Barry Schwartz clears it all up
While I was in college at Swarthmore, I had a sneaking suspicion that maybe we weren’t so relevant, that no matter how serious we took ourselves, how many books we had, maybe people in the outside world wouldn’t take our ideas seriously. Maybe they wouldn’t realize our theories were about things that mattered. A recent article by Swarthmore professor Barry Schwartz in the New York Times — arguably a quite respectable, relevant newspaper — proves me wrong.
I was first exposed to the forward-thinking ideas of Professor Schwartz in a lecture he gave to the incoming class in 1996. He made an impassioned argument that the real problem facing our generation was that of too much choice. “You only have to look at jeans,” he said, choosing an article of clothing near and dear to us young consumers. “Why, when I was young, the only choice was small, medium, or large. Jeans were jeans. Now, first you choose the ‘fit’ — straight-leg, low rise, boot cut, loose fit, comfort fit, or just plain baggy? Then the color — stone washed, acid washed, classic… Button-fly or zipper?” The crowed went wild. Finally someone who understood the real difficulties facing young America. Forget the fact that one in three children were living in poverty: at least they didn’t have to face the choice of which Levis to buy.
In the New York Times article (January 22, 2004), Professor Schwartz confronts President Bush head-on. The theory that more choice is better, he explains, is “near to [Bush’s] heart”. To solve problems in “education, health care and a host of other issues,” he says, Bush falls back on the logic of increasing personal choice.
It may surprise the reader — who erroneously believed that Bush’s plans to privatize social security, Medicare, education, etc., had more to do with funneling public funds to private profits — to learn that in fact Bush is instead inspired by a deep belief in the power of personal choice. Professor Schwartz quotes Bush’s state of the union address: “Younger workers should have the opportunity to build a nest egg by saving part of their Social Security taxes in a personal retirement account.” Opportunity. Choice. And I thought it Bush was only about making the rich richer.
Professor Schwartz gives us the intellectual ammunition to fight this tyranny of choice. He quotes results from several scientific studies from leading psychologists to prove that “for many people, increased choice can lead to a decrease in satisfaction. Too many options can result in paralysis, not liberation.” A study from Stanford and Columbia proves that the more varieties of jam available to customers, the more likely they are to not buy any jam at all. In a study by Mr. Schwartz himself, college graduates who have more jobs available to them are more frustrated with the job search process, not less, as well as “more anxious, pessimistic, disappointed, frustrated and depressed.”
Far from the irrelevance of jargon-ridden theories that Swarthmore used to represent, Professor Schwartz gives us the practical tools to fight President Bush’s tireless campaign to give Americans more choices. Later, he extends the argument to the hot topic of Iraqi democracy: “Free and fair elections are fine and good, but what will happen when the Iraqis are faced with a ballot full of political parties? Paralysis, frustration. That is where Bush is leading the Iraqi people.” And then the employment issue: “The unemployment rate has declined the last two months, but not because more of the population is working. It’s because the unemployed, faced with the difficult choice of whether or not to keep searching for a job, become paralyzed, unsatisfied. They stop looking for a job altogether [excluding them from being counted as unemployed]. This paralysis is where President Bush is leading the average American.”
For out-of-touch readers who were against the invasion of Iraq because innocent people would be killed, against unemployment because it means families struggling to feed their children, or against privatizing social security because it would mean more profits to Wall Street and less money returned to the American people, Professor Schwartz clarifies President Bush’s real driving force, our real enemy: personal choice. And he gives us the tools to fight against it. With this article in the Times, Barry Schwartz renews my faith in a new Swarthmore College, far from the out-of-touch, isolated, overly theoretical Swarthmore I thought I knew. Makes me proud.
I was first exposed to the forward-thinking ideas of Professor Schwartz in a lecture he gave to the incoming class in 1996. He made an impassioned argument that the real problem facing our generation was that of too much choice. “You only have to look at jeans,” he said, choosing an article of clothing near and dear to us young consumers. “Why, when I was young, the only choice was small, medium, or large. Jeans were jeans. Now, first you choose the ‘fit’ — straight-leg, low rise, boot cut, loose fit, comfort fit, or just plain baggy? Then the color — stone washed, acid washed, classic… Button-fly or zipper?” The crowed went wild. Finally someone who understood the real difficulties facing young America. Forget the fact that one in three children were living in poverty: at least they didn’t have to face the choice of which Levis to buy.
In the New York Times article (January 22, 2004), Professor Schwartz confronts President Bush head-on. The theory that more choice is better, he explains, is “near to [Bush’s] heart”. To solve problems in “education, health care and a host of other issues,” he says, Bush falls back on the logic of increasing personal choice.
It may surprise the reader — who erroneously believed that Bush’s plans to privatize social security, Medicare, education, etc., had more to do with funneling public funds to private profits — to learn that in fact Bush is instead inspired by a deep belief in the power of personal choice. Professor Schwartz quotes Bush’s state of the union address: “Younger workers should have the opportunity to build a nest egg by saving part of their Social Security taxes in a personal retirement account.” Opportunity. Choice. And I thought it Bush was only about making the rich richer.
Professor Schwartz gives us the intellectual ammunition to fight this tyranny of choice. He quotes results from several scientific studies from leading psychologists to prove that “for many people, increased choice can lead to a decrease in satisfaction. Too many options can result in paralysis, not liberation.” A study from Stanford and Columbia proves that the more varieties of jam available to customers, the more likely they are to not buy any jam at all. In a study by Mr. Schwartz himself, college graduates who have more jobs available to them are more frustrated with the job search process, not less, as well as “more anxious, pessimistic, disappointed, frustrated and depressed.”
Far from the irrelevance of jargon-ridden theories that Swarthmore used to represent, Professor Schwartz gives us the practical tools to fight President Bush’s tireless campaign to give Americans more choices. Later, he extends the argument to the hot topic of Iraqi democracy: “Free and fair elections are fine and good, but what will happen when the Iraqis are faced with a ballot full of political parties? Paralysis, frustration. That is where Bush is leading the Iraqi people.” And then the employment issue: “The unemployment rate has declined the last two months, but not because more of the population is working. It’s because the unemployed, faced with the difficult choice of whether or not to keep searching for a job, become paralyzed, unsatisfied. They stop looking for a job altogether [excluding them from being counted as unemployed]. This paralysis is where President Bush is leading the average American.”
For out-of-touch readers who were against the invasion of Iraq because innocent people would be killed, against unemployment because it means families struggling to feed their children, or against privatizing social security because it would mean more profits to Wall Street and less money returned to the American people, Professor Schwartz clarifies President Bush’s real driving force, our real enemy: personal choice. And he gives us the tools to fight against it. With this article in the Times, Barry Schwartz renews my faith in a new Swarthmore College, far from the out-of-touch, isolated, overly theoretical Swarthmore I thought I knew. Makes me proud.
previously there was Paraguay: A forgotten country?
afterwards you have president Kirchner, cumbiero
“Freedom is the absence of choice” -Sufi Muslim saying, and
“So many Gods, so many creeds,
So many paths that wind and wind,
When just the art of being kind
Is all this sad world needs” - Ella Wheeler Wilcox [submitted on 15 Feb 04]
this speech of Bush about the goodness of having to much choices reminds me the argentine´s public services privatization experience. nowadays we are in hands of huges companies istead of the state.
wea re a good example of “false choices” [submitted on 17 Feb 04]
Prof. Schwartz's theories about choice in modern markets, with exensive marketing departments creating ‘needs’ (for 20 different styles of jeans), are clearly applicable to someone staring at a rack of merchandise. I am suprised even Mr. Schwartz would think they should be applied seriously in a national policy debate with so many other variables in play, such as in the case of the Social Security system.
That clarified... What do I propose? ... about what, exactly? [submitted on 03 Jun 04]
BUENO LA MUSICA ESTA RE BUENA CHAU
PABLO PEDRAZA DE LAFERRERE [submitted on 21 Aug 04]