Fishburn Hedges

09.07.2010

I went along to an RSA Thursday talk yesterday, with Professor Renata Salecl talking about the ‘paradox of choice.’ Her argument was, in a nutshell, that too much choice can be a bad thing. 

Capitalism promotes an ideology of choice, where we are forced to think of ourselves as having choice. We like the idea we’re autonomous beings, and buy into a system that promotes that idea. This hurts us, because it’s not true: we get anxious about making choices and become indecisive. 

We aspire to a self-mastery which is unachievable. So paradoxically, the idea that people can make their own life pacifies people, dampens potential critiques of society, and thus can stop genuine social change. 

That’s a crude summary, and she certainly explains it better. But even with that caveat, I’m still far from convinced.

Emotionally mature choices

Partly, that’s because so much of the critique of choice would seem to be punctured by emotional maturity. Simply being grown-up seems a fairly decent way to navigate complex choices and resist unrealistic social aspirations. 

But it’s also because Salecl doesn’t seem to place her argument in context. 

First, does her argument actually matter? Even if it’s bad for us, and even if choices are irrational, I think that you can’t remove choice, and you shouldn’t. 

You can’t – because the political and practical obstacles are immense. People like choice, and they like thinking they have choice. If choice comes with consumer capitalism, then presumably that’s what you need to change. Good luck with that one.  

And you shouldn’t – because even if choice is an illusion, can you really object to people having it? It’s a philosophical minefield, but it boils down to whether people make their own choices, or have their choices made for them. Even if people are subject to umpteem influences when making a choice – genetic, economic, social, and more -  it’s something much stronger to say that choice shouldn’t exist. 

Choice is fact

Second, there’s a seam of writing and thinking that has already moved beyond the problems that Salecl raises. This is where nudge and related theories sit. Moot point whether they manage to balance desired social outcomes with individual free will, but ‘libertarian paternalism’ at least makes a stab at it. 

Point being, they accept choice as a fact, and try to influence and structure our choices – rather than stopping at identifying that choice can paralyse us. 

Now, again that caveat: this is based on a lunchtime summary of the argument, not a detailed discussion. But overall, I think I would rather choose badly, irrationally, wrongly, be nudged and deal with the pressures of choice, than worry about having too much choice.

Posted by Gordon Hector