Voluntarism and determinism are false alternatives, since both commitment and passivity are socially produced

Evidence

In that sense, there never is an alternative between voluntarism and determinism (which is exactly what the theologians sought to argue): your commitment to praxis is then not a disproof of the doctrine of objective circumstances (the situation being or not being “ripe”) but, on the contrary, testifies to this last from the inside and confirms it, just as “infantile” or suicidal voluntarism confirms it the other way round, being itself fully as much a product of social circumstances as collective praxis. … One’s reaction to necessity, in other words, is itself an expression of freedom. — Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic…, 708

Categorization

• XREF: Directly relevant to the reader’s stated task — the voluntarism/determinism collapse bears on whether the ‘cultural dominant’ thesis (like predestination or climate crisis) can be refused at the level of individual style, or whether refusal is itself caught in the system.
• DEEPTHINKING: The claim that even demoralization — the appropriation of determinism as an excuse for passivity — is itself socially produced and therefore still free is a genuinely paradigm-shifting knot that resists summary; the reader could sit with this against their own cognitive map.