RSA Animate - The Paradox of Choice

In this new RSA Animate, Professor Renata Salecl explores the paralysing anxiety and dissatisfaction surrounding limitless choice. Does the freedom to be the architects of our own lives actually hinder rather than help us? Does our preoccupation with choosing and consuming actually obstruct social change?
View the full lecture here: http://www.thersa.org/events/video/ar...

Taken from the RSA's free public events programme www.thersa.org/events. The RSA was established in the heart of the Enlightenment, and is dedicated to driving social progress and spreading world-changing ideas.

Find out more about the RSA at http://www.thersa.org
Join the RSA on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/thersaorg
------
This audio has been edited from the original event by Becca Pyne. Series produced by Abi Stephenson, RSA. Animation by Cognitive Media.

• Category

  News & Politics

[Juan Carlos Romero]

I was confused why this was a "response" to Slavoj Zizek, and why she would talk so much about the same stuff he talks about...

Then I realized that Renata Salecl is Zizek's ex-wife.

[funnyfreddd]

These videos are really good!

[elev84u]

I could be a contenda!

[CodenameBourbon]

Please explain why do you think that the cause of the people "staving to death" is caused by capitalism. And also, what is wealth?

[Eva Rinaldi]

Love this.

Also, for the record, statistically no one has that cosmopolitan magazine sex life, even people who sometimes do things like that have times when their sex life is boring. I feel like reality TV is designed around that feeling, so are beauty magazines. No one has perfect hair, either, but if you think out there people DO have those things, you'll buy books and hair creams and alcohol and vibrators in higher quantity, because what's wrong with you for not having it?

[OhMyScot]

Economics revolves around choice and decision making. It's a necessity to ourselves that we make those right choices.

[cory paisley]

And for the record, I'm not a proponent of capitalism nor communism.

They both exploit the people even if they don't mean to do it. In communism's case the ruling party ironically becomes the "elite class" it despises(lol). In capitalism's case an absurd amount of the human population is now starving to death while 1% owns 30% of the world's wealth(working as intended)

Socialism is appealing though. It could potentially have the strengths of both and weaknesses of neither.

[cory paisley]

I respectfully disagree.

*I would argue that people are forced to give up some of their money regardless of the system. There is always "force"(tax) no matter what basically. Using some of it to promote research and make life easier is beneficial IMO.

The choice I do have is irrelevant. Choice is only relevant if you are enabled. An example of this would be abortion being legal yet absurdly expensive and inaccessible. The choice I have is only in theory, and is not "actualized" per say.

[Jon McQueeny]

Furthermore, for you to have "your choice" to have this career you want, in this scenario where it is free, requires for other people to involuntarily give their money to you, ie. to give money against their own choice.

You don't want choice, you want force.