THE ORIGINS OF AUTONOMY: NOT AS LONESOME AS YOU MIGHT EXPECT

By Contributing Writer Molly Wilder

Autonomous man is–and should be–self-sufficient, independent, and self-reliant, a self-realizing individual who directs his efforts towards maximizing his personal gains. His independence is under constant threat from other (equally self-serving) individuals: hence he devises rules to protect himself from intrusion. Talk of rights, rational self-interest, expedience, and efficiency permeates his moral, social, and political discourse. (Lorraine Code 1991, What Can She Know? Feminist Theory and the Construction of Knowledge, p78)

Thus Lorraine Code describes the conception of autonomy in the popular imagination–and often in the academy as well. This conception of autonomy is obsessed with the self, as evidenced by the language Code uses to articulate it: “self-sufficient,” “self-reliant,” “self-realizing,” and “rational self-interest.” And the word ‘autonomous’ originally meant “self-rule” (derived from the Greek αὐτόνομος, from αὐτο-, ‘self’, and νόμος, ‘rule, law’). The image of the self that Code evokes is that of a citadel, forever warding off external attacks. These attacks are characterized as coming primarily from contact with other people—suggesting that relationships with other people are in themselves dangerous to the self. Though relationships may be valuable in some ways, they are a constant threat to the self’s interests.

Feminist philosophers have largely found this conception both accurate and deeply problematic. Though some feminists have therefore rejected the value of autonomy all together, many have instead sought to reclaim autonomy as a feminist value. Since the late 1980s, feminists have proposed and argued for a myriad of alternative conceptions of autonomy, which have collectively come to be known as theories of “relational autonomy.”

Theories of relational autonomy vary widely. Some, like Marilyn Friedman’s, still recognize the value of independence and conceive of autonomy as an internal procedure that is available to people of many different beliefs and circumstances. Such an internal procedure requires some sort of critical reflection on attitudes and actions, but places no limits on the outcome of the procedure. Thus, this sort of procedure makes it possible for a person to count as autonomous even if she endorses attitudes or actions that may seem incongruous with a liberal Western image of autonomy, such as discounting her own right to be respected or remaining in an abusive relationship.  In contrast, theories like Mariana Oshana’s put stringent requirements on the kind of actual practical control necessary for autonomy, significantly limiting those who can count as autonomous. Such theories might consider a person autonomous only if her circumstances meet certain conditions, such as economic independence or a wide range of available social opportunities—conditions that might not be met, for example, by a person in an abusive relationship.

And there are theories that aim somewhere in the middle, such as Andrea Westlund’s, whose conception of autonomy requires some accountability and connection to the outside world, but does so in a way that provides latitude for many different belief systems and social circumstances. Specifically, on Westlund’s account, a person is autonomous only if she holds herself open to criticism from other people. While this dialogical accountability is not a purely internal procedure like Friedman’s, as it involves people other than the agent herself, it does not inherently limit the outcome of the procedure as Oshana’s does. See this collection of essays for more on the theories of Friedman, Oshana, and Westlund, as well as other contemporary theorists of relational autonomy.

These theories, while diverse, share a rejection of the idea that autonomy is inherently threatened by relationships with others. On the contrary, they argue that certain relationships are in fact necessary to the development of autonomy, its maintenance, or both. These theories have provided a much needed new perspective on the concept of autonomy, and continue to provide new insights, particularly with respect to understanding the effect of oppression on selves.

But their core idea, that autonomy requires relationships, is an old one. Long before autonomy became so closely aligned with the protection of the self from others, a prominent strain of philosophy recognized relationships with others as crucial to the well-being of the self—rather than as a threat. To illustrate, consider these excerpts from an ancient philosopher, Aristotle, and a modern philosopher, Spinoza.

For Aristotle, the ultimate good in life, a kind of long-term happiness, is a self-sufficient good. The word he uses is ‘αὐτάρκης’ (derived from αὐτο-, “self,” and ἀρκέω, “to suffice”). He clarifies: “And by self-sufficient we mean not what suffices for oneself alone, living one’s life as a hermit, but also with parents and children and a wife, and friends and fellow citizens generally, since the human being is by nature meant for a city.” (Nicomachean Ethics, 1097b9-11, tr. Joe Sachs) Aristotle, then, explicitly understands self-sufficiency with respect to happiness to require certain kinds of relationships—those of family, friends, and political compatriots.

Though Aristotle does not discuss the concept of autonomy, this passage and others suggest that his ideal of independence was one that required intimate relationships, rather than being threatened by them. Aristotle famously wrote of humans as “political animals.” On a first reading of this phrase, it is apparent that humans are political simply in the sense that they tend to form social institutions by which to govern themselves. But the phrase might also be read to suggest that even at their most independent, humans are the kind of animals that rely on one another.

Spinoza, likewise, identifies the well-being of the self with happiness, and he argues that happiness consists in having the power to seek and acquire what is advantageous to oneself. One might reasonably summarize Spinoza’s view of happiness as the achievement of one’s rational self-interest. For a contemporary reader, Spinoza’s language naturally evokes the conception of autonomy articulated by Code, a conception in which the wellbeing of the self is naturally threatened by others.

Yet Spinoza explicitly argues that “nothing is more advantageous to man than man.” (Ethics, P18, Sch., trans. Samuel Shirley) On Spinoza’s view the only effective, and therefore rational, way for individual to seek her own advantage is with the help of others. In general, Spinoza criticizes those thoughts and emotions that push people apart—and he argues that when we fall prey to these things, we not only lose power, but we fail to act in the interest of our true selves. An individual’s true self-interest, he argues, is necessarily aligned with the true self-interest of others.

The examples I’ve given remind us that, despite the apparent radicalism of arguing that the concept of autonomy is inherently relational in our contemporary cultural context, the conjunction of terms of self and terms of relationality is both ancient and long-lived. The very concepts that Code uses to describe the kind of autonomy that sees relationships as a threat—self-sufficiency and rational self-interest—were once thought of as concepts that in fact required relationships.

Thirty years after she wrote it, Code’s depiction of autonomy as an atomistic individualism threatened by others still well-captures the general sense Americans have of autonomy. Although feminist philosophers have been fairly successful in gaining wide recognition of the importance of relationships to autonomy among philosophers who study autonomy, their impact has not been as wide as might be expected given the strength of their arguments. One major exception has been the field of bioethics, in which the discussion of feminist theories of relational autonomy is quite lively. Yet these theories have not been robustly taken up in other professional fields such as business or legal ethics. Nor have they been taken up in a pervasive way in mainstream philosophical ethics or political theory.

Moreover, they have been decidedly less successful in changing the popular conception of autonomy, particularly within the United States, where the threatened-self conception of autonomy is so revered in the nation’s mythology. Indeed, many Americans might be surprised to learn about the history of this conception and its relative novelty. While some philosophers are already doing this, perhaps it would be fruitful in going forward for people in all fields to spend some time tracing the development of their conceptions of autonomy and self—they might be surprised at what they find.

Perhaps one reason relational theories haven’t been taken up is because of their feminist origins. Some of the wariness, surely, is simply sexism, both explicit and implicit. But beyond that, there may be a perception that the theories are specifically tied to the interests of women. Yet, to borrow a delightfully biting phrase from Spinoza, if someone were to pay a modicum of attention, they would see that is not the case. The historical precursors of their ideas demonstrate this. While the contemporary standard bearers of relational autonomy may be feminists, the basic ideas are as old and general as philosophy itself, and if the ideas are true, they should prompt Americans to seriously reconsider their national assumptions and priorities. If autonomy is in fact relational, it calls into question standard American justifications and understandings of a huge array of policies and practices, everything from gun control to education to marriage.

Molly has just received her law degree from Georgetown University Law Center and is currently developing a dissertation that brings together the professional ethics of lawyers, neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics, and feminist theories of relational autonomy. She wants to know, can you be a (really) good person and a (really) good lawyer at the same time? Beyond her dissertation, Molly has varied philosophical interests, including philosophy of tort law, children’s rights, privacy, and communication. When not philosophizing, Molly enjoys reading children’s fantasy, finding places to eat great vegan food, and engaging in witty banter.

The Badass Personalities of People Who Like Being Alone

 It's obvious that I enjoy Psychology Today yet the studies and applications are biased. The college courses and applications were designed for "mainstream America if and or mainstream society". Do you remember the SAT bias of asking a teen from a middle class family what escargot is and also asking a lower class teen the same question?

There are people who like being alone, maybe even love it. What do you think they are like? Does your mind immediately leap to the misanthrope or the dreaded loner hiding away somewhere plotting his next murder? As Anneli Rufus told us in her wonderful Party of One: The Loners’ Manifesto, those stereotypes don’t capture real loners. True loners are people who embrace their alone time. Those who lash out are typically alone against their will. They want to be included. They want to be loved by the objects of their desire. But they’ve been excluded and rejected instead. That exclusion and rejection (among other things) fuels their hostility and rage.

What’s the truth about people who like being alone? Thanks to some newly developed scales for measuring attitudes toward being alone, we now have research-based answers.

First, though, we need to understand what it means to like being alone. One sense of “alone” refers to spending time alone. The “Desire for Being Alone” scale, developed by Birk Hagemeyer and his colleagues, measures that.

People who score high on the desire to be alone AGREE with items such as:

When I am alone, I feel relaxed.
I like to be completely alone.
They DISAGREE with items such as:

I feel uncomfortable when I am alone.
Being alone quickly gets to be too much for me.
A second meaning of alone is the way it is used to refer to people who are single. (I think this usage is misleading and inappropriate, but I’ll save that argument for another day.) Thinking about single life as something some people fear, Stephanie Spielmann and her colleagues developed a “Fear of Being Single” scale. I’m interested in the personality characteristics of people who are UNAFRAID of being single, so I just reversed their scale.

People who are UNAFRAID of being single DISAGREE with items such as:

I feel anxious when I think about being single forever.
If I end up alone in life, I will probably feel like there is something wrong with me.
Details of the Studies

Personality was measured for two groups of people in the “Fear of Being Single” studies. One group consisted of 301 people recruited online, with an average age of 29. Only 33 were married; 131 were single and not dating, and the others were dating. The other group was comprised of 147 Canadian undergraduates, with an average age of 19. Only 2 were married, 105 were single and not dating, and the others were dating. Results were averaged across both groups.

article continues after advertisement

Two groups of German adults participated in the “Desire for Being Alone” studies, and unfortunately for people like me who are interested in single people, all the participants were coupled: They had been in a serious sexual relationship for at least a year. The first study included 476 participants (average age: 35), and the results were averaged across the men and the women. The second study included 578 heterosexual couples (average age: 42). Results were reported separately for the men and the women.

Personality Characteristics

The “Big Five” personality characteristics were measured for all the participants in both sets of studies:

Neurotic: tense, moody, worries a lot.
Open: original, curious, imaginative.
Extraverted: Outgoing and sociable, talkative, assertive.
Agreeable: considerate and kind, trusting, cooperative.
Conscientious: reliable, organized, thorough.
The studies of people who like spending time alone also included a measure of their sociability, as measured by items such as, “I find people more stimulating than everything else.”

The studies of people unafraid to be single included measures of six more characteristics:

Relationship-contingent self-esteem: The extent to which a person’s self-esteem is contingent on how their romantic relationship is going (when they have one).
Need to belong: People who are high in the “need to belong” are especially likely to agree with statements such as, “I need to feel that there are people I can turn to in times of need.”
Hurt feelings proneness: These are people whose feelings are easily hurt.
Rejection sensitivity: People who are particularly sensitive to rejection are especially likely to expect to be rejected and feel anxious about it.
Loneliness: Measured by items such as, “How often do you feel that you lack companionship?”
Depression: Measured by items such as, “I felt that I could not shake off the blues even with help from my family or friends.”
article continues after advertisement

The Findings

If our stereotypes about people who like being alone were true, then we should find that they are neurotic and closed-minded. In fact, just the opposite is true: People who like spending time alone, and who are unafraid of being single, are especially unlikely to be neurotic. They are not the tense, moody, worrying types.

People who like spending time alone, and people who are unafraid of being single, are also more likely than others to be open-minded. People who are unafraid of being single are more agreeable than people who are afraid of being single. (People who like spending time alone are no more or less agreeable than people who don’t.) And people who are unafraid of being single are also more conscientious than those who are afraid. (The results were not consistent for people who like spending time alone.)

The question I am asked most often about the personality of people who are single is whether they are more introverted. The one relevant study suggests that they probably are. But research on single people typically includes all single people, whether they want to be single or not. The studies I’m describing here tell us about people who are unafraid of being single (or who like spending time alone).

People who are unafraid of being single were more extraverted than those who are afraid of being single. Perhaps this finding is consistent with research showing that single people, on average, have more friends than married people do, and do more to maintain relationships with friends, neighbors, siblings, and parents. But again, the research on the social ties of single people includes all single people, not just those who are unafraid of being single.

article continues after advertisement

People who like spending time alone were not any more or less extraverted than those who do not, but they did score as less sociable. Those two scales (extraversion and sociability) measure similar things so it is odd that they did not produce consistent findings.

All the other personality characteristics were measured only in the studies of people who are unafraid of being single — and the results were resoundingly affirming. People who are unafraid of being alone are not overly sensitive to rejection and they don’t get their feelings hurt too easily. When they are in romantic relationships, their own self-esteem does not depend on how those relationships are faring. They do not have a particularly strong need to belong. And they are less likely to be lonely or to be depressed.

Put all that together with their openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and low levels of neuroticism, and people who are unafraid of being single look totally badass.

People who are unafraid of being single are not just talking a good game. Other studies have looked at their behaviors and those results are affirming, too. People who are unafraid of being single have standards. For example, in speed dating events, they give their contact information to fewer people. And when they do get into a romantic relationship and find it unsatisfying, they are more likely to break it off than people who are afraid of being single.

Despite all that is good and affirming about people who are unafraid of being single, they cannot expect to be celebrated or even respected by other people. People who like being single, or choose to be single, are threatening cherished worldviews about what people should want and how they should feel. Other people evaluate them more harshly than single people who wish they were coupled – even expressing more anger toward them.

As more and more people openly embrace their single lives, maybe things will change. Happy singles will become part of our cultural landscape, and those who are threatened by them will recede to the fringes.

15 Things Women Want From the Men in Their Lives

15? More like >

I’ve conducted a lot of research regarding women's friendships and the ways that people can most effectively maintain healthy connections over the long-term. In a recent study, however, we explored what women, from 18 to 75, need from the men in their lives. Not surprisingly, the qualities women seek in heterosexual romantic partners, male friends, and men in general, are not all that different from what they seek in a friend. This makes sense: Any good relationship is built on some basic, down-to-earth qualities.

Specific to Romantic Partners

Women don’t need partners who invest all their energy in trying to prove how strong, manly, masculine, macho, or heroic they are. They just want men who are willing to meet them where they are and treat them fairly and equitably — and are able to make sure that the romantic spark keeps burning.

There’s no reliable assessment that can predict whether someone is going to be a good match for you or not; no dating-site algorithm can accurately predict the human heart. Even when a potential partner brings all of the following qualities to a relationship, that's no guarantee that the two of you will have good "chemistry" or meet up at the right time for each of you to enter a new relationship. However, recognizing what we know that we need from the important people in our lives increases our “relationship quotient” so that we can at least be aware of areas worthy of enrichment prior to establishing a new romantic connection.

The traits that women tend to value and need most from the men in their lives can be categorized in three discrete areas: moral integrity (from all men); relational sensitivity (from friends and partners); and satisfying intimacy (from romantic partners).

Traits of Moral Integrity

Mutual respect is an all-or-nothing proposition: Once a person loses respect for a partner, all bets are off. Women should be given the same respect that men offer other men. When a person is made to feel disrespected or patronized, the relationship is likely to end sooner rather than later. In terms of romantic relationships, even when you’re angry or disappointed by a partner, respect should be maintained.

1. Open communication that occurs regularly and tactfully is essential. A healthy relationship flourishes when communication is clear.
2. Honesty is another "make or break" trait: Don' give someone any reasons to doubt you.
3. Trust and trustworthiness allow relationships to deepen.
4. Taking responsibility for actions and behavior. Long-term healthy relationships require a high level of maturity. Without it, disagreements and conflict worsen as couples engage in the “blame game.” Communication fails and emotional damage can be done that cannot be easily repaired.

Traits of Relational Sensitivity

1. Women need men to show kindness, patience, understanding, empathy, and compassion. Regardless of the type of relationship, men and women should be considerate of each other's feelings. Recognize that a partner’s trials and tribulations matter to her and that partners’ roles are to cherish and care for and about one another.
2. Friendship between men and women is also desired. Being a friend to your partner means treating her in the patient, accepting manner in which you treat other close friends.
3. Emotional maturity is essential. It’s okay to have some childish fun when it’s appropriate, but it’s important for women and men to behave like grown-ups when it’s time to do so, too. Being aware that brute strength does not equal intelligence is also helpful in maintaining healthy communication and connection. Sometimes it’s better to sit back and think through problems before trying to manhandle your partner into a forced solution.
4. Being supportive to the women in your life can do a world of good. Supporting your partner is a primary role. Whether your partner or a friend needs emotional or practical support, be there to assist in small and big ways. Whether it’s taking time to listen, or more active involvement in major decisions, child rearing, finances, etc., make your presence a positive and supportive one.
5. and 6. Sensitivity coupled with validation of your partner's experiences are essential. The cultural experiences of adults vary greatly based on gender identity. Recognize your own biases in how you view other women and imagine how your partner might be negatively affected by a world that sees women as less than. Don’t assume she is making things up when she shares stories of prejudice, discrimination, or unfair treatment. Gender roles constrain behavior; playing a part in breaking down harmful gender roles at home and in the workplace benefits both men and women. Don’t make women jump a higher bar to prove themselves – women and men should be afforded the same rewards for the same investment. Gender shouldn’t be a disadvantage in a relationship or a work place.

Types of Satisfying Intimacy with Romantic Partners

1. Bring adventure and excitement into the relationship, in safe and welcome ways. Challenge your partner’s perspectives and allow your own to be challenged as well. Open yourself up to new experiences and ways of thinking as you make it safe and inviting for your partner to do the same. Intellectual stimulation keeps relationships dynamic.
2. Companionship and partnership go along with friendship and create the glue that keeps most long-term relationships moving forward. No one realizes how little energy they might have for sexual activities once kids arrive, or jobs demand longer hours, or illness or disability occur; there will be times when loyal companionship is what both of you need most from each other.
3. Saying “I love you” may not be easy; these words can be highly charged. Sadly, some people believe that saying them makes them vulnerable and more likely to be hurt. Your partner, though, deserves to be made aware of your love. If saying those three words just isn’t going to happen, make sure you show your partner love in ways that matter most to her. We all need to feel loved.
4. As for sex, women ask that men don’t make everything about sex – i.e., don’t do favors that you assume will result in sexual favors being done for you.  Your good behavior should not be viewed simply as a means towards a particular end. Good sex can’t be bought, and by expecting sex as a payoff for doing something that pleases your partner, you turn a potentially romantic encounter into more of a business deal. Few and far between are the women who want to feel that they owe sex to a partner.
5. Sexual activities that are geared to pleasing your partner, not just yourself, are what your partners need you to provide. Sex should be a fun adventure that allows partners to explore and expand their sexual connection, not just a repetition of the same old, same old. As one participant shared, “Men need to ditch the myth of female sexual purity once and for all: With the right partner, women enjoy sex every bit as much as a man.”

What Everyone Deserves

Women need the men in their lives to be feminist allies who want to see the women in their lives succeed every bit as much as they want to enjoy their own success. Men should take time to recognize and acknowledge a woman's strengths and respect her for all that she brings to their relationship. And when it comes to romantic connection, women want the same things men want; they might just want them in a different order.

Why You Need To Mind Your Own Business

Do you ever feel like people are judging your actions? Why do people feel the need to make others feel like crap about the decisions they make? Do you ever find yourself filled with anxiety when thinking this way? Often times people become so preoccupied with the opinions of others that it limits their potential in any given situation. Whom people choose to associate with is their opinion and no one else’s business. Making people feel bad for their personal decisions is selfish and completely immature.


People who are unable to mind their own business are most likely internally miserable. They seek to find faults within others just to make themselves feel better. Offering insight to a friend whose present situation seems distressed can be helpful at times but there is only so much advice you can give without pushing the limits. Even if you don’t agree with what someone else is doing sometimes, you need to take a backseat and let them make their own mistakes.

“Everyone has faults and there is a fine line in helping someone get through their indiscretions and chastising them for it. It's easier said than done for people to help each other rather than hurt, because some people might not even be aware that they are simply being a pain in the rear end versus being helpful.”
For some reason, it is common for people to pass judgment on others' relationships. Don’t like their relationship status? Just be happy it isn’t yours. If someone is happy and you simply don’t agree, do not offer your opinion if it wasn’t asked for.

Just because you don’t understand the relationship does not mean it is bad; if it works for others, let it be and stay out of it. It is really as simple as that. If everyone just stopped offering their outlook on things and waited for it to be requested, there would be a whole lot less drama in this world. A relationship only involves two people, not every associate or friend these people have.


If you are not friends with a person and he or she does not personally know you, then do not make the mistake of letting his or her opinions and attitudes persuade you. These types of people thrive for attention and live for chaos. They tend to lead boring lives and have no excitement in their own, so they act in this manner to create something out of nothing. They seek to fill the gap in their lives by discussing the lives of others by judging them harshly, so that they can feel better about their own miserable existences.

“What I choose to do with my life is my choice and not yours, and what choices I decide to make is mine and mine only, and who I associate myself with is my decision and it's none of your business.”
People are too quick to judge other people’s shortcomings, but are reluctant to look internally and evaluate their own. Some people really just have nothing better to do than to gossip about others. They just seek to cause trouble because they thrive on drama. These people need to get a reality check and realize that this is an immature way to go about life.

If any situation doesn't involve you, instead of getting in the middle or putting your two cents in, you should mind your own business. If a situation concerns you or you have experienced something of a similar nature, then it's time to stand up and to talk.


There are people in your life that will always have your best interest at heart, so it is important to value those opinions. However, often times there are people in your life that seem to be on your side, but when push comes to shove, they will judge you harder than your worst critic. These people are detrimental and will relish in your shortcomings while continuously pointing them out every chance they have.

“Worry about your character and not your reputation, because your character is who you are and your reputation is only what people think of you.”
If you are happy with who you are as a person, other people’s opinions should not even faze you. Everyone has their own battles to fight and insecurities to face and these challenges would be a lot easier to overcome if other people weren’t forcing their unwarranted opinions onto them.

Why is this such a difficult concept for people to grasp? Shouldn’t this be common sense? Even if people care, most of them are ill-equipped to give advice based on another person's needs and typically want to feel as if someone is listening to them. Giving advice is usually about the ego of the advice-giver, not the feelings of the person being given the advice.

“Let the refining and improving of your own life keep you so busy that you have little time to criticize others.”
The best way to tackle nosy people is to ignore them and to let them say what they say and keep moving on with your life. This will hopefully set them right. Try not to lose your temper for such people, as some do it unknowingly and some do it knowingly to irritate you. It is unfortunately the way of life, you will come across many people like this, it's better to keep your mind cool and to respond to those whom you feel are important to you so that they may talk sense to you and about you.

Who's Pulling Your Strings?

We are all influenced by our upbringing — both our environment and our caregivers shape how and who we turn out to be; what we care about and what is important to us. However, there comes a time when we must take responsibility for ourselves, and learn to resist adjusting to become what others’ judge to be best and instead choose to be what we value.

Most people will present different personas to different people.  Your mother will not be the same way she is with you at home when she is at work, or indeed, when she is with her own mother or her partner.  We all have a stable and recognizable personality, but this alters depending on our environment and who we are with. It can also be shaken by traumatic events or fail to develop properly or be damaged by mental health issues.  However, if you have poor boundaries or have an overdeveloped need to be liked, or to have approval, then you are susceptible to adapting yourself to others and losing your sense of self.  In this way, you present yourself as someone who is open to challenge, who can be overruled or ignored when decisions are made, or simply someone who is regarded as wishy-washy.  Conversely, you can be bigoted or dogmatic, believing views that were presented to you as you developed, and that you have not tested for their relevance to you as you perceive yourself now.

If you present yourself as adaptable or compliant, you can be taken advantage of.  Your boundaries are not sure or strong enough to resist those who are stronger personalities with more resilient convictions than you.  This may be for all sorts of reasons.  You may have had to be “pleasing” in order to get what you needed when you were growing up.  You may have needed to be compliant or to have adapted quickly to an inconsistent care giver, or adult, or even a forceful sibling as you grew up.  You may have had to take an adult role before you were fully adult, adopting rules and values that you were not ready for and did not choose.  Whatever the reason, you will be seen as a “push over” or an “easy touch” or otherwise as someone who is intractable and bigoted.  If you don’t want to continue in this way, you need to decide what values constitute who you are and then portray these.  This is hard work, but the only way to change the way people react towards you is to change how you respond and present to them.

This is what is meant by having “the courage of your convictions”.  Do you value what you stand for enough to withstand others’ attempts to dissuade you or undermine you? Are you sure the values you have are yours — or are they some outdated views of a parent or carer?   Only you can choose for yourself what matters, and it is in this choosing and deciding that we become adults.  It no longer matters what your caregivers would have thought or your old headmaster or your brother, when you truly become you, it only matters what your own values are and how you judge yourself.  In this way, you become free of others’ opinions and you start to become what and who matters to you, and to portray this in how you behave.

Once you have achieved this and can no longer be bullied or swayed by others, then you have become your adult self.  You will like yourself and this will translate into how you are treated by others.  In your personal life you can decide what you will or won’t give way on and what matters to you.  In work you may have to rein it in a little – after all you are being paid to do a certain job or task so it’s no good deciding after taking a job in a supermarket that you are a committed vegan and can’t countenance selling animal products; make sure you don’t accept such a job in the first place  Having principles and sticking by them is admirable but you need to pick your battles and decide what is vitally important to you and who you perceive yourself to be and what you can let go.

All of this takes time and courage.  If you have always been easily convinced by others’ arguments or insistence then find someone you admire and try to emulate what they stand for.  Think of how you like to be treated and adopt those values for yourself.  Jettison the behaviors that no longer suit you and that are outdated for who and how you want to be.  We are all a “project in the making”: none of us are perfect or get it right, indeed, we learn most through our mistakes.  So take your time, you are building your adult self after all.  Try things out, evolve, listen to those you like and admire and adopt the values that are close to your heart.  As you do this you will feel more and more like “yourself” and as such will be recognizable to others.  In this way you can become fully “you”.  You are now a product of your own making and choosing, someone who will continue to evolve and grow.  In this way you become the architect of you, something that will enhance both your mental and physical health for the rest of your life.

7 steps to reducing the risk of a cyber attack

For most forms of life, the threat of attack—from a predator, changing environmental conditions, lower forms of life (such as bacteria and viruses), or some other force—is ever present. Indeed, for many of the natural world’s inhabitants, the question is not ifbut rather when they will be subject to some form of attack—and how (or whether) they will respond and emerge from the experience.

Businesses, of course, face an analogous situation and must contend with their own potential threats. Most companies therefore make risk identification, assessment, and mitigation a high priority. Yet there is a specific type of threat today for which many companies, in our view, are significantly underprepared: the risk associated with IT and information management. As digitization’s role in companies’ operations continues to grow—according to Ben Hammersley, contributing editor at Wired UKmagazine, “Cyberspace is becoming the dominant platform for life in the 21st century”—companies’ vulnerability to data theft, leakage of intellectual property, corporate sabotage, denial-of-service attacks, and the like is growing apace. The damage such events can pose to a company’s profits, reputation, brand, competitive position, and even viability is potentially vast. One technology company, for example, sustained material damage to its business as a result of extensive hacking of its systems. 

Another suffered considerable harm to its reputation after a breach compromised the security of its customers’ personal data.

In the natural world, a strong immune and defense capability is essential for survival (much as in human society, vaccines and health care systems are critical to protecting life). For today’s companies, the ability to safeguard IT systems and information may be equally vital. To properly arm themselves, companies must understand the IT and information-related risks they face and construct sufficiently robust protection systems—and they must do so with an eye toward controlling costs and minimizing any negative impact on the business. Of course, perfect security is beyond any company’s reach. 

The trick is to determine and provide the right amountof defense, at a reasonable cost, and to do so without significantly compromising the organization’s business practices or culture. Moreover, the company must strike this balance while understanding and managing the risks associated with security-related compromises. In our experience, few companies have so far managed to achieve this.

Who Is at Risk?

As a rule, the companies that are most at risk of an attack and its consequences are those in which information drives a large portion of value generation and passes through many interconnected systems. Industries with complex application and system landscapes are also at high risk, as are those that rely on complex or meshed networks. Companies in these categories include banks, automotive suppliers, and energy companies (which face a range of vulnerabilities along their entire value chain, including generation, distribution, and infrastructure).

Companies whose business is driven to a large degree by mobile transactions are also at particular risk. (In many Asian markets, for instance, mobile online transactions now exceed the number of transactions conducted through the traditional desktop platform.) For such companies, rapidly growing mobile transactions can translate into swelling revenues—as well as greater likelihood of a breach and data theft. It can also make them increasingly attractive targets for hackers and the like as these companies accumulate larger and more varied types of customer data.

In general, businesses that process large amounts of customer and financial information (credit card details, for example) likewise face an elevated risk, with small and medium-size firms especially vulnerable. Many of these smaller businesses lack the budget and skills necessary to properly safeguard their online or point-of-sales environments, for instance, making them popular targets.

As value creation becomes increasingly digitized across the corporate landscape, however, virtually all companies are becoming more vulnerable—and concerns are rising. (See Exhibit 1.) Health care companies, telecommunications businesses, media companies, public-service organizations, and industrial and consumer goods businesses rich in intellectual property are all increasingly likely targets that have much to lose if their IT systems and information are not sufficiently secure. (See The Trust Advantage: How to Win with Big Data, BCG Focus, November 2013.)

After all, the targets of hackers and data thieves are often not the systems themselves but rather the information they store and process. And the value of that information often lies in the eyes of the (illegitimate) beholder. Strategic plans and information related to a company’s market, production, and pricing strategies are obviously high-value assets that must be carefully protected. But other information, which the company might deem far less critical, could well be of utmost interest to competitors, criminals, nation-backed third parties, or the public. (A food services company, for example, might consider its customer orders to be of relatively little value to third parties and might not go to great lengths to protect that information; but if, say, one of the company’s customers happens to be a law enforcement agency, an atypically large order on a given day could signal to an interested outsider that the agency is planning a major operation.)

And the circle of organizations at risk continues to widen. IT security is quickly becoming a critical concern for companies that use computers not just to crunch numbers but to monitor, move, and control critical equipment, machines, and production lines. For such companies, compromised IT security of their cyberphysical systems can have severe operational and health, safety, and environmental implications. A slightly maladjusted welding robot, for example, could do considerable damage to a car’s stability—and its manufacturer’s reputation. The Stuxnet computer virus is another, still top-of-mind example of the potential risk at hand. So it is no surprise that such companies are focusing more and more on industrial IT security.

In short, the problem now spans businesses of all types. But it does not stop there. Governments are clearly vulnerable to IT and information security risk, and increasing numbers are taking defensive actions. The UK’s Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, the U.S. National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center, the Australian Signals Directorate, and Germany’s National Cyber Response Centre and National Cyber Security Council are entities that have been created specifically to focus on the problem.

Optimizing IT and Information Security

A program intended to provide effective security for a company’s information and the technology used to store and process it must address a number of critical elements, including the following:

• Confidentiality: the information is accessible only to those who have either a right or a need to view it.

• Integrity: the information is accurate, valid, and reliable.

• Availability: information, resources, and services are available when needed.

• Accountability: each (trans)action can be attributed to an accountable individual.

• Provenance: the origin and history of each piece of information (or each data item) are known and well defined.

Such a program must also provide clarity and reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of controls and the validity of the assumptions underpinning the effort. The priority associated with each of these elements will vary depending on the type of company and industry.

To ensure that their security campaign is sufficiently robust, companies must view the effort through a number of lenses. Three of the most important are technology, cost, and the potential negative impact of risk and the measures taken to mitigate it. Getting the technology right entails, as a first step, understanding and quantifying the value of the risks that the company is trying to mitigate. Then the company should identify the technologies that are available for dealing with the risks of greatest concern: the mix of firewalls, intrusion detection and prevention systems, and data leakage protection that will be most effective. The company must also work to understand the use of these technologies in light of industry and national regulations—in some countries, for example, using technology to automatically identify and delete spam may violate constitutionally protected communications.

Cost is obviously another key consideration. Given that a totally secure environment is impossible to create, a company must determine the base level of security it needs—in other words, what is the maximum risk (reputational, operational, or financial, including the cost of remediation) that the company is willing to live with—and then gauge the marginal value of any additional security to be gained through further spending. The company can then decide what level of spending is optimal given its business strategy, tolerance for brand and operational risk, and other considerations. While this sounds like a reasonably straightforward assessment, it is not an easy one, and we find that most companies labor with it.

Finally, it is essential to take into account the potential negative impact on the business—including its culture, flexibility, ability to innovate, and speed of innovation—of both unmanaged risk and any risk-mitigation measures that are put in place. As with cost, this is ultimately a question of balance, and companies will have to identify their particular sweet spot. We have seen a number of companies struggle with this, including several resource and engineering companies that operate internationally. One of them, in an effort to minimize the risk of data theft and espionage, does not allow its employees to bring their laptop computers and mobile devices to countries it deems high risk. The logistical challenges that this policy can pose to employees are considerable. What, for example, should an employee do when his or her itinerary for a regional, multicountry business trip calls for a visit to a high-risk country at the midpoint? Leave all this equipment home, at the expense of efficiency throughout the trip? Or follow the somewhat questionable advice of the IT department and take twolaptops on the trip but leave the one containing sensitive information at the hotel in the high-risk location?

Similarly, a large technology company takes a very rigorous approach to elevating its IT and information security. It does not allow its employees to store company data anywhere except on company-issued computers, and it does not enable wireless local-access networks within its offices. Further, the company does not allow visitors from satellite offices to bring their company-issued notebook computers into office headquarters—instead, visitors are given “empty” computers upon arrival. For employees, this makes the execution of standard work tasks, such as accessing presentations and answering e-mails, very challenging. Returning to the metaphor of the human immune system, this is the equivalent of an allergic or even an autoimmune reaction, in which the system attacks perfectly harmless external or internal elements, compromising the body’s overall ability to function properly.

Protection against leakage of intellectual property is a particular and rapidly growing concern for many companies and can force many difficult decisions. Should a company worried about leakage through employees’ outbound e-mails, for example, block all such transmissions or remove all attachments? Doing so would solve the immediate problem but could introduce new ones—for example, the risk of losing business when a contract is stripped from an e-mail and never reaches its intended recipient. This approach can also reduce efficiency and potentially spur employees to find alternative means of communication that the company cannot monitor. (Indeed, we have seen employees of larger companies resorting to external “freemail” accounts to get their work done after trying, unsuccessfully, to change company e-mail policies that they considered impractical.) 

Taking the opposite approach of allowing (but monitoring) all outbound communications also has trade-offs: the company’s open culture is maintained but the potential for leakage grows, necessitating investment in monitoring technology, a fast detect-and-response capability, and related staff.

These examples illustrate the types of decisions that companies will increasingly have to make. They also hint at the many complexities companies will face as they attempt to ensure security across their ecosystems—that is, the universe of organizations that they deal with in the course of operations. Note, too, that the trade-offs involved in these decisions are likely to be very different for business IT (where confidentiality is often paramount) and industrial IT (where availability is often the top priority).

Companies should aim, of course, to “do no harm” in their efforts to balance the efficacy of security measures against established norms. In cases where security measures do impinge on corporate culture and established ways of operating, companies should ensure that the necessary changes are actively managed.

Treating IT Security as a Component of Overall Risk Management

There is no ex-ante, readily calculable return on investment for IT security—like homeowner’s insurance or a car with extra air bags, it is money spent today to mitigate the risk and potential cost and impact of events that may never materialize. Hence, IT security should be viewed as a necessary cost of doing business. It should also be viewed as a component of the company’s overall IT risk-management program, which, in turn, should be considered an integral part of overall corporate risk management. (See Exhibit 2.) Often, however, we find that companies do neither.

Read More