This week, both in International Politics and during Wednesday night’s lecture on the First Amendment delivered by Jack Balkin, I encountered numerous examples of situations in which individuals behave in accordance with their perceptions as if they are objectively true. Throughout our lives, we develop personal structures through which we contextualize events and experiences. As children, our structure is limited to our personal observations, for we lack the capacity to comprehend the scope of complex issues, such as the effects of a country’s political actions on the international community. We interpret the situations we encounter based on the socializing education we receive from our parents and peers, but we are not yet able to differentiate ourselves from those around us to a point at which we can question our environments. As we mature, we are able (or at least we believe we are able) to view our experiences somewhat objectively by tempering our emotions with reason. Our perceptions are also broader since they are founded in a wider set of past experiences, which we apply to present situations to predict potential future outcomes. We therefore assume that our actions are consistent with “objective” reality, for we employ strategies that society has taught us will ensure rationality.

The perceived threat that induces nations to build up their nuclear arsenals is a prime example of nations acting within their structures of reality, which are based on subjective interpretations of facts. Once one country decides to enhance its nuclear capabilities, other countries react to the perceived threat by investing in their own nuclear programs. Although it is possible that the intentions of the first country were not belligerent in any way, perhaps that they meant to use nuclear power for energy purposes, its actions are interpreted as aggressive due to preexisting tenuous international relationships. The escalation in nuclear weapons and anxiety quickly increases as each country continuously attempts to feel secure within the balance of power. Interestingly, despite these states’ actions being obviously based on fear, they view their calculations as rational and legitimate. Each country enacts policies based on an ideational structure that tells a certain story, which forces all “facts” to conform to that story. Even if the plotline is faulty, only information that supports it is considered and is then taken as evidence of the truthfulness of the account.

Furthermore we come to perceive the norms of society as precisely that—normal. Living within the confines of our own experience restricts our reality so that we are only able to conceive of situations that are within our realms of understanding. Since that understanding is usually cultivated by living in a single state, the only variations of life we can envision are informed by the existing societal norms that surround us. It is difficult to question those norms because oftentimes we have nothing with which to compare them, yet it is even more difficult to determine them to be lies, for that requires the understanding of alternatives and the difficult conclusion that those alternatives are superior.

This is precisely the case concerning human rights. We are only cognizant that we possess human rights when we have been told that we possess them by law, as in the constitution, and when the government subsequently protects them. The extent to which these rights protect our freedoms is determined by governmental policy and enforcement. This concept was elucidated at Jack M. Balkin’s lecture, “The First Amendment is an Information Policy,” at the 20th Annual Hugo L. Black Lecture on Freedom of Expression. Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School, spoke about the First Amendment—the right to freedom of expression—explaining that in order to ensure freedom of information, it must exist within the government’s structure. The structure of the political order establishes norms within society, and by extension the expectations among citizens as to what rights they can legitimately claim. If a government from the onset limits freedom of expression, the populous adjusts to that norm and does not necessarily know that it is possible to pursue greater freedoms, let alone that any greater freedoms exists. This notion reminded me of North Korea’s extraordinarily strict control of its citizens and its complete monopoly on the information the public receives. The regulations are so all-encompassing that most North Koreans are unaware that there are alternative, freer societal systems than theirs, believing that their norms are fair.

Everyone encounters situations from his or her own perceptual structure, which is based on one’s socialization in a certain culture that promotes certain norms. We are all citizens of nations, so our structures are necessarily subjective interpretations of a greater reality. Instead of attempting to fight this, it is possible to use it constructively through discourse to arrive at a more complete, multifarious understanding of a situation. In order for this to be possible, people must acknowledge that the perceptions they hold and the norms under which they live may not be completely informed and, therefore, may be incorrect or insufficient. Only through this mutual doubt may essential questions arise that can move the individual’s perceptions forward toward greater, more nuanced understandings, both of others’ intentions and of the possibilities for personal freedom.

Cassel is a member of the class of 2013.