Here is an essay I wrote detesting an article in an editorial by Laurence Glickman. Consumer Society in American History: A Reader. Copyright 1999 by Cornell University. "The Tyranny of Choice". Steven, where ever you are. Construct a better argument.
Over the time span of this class on the American Dream, I've read several interesting, and some uninteresting, articles on the American Dream; the problems, solutions, the causes, and the effects. None of those articles irked me more than a few about choice, and how it has become a nuisance in America. An article by Steven Waldman, titled "The Tyranny of Choice", hit me the hardest. To truly understand the articles I must truly understand the writer. Through the trusty internet I discovered that Mr. Waldman is the creator of the website Beliefnet.com, a site dedicated to various multi-faith religions. The site is loaded with self-esteem boosting articles and ads, several articles on maintaining mental and physical health, and a few snippets on family bonding and what not. Religion is a vessel of one-sided proclamation, an institution where one word is right and that's final. Possibly Mr. Waldman's primary faith, I assume is one of the various Christian sects, has not only affected his religious thought but his political and consumer stance as well. Falling under the hypnosis of the Roman Catholic Church or Lutheranism, whatever it may be, has entranced Mr. Waldman to take stances on products and political positions. I'm sure that if I visited Mr. Waldman's home I would see nothing but BMW's in his driveway because BMW is "the ultimate driving machine". He only uses Mac computer's because he feels it makes him part of the "Mac Community". I can only speculate about Mr. Waldman's personal life, however I find it odd that his website would advertise several religions like Christianity (which appears first on his list, I wonder why), Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism, when he himself bashes the arise of various religious sects.
Waldman's article is full of strange ideas and Nazi-like ideals. I do not know why Laurence Glickman included this article in his reader "Consumer Society in American History". Waldman's article almost seems like a giant blob of sarcasm, but after reading through its various times and grabbing multiple second opinions from other students it seems he is dead on serious about his article. Mr. Waldman starts off by mentioning how much of a baby he is when it comes to buying socks. Stating your emotional instability isn’t the best thing to do when trying to construct a serious argument. I have personally worn some intense socks in my life, and let me tell you first hand that socks meant to enhance certain things, either for basketball, running, or just keeping your toes warm in the winter do what they say they do. These items are carefully developed and crafted to ensure the utmost comfort for the wearer. If Steven Waldman needs help picking out socks he should have called his mother. He didn't seem to understand that he doesn’t need to buy an individual pair of socks for every other activity he claims to partake in. Socks are socks; they go on your feet and prevent all sorts of nasty blisters and whatever from occurring. He seemed to have missed the point that when you shop at a high quality store, you will encounter high quality products and many of them. I feel he tried to outwit the sales woman working at the sock store "What if I play racquetball occasionally and run occasionally and walk sometimes, but I don't want to get a different sock for each one?" (359). Does he not understand that it is the sales representative's job to sell him certain socks depending on what he needed. I understand that some companies fluff up the truth a little bit, making intense names for what their socks do, it's a marketing technique and it works. But I guarantee that when you buy those socks with the "Cushion Engineered (TM) Zone Defense" (359) that you will feel like you’re walking on clouds when you put those suckers on. Waldman isn't a bad writer, in fact some of the metaphors he uses are really good, but I feel like he just can't make choices and unfortunately he uses his clever writing skills to try and make other people believe that a lot of choices is a bad thing. "I keep thinking that the more choices there are, the more wrong choices there are - and the higher odds I'll make a mistake." (360). Sure, statistically this statement is true; however what happens when the one choice you have IS the wrong choice. Choice is the one thing that allows this world to be peaceful. It is obvious that Waldman looks past this point, historical figures imposing one choice upon their citizens; millions of people have died because they were given one or few choices. They died in revolt; they died because they wouldn't conform to the one choice given. There is no right choice, but there is a wrong choice. The wrong choice is only giving people one or few choices, when I walk down a sock isle and see over 300 varieties of socks it makes me happy. Happy that I have all these choices and that I don’t have to settle for one brand of Nazi socks. I know it sounds ridiculous, but from socks to religion being able to choose what is best for you is what makes America great. Waldman quotes a professor at the Wharton Business School who said "If you're overwhelmed by the sock store, don't go there anymore." and he is right. "The beauty of the free market, he explains, is that each individual can select which options to exploit or ignore." (361). Waldman tries to discredit Cohen by saying "Cohen's rational approach fails to account for how the mind actually processes all this variety. In fact, choice can be profoundly debilitating. It forces us to squander our time, weakens our connections to people and places, and can even poison our sense of contentedness." (361). Did your pastor tell you that, Steven? The facts are, stated by Waldman himself, that Waldman is clearly being irrational. Choices are debilitating to those who are too weak to make them. I cannot see what time could possibly be squandered on picking out the better product. Waldman is being childish, he refuses to see that when time is taken to make a choice, the choice made in that time is not only educated, but well thought out, and properly determined. He seeks instant gratification in any product he buys, and wants that product to be the only choice, because it fits his needs. For being a religious fanatic, I'm surprised to see how selfish he is. Don't the needs of others come before your own needs, Steven?
Mr. Waldman begins then to explain how "Choice erodes commitment" he speaks of "Brand commitment" (361) and how it has been declining. The idea that one should be married to their brand of socks or cars is foolish. Psychologically I would determine that Mr. Waldman is, or was at the time, experiencing connectivity issues. He needed to feel involved in a group either because he feels he falls short individually or that he feels his way is best. I do not have a degree in psychology, but I know enough about people and the way they act in groups. I'm sure Mr. Waldman has attended something like a Ford Mustang show or a Star Trek convention in his life. People who attend these events feel comforted to be involved in a group were they feel welcomed because they share interests. Of course I must admit I've attended Mustang shows myself, but I don't drive a Mustang, never have, but I respect the craftsmanship of the vehicle. While some Mustang enthusiasts full on worship the vehicle and are convinced there is nothing better. I don't want to entirely discredit Mr. Waldman, but I do insist he takes a back seat on the issue because he is obviously biased. Commitment is an old world term, why be committed to someone or something when everything is subject to change. I will not bend my beliefs to the beliefs of a brand or person, I will support a brand or a person when their beliefs either coincide with mine or are better than mine. While reading Waldman’s article I almost burst into tears myself, it is sad to see a man broken only because he can't sort through socks or the Consumer Reports, I can only hope that he is exaggerating.
The straw that broke the camel’s back is Mr. Waldman's section "Choice Causes Political Alienation" (363). This is where, I fear, Waldman is the most Nazi-like. He says "it's nearly impossible to sort through a candidate’s 'stands' on the 'issues' from a blizzard of untrustworthy ads, a newspaper editorial, or a blip on the TV news... No wonder voters, like shoppers, act impulsively or vote according to the wisdom of their favorite interest group." (363). I agree 100% on this statement, and it's true, it is nearly impossible to sort through all the rubbish thrown at us through the mail or the tube. But, Steven, this is America. We cannot have one party representing all of the views of the people, I do find it ridiculous that there is a "222-page ballot pamphlet", I would rather call that a ballot book. I could trust that ballot book better than I could trust some political propaganda aimed towards another candidate. I could write an essay alone on this issue, is it right to give all this information to voters and expect them to choose the best possible candidate? I'll respond to my own question by asking another question, have you read the terms of service on every website you sign up for on the internet? It's the same problem, pages upon pages of what you can or can't do. I try to make a habit of reading the terms of service, it is just like a contract, you sign it and you must abide by it or lose your privileges. Read the 222-page ballot, because by voting you are signing off that you know much about the candidate you vote for and you are responsible for the outcome.
By now I feel as if I'm being spoon-fed propaganda by the Soviet Union, or something, and Mr. Waldman decides to get Freudian on me by telling me that "Choice Erodes the Self" (364). It's obvious what Waldman intends to argue in this part of his article, however, I think he falls short. "If choice is self-definition, more choices mean more possible definitions." (364). I fail to see how that makes sense. More possible definitions mean higher degrees of self-definition, if I could choose a car, a paintjob on the car, embroider the seats with my face, or turn the exhaust into a flame thrower doesn't that allow me to express myself easier than if I were to only have access to one car, one paint job, one interior, and one exhaust system? Yes. It does. People can develop their self way more extensively with the more choices they are given. Playing devil's advocate I would say "well, what happens when a person feels like the choices they are given don't properly allow them to express their self?" The answer to that is: Either get more choices or make your own choices. A good example I have is when I was shopping for a new car. I had a low budget, a very low budget. A budget at about $1000, yea I said it was low. I took a few months to find the right thousand dollar vehicle (if there even is one). I had few choices, several late model trucks, poorly built domestic clunkers, and a few old luxury models from the late 80's to early 90's. How could I properly express myself through any of those vehicles? With a few cans of spray paint and a reciprocating saw. At the end of his rant Waldman says "They [people who work hard to improve their appearance] become like politicians with their own private pollsters; the quest to re-create virtually supplants whatever person was once there." (364). Waldman seemed to have forgotten the fact that people change, and change at a rapid rate. I have friends that have different goals every week, some people change the way they think and act either because they learn another choice is better, or easier, than the choice they had chosen before. Take a look at college students changing majors or a young adult shifting interest in a career, it happens a lot and mostly for the better. I wish I had more choices in a career, but my choices are limited due to monetary restraint, my current major, my size, my gender, my age, and the list goes on and on.
The last section of Waldman's article is called "Choice Reduces Social Bonding", after reading through this section thoroughly I found he had a few sound arguments, including short arguments about Regulatory Agencies and school uniforms. He stated that "Some school districts have required uniforms in order to curb the clothing competition that has led to killings over sneakers." (365). Of course I don't believe this is the direct stimulus for instituting school uniforms, I believe it is more of a device to instill order in unruly children, or to suppress gang activity in schools that lead to killings. But more-or-less I feel he's close to the point. He mentions "The Food and Drug Administration recently announced rules to standardize product labels that should simplify our task in the supermarket." (365). I support the simplification of labels; however, I don't appreciate putting a damper on the artistic design of product labels. There's a difference between selling your product on several false or over-exaggerated slogans, but the artists work on the front of the package to grab your attention shouldn’t be limited. It is someone’s job to make a cardboard box or plastic wrapping look beautiful, I would refuse to support the standardization of anything artistic. His arguments about school uniforms and over-exaggerated packaging aside, he contradicts his own argument a few sentences later. Waldman says "Bicycle stores now offer 'hybrids' for those who can't decide between mountain, city, touring, and racing." (365). So now they have to decide between hybrid, mountain, city, touring, and racing? That doesn't help your argument much Mr. Waldman, you just said that by adding more choices the consumer is now put to ease because of the choice of the hybrid bicycle. This helps my argument though, the addition of choices like these are, in fact, better than the previous choices laid out. The more and more choices arrive, the better the choices get. We as a people, The American people, the People of the World, are still learning. We create better items every day, leaving previous choices obsolete. The more and more choices that arrive, the less bad choices we have. Take McDonalds for instance, back in the 70's they really didn't know better, or didn't care, to package their Big Macs in Styrofoam containers full of CFC's. Now they have the choice of more environmentally friendly packaging. Bingo. Problem solved, as technology advances (at this rampant rate) we have the right choices laid out in front of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment