Jon Spayde Analyses Our Cultural Concept of

Jon Spayde analyses our cultural concept of choice in his Utne article, "The Unbearable Lightness of Choosing." The author tries to convey underlying sociological and psychological meanings of personal choice and personal freedom. In American society, the doctrine of freedom is often conveyed through the ideal of unlimited choices, especially with respect to material goods. From the dozens of different breakfast cereals to the equally myriad variety of world religions to choose from, Americans value variety and multiple options.

However, Spayde argues that this notion of freedom, expressed through unlimited personal choice, is essentially a self-centered interpretation. The choices we Westerners make are based on selfish desires: "what do I want?" It removes family, friends, and the community from the decision-making process. This interpretation of freedom and choice causes many of our societal ills, according to Spayde, who criticizes the American vision of "choicefullness." Instead of becoming fixated on variety of personal choice, Spayde advocates basing choices on connectedness and friendship: making decisions based on the common good.

Spayde's position seems to be in radical opposition to American consumer consciousness. Whereas a bombardment of advertisements presents a particular worldview in which consumer choice is paramount to friendship, Spayde suggests that unlimited choice actually restricts our freedom. The economic model of choice is delusional because the isolating nature of consumerism makes decision-making more difficult. We feel isolated when we are reduced to homo economicus," Spayde states on page 3.

The "blitz" of information that bombards our senses from the mass media clouds a true, honest, and positive vision of the universe. Using Einstein's example, Spayde argues that we need to decide that the universe is a friendly place in order to make decisions that will nurture us. Moreover, Spayde defends "bad" decisions, affirming that there is really no such thing as a wrong choice: every choice leads us somewhere meaningful. The most significant events in our lives are those not made by personal choice but by circumstance.

According to Spayde, Americans are uncomfortable with this sense of powerlessness: we are taught to control every aspect of our life. Now, with revolutions in science, we can choose our own gender, our own facial features, possibly even the genetic codes of our children. We can choose which religion to practice, where to live, and what profession to pursue.

These choices were not always available to us, but this level of personal choice has become part of the American way of life, what we assume our soldiers fight for in the so-called "war on terror." Spayde cleverly connects the current American foreign policy and xenophobia with this distorted sense of freedom. Our president insists," says Spayde, "that terrorists and other enemies wish us ill because of their blind hatred of freedom," (1). This is the dogma we are fed as Americans, perpetrated by the mass media.

However, Spayde examines exactly what this "freedom" means. For many Americans, freedom entails purchasing power. Therefore, the poor can be considered genuinely disenfranchised; their personal liberty is limited by their lack of financial means. Anyone who must place limits on their consumer choices is considered to have a lack of freedom. However, this concept of freedom is unhealthy, unproductive, and contributes to dissatisfaction and isolation. The truly meaningful parts of life: love, friendship, family, creativity, and joy, are not determined by this illusory freedom.

Consumer goods can occupy our attention for a limited time but rarely offer soul-satisfaction. There is nothing wrong with getting excited about a new car or video game consol, but to place those items as higher priorities than love, friendship, and creativity causes a plethora of problems. Families and friendships frequently break up over choices based solely on money. In fact, Americans often delude themselves about choices. In many European countries, choices are even more varied than in the New World.

The best example is the Netherlands, a country in which drug and sex laws are far more liberal than the United States. Personal choice about what substances to inject or how to conduct oneself in the wee hours of the night is more limited in the States than it is in many northern European nations. Yet most Scandinavian countries probably have fewer selections of breakfast cereals or SUVs than in the States. In Europe, personal freedom is interpreted differently than in America.

Personal freedoms are more restrictive in many parts of the world, especially in countries with strong religious traditions. For instance, in India, it is important to marry within ones own caste and religion. Even with increased tolerance and awareness, such limitations of personal choice are still common practice. The rights of women are also far more limited. These are the types of freedoms are those that most Americans claim to defend when we go to war.

There is certainly something to be said and defended about the freedom of religion, speech, and press; that goes without saying. Yet in this time of "war," those freedoms are under severe and subtle attack. The right to criticize the American president has become muted. The right to express points-of-view that diverge from the norm, such as anti-war sentiments, has been squelched. Patriotism has come to signify adherence to the White House, rather than adherence to the Bill of Rights.

Celebrities are mocked when they protest; individual citizens are silenced or even jailed when holding public protests. These are the choices that matter: the decision to disagree and to persuade others to do the same; the decision to not buy a new car or to not tune into network television news. Beyond what Spayde says in his article about the importance of friendship and connectedness,.