Levers of Control
Control can be external and internal. Some prefer confinement to freedom while some react badly to any restriction, but freedom is an abstract concept that doesn't translate into a concrete way to live. To many, freedom represents a liberation from control, but freedom is not the absence of commitments, but the ability to choose. Like happiness, freedom is a fleeting sunbeam that touches us and is gone. It is not a permanent state of being.
A murderer, abuser, or exploiter might justify his behaviour by convincing himself he is above the constraints of normal society, but his freedom to act outside the law results in damage to another person. Some people like to have the church and state decide things for them, to tell them what to believe and how to behave. In military service there is strong evidence for this. Some are comfortable in the armed services and some are not. Many discover when they leave the services that they are without direction and that they were less anxious when they had someone organizing their lives. Being organized and logical is among the set of human survival skills, but some people need help putting and keeping their lives in order so are more comfortable when the rules of duty and behaviour are imposed on them.
Orders from above bring us into the religious sphere because the same principles of control apply there. Those of a spiritual inclination prefer a God who explains the world to them and tells them what to believe and how to behave. Without the guiding hand of religious morality, they are at a loss and flounder from one 'ism' and excess to another until they find the control they need. Religion has always been a crutch that people use to prop themselves up with, a mantra for deflecting the void of free will.
Most people don't understand how controlled they are. Cultural norms are a form of control, as the passive aggressive statement of "We always do it this way," is a tool for keeping members of a society within bounds. Belonging to a group is more comfortable than being ostracised by them. Mutual cooperation means survival, so villages, towns, cities, and nations have existential reasons for maintaining law and order. If an individual decides to act of his own free will in a way that damages the community, he is not welcome as part of the herd and puts his own survival at risk. Being pushed out to the margins of a society is the price a free thinker pays. His society and culture would prefer he accept the imposed control even if it is against his nature. He is confident enough in his own world to go against the trend. He may have once been a religious person who realized there was no destructive lightning bolt when he said aloud he didn't believe in God. He may have learned that putting his nose to a daily, soul-destroying grindstone, did him more harm than good. There were positive ways to live that didn't involve the more crushing forms of societal control.
Control is not only a political position but is essential in our emotional and psychological lives. Everyone knows, in a relationship there is often someone who loves more, or someone who is easygoing and someone who is more demonstrative. In any pairing, there is one of the partners who prefers to have control and one who is willing to acquiesce. Many would deny this about themselves, though would grudgingly admit that living with another person requires accommodations on both sides. Some will hold their ground on certain territories while recognizing that compromise is necessary to keep the couple in balance. Bargaining begins. "I will give this but not that."
If a man is abusive toward his wife, why except for kids, would she stay with him? Often it is because she has a strong desire to please a man, perhaps a substitute for her father whose attention was never enough. Her need and willingness to be controlled can be stronger than her own safety. A man doesn't want his partner to be a doormat but neither does he want to continually fight. If two people who are together feel they each need to control identical aspects of their lives their relationship is doomed. Only a sensible preference-based division of control can make a workable partnership. If both parties are free spirits, the stars may move in the heavens but the cohabiting connection will ultimately be lost.
In most marriage-like relationships, when one partner is happy about something, the other one is as well. If the two are in love they want the best for each other. When one partner acquiesces to the other's wishes it is because they want to see the other happy. People who are truly in love will sacrifice themselves for each other. In the dynamics of these negotiations, control is the main element. From a distance, a partnership can appear to be a perfect balance of power but there is always a nuanced interplay of dominance and surrender below the surface. Dominant and acquiescent dances are all about control, with rules and benefits that are needed for it to be acceptable to both sides.
I've never enjoyed wedding ceremonies because I feel like a witness to a conclusion, when for the happy couple it is only the start. I don't want to know how the movie ends as more than likely it will be sad. Sometimes by accident, we stumble across a person who instinctively knows how to navigate the byways of power and control in us and they become permanent parts of our lives. Rousseau wrote that "Man is born free but everywhere he is in chains." This has been misconstrued as a war-cry for freedom but it is not Rousseau's complete idea. In "The Social Contract" he argues that our societal chains must take precedence over individual freedoms. He supposes that we have to accept restrictions until the needs of society are met, which may be never. Control is part of the social contract we have agreed to, whether it is religious, military, or cultural. These days it is almost impossible to survive totally isolated from so-called civilization. Some people can live inside the confines with a minimum of control while others need all aspects of it to help them function. An office-working, church-going parent is less threatening to society than an atheist free-lance outsider with ideas of revolution. By examining the unifying laws of the social contract, it is easier to understand and accept the levers of control. A parent who disciplines a child might say "It's for your own good," and though as a child we detest these admonishing chains, we grow to realize they are necessary. There is such a thing as the common good, where the majority of society's needs are met, but it requires small sacrificial surrenders control from each of its components.
