How Much Do Circumstances Determine Human Behavior? GRE Issue Essay

People do not choose the conditions into which they are born, the laws that govern them, or every crisis that confronts them. Yet circumstances rarely dictate a single response: people interpret pressures, make decisions within limits, and sometimes resist. Human behavior is therefore substantially shaped by forces beyond individual control, especially when those forces determine the options available. But “shaped” is not the same as wholly determined. Recognizing both constraint and agency matters because it explains why people may act similarly under coercive conditions while also preserving the possibility of meaningful choice.

The incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II shows how powerfully institutions can constrain behavior. President Franklin Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066 authorized military commanders to exclude civilians from designated military areas. Although the order did not name an ethnic group, Lieutenant General John L. DeWitt imposed curfews only on Japanese Americans. Congress then made violations of the order punishable by imprisonment or a fine. These measures did more than express public suspicion: they narrowed ordinary choices by making compliance legally compulsory and resistance punishable. In this setting, conduct such as obeying a curfew cannot fairly be treated as evidence of free agreement. The example supports the claim that political authority can shape behavior by controlling the costs of acting otherwise.

The subsequent forced removal makes the limits of personal agency still clearer. Public Proclamation No. 4 initiated evacuation and detention on 48 hours’ notice; approximately 122,000 people were moved to assembly centers and then confined in guarded relocation centers. Nearly 70,000 were American citizens, yet the government filed no charges against them and they could not appeal their incarceration. A person facing such a sudden order had little practical opportunity to protect a home, livelihood, or family through ordinary legal channels. National Archives estimates of property and income losses show that the consequences extended beyond confinement. This is not a case in which people’s preferences alone explain their circumstances: state power shaped both the choices available and the material costs of those choices.

Still, the same history warns against confusing constrained action with the disappearance of agency. People subjected to a coercive system may have little control over whether they are removed, but they retain moral worth and the capacity to interpret, remember, and judge what is done to them. That distinction matters: saying circumstances shaped a person’s outward behavior does not establish that the person accepted the circumstances or that the authorities’ actions were justified. Nor should an observer infer an individual’s feelings from compliance alone. The historical example therefore strengthens a qualified position rather than a deterministic one: institutions can dictate immediate conduct while failing to dictate private belief or erase personal judgment.

Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice offers a contrasting scale, showing how social and economic circumstances influence decisions without making them automatic. Charlotte Lucas accepts Mr. Collins, a match Elizabeth Bennet considers unsuitable and fears will not make Charlotte happy. Charlotte’s decision can be understood in light of the limited security available to women in her social position, while Elizabeth refuses Collins despite his confidence that she will accept. Their contrasting choices prevent a simplistic conclusion that social pressure produces identical behavior. Austen thus presents circumstance as a force that helps explain a decision, not a complete substitute for the decision-maker. Elizabeth’s refusal is evidence of agency, although it does not prove that every person has equal freedom to refuse.

A strong challenge to this view is that people may be so shaped by upbringing, emotion, and dependence that what appears to be a free choice is largely an effect of prior conditions. Austen gives this challenge real force through Lydia Bennet’s elopement with Wickham. Lydia leaves expecting to become Lydia Wickham, and the family later learns that they married. Her impulsive decision exposes her to consequences that her youth and limited judgment may make difficult to foresee. Moreover, Darcy’s intervention helps resolve the situation and restore Lydia’s reputation. The episode demonstrates that outcomes can depend on resources and assistance beyond the person whose behavior is being judged. However, explaining Lydia’s vulnerability through circumstance need not mean that her decisions were inevitable; explanation can reduce simplistic blame without erasing responsibility.

The more persuasive conclusion, then, is that circumstances strongly influence behavior by shaping incentives, opportunities, risks, and access to resources, but they do not invariably determine a person’s response. The contrast between state-imposed confinement and the distinct decisions of Austen’s characters shows why neither extreme is adequate. Treating people as wholly self-determining ignores coercion and unequal options; treating them as products of circumstance alone obscures judgment, resistance, and responsibility. A careful evaluation asks what choices were realistically available, what pressures attached to each choice, and what the person could reasonably understand. That approach neither blames people for constraints they did not create nor assumes that every action was beyond their control.

How the argument works

The essay defines its position early: circumstances strongly shape behavior, but do not always determine it. It tests that claim at two scales. The historical example demonstrates how law and state power can sharply restrict choices; the literary example contrasts characters’ decisions under social pressure and considers how assistance affects outcomes. The counterargument—that prior conditions can make apparent choice less free—is developed through Lydia’s situation rather than dismissed. In your own argument, distinguish evidence from interpretation: facts establish what happened, while your reasoning explains how those facts support a claim.