to choose, or to not have a choice?

extreme makeover ruins lives! and it's globalization's fault! or, at least according to a new book intriguingly entitled the new individualism (no, not that new individualism). and i quote:

the craze for television makeover shows on gardening, plastic surgery and clothing is partly responsible for a dangerous addiction to reinvention that can ruin lives

reality shows convince viewers that they should improve themselves, creating "disposable identities" and impossible expectations. worse still, globalization creates the fast-paced and fluid economy that demands immediate, impossible, change. elliott and lemert warn this pressure leads to "emotional crisis, depression, confusion, breakdown, loss of personal identity and even suicide."

this dark forecast is contradicted by a study published in 2002 by the american psychologist. the study, by jeffrey arnett, suggests that "new individualism's" underlying force may be positive:

identity becomes less based less on prescribed social roles and more on individual choices, on decisions that each person makes about what values to embrace and what paths to pursue in love and work.

arnett poses three reactions to this choice: identity confusion, seeking refuge in a structured subculture, or open embrace of the decision. most embrace their ability to pick-and-choose, and arnett sees this as not deleterious, but as increasing the likelihood that "they will find a psychologically rewarding match between these choices and their individual desires and abilities."

this all goes back to the tired choice crap: to choose, or to not have a choice? that is the question. psychologists can debate, but i know i'd rather suffer through the agony of selecting a perfectly fitting jeans, or a much cuter nose, than be without. the real question is, would i be just as happy with ill-fitting jeans if i didn't know the perfect ones existed? no, by definition; i'd be uncomfortable.

Labels: decision making, well being