The Illusion of Autonomy – An Evolutionary and Societal Mismatch

We live in a time in which autonomy is treated as one of the highest ideals. Young people are expected to separate early, build their own lives, become independent—spatially, financially, emotionally. In many Western societies, especially in the United States, this idea is deeply ingrained: growing up means leaving. Often far away.

And yet, an uncomfortable question arises: What if this ideal, in its current form, is not only exaggerated—but fundamentally misaligned with human reality?

Humans are not autonomous beings. They never were. What we call “autonomy” is, upon closer inspection, something else entirely: the ability to act within systems of dependency.

For most of human history, people did not live in isolated households, but in tightly interconnected social groups. Children were not raised by two individuals, but by many. Responsibility was distributed, not concentrated.

One widely discussed concept in this context is the so-called grandmother hypothesis. It suggests that older women played a crucial role in the survival of communities by supporting younger mothers and stabilizing social structures.

Dependency was not a flaw—it was the foundation of the system.

Even today, there are societies that retain elements of these structures: the Hadza in Tanzania, the Mosuo in China, or the Minangkabau in Indonesia.

These are not blueprints. But they demonstrate something essential:

The Western model of the isolated nuclear family is not the only viable human arrangement.

With increasing individualization, mobility, and the strong cultural emphasis on self-realization, social structures have shifted dramatically. The nuclear family has become the norm, often accompanied by physical distance from extended family.

What was once organized within a network is now outsourced: childcare, elder care, emotional support.

At the same time, more and more responsibility is concentrated on fewer and fewer people.

This development is particularly visible in the United States. A significant proportion of young adults report symptoms of depression and anxiety at levels that are clinically relevant. Among adolescents, around 40% report prolonged periods of sadness or hopelessness.

These are not marginal phenomena.

They raise a serious question: Why is the generation most strongly oriented toward autonomy and self-realization also the one experiencing the highest levels of psychological distress?

One possible explanation is an evolutionary mismatch—a growing disconnect between our social nature and the structures in which we now live.

The fragility of the current system becomes especially visible in single-parent households.

In Germany, around 40–42% of single parents are at risk of poverty—roughly three times as many as in two-parent households.

This means: A relationship breakdown can quickly become an existential risk.

In a more networked system, this would be a challenge. In a highly individualized system, it often becomes a crisis.

At the same time, the costs of elder care continue to rise. Increasing numbers of older people live in care institutions—not necessarily by choice, but because stable family structures are no longer available.

What was once managed within families is now externalized—and expensive.

Against this backdrop, it becomes necessary to rethink the concept of autonomy.

Autonomy does not mean independence. It means the ability to act within unavoidable dependencies!

The problem is not dependency. The problem is how we organize it - or fail to.

When considering alternatives, the goal is not a return to traditional extended families.

A more realistic approach might look different:

Multiple living units intentionally located in close proximity. Each with its own space, clear boundaries, and the possibility of retreat.

At the same time, a shared layer exists, a common space, physical or social, that can be used but does not have to be.

Such structures could include grandparents, parents, children, siblings, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and even chosen individuals who become part of the system.

The defining feature is not who belongs. But that someone is there when it matters.

In everyday life, individuals remain largely independent. But when care is needed, when illness occurs, or when support becomes necessary in old age, a network exists that does not need to be created from scratch.

A current example of the strain on individualized systems can be seen in the debate around so-called “gentle parenting.” Parents are expected to be emotionally present, reflective, and consistently regulated, often without sufficient support. What is frequently overlooked: The demands themselves are not new. What is new is that they are carried by fewer and fewer people.

Of course, there will always be individuals who consciously choose not to live within such structures. That is a legitimate choice. But it is not cost-neutral.

Those who opt out of shared systems must organize and finance the resulting needs individually - whether in childcare, crisis support, or old age.

Perhaps the real problem is not that humans are too dependent but that they are trying to live independently in a reality that was never designed for it. We have built a way of life that celebrates individual freedom, while quietly relying on invisible structures to catch us when things fall apart. When those structures are missing, freedom turns into pressure.

And that is exactly what we are beginning to see in parents, in young adults, in the elderly.

Perhaps it is time to ask a simple, uncomfortable question:

What if it is not we who are failing - but the model we are trying to live in?

A model that has replaced proximity with distance. Reliability with organization. Community with services.

It is not about going “back”. It is about recognizing something we never actually lost:

That humans are not designed to function alone. They are designed to be embedded.

With closeness - without suffocation.

With autonomy - without isolation.

With responsibility - but not alone.

The question is not whether we could live in the same interconnected structures again like we did in the past for thousands of years.

The question is whether we are willing to consciously design them now in an updated way - instead of continuing to stabilize systems that are clearly overwhelming more and more people. These reflections are not a finished solution. They are a starting point.

If you’re interested in exploring these models further, critically examining them, or developing them in concrete terms: The comments section is open and you are invited to use it. Thoughtful, open-minded, and unbiased - that’s exactly what we welcome here.

REFERENCES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023). Youth Risk Behavior Survey data summary & trends report. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Cutler, D. M., & Summers, L. H. (2023). The global decline in mental health among young people. JAMA, 329(1), 15–16.

Destatis. (2023). Pflegestatistik [Long-term care statistics]. Statistisches Bundesamt.

European Commission. (2022). At risk of poverty or social exclusion statistics. Eurostat.

Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend. (2023). Alleinerziehende in Deutschland: Zahlen, Daten, Fakten.

Hawkes, K. (2003). Grandmothers and the evolution of human longevity. American Journal of Human Biology, 15(3), 380–400.

Hrdy, S. B. (2009). Mothers and others: The evolutionary origins of mutual understanding. Harvard University Press.

Kolin, M., et al. (2022). Mental health among young adults in the United States. Psychiatric Services, 73(4), 365–372.

National Institute of Mental Health. (2023). Mental illness. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/mental-illness

OECD. (2022). OECD family database. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.