
Self-Determination: The Tyranny of Freedom (2000) [pdf] - Dowwie
http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/bschwar1/self-determination.pdf
======
adrianratnapala
I am at work right now, so I can only respond to the abstract.

 _One significant task for a future psychology of optimal functioning is to
deemphasize individual freedom and to determine which cultural constraints are
necessary for people to live meaningful and satisfying lives._

The big leap here is the assumption that the allegedly necessary cultural
constraints have to be determined from the outside. Liberal democracies,
especially the USA, allow overlapping cultural groups to provide such
constraints along with the safety valve of exit -- e.g. the Amish can have
their culture, but individuals who are sick of it can still survive as "mere"
Americans.

Now it is true that nominally "liberal" regimes sometimes try to choke off
these groups. E.g. it is very unlikely that a new group as outlandish as the
Amish would be allowed to form. But if you don't like such burka-banning
tendencies, please note that the problem is not _too much_ freedom, but too
much constraint.

~~~
ouid
I don't think you're thinking about this properly. There's no safety net for
someone who wants to quit being amish. They are free to leave, but they do not
have the capacity to fend for themselves outside of the cult.

I think the larger problem is that you don't have a definition of freedom. You
throw the word around like it has formal implications, but I challenge you to
present one example of "freedom" that does not end up being oppression to
someone else.

~~~
joeblow9999
"but I challenge you to present one example of "freedom" that does not end up
being oppression to someone else."

Freedom to make hyperbolic comments on internet forums?

~~~
ouid
I'm using resources to post here. My internet is coal powered. Is that not
oppressive to everyone? It doesn't matter that the answers are trivial. The
point is that everything is scarce. Freedom is a meaningless concept unless
you codify it. Liberty and justice are fundamentally at odds with each other.
That's why we form governments.

------
Sideloader
I’ve only read the abstract (will read the full paper when I get home) and I
think the authors are on to something. Our society with its emphasis on cold,
mathematical calculation and material gain as the only valid measure of
success, which proponents erroneously term "objective", while shunning the
emotional "subjective" needs of people and leaving very little room for error,
is becoming increasingly dehumanized.

The humanities = waste of time, STEM + markets = useful and objective [sic]
ideology is bleeding the life force out of society. But people are not cold,
hyper-rational machines. The academic Wendy Brown defined this system (which
she calls neoliberalism) as follows:

What distinguishes neoliberalism is not simply a commitment to capitalism or
to markets, but an effort to transform all spheres of human life in ways that
render them amendable to economic calculation.

I think she is spot on. I am looking forward to reading this paper which seems
to complement Brown's point. Thanks for posting it!

------
scythe
Psychological critiques of modernity are in my opinion the _strongest_
criticisms of modern life (relative to sociological/philosophical/religious
objections) and have quite a history, starting with Freud's "Civilization and
its Discontents". But one frustrating commonality among these analyses is the
difficulty of turning any of the insights into practical policy proposals.

I like this quote:

>A better (empirically more accurate and psychologically healthier) model of
self-determination is, I think, akin to our understanding of human linguistic
abilities. The capacity to use language is perhaps the single most liberating
characteristic of human beings. It frees people in significant ways from the
temporal and material limitations that afflict other organisms. People can say
anything about anything, at any time, or in any place--even things, times, and
places that have never existed--and they can be understood. Therefore,
language is probably as vivid an embodiment of human freedom and self-
determination as anything. But what decades of re- search on language ability
have made clear is that the thing that makes the liberating features of
language possible is that language is heavily constrained by rules. The reason
people can say anything and be understood is that they can't say everything.
It is linguistic constraint, in the form of these rules, that makes linguistic
freedom possible.

------
oktobercrisis
This paper is ahead of its time. The birth and popularization of the term
"Fear of Missing Out" (FOMO) entering every-day life is a testament to this.

The amount of choices we have now compared to the publication date (2000) is
staggering when you take into account social media.

The paper also references Putman's work in 'Bowling Alone' (mid 90s) which
speaks about in depth about the breakdown of community in America.

Unfortunately, it seems like this is only progressing. It seems to be
manifesting itself in mass-shootings and mental illness.

~~~
iamhamm
I had that exact reaction: that this paper was the earliest (that I've seen)
formation of the FOMO concept. It's interesting to think back to 2000 and, as
you note, consider how much additional choice we're bombarded with today.
Certainly a prescient paper.

------
mlevental
same author
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice)

