Thursday, 3 September 2009

The 'Choice' Paradox

By John Berling Hardy

Decades ago, when I was in high school, I remember studying China in Geography class. I distinctly recall having the impression of the Chinese living in some kind of Orwellian hell. One image which remained branded into my memory was that of vast roadways filled with throngs of Chinese all riding the same black bicycles.

Under the auspices of the Western capitalist model, ordinary people are subliminally coerced into participating in The Great Game. The mantra is that we live in a society in which we each have the freedom to do and think as we like - the truth is very different. That said, it would be inaccurate to call that mantra a lie: we do retain certain choices - where to live, where to work, with whom to spend our time.

When we go shopping we face a huge range of products to choose from. Despite this, whatever the brand may claim, similar products to essentially the same thing - it is only the way in which they are marketed which differs. Thus our choice is made irrelevant: whatever shampoo we choose to buy is still shampoo, and the same goes for everything from houses to insurance policies. Quantity exists, where quality is sorely lacking. Now we face a world overpowered by pollution and congestion, where no one is immune from the effects of our consumer economy. To illustrate the point, consider two examples from the modern capitalist world: the news media and the food industry.

It used to be the case that every evening the major networks would all put out half-hour broadcasts of world news. These were presented from an objective journalistic standpoint with no sense of political bias - the content from one network to another was broadly similar. By today's standards, coverage was presented from a neutral standpoint, and the presenters were less inclined to share their own views.

Following the advent of 24 hour news media, we are now faced with a bafflingly wide range of news programmes screened throughout the day on many channels. Not only has the style of programming changed, the content is different also - what was once an industry interested in presenting the facts has become a community of political opinions in the guise of fact. Analysis dominates convincingly during these broadcasts, and we as viewers are potentially presented with a huge variety of views and points of view. Now theoretically this choice empowers us as viewers - if we don't like what is being said or done on one channel we can change over to another.

In reality, the viewer selects the program based on which one most closely approximates their own, or more accurately, their tribe's viewpoint. In the meantime, despite the wealth of choices presented us, one freedom we are denied is the ability to watch a simple, unedited presentation of the facts themselves.

Let's turn now to the food industry, one of the most notable success stories of the capitalist epoch. Franchising has created a system in which we are faced with a vast array of cuisines to choose from, from all parts of the world, and all available at remarkably cheap prices. So comprehensive has been the takeover of fast food in recent decades that obesity has become a chronic problem for our society as a result.

And this is not to only problem with the food industry as it exists today. Our food is now treated with so many chemicals and processed in so unhealthy an environment that the nutrients it contains are minimal at best. Ranchers treat cattle badly, farmers use any means necessary to expedite production. The whole thing has become a machine for shovelling food into our mouths on request regardless of what it contains and how it has been made. Our crops, too, have been genetically modified to the long-term detriment of the natural ecosystems to which they belong. Indeed, quantity is produced with so little regard for quality that scientists can only guess at the damage our diets are doing to our bodies.

In an engineered reality, choice is illusory. Our perceptions are shaped to such an extent that when confronted with choices, we are so strongly predisposed to one selection that the outcome becomes entirely predictable. It is like a child who loves everything chocolate, being offered to choose between 50 flavors at an ice cream parlor. Regardless of the number of choices, be they 3 or 3000, the child's mental frame reduces the process to a simple choice between chocolate and not chocolate. Everything that is not chocolate becomes completely homogenous. Differentiations, no matter how objectively great to an objective observer, disappear because they have no relevance to the child. The irony is that the child all the while, experiences itself as being free to choose whatever ice cream they want.

And this is the way we interact with our world - however reductive it may seem. However many choices we make, we are bound to react in a particular way and choose what we perceive to be positive over what strikes us as negative. We choose what we know, and blot out the alternatives.

Now the Chinese have their choice all the world's bicycles. They can choose between racing bikes, trail bikes street bikes, you name it. They can have any of these in all the colors of the rainbow, and then some. I wonder how happy they are now?

About the Author:

No comments:

Post a Comment