Freedom Of Choice In Society

Sam Richards, a professor from Penn State, discusses how we humans are deeply connected, and how even in our most private and seemingly isolated moments, those connections prevent us from having freedom of choice. He argues that freedom of choice in society is just an illusion. His first example is suicide and suicide rates, which he claims stay relatively the same every year. He says that if you are contemplating suicide, you really have no choice and that the society as a whole that you have been embedded in is what causes the relatively the same amount of people to commit suicide per year.

The second idea he brings up is that within the larger society, different groups have their own suicide rates that also stay relatively the same year after year. He says that all groups should have the same suicide

rates, but they don’t. This is because each group has their own structure and makes a similar impact on each person.
According to him, people contemplating committing suicide are not thinking like a sociologist.

With that said, he asks what would happen if we all thought like sociologist. The first thing is we would recognize that we are never alone. He says that nobody has truly personal problems and that his problems, your problems, and my problems, are our problems. The second thing we would see is that we are empowered, because our actions have profound effects on everybody else. Lastly, he says that the groups we are most connected might be invisible, unbeknownst to us.

To me, Richards is completely overthinking and overcomplicating the world we live in. I agree with the facts he brings up, such as the suicide rates, but as far as his analysis, I would have to disagree. Yes, people who commit suicide are influenced by society and their connections, but they absolutely have the freedom of choosing whether or not to do it. Society has major influence on you, but in the end you always have freedom of choice, even though your choices may be limited by society. However, there is nobody that faces the choice of committing suicide without the choice of not committing

suicide.
Next, I don't believe my problems are your problems. Most people could care less about other peoples’ problems. Certainly, if I show or express problems, they can become my family and friends’ problems, but they would usually not extend past that circle. In most cases, my personal problems will not extend outside myself.
Finally, I have no idea where Richards came up with the idea that the groups we are most connected with are the ones we may not know, or may be invisible to us. There is defiantly people in the world that could closely relate to us or may even share all the same interests as us, but that doesn't mean we are “connected.” According to Richards, since we are connected, their problems would be my problems too. I don't understand how somebody in France who closely relates to me would consider it to be their problem too if one of my family members died. Maybe I am just completely misinterpreting what Richards is saying, but based on what I watched and understood, I can't agree with his theories.