Choice

[wlotus]

Choice is an illusion created between those with power and those without.
~ The Merovingian, Matrix Reloaded

Feel free to discuss.

I deleted the off-topic comments, even though they were amusing. This subject is burning my brain heavily enough that I need to keep the commentary on-track.

Comments

Thinking Out Loud, Rambles a Bit

[queen-in-autumn.livejournal.com]

It's very important to me to believe that no matter what the situation I'm in, I always have the power to make choices. At a fundamental level, I am in control of my thoughts and actions.

That said, what I suspect the quote refers to is the relative lack of options available to those without power and the kinds of consequences assessed against the powerless who make the "wrong" choices.

It can also refer to the fact that most people are conditioned to not perceive or accept their freedom of choice due to cultural conditioning. There were many times growing up when I thought Oh, I couldn't do that! when in reality the choice was open and available to me but I had been trained to not even consider it as an option.

There are also, of course, cases the kind of abuse that makes leaving a bad situation "unthinkable." You keep your head down and do what you're told, believing that things will only get worse if you try to change or leave. I'm fortunate enough to have my first impulse be to consider this a rare situation -- but on reflection I think it's probably more prevalent than I realize.

I agree with the underlying observation above: that power imbalance injustly limits the options of and sets sanctions against far too many, often without the powerless fully realizing it. At the same time, I think it's important for individual mental health and simple human dignity to be aware that we can always choose. The issue becomes what consequences we're willing to face.

I think that's the power of a Gandhi, a Mandela, and the women who demonstrated and went to jail to win the right to vote in the US. They saw the culture around them saying "You can't -- it's unthinkable, against natural law" and they steadily and powerfully said, "Yes, I/we can." They were beaten, they went to jail, they suffered. But ultimately exercising their choices made a difference. Of course, their victories don't erase the tragedies of the millions who have exercise their choices and died for it.

It's a hard issue. And it's one of the reasons I'm as open as I am with Wolfling and always stress that she has choices. We discuss possible consequences of her choices, but I always want to make sure that she understands the decision of what to do belongs to her and no one else. Not even me. Not even her teachers. Not even the law.

Re: Thinking Out Loud, Rambles a Bit

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

After making that statement, the Merovingian points out a woman to whom a special dessert has been served, one that makes her spontaneously orgasm, though she didn't know that would happen when she ate it. At first glance, one could say she had a choice: she could have not eaten the cake. But she was not in control of the opportunity to choose. She did not order the cake; the Merovingian had it delivered to her table. So did she really have a choice, when she would not have had to make a choice about whether or not to eat it, if the Merovingian had not sent the cake in the first place.

He had the power. She was the pawn. She made a choice, but only within the boundaries of a situation he initiated and controlled. That is not true choice. That is being used for someone else's amusement.

These thoughts came from a conversation I had with my therapist on Thursday. We discussed a situation I had experienced, the way I had responded to it, and some other responses I could have chosen. The alternate, presumably more helpful responses--helpful in terms of being more likely to keep from pissing off the person with whom all of the power resided--involved me expressing my disagreement with the situation in ways that would never get back to the powerful person. "That is all well and good and healthy," I told my therapist, "but at what point does the fairness start? At what point do I get to let the person know, even in some small way, that I do not approve of how he treated me? When do I get to stop being the grinning Sambo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sambo_(ethnic_slur)) and stand up for myself to that white man's face, rather than doing things in secret to protect my interests?"

Her correct answer is that sometimes the fairness never starts. Sometimes the power differential is so great and the potential consequences of pissing of the person are so ominous, that it is in one's best interest to not let on any hint of disagreement or rebuttal in front of them. One can vent to trusted friends and family. One can privately take steps to remove oneself from the relationship. But that is about all one can do to address the situation with the least amount of damage to one's position.

Is that true choice? It doesn't feel like it to me. True choice, to me--or perhaps, true justice--is being able to turn the tables on the situation and take back the reins of power from the offending party. Private venting and situation-changing is not good enough for me to feel as though I have truly had a choice. For the powerful person created and controls the situation, and my "choices" are made within the boundaries of the arena they run. That is mere survival, not choice.

Re: Thinking Out Loud, Rambles a Bit

[queen-in-autumn.livejournal.com]

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond. I've been overwhelmed by my own processing in the last few days.

I think that your initial example of the cake is only about power and deception, not about "choice." One of the things that makes choice meaningful is being aware of the consequences of a choice. Since this woman had no idea what would happen if she ate the cake, she can't be said to have chosen an orgasm. She chose cake, not orgasm.

In your situation, you do have a choice, but it's a choice that is being made within an unjust system, one in which your "freedom" to choose is rendered less meaningful because of the negative consequences of you choosing to do what you actually want to do.

I think that you hit the nail on the head when you differentiate between choice and justice. Ideally the two go together, but I still believe that choice exists even within an unjust situation, so long as the consequences of the various options are reasonably clear. I'm not saying that we should be happy to have the ability to choose between two less-than-ideal options, but I do think it's important to affirm that we retain free will. That does not let the abusers off the hook, or make the injustice okay.

Re: Thinking Out Loud, Rambles a Bit

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying that we should be happy to have the ability to choose between two less-than-ideal options, but I do think it's important to affirm that we retain free will.

Where I went wrong, it seems, is in thinking that just because I have a choice, even if the choice is between less-than-ideal options, I should feel happy/thankful/understanding, not angry.