It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.

Institutional Creed, Con, and Making Choices for Life

-- By KevinChang - 27 Feb 2009

People are not truly making decisions

People would generally think that they enjoy freedom and make their own choices with free will. What freedom and choices means here, of course, is that “within the boundaries,” such as morale, law, or any other social values. For instance, we believe, generally, that it is we who choose which college to attend, which courses to take, what should be our major, whom we marry, and what career we are dedicate to through our lifetime. However, it is common that when we are making all these choices, some options or possibilities, although we are well aware of their existence, never come into our mind.

People tends to be confined by social creed or roles assigned to them

Are those options or possibilities not one of our choices? Or is it because our minds are limited by some invisible boundaries that we feel urged to ignore those possibilities? Maybe just like T. Arnold said in The Folklore of Capitalism, that “[b]ecause words and ceremonies are our only methods of communication, everywhere we find that the creed is regarded as the cornerstone of social institutions.” Since people are social animals, we need to be in communication with other people and thus are “forced,” though we might not be aware of it, to become one of the believers of the creed, and limit ourselves within the creed. In the choices we have made, from what to have for lunch to what career goals should be our life-long pursuit, common considerations such as values, resources, and expectations are what is really controlling. Moreover, since we need to be one of “us” rather than being one of “them,” we somehow never challenge those boundaries or even try to figure out the nature and purpose of those boundaries. It is because, just like what Arnold said, “when someone attempts to describe how such an institution works, he is called a “realist” or a “cynic “because he makes believers uncomfortable. Thus to describe how the law . . . actually works is to appear attack these symbols.” We simply do not want to be a member of the “heresy” so we confine ourselves in the creed of social institutions when making choices.

Then the question arises: Are we really making choices as free men? Arnold would say that people follow the institutional habits that every member in the social institutional should learn and abide by except the American Businessman. If we believe in Leff’s theories of cons, we might also think that people are just carefully playing their roles in the script of a gigantic con with the conmen being those with knowledge, wealth, and the power that comes with it. In the former theory, we are controlled by our human nature—the need to be recognized by and connected to other people. In the latter theory, we are manipulated collectively to satisfy the greed and needs of conmen who are the real writers and the directors of the script. In either way, we are made to feel like we are making choices and given the sense of participation so that the real players, or the conmen, could calm us and make us serve them.

People are controlled because of their weakness

However, is it their evil to manipulate people? Or is it people’s own fault that causes the manipulation? Alternatively, is it because most people actually need being manipulated so that they would not get lost in their lives? That is to say, are the conmen under Leff actually shepherds for people because people, though need to feel like they are making decision, are in fact not able to decide for themselves?

Controlling benefits two kinds of people

Take making career choices for example. Some people do not know what their aspirations are or do not even want to know or have an career aspiration. They live day after day without specific goal or plan and do their job only because they have to make aliving. Once that need is satisfied, they are not further motivated to think what is a meaningful career, or even a meaningful life for them. For these people, having someone set up a stage for them and give them a role to play might actually be helping them and benefitting social stability. Some other people, although do not have specific goals in mind either, are willing to make the most of themselves. They get into a profession, though somehow by accident, learn as much as they can, and finally become outstanding professionals. For this type of people, giving them the script to play is helping them maximize their ability and succeed in the profession that best suits them.

One type of people that is truly free

The last type of people, so few that they may count only one out of millions, are strong and wise enough to be the real thinking man for himself. They know exactly what they want to do with their lives. They possess high ideals, set goals that seems impossible to normal people, and take steps to achieve those goals with passion. It is the combination of clear goals, strong will, passion, and wisdom that enables them to fulfill their work of life even though reaching their ideals sounds like squeezing water out of rocks. This kind of people are great leaders, philanthropists, thinkers, entrepreneurs, creators, and pioneers in human history, and no one, even the most brilliant conman, can fool them with scripts.

Think and fight, and we shall be free

It may be true, for the vast majority of people, that no matter how hard they try their destiny is dominated by the accidents determined by their role in the system. It may also be true that most people are just playing their roles in a great con set up by those in power. However, let us not forget that if we think and fight hard enough, we shall be free.

• This essay is longer than 1,000 words. Until it is under 1,000 words it is not ready to be reviewed.

• I don't think the way to edit this piece is to remove some words. I think it would be more useful to return to an early step, where you consider what it means for human beings to be social animals. Are our choices affected only to the extent that many options are silently excluded? Isn't it more that our options are in fact rather stringently limited?