Bartleby the Citizen

You know the line from Melville: "I would prefer not to." As Bartleby the Scrivener sinks further and further into the condition (depression? ennui? fatalism? nihilism?), he applies that response to more and more potential actions. In the burgers-and-circuses state of imperial Amerika, a creepily similar attitude toward making choices seems to be gaining popularity. A consumer culture addicted to limitless choices of products is lapsing into a condition of preferring not to.

I'm game for a good conspiracy theory. I think it has something to do with the dangers of real choices in a real democracy. Not just more choices among brands of shampoo, shoes, steaks, shakes, and shinola. I'm talking about choices of how to get to work in the morning, who to come home to at night, what your tax dollars pay for, when and how to end your life, not to mention if and when to produce more little citizens. Lots of people seem to be against it. Isn't that what we have experts for? To decide what's good for us?

These consumers don't want to choose, and they don't want anybody else to choose. Choice is bad. Witness the worst bumper sticker ever, which keeps showing up on highways right here in Central Swing State: "It's a Child, Not a Choice." I can only infer that having children is not a life-decision to carefully consider, but something that kind of happens to people. I remember hearing a Lutheran minister back in my birthplace of Norsk Ridge, Minnesota, preach on the topic. He was all for doing the right thing by following Commandments and obeying God's Will, but he was staunchly against ordinary people making choices. Choice is bad.

The irony is that making choices is such an unpopular thing to do in our so-called democratic society. But you've already heard enough lies about how freedom is on the march. There is a widespread belief that ordinary folks aren't really capable of making decisions, and there are plenty of other folks who are only too glad to make their decisions for them. Remember when campaign fundraising was classified as a form of free speech? To wit: poor people clearly aren't capable of making policy decisions, so rich people owe it to the poor people to make policy on their behalf. Therefore those with money are capable of free speech, and those without are not. Sort of narrows down the debate in our free, democratic society.

Then there are those who opt out. Don't wanna make decisions, no thanks, not cool. A few years ago, I asked my Wednesday night discussion group at what point in their lives they achieved autonomy. When did their education, growth, and development reached a level of independence where they could make their own decisions? Two out of eight turned it around and said their personal growth led them to NOT be autonomous. I was shocked, but maybe I shouldn't be. Is being part of a group-identity or community so wonderful that it overrides the capacity or desire to choose for oneself?

The language man George Lakoff might be onto something. Although I'm suspicious of any all-purpose Theory That Explains Everything, one of his assertions in the little book Don't Think of an Elephant really does explain a lot. Briefly, in explaining the success of right-wing ideologues in manipulating voters by manipulating language, Lakoff draws the conclusion that "conservative" slogans appeal to the desire among many people for a government as Authoritarian Father, while "progressive" slogans appeal to a contrary desire for a government as Nurturing Parent.

What does an authoritarian father do? He makes the decisions for the family, of course, that's how ignorant, originally sinning, essentially wild and primitive beasts - like children, women, ethnic minorities, poor people, and other lower creatures - learn the difference between right and wrong. The all-knowing father figure has to tell them. What do nurturing parents do? They present choices for their offspring to make, because that's how differently gifted, buddha-natured, noble-spririted children - and even some adults of the nonwhitemale variety - learn to intelligently distinguish helpful consequences from harmful ones.

If you're still reading this rambling polemical hodge-podge, your open-mindedness is exceeded only by your patience. I'm having trouble keeping track of it myself. I think what worries me is the two-edged sword of signing over authority to others, especially the Official Others who keep saying I can trust them, which tells me I can't. I'm relieved of responsibility for my own well-being, and someone else has taken on a regal prerogative over what's best for me. No thank you. Not the physician or the priest or the police or the president.

Epilog: I wouldn't be going on about this if I didn't have some ambivalence myself. I have trouble choosing which cheese to put on my burrito, and I confess to having a heavy streak of Harsh Father in me, which Jessi and Helga can confirm. So this multi-draft post is just an attempt to sort through some of those mixed messages.