Dogcatcher

Is Freedom Just Another Word for Many Things to Buy?

Barry Schwartz, Hazel Rose Marcus and Alana Conner Snibbe in the Times: In today's America, everyone from President Bush to advertising executives to liberal activists appears to agree that freedom is about having choices and that having more choices means having more freedom. Choice, even in mundane matters, embodies the larger ideal of the individual as arbiter not just of what tastes or feels good but also of what is good. This is why we now regard 32 kinds of jam in the supermarket, 50 styles of jeans in the department store and 120 retirement plans in the workplace as signs of both economic progress and moral and political progress. Choice is what enables all of us to live exactly the kind of lives we want to and think we should.

But this "wisdom" is suspect for two reasons. First, most Americans do not think that freedom is about exercising more and more choice. And second, even for those who do equate freedom with choice, having more choice does not seem to make them feel freer. Instead, Americans are increasingly bewildered — not liberated — by the sheer volume of choices they must make in a day.

As behavioral scientists, we have found that the people who frame freedom in terms of choice are usually the ones who get to make a lot of choices — that is, middle- and upper-class white Americans (most of our study participants are white; we can't make any claims about other racial and ethnic groups). ...

What conception of freedom should Americans pursue? While the upper and middle classes define freedom as choice, working-class Americans emphasize freedom from instability. These perspectives echo the distinction between freedom to and freedom from made by Franklin Roosevelt and by the philosopher Isaiah Berlin half a century ago. For all our red-versus-blue rancor, most Americans agree that ours is a free country. But what freedom is, and where it should be nurtured and where constrained, are hotly contested issues.

Similarly, many of the freedoms endorsed and advocated by U.S. foreign policy may not always resemble those desired by the people whom we hope to help. To govern well, both at home and abroad, Americans would be wise to listen to how freedom rings in different cultural contexts. Knowing that "we love our freedom," as President Bush said in his recent State of the Union address, should be the beginning of a national conversation, not the end of it.

Whoah, wait a minute, and go back two paragraphs--the study's conclusions are limited to white Americans?

So how can they say "we" and "Americans" and draw conclusions about the U.S., when their results don't apply to 35% of the country?

It's worse when you consider the Times is published in a city where a majority of the residents are non-white immigrants or the children of non-white immigrants.

At the least they should qualify every use of their universal terms. Even better, if they wanna paint a picture of 21st century America--how about making sure they design the study to include 21st century Americans?

It's part of a recent trend of articles with questionable language appearing in the Times. In A Spectator's Role for China's Muslims, Jim Yardley writes:

Yet Chinese Muslims should not be considered completely housebroken by authoritarian rule. Since the seventh century, when Islam began arriving in China along trading routes, there have been periodic Muslim revolts. Under the Communist Party, Muslim rage, if mostly contained on international issues, has erupted over localized affronts.

Just replace Chinese Muslim with black, and see how it plays.

Language choice like this has its roots in feeling like you're writing about other; not quite humans like you and me and your neighbors. So you get cute, dash off generalizations, and get lazy with making sure your words don't get in the way of your argument.

Of course, in some cases the argument's at fault too. It's a little too easy for the Times to paint Muslims as rage-filled and use the same language usually reserved dogs. Most Americans just roll past the phrases, since they fit into our conscious and subconscious views of Muslims. The entire Times article has the air of isn't it odd that in China Muslims haven't rioted much; are they not Muslims, do they not get violent when pricked?

And it's not just Muslims who the Times feels comfortable referring to as dogs.Wanted: A Few Good Sperm has about as crazy a quote as I've ever seen:

Jennifer Egan in the Times magazine: Last October, when I visited the Manhattan apartment of Daniela, a 38-year-old German advertising executive who had recently been inseminated with the sperm of a male friend, her guest room was peppered with toys belonging to the young son of a visiting friend who had broken up with the boy's father by the time he was born. "They got a child out of love, and the parents couldn't deal with one another," Daniela, who asked that I use only her first name, told me. "And now she lives in Germany; he lives here. He doesn't pay any money if he doesn't see the child. So there's a constant battle over it. The child is torn in between. She has to deal with the father. I won't have to deal with the father."

Daniela's apartment is neat and spare, with hardwood floors, a basket of colorful slippers by the front door for guests and an entire wall devoted to pictures of her family in Germany. (She also has a married sister with three children who lives in New Jersey.) A 6-foot-1 blonde who speaks with disarming frankness, she came to America 10 years ago with the man she would later marry, only to find that he didn't want children. ...

Sperm banks do try to address the amorphous question of character; many include psychological studies of donors as well as "staff impressions." Some offer audiotaped interviews in addition to the lengthy written questionnaires, but Daniela said she felt that these materials would only confuse her. She did have a few ideas of what she might look for: she wanted a man of her same blood type, O positive. Because she herself is so tall, she preferred a medium height. (Short donors don't exist; because most women seek out tall ones, most banks don't accept men under 5-foot-9.) She was also attracted by the idea of a donor of another race. "I believe in multiculturalism," she said. "I would probably choose somebody with a darker skin color so I don't have to slather sunblock on my kid all the time. I want it to be a healthy mix. You know how mixed dogs are always the nicest and the friendliest and the healthiest? If you get a clear race, they have all the problems. Mutts are always the friendly ones, the intelligent ones, the ones who don't bark and have a good character. I want a mutt." Her African-American friends questioned this strategy, suggesting that her child's life would be harder if he or she was perceived as nonwhite, but Daniela said: "If that's what I believe, I have to go by that. And it might help the world also if more people are doing it that way."

That's how the article ends; it's the Times' idea of a kicker.

Oh yes--do choose someone with a darker skin color so you don't have to slather sunblock on your kids. And by all means, characterize mixed race people as dogs, refer to them as mutts; and make the whole issue of whites raising non-white children a flip case of 'why not?', if it floats your boat....

The Times, post-Jason Blair, now has a "reader's representative", Byron Calame. He's recently written about covering conservatives, perks for Times employees, roll-call votes, space constraints....

How about payings some attention to the words in the paper of record?

Uncredited photo of Byron Calame from the New York Times.