The Value of Surrender

Surrender as an essential element of any ethical or existential landscape

There is a trend that is explicit in 19th and 20th century European philosophy, and I would argue implicit in nearly all modern Western philosophy, that suggests a unique form of individual freedom arises for the first time in the 19th and 20th century western world. German philosopher Georg Frederich Hegel frames history as technologically oriented toward increasing freedom, and interprets past cultures as lacking in freedom because people in those cultures are encouraged to surrender to a common political, religious, or ethical ideal. Similarly, Hannah Arendt suggests that the faculty of the personal will was not part of the conceptual landscape at all of many earlier cultures. Finally, Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke and Francis Bacon suggest that our ability to make use of reason and science to investigate the nature of the world free of of the oversight of religious institutions of the past marks a significant increase in freedom, autonomy, and knowledge. It also seems to me that such a perspective has trickled down to the everyday citizen. Many in the US praise our political and cultural context based on a belief that the individual in America is more “free” to choose the career, religion, and lifestyle which suits them.

Firstly, I think there are serious issues with this historical narrative. There is good reason to think that this distinction between individual freedom and surrender to a larger ideal does not map onto a linear, progressive history in the way these thinkers suggest. I do not think there is much evidence that our modern culture is lacking in this ethic of surrender or the past is lacking in an emphasis on individual autonomy. To give one example, in modern political and academic contexts one is encouraged to surrender to a political ideology, the good of the nation, or a particular theoretical framework to use in their research. Based on this, I think the linearity of this narrative reflects Euro-centric and racist commitments (as it is almost always non white cultures which are seen as the “least free” in these historical narratives). Instead of delving into more current and historical counter examples, however, I want to explore the value hierarchy implicit in such a narrative: the suggestion that an emphasis on individual freedom is more advanced or civilized than a way of being which encourages surrender of one’s personal will to a higher ideal. Likely as a result of the background presence of this Eurocentric narrative of progress, many internalize a belief that a focus on individual self determination is a more enlightened, free and civilized way of living; and that surrendering to an external religious or ethical ideal either occurs in a context of oppression or results from lack of reflective thought and superstition. 

I do think that these are two different, though not mutually exclusive ways, we can orient ourselves in our lives: we can rely on our personal reasoning capacities to determine what is true and right for us, or we can bind our will to an ideal we have faith in. However, I think it is a vast over simplification to claim that a focus on self determination is more advanced, free, or rational. Such a claim misses the fact that these two ways of thinking are rooted in two entitlement different conceptions of what the human agent is. If it is the case that the scope of our identity ends at our personal preferences, motivations, and reasoning capacities then we could see how this hierarchy would make sense. Individuals who did not orient themselves through these personal capacities and preference would be understood to be oppressed by a foreign agent with foreign intentions. The higher ideal they are encouraged to surrender to would be understood as a vehicle of dis empowerment which blocks them from following their own deepest nature. Of course this kind of oppression does happen, but I think it is overly reductive to suggest that this is always what is happening in social and philosophical contexts which encourage surrender. In the most sophisticated versions of these doctrines, I suggest we find an implicit argument against this conception of a human agent. Ways of life that emphasize surrender are not emphasizing surrender to an external ideal that represses our  individuality. Rather, what we are surrendering to is understood to be our own highest potential or even our own deepest nature. 

Let me give two examples of philosophical systems that emphasize surrender to substantiate this. We will start with Plato. Although Plato is praised as the “father of western philosophy,” those who read The Republic, will find an argument against the cult of individual choice. In the Republic Plato defines virtue as balance and homeostasis among the different parts of the soul. Plato suggests that appetite and spirit, which we could think of as our animalistic desires and our sense of personal identity and pride respectively, are the lower parts of the soul and as such should  be bound to reason, the highest part. Reason in this context is not the the application of step by step logic to meet one’s personal goals. Instead reason connotes the principles which allow us to synchronize with and manifest the Form of the Good. Plato writes of the Form of the Good, 

“The Form of the Good is the last thing to be seen, and it is reached only with difficulty. Once one has seen it, however, one must conclude that it is the cause of all that is correct and beautiful in anything, that it produces both light and its source in the visible realm, and that in the intelligible realm it controls and provides truth and understanding.”

The Form of the Good is difficult to reach because we are often clouded by our desires and our pride, which both ask what we as individuals can get out of a particular experience. Plato suggests that we reach our highest potential not by trying to get something out of experience for ourselves, but by interacting with experience in a way that encourages flourishing, balance, and justice, or “Goodness” within our wider social environment. This way of acting will in turn generate a context in which our own most “correct and beautiful” potential can be nourished. Plato also points out that acting in line with the Good reflects an intellectual “truth and understanding;” as we are acting from a place that knows the truth of the interconnectedness of all things: that no one thing can flourish or even exist isolated from the environment which it is dependent upon. For Plato surrendering to the Good does often mean surrendering to ideals which our personal self may not be pleased with. For example, in a ideal city he suggests that people should not think about what career will please them the most but how they can best contribute to the city with their skills. However, surrender is not dis empowering because for Plato our highest potential rests in the actualization of the Good of our entire context which in turn will lead to our own flourishing.

Our next example, the Bhagavad Gita, goes one step further than Plato by suggesting that the highest layer of the soul is not a set of principles that connects us with other beings but is rather the identity of all beings. Our true self in this context is literally the same as each and every other living thing’s true self. Our philosophical narrator in the text, Krishna, is trying to convince the main character, Arjuna, to perform his social duty as a warrior and fight in a war. Arjuna is hesitant to fight as there are members of his family on the other side that he does not want to hurt. Krishna points out that any person’s body and mind is like a set of clothes that their true self, Brahman, has put on temporarily. We could understand Brahman as the dreamer and the entire world as his dream. Although it seems that we are separate from other people in our own dream, when we wake up we immediately realize that each person was a manifestation of our own consciousness. It is the same with Brahman. Although we feel distinct from others, Krishna suggests that if we awaken to the truth we will realize everything, including ourselves is a manifestation of Brahman. Although Brahman initially manifests as the world and all the beings it simply for the sake of amusement and playfulness, we forget our original nature because we get caught in craving for the pleasures we perceive through our five senses. This is not simply a belief. Krishna instructs Arjuna to undertake contemplative and meditative practices in order to slow down and eventually halt the momentum of external seeking and craving that has become a veil over his true nature. However, this revelation is not where the story ends, Krishna also points out the importance of doing one’s social duty (which for Aruna is fulfilling his role as a warrior) and fostering virtuous qualities such as courage, intelligence, and renunciation. Once the unitary source of the dream is realized, the dream does not just stop. One continues to live as particular body and mind. However, one knows that the manifest world is all “Brahman’s body” and thus must fulfill their proper social role and cultivate individual virtue in order to keep the forces that reinforce the illusion of separation at bay and contribute to the harmony and homeostasis of the whole. Thus, we end up with an ethical orientation looking much like Plato’s. Krishna encourages us to bind our individual will to principles that manifest harmony and justice within one’s entire social and natural context, rather than insisting on the reality and satisfaction of our personal desires. Like Plato’s Republic, the Bhagavad Gita, suggests that surrendering to an ideal beyond ourselves does not in lead to repression of the personal aspects of who we are, but rather suggests they are incomplete on their own and thus properly aligns them with the greater whole to which they belong. 

There is, of course, a time and place to emphasize the freedom of the personal will over this ethic of surrender. For example, the Bhagavad Gita defines one’s proper social role through their place in the caste system, a social and political structure which delineates what opportunities are available to one based on their birth. An emphasis on autonomy and self determination helps us see when an ethics rooted in surrender has begun to use its own logic to fuel social oppression and political control. However, I would warn us against throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I think these systems point to an essential aspect of human nature that is lacking when we remove any ethic of surrender from our normative and existential landscape. Weather we think of this in a more practical way like Plato or a more mystical way like Krishna, I think it is mistake to ignore the many traditions that suggest that our highest potential or our true identity is not found in personal satisfaction but in surrendering to and nourishing something much more expansive and inclusive. This does not need to be very mysterious or esoteric either. In my own experience, and I am sure many can relate, I feel the most in tune with life when I am receptive to something outside me, not when I am satisfying my own motivations and desires. This can simply manifest when I listen closely to a friend, notice the beauty of nature, or put effort into a lecture with the intention of teaching my students something valuable. These traditions of surrender are taking this simple existential truth of the value of surrender and receptivity and demonstrating how we can make it the ground of our ethical orientation and understanding of who we are. 

If you found this reflection valuable, please consider subscribing. Paid Subscribers have access to all four posts per month, while non-paid subscribers have access to two posts per month.

Please feel free to leave a comment if you have clarification questions, feedback, critiques, or anything to add. Philosophy is all about dialogue! I will do my best to respond to all questions and concerns.