^{1, 2}

In addition to inherent psychic and physical potential, as implied in Horney's³ concept of the real self, and Heinz Hartmann's⁴ ideas of conflict-free ego and primary and secondary autonomous ego functions, along with the molding of culture, we must also consider neurotic constrictions. The individual who is blocked or in conflict, whose perception is drained and distorted by his neurotic needs, surely is not free: he is not free enough to even see available choices, let alone be able to make an objective choice. In other words, freedom is a matter of degree.

There is no question that even limited freedom of choice begins at the core of the person's inherent biology — the weaknesses, strengths and limitations within him, plus the effects of the culture, as well as the neurotic handicaps that drain his energy and confuse him. The term alienation for Horney means the intrapsychic phenomenon of moving away from the real self.

How far removed is the individual