On modern society... (not the Unabomber’s Manifesto, I promise)

Barry Schwartz, an American psychologist, has a theory that the increased choice in our current society has spurred on our current state of general dissatisfaction, negativity - our modern “great depression”, if you will. When he speaks of increased choices he usually means the increased choice in commercial product varieties. For example, there are now more than a dozen water varieties; some from this or that spring, some in this or another bottle, etc. In the movie (or book) ‘Fight Club’ one of the characters discusses this society's problems this way: “Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war. Our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off”.

There was a time when only one company made tissue paper – and people embraced it. Tissue paper had a use, it did its job, and people were satisfied that they could clean up their spills or wipe their nose, etc. Then a variation was made to the tissue paper, now you could get it in 2-ply, 3-ply, scented, non-scented, big pack, pocket-sized pack, in white, in blue, etc. etc. People started noticing that this brand or this particular size pack was “better” than the other, the new designs better than the old, that this one was more economical, that that one was sturdier. All of a sudden it became easier to be dissatisfied with the product even though it was still fulfilling its same purpose: cleaning up spills, soaking up snot, or whatever one may use a tissue for. Now, this isn’t a discussion about technological progress – which is essential – and was probably better dealt by Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, who’s vision to return society to a better place was to destroy all current technologies, political and commercial systems. His reasoning was to start back from scratch, from somewhere near pastoral times where small self-sufficient communities produced and traded fairly, before the demise into our current commercial system. He had a point, but I think technology has its place and it’s not that that I’m discussing.

I think the "problem" that increased choice, increased variety, has created has more to do with the general idea that is used to promote new and variant products. We are told things are better with this product, our lives happier with this one, this one will make us more attractive, that one is better for the environment, this one is faster, etc. While promoting these products we are made to believe that what we have currently, or what we are lacking, is a bad thing, an old and outdated thing, a thing that must be disliked (in preference of the new product). What is inadvertently also been promoted is dissatisfaction with our current situation or state of being. In my opinion the decline in human morale is more related to the fact that we stopped being satisfied. And we stopped being satisfied not only with our consumer products but also with ourselves for not being able to afford them, for not looking like the TV personalities that use that amazing (and expensive) hair product or plastic surgeon, for not feeling like the person on TV who drinks that soft-drink feels, etc. We are sold dissatisfaction and so we take on new and uncharacteristically human pursuits. No longer are we satisfied with health, food, and shelter, but now we feel motivated to want to earn more money, work longer hours, make other social sacrifices in order to be able to afford “happiness”.

Another thing that has happened in the process of the industrial/commercial progress in our society is we’ve become more self-centered, and maybe even more selfish. One thing some of us older ones may remember is the way things, especially electronics such as computers, used to come in a version of ‘one-size-fits-all’. And all did buy the same product and it had to fit, it had to because there wasn’t another version, you made do. Then progressively more things became customizable. You could adjust or modify things so they could suit your particular abilities or needs better. Small and larger/wider patterns of clothing became available, different fonts could be used, etc. And then more varieties of things became available that could vary not just to suit your needs, but also to accommodate your preferences. You could buy things in the colours you prefer, with the sound you like, etc. The ability of products to be customized, to be able to be “personalized” was promoted not just as a desirable feature, but an essential one. It was essential that the customer be right, that they be made to feel all-important, that they be made to believe that all their desires must be met – and that this particular product was just the one to do that. The thing is that, again, this message got so hammered into us, that we are all-important and our desires must be met, that we came to regard ourselves (individually) as our number one priority, setting aside things that for a long time held the members of our society connected: friendship, family, camaraderie, and sharing.

Barry Schwartz proposes that the excessive amount of choices in our society has overwhelmed us so much, raised our expectations to levels so high, that nothing will ever meet them and that this, in turn, has lead to such generalized dissatisfaction and hopelessness in our society that it spreads even to the way we interact with each other. Unlike Ted Kaczynski, though, I don’t think the solution to this problem lies in destroying our current industrial/commercial system, but rather in a return to realizing that we are still human beings with human needs and human emotions, and not just consumers.