Is Choice a Paradox or a Pandora's Box?

I watched a Ted Talk with my husband the other day by a sociology professor, Barry Schwartz, that advocated a notion that was pretty contrary to my beliefs. It addressed the idea that the conception that maximized freedom creates maximized happiness is incorrect. He further postulates that obviously some degree of freedom of choice makes us happier, but too much freedom paralyzes us,  and raises our expectations only to leave us disappointed with the outcomes of our choices.

Some of his examples seem to make a little bit of sense. But the man doesn't give many examples of important life choices. Instead he focuses on products in grocery stores, and pairs of jeans, and even brings up the idea that the big fish can't say to the little fish, "Hey little fish, the world is wide open to you, and you can be anything you want to be," because the only way for that to be possible would be for the fish bowl to shatter, thus paralyzing the fish and leaving it for dead. Ok...are we supposed to be the fish in this example? If so, is he seriously saying we'd be happier to just be content with having no power to change our situations?And if we tried it would be a fatal decision? Seems like it.

I think Schwartz is obviously shortsighted.  The power to direct your own life, while riddled with risks and setbacks, is infinitely more capable of giving us happiness than just learning to be content with the limited options available to us. Having high expectations doesn't necessitate having unreasonable ones, or not being capable of finding happiness despite the episodes of disappointment and depression we may face. This man's conception of happiness is shallow, and devoid of the capacity to learn from pain, or to find strength and direction in personal agency and responsibility despite the guilt that is also possible. He also ignores the fact that having setbacks with our choices will invariably lead to making better choices.

He's written a book called The Paradox of Choice. I don't think choice presents a paradox, I think it presents a Pandora's box. The good and the bad. The more choices we get, the more virtuous or reprehensible we are capable of becoming. I guess perhaps more misery is possible, but certainly more happiness as well.

I'd hate to imagine the applications this book could invite. Would we simply have limits to the varieties of products we see in the grocery store, or will we be teaching our children that sometimes we should just learn to be happy swimming in our puny fishbowls? I can tell you, while my beta fish looks pretty oblivious, he certainly doesn't look happy!

But seriously, this talk seems completely anti-feminist to me. And rather than defiantly resisting the status quo (as Schwartz may think he's doing), he's provided justifications to limit people's choices. In a world where many choices are already a privilege, this is a dangerous idea. I think it's ironic and upsetting that this could ever be a solution to improve the well-being of others.

Watch it, and tell me what you think.