The Culture of Choice considered Through Cultural Studies

Kalaikova Yuliya Vladimirovna ORCID: 0000-0002-2789-306X Senior Lecturer, Department of Cultural Studies and Design, Ural Federal University 620002, Russia, Sverdlovskaya oblast', g. Ekaterinburg, ul. Mira, 19, of. 314 pictaplasma@gmail.com Other publications by this author

Pankina Marina Vladimirovna ORCID: 0000-0001-6971-7497 Doctor of Cultural Studies Professor, Department of Cultural Studies and Design, Ural Federal University 620002, Russia, Sverdlovskaya oblast', g. Ekaterinburg, ul. Mira, 19, of. 314 marina.pankina123@gmail.com Other publications by this author

IntroductionThe growth of scientific interest in the socio-cultural determinants of choice has been traced since the early 2000s. Simultaneously with the explosion of research activity among representatives of behavioral economics studying cognitive distortions and heuristics in the aspect of decision-making.

And if the attention of economists is directed to the mechanisms, tools and principles that guide a person as a rational (or limited rational) decision-making subject, then through the prism of socio-cultural knowledge, choice appears as a fundamental characteristic of modern society, and the socio-cultural determinants of making a choice are of the greatest research interest. Despite the abundance of resources, each author grasps the particular aspects of choice: from the metaphysics of choice, through the socio—cultural determinants of choice, to the particular pragmatic aspects of making a choice characteristic of representatives of different social groups, as well as the importance of objects of material culture in the process of making a choice.

In order to form an integrated socio-cultural knowledge about choice, we propose the author's concept of "culture of choice", based on foreign studies of choice carried out within the framework of the cultural paradigm. To provide important preliminary research guidelines, the article examines modern socio-cultural studies of choice, existing interpretations of the concept of "culture of choice", clarifies some key conceptual differences concerning the concepts of "choice" and "decision-making".

Culturological approach in the formation of modern knowledge about choiceA number of original studies of choice carried out within the framework of a culturological approach, where material and spiritual culture appears as a value-normative system for regulating an individual's choice, are found among representatives of foreign scientific thought.

In the sociological theory of reflexive modernization, the possibility and necessity to constantly make a choice is a fundamental characteristic of modern Western culture (E. Giddens, W. Beck, S. Lesh, Z. Bauman). The topic of choice, the connection between culture and choice, cultural determinants of choice are often considered by modern authors in the context of the ideology of consumption. Choice acts as an integral part of market relations — an instrument for the realization of the human right to freedom of voting in a democratic system and the purchase of goods corresponding to individual preferences. Choice appears as the basis for the construction of personal identity — a means that allows people to assert their individuality, manifest their uniqueness. Surveys of people from different countries (empirical data from the World Values Survey) demonstrate that individuals' perceptions of the possibilities of making free choice correlate significantly with their degree of life satisfaction, when cultural norms limiting individual choice reduce the overall level of life satisfaction among representatives of this culture ^[1]. Indeed, the cultivation of choice situations, as a rule, is perceived as a symbol of the human desire for freedom and as a tool that helps the subject to control his life. People tend to illusorily prefer situations containing a wider range of possibilities and avoid circumstances that limit the choice. Scientific studies confirm that even the illusory feeling of having a choice can positively affect a person's motivation, increase the level of his subjective satisfaction from the process of performing independently selected actions ^{[2, p. 995]}.

However, culturologists and sociologists are increasingly subjecting to critical analysis the narrative inherent in modern Western culture, according to which choice appears as a universal good, and the variety of alternatives to choice contributes to the expansion of individual freedom and the increase in the possibilities of constructing personal identity. The choice appears to modern researchers as a "paradox" ^[3], "explosion" ^[4], "tyranny" ^[5] and "myth" ^[6]. J. Ogden and co-authors argue that people value the opportunity to "have choice" (having choice), reflecting the presence of a number of alternatives to choice, but not the ability to "make a choice" (making choice), reflecting the desire of the subject to make a choice independently ^{[7, p. 34]}. B. Schwartz in the book "The Paradox of Choice" describes situations in which an increase in the number of alternatives causes consumers a sense of anxiety and depression ^[3]. The concept of "hypervelection" introduced by researchers describes the objective state of consumer societies, in which "an ever-growing number of purchases occur against the background of an ever-growing number of new products, the spread and expansion of brands" ^{[8, p. 207]}. F. Larsen and co-authors consider hypervelection as a situational phenomenon when people are faced with too many different options, which, in turn, suppresses their ability to make a choice ^[9].

The researchers also suggest that satisfaction from the possibility of making a choice independently is a cultural artifact. Sh. Iyengar and S. Lepper in a comparative study of Anglo—American and Asian-American children of 7-9 years of age showed that the advantages of feeling the satisfaction of subjects from the possibility of freely making a choice and providing them with a large number of choices, in many ways constructed by culture ^[10]. For Anglo-American children, the opportunity to make an independent choice is a symbol of self-determination and self—affirmation (the primacy of the individual Self), while for Asian-American children, the choice made by authoritative people is a symbol of community and harmony (the primacy of the collective Self, where personal preferences are formed based on the preferences of significant "others"). A person's belief in the connection of his preferences with the preferences of others reconstructs the choice as a collective act. Thus, the presence of choice will have beneficial consequences (such as increased satisfaction of subjects from completing tasks and a positive assessment of the results of completing tasks) exclusively in cultures in which even illusory choice will be perceived as a terminal value. On the contrary, situations of granting free choice can reduce the motivation of an individual to make a choice when the cultural presuppositions of the subject do not provide for the value of choice.

Foreign authors are also interested in specific mechanisms of cultural influence on the choice made by individuals. Thus, in a study devoted to the disclosure of significant transformations of partner selection methods in traditional and modern Western culture, E. Illuz identifies six cultural mechanisms internalized by the subject: consideration of consequences, the degree of formalization of the process (for example, the use of algorithms offering personalized recommendations, or coin tossing), ways of internal comprehension (for example, rational calculation or following intuition), the level of trust in one's own desires and needs, the generally accepted reasons for making a choice and the value of choice per se ^{[11, pp. 20-21]}. M. Lamont, studying the expert commissions of universities on the selection of candidates for scholarships, identifies the following components of the "evaluation culture" (which is an intermediate link in the decision-making process): cultural programs, the weight of various criteria, institutional rules and values, attitude to subjectivism, as well as techniques for determining the truth of statements ^{[12, p. 4]}.

Under the influence of actor-network theory (B. Latour, M. Kallon, J. Lo) in socio—cultural studies of choice, there is a turn to the material - the consideration of non-people as acting agents: lists, tables, coins, algorithms, etc. For example, K. A. Overmann describes how a shopping list formed by a subject using paper and a pen imposes restrictions on the choice of goods to the future self, and how notebooks and spreadsheets help a person in the decision-making process ^{[13, p. 382]}. The possibility of making a choice also depends on the environment. The environment (space) in which the choice is made can be investigated in terms of how people make choices and what alternatives are available to them. Thus, S. Vulgar and D. Neyland pay attention to environmental aspects of choice management, exploring the airport as a space for constructing and ordering people and intangible objects: "this is a space within which signs, barriers and means of inspection of objects and their owners are installed, as well as attempts are made to manage objects located there" ^{[14, p. 167]}.

Researchers are also interested in the available alternatives of choice and the possibility of making a choice in individuals who are in different social realities ^{[4; 15; 16]}. Z. Bauman wrote: despite the fact that "we are all doomed to a life of choice ..., not all of us have the means to choose" ^{[17, p. 86]}. In the paradigm of neoliberalism, social achievements and failures are attributed to the quality of an individual's choice. Belief in free choice, in turn, legitimizes social inequality and justifies the abolition of the social security system. O. Schwartz describes how social groups in distress (living below the poverty line, unemployed, single mothers, victims of natural disasters, etc.) are fully responsible for their status, since it is the result of their "wrong choice" ^{[18, p. 7]}. The "discourse of the lower classes" constructs "chosen poverty", where the poor are victims of rash decisions and inability to take advantage of the opportunities provided ^[19]. On the contrary, the belief in the determinism of forces external to the individual contributes to the justification of the position of unprotected social groups.

Thus, the analytical tools of cultural studies are used in the research of the cultural repertoire of the practices of making a choice, representing choice as a real action unfolding in space and time; the historical evolution of the practices of making a choice, fixed in cultural norms and objects of material culture; the study of choice as a discursive category, the boundaries and meanings of which are formed by culture. It can be concluded that an independent field of research is being developed dedicated to the study of choice within the framework of a culturological approach. However, due to the complexity of the research (selection), the fragmentation of the methods and approaches used is specific for such developments. To concretize and develop sociocultural ideas about choice, we further propose a specific conceptual construction — the concept of "culture of choice", which is an abstract theoretical integrity constructed on the basis of primary theoretical assumptions.

The cultivation of choice, the culture of choice and the culture of choiceSince the "culture of choice" as a certain form of reflection of reality already exists among representatives of the scientific community, it is necessary to interpret the "culture of choice" among different authors.

The concept of "culture of choice" in the domestic scientific discourse has an ambiguous interpretation. On the one hand, the concept of "culture of choice" is used as an indicator of the commitment of the authors' position to giving the possibility of choice to subjects who previously had no choice in situations that do not presuppose the presence of choice. Such, for example, is the call to ensure the right of students to choose the content, pace, level of complexity of mastering the discipline, as well as the degree of independence and forms of accountability in the educational process (for example, Nazarova T. N. "Culture of choice", 2013). "Culture of choice" here means "cultivation of choice situations". Another group of studies uses the concept of "culture of choice" within the framework of the theory of electoral law, for example: the culture of choice of a Russian citizen of the authorities as the highest expression of the power of the people (see Nedakin V. A. "Modern culture of choice in Russia", 2007). "Culture of choice" in this case is identified with the concept of "culture of elections". In the third group, from the perspective of the activity-axiological approach, where culture is considered as the main factor of programming and determining human behavior, the role of cultural norms in the process of making a choice is investigated (for example, Petrov O. E. "Fundamentals and theorization of the culture of choosing a profession", 2022). The origins of this direction are, on the one hand, the domestic tradition of cultural research, on the other hand, the line of foreign studies of behavioral economics, behavioral marketing and behavioral design, which has been actively developing since the early 2000s, putting market relations at the forefront. The "culture of choice" here is understood as the "culture of choice" — a set of normative characteristics that determine the correctness, expediency of choice in certain socio-cultural contexts. Consequently, in the unified mental education "culture of choice", the authors identify various sets of essential features, put emphasis on aspects corresponding to their scientific specifics.

Despite the obvious interest in the cultural determinants of choice, we did not find the commonly used term "culture of choice" among representatives of foreign humanitarian thought. There are similar positions: for example, B. Schwartz, using the concept of "culture of choice", offers the author's vision of comparative culturology of choice ^[18], and S. Vaisi and L. Valentino in the article "Culture and Choice" give their assessment of the integration of the language of decision theory into socio-cultural studies of choice ^[20]. Thus, based on the existing ideas about choice, we can designate our own vision of the concept of "culture of choice", existing within the socio-cultural paradigm, capable of embracing the breadth of cultural thought.

Choice and decision-makingThe concept of "choice" is one of the most widely used in the humanities and social sciences: philosophy, cultural studies, sociology, psychology, political science and economics ^[21].

We consider choice as a complex, multilevel phenomenon that develops in the process of an individual's activity and is formed mainly under the influence of socio-cultural factors. In Ozhegov's explanatory dictionary, choice is considered as an action and as an object in three variations: as an action taking place ("to choose a product"); as objects of action: that from which a choice can be made — an assortment or alternatives ("a large selection of goods"); as a perfect action and the selected object ("approve the choice of goods") ^[22]. In English, choice is interpreted polysemically: as an act or an opportunity to choose ("it's a difficult choice"); an assortment of things from which to make a choice ("there wasn't much choice on the menu"); a person or thing that was chosen or that could be chosen ("Harvard didn't become his final choice"). In English, choice also means something better: excellent, selected, of high quality ("a choice dish" — "selected dish") ^[23]. Thus, choice appears as a countable noun — the act of choosing between two or more alternatives; as an uncountable noun — the right or opportunity to choose; as an adjective when something of better quality is implied. Choice often acts as a verb (to choose), and is more recursively defined through it.

The concepts of "choice" and "decision-making" in everyday discourse, as well as in many scientific studies, are identical and interchangeable. However, authors often intuitively apply these concepts, use them in various contexts and extend them to new areas of knowledge without assessing their conceptual or semantic relevance ^{[24; 25]}. In Ozhegov's explanatory dictionary, to solve means "after thinking it over, to come to some conclusion, to the need for some action; to make a final conclusion, a conclusion; to find an answer to the problem: to predetermine the future" ^[22]. In the Cambridge English Dictionary, a decision is defined as "a choice that you make in relation to something after considering several possibilities" ^[23].

In this perspective, decision-making is defined as one of the aspects of choice. A decision is a matter of choice when one of many possibilities is chosen, subjectively perceived by an individual as the best. The choice is related to the context, environment and conditions in which the decision is made, whereas the decision-making process is focused on the parameters and patterns of achieving the result. The statement "he had no choice" is similar in meaning to the statements: "he had no options to make a decision", as well as "he had no opportunity to make a decision". In the first case, the choice is identified with the existence of alternatives to choice. In the second, it is defined as an abstract ability akin to law, and decision—making as a time-limited process and its result. Thus, "choice" refers both to the external context of the situation (the attributes of the available alternatives, as well as the characteristics of the environment in which the choice takes place) and to the internal reality of the choosing subject (past experience, vision of the future, as well as the specifics of the individual's mental processes).

Culture of choice in the cultural contextBy culture in the context of this study, we mean non-universal (hence capable of producing cultural differences) generally accepted patterns of behavior, structured by practical knowledge and mental schemes of classification and normative evaluation, organizing representations of reality and giving them meaning.

Choice can be defined, on the one hand, as an abstract ability (right, privilege or obligation), on the other hand, as the nature of the provision of options offered by the environment in which the choice is made. We propose to consider the culture of choice as a set of rules, patterns and norms of making a choice that have a managerial impact on a person. Also, the culture of choice is the generally accepted ideas about making a choice that characterize a particular society. The culture of choice consists of the patterns of making a choice specific to a particular culture, the structure and form of public knowledge, as well as the attributes of material culture.

Culture imposes external and internal restrictions on the individual, which determine his choice. Thus, alternatives to choice may not be available both "physically" — as a result of a certain material or social position of the individual (this may concern, for example, the ability to purchase a thing or start a job requiring high qualifications), and "mentally" - as a result of internal self—restrictions of the subject choosing. Among the limitations of choice internal to the subject, one can distinguish: the subject's value system, norms, rules and principles internalized by the subject, as well as the subject's ideas about the past and vision of the future.

The value system as a worldview reference sets a vector that determines the desired outcome of the choice and the means to achieve this result.Values are the main motivators and guiding principles of the subject in the process of making a choice. Values can influence the perceived attractiveness of alternatives to choice, strategies for making a choice. Values determine the preference for rational or intuitive-sensory thinking in the process of making a choice in different spheres of life. Thus, the choice of a partner by an individual may occur more intuitively than a rational choice of a place of work or study. However, such differentiation is complicated by the absence of a meta—narrative of rationality in modern scientific discourse - within the framework of the post-non-classical sociological approach, rationality appears as a culturally specific phenomenon ^{[26, p. 97]}. Modern trends in social development are characterized by various options for the inclusion of irrational elements interpreted as new forms of rationality (for example, when emotions experienced by the subject are given some weight, taken into account in the general assessment of alternatives to choice), which complicates the establishment of rational-intuitive boundaries.

Norms, rules and principles internalized by the subject in relation to alternatives of choice, the process of making a choice and the current situation of choice are culturally conditioned attitudes that define the boundaries of an individual's actions. The subject can impose self-restraint on the fan of available alternatives, forbidding himself to choose one or another option. This may be an individual's inner conviction that he is "unworthy" to hold a certain position, which will limit the range of offers he considers when choosing a job. The subject learns the algorithms of making a choice that are fair for a particular situation. Culture forms the subject's ideas about how to make a choice in a given situation: which decision-making principles should be followed, which tools and mechanisms should be used. So, the choice of a place of study will be largely determined by the opinion of significant people, for example, parents or friends, when the main criterion for choosing a film will be a rating on online sites that are significant for an individual. Since the subject rarely chooses the mechanism of making a choice — it is rather taken for granted by the subject — it is not so much the available sources of information that are important here, as the degree of trust in them of the subject. The subject has some preconceived ideas about the current choice situation. This may be the degree of significance of a particular decision for the future fate of an individual, as well as an assessment of compliance with the current situation of choice relative to the previous experience of choice. For example, in modern Western culture, the line between the categories of "vital" and "everyday" choice is blurred in the process of choosing a partner.

Despite the fact that the choice is made in the time perspective of the "future becoming the present", the impact on the choice can occur through the information coming in at the moment, as well as in the modes of the past — through the experience of decision—making and perception of the past, and the future - the current idea of the future ideal Self, vision of the goal and future situation, both preferred and undesirable. On the one hand, the choice is significantly influenced by the culturally mediated perception of past experience: the construction of memory as a symbolic representation of the past embedded in social action. Memory is the practice of recollection; recollection, referring to the mode of the past, occurs in the present, establishing the content of the past for the subject. Culture forms memories — changes the perceptions and attitudes of individuals to the past, including past experiences of making a choice. So, the subject can change his attitude to the choice made earlier after receiving new information for him. On the other hand, the choice mediates the subject's vision of the future — the construction of a time perspective, planning and evaluation of life prospects. The choice as a meaningful action expresses the inner aspects of a person, his preferences and at the same time forms the personality of the choosing subject. Choice as an act of self-expression is inherently social, since it is embedded in the system of social representations and meanings ^{[27; 28]}. Culture forms a personal identity — a person's idea of himself, an ideal "image of Me" through the mechanism of constructing the ideological opposition "I am Another", as well as the systematization of values in the categories: good-bad, desirable-undesirable, present-false, etc. ^[29].

            The information about the alternatives of choice (what is available for selection), as well as the tools and mechanisms of choice (how the subject can make a choice), currently coming in, refers to the external constraints of choice. External constraints are characteristics of the environment in which the subject makes a choice. Among the external constraints, factors of the socio—cultural environment can be distinguished, for example, the inequality of choice - the reasons why certain subjects are not available to certain alternatives; as well as the features of the material environment in which the subject makes a choice. Thus, the characteristics of the choice alternatives are determined by the organization of the choice architecture, which determines the vector of making a choice by formalizing its representation. The tools and mechanisms of choice can be both sources of information (various kinds of media, expert opinions, recommendations, ratings, reviews, comments, etc.), as well as tools for searching, sorting, filtering and classifying information.

Thus, two components can be conditionally distinguished in the structure of the culture of choice: subjective and environmental. The subjective component is understood as the cultural values internalized by the individual, norms, rules, principles that guide the subject when making a choice, as well as the subject's culturally conditioned memory of the past and foresight of the future. The environmental component represents the features of the environment as a set of tangible and intangible objects — the context in which an individual makes a choice. The environmental component includes the information currently coming in about the alternatives of choice, as well as the tools and mechanisms of the environment that the subject uses when making a choice.

Conclusion

In Russian research practice, appeals to the phenomenon of choice are few and limited to the sphere of economics, pedagogy, political science, and management theory. However, as the analysis of foreign studies shows, the problematic field of studying the socio-cultural specifics of making a choice is a promising multi-subject scientific field. Since the choice is formed by cultural frameworks and discourses, in order to concretize and develop socio—cultural ideas about choice, we propose a specific conceptual construction - the concept of "culture of choice".

In the structure of the "culture of choice" we have identified two components: subjective and environmental. The subjective component is understood as the cultural values internalized by the individual, norms, rules, principles that guide the subject when making a choice, as well as the subject's culturally conditioned memory of the past and foresight of the future. The environmental component represents the features of the environment in which an individual makes a choice — the information currently coming in about alternatives to choice, as well as the tools and mechanisms of the environment that the subject uses when making a choice.

A set of assumptions about the "culture of choice", grasping the dependencies between the individual components in the existing theoretical conclusions, will ensure the internal coherence of the constructs used, identify the optics of the subject fields of research, offer a universe of possible ways to work with the concept and maintain semantic unity within the scientific community. Finally, the identification of the structural elements of the "culture of choice" will allow us to bring together heterogeneous theoretical concepts in order to further study the choice within the framework of a cultural approach.

Promising areas of research include: identification of behavioral patterns of making a choice, characteristic of different national, class and historical cultural contexts; identification of mechanisms, tools and methods used by the subject to make a choice; identification of socio-cultural norms governing choice, as well as beliefs guiding subjects in making a choice; detection of inequality of available alternatives to choice; establishing the nature of the transformation of the practice of making choices in various economic sectors and spheres of life through digitalization, etc. The results obtained can be specified in practice-oriented research in the field of marketing, branding, design, etc.