Sunday, April 19, 2009
choiceless choice is important
choiceless choice is an integral part of what makes a whistleblower because without it, the one blowing the whistle might not have the ability to stand behind the decsion they make. In Whistleblowers, Alford interviews one whistleblower by the name of Bower, who concludes, "Im glad i didnt have a choice. I dont think i could live with myself if i thought i chose all this." (42) Choiceless choice is essential to the keeping of a whistleblowers own sanity it seems, and without it i can see that whistleblowing might not occur nearly as much, or that is would not occur at all. they need this assurance to stand behind their actions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with Eugene that "choiceless choice" is one of the main methods whistleblowers use to maintain their sanity. I believe whistleblowers often delude themselves into thinking that they never had a choice, as a way of coping and avoiding overwhelming regret. This is echoed in Alford's word's, "...choiceless choice is a formula for relief from the almost unbearable regret of having let oneself be sent on a suicide mission" (40). In one way, they may not have a choice in regards to blowing the whistle, in that their moral code demands it of them. However, I feel they do have a choice in how and when they take action. They don't have to speak out in that moment, while still employed by that company. If they are willing to quit their job first, they could then blow the whistle and have a greater chance of being heard, because they wouldn't be under the organization's power. I understand that many of the whistleblowers Alford interviewed were very loyal to their organizations, as well as being somewhat naive, so this route of action was not likely considered.
ReplyDeleteExactly, as we discussed in class--the whistleblower is "naive" in that h/she believes that the org. shares the same ideas and wants to right the wrongs. Thus, this whole process gets started before the w.b. realizes that h/she has gone in this this difficult, possibly futile, direction.
ReplyDeleteGoing off of the comments so far on "choiceless choice" it is definitely needed in order for a whistleblower to act. I think it initially is what forces them to make a move. Alford uses a great simile to portray this concept. He refers to the "whistleblower's character and values" as the "sender" where as the "subject" is the whistleblower physically (41). So the "sender" and the "subject" are creating this "choiceless choice" together. Alford calls this a "contract between unequals" (41). He means that because of the "sender" the "subject" has to suffer without being able to resist. This is an important distinction which explains how whistleblowers are motivated and why they end up suffering in the end. This simile made me think of some personal whistleblower stories. Can anyone else relate to this concept?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis idea of "choiceless choice" reminds me of Arendt's divided self. Doesn't it? Even Alford questions, "How can one live with someone who is so terribly loyal to his principles that they can make mincemeat of everything else he or she cares about?" (42) Maybe this is why the choice seems to be so forced on the whistleblowers. It's their sense of responsibility that leads them to making this choice. Even though it is later pointed out by Alford that the responsibility they feel might be simply narcissistic. Of course, not in the stereotypical narcissistic nature, but in a craving to be "whole, good, pure, and perfect" (63). The whistleblower's decisions might be influenced by this desire.
ReplyDeleteAs I did the reading from last week as well as this week, this idea of the "choiceless choice" stood out the most for me. I have witnessed one particular situation in which this idea makes perfect sense. I wrote about it in last week's text refelection but it keeps getting brought up in my mind. My mother, a vascular surgeon, was caught in the middle of a huge investigation against her partner about 5 years ago. Her partner was a cardiac surgeon and was accused by patients and lawyers of performing unecessary heart surgeries on hundreds of people. The FBI raided the office my mother shared with her partner, and managed to tear families apart and ruin lives in the process. The allegations were completely false, but there was so much money involved that most of the doctors in our community jumped on the train and spoke out against my mother's partner. Through it all, she refused to back down. She stood by her partner's side and fought every lawyer in town who wanted in on the action. I was young, but I could tell she was exhausted. I knew that in some ways, deep down, she regretted standing up for what she believed in, but knew that she never truly had a choice.
ReplyDelete"Choiceless choice is a formula for relief from the almost unbearable regret of having let oneself be sent on a suicide mission" (40). My mother lost friends, people she had worked with for over a decade, and she lost faith in people as a whole. The ordeal literally drained the life out of her and changed the way she viewed the world. I think she clung to the hope that someone would stand up for what was right...no one did.
Does the very concept of a choicless choice disqualify the action as ethical? It seems to me that ethical choices are, by nature, the result of a voluntary choice, even if they are not always reflected deeply upon. As I thought about this, I came to the conclusion for myself that maybe even living in a way so as to find oneself in the position of choiceless choice is an ethical act in itself. For example, when someone makes a choiceless choice for the sake of morality and what is "right," aren't they living in an "ethical" manner? They are, in fact, putting the greater good before themselves without even consciously thinking about it....
ReplyDeleteInteresting question and conclusion. I am in total agreement with where you have arrived. Wow--the power of thought!
ReplyDelete