Hobson's choice
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hobson's choice is an apparently free choice which is really no choice at all. The phrase is said to originate from Thomas Hobson (1544–1630), a livery stable owner at Cambridge, England who, in order to rotate the use of his horses, offered customers the choice of either taking the horse in the stall nearest the door—or taking none at all.
The first known written usage of this phrase is in Joseph Addison's paper The Spectator (October 14, 1712), though it also appears in Thomas Ward's 1688 poem "England's Reformation", not published until after Ward's death. Ward wrote, "Where to elect there is but one, 'tis Hobson's choice—take that, or none."
Hobson's choice is different from a Catch-22 situation, where both (or all) choices available actually cancel each other out.
Contents |
[edit] Modern usage
Hobson's choice is often used not to mean a false illusion of choice,[citation needed] but simply a choice between two undesirable options. The difference between this and the original meaning of Hobson's choice is subtle, so confusion is perhaps understandable. For example, if the horse in the stall nearest the door is in poor shape, the traditional usage of Hobson's choice becomes the more common use, since having an unhealthy horse and having no horse at all are both undesirable. This usage is disputed. A choice between two options of nearly equal value is more properly called a dilemma.
Modern phrases which more accurately fit Thomas Ward's poem would be "Take it or leave it" (from the viewpoint of the imposer of the choice), or "damned if you do and damned if you don't" (from the perspective of the person having to make the choice).
On occasion, writers use the term "Hobbesian choice" instead of "Hobson's choice", not confusing philosopher Thomas Hobbes for Thomas Hobson, but referring to a specific Hobson's choice offered by Hobbes. The philosopher's famous choice is of an armed robber's "your money or your life", with the serious claim that the person making the choice is fully free.
[edit] In law
Then-Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist of the US Supreme Court used the term in his dissenting opinion in City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617 (1978), and in citing a lower court ruling in his majority opinion in Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981).
Justice White, in the case of Chadha and the INS v. The House of Representatives, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), used the term in his dissent. In using it, he was arguing that denying the House of Representatives the power to place veto provisions over the administrative agencies responsible for enacting the laws passed would leave the House with the Hobson's choice of either refraining from delegating the necessary authority, or abdicating its law-making function to the executive branch and independent agencies.
Justice Souter, in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002), used the term in his dissent, arguing that families with school vouchers were presented with a Hobson's choice of applying their voucher toward the tuition of any school, secular or religious, regardless of the fact that 82% of all private schools in the Cleveland City School District were parochial schools.
Justice Scalia also used the term in a foot note to Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) to refer to a choice between invoking the marital privilege and confronting one's spouse, quoting the lower court.
The Maryland Court of Appeals used the term and explained its origins as applied to a jury's decision-making ability when a prosecutor's unwillingness to pursue a lesser-included offense (e.g. second-degree murder or manslaughter), requiring a jury to convict a defendant of the greater crime (e.g. first-degree murder) or nothing at all. See Hook v. State, 315 Md. 25, 28 (1989).
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals used the term in describing the dilemma facing a creditor between complying with applicable North Carolina law requiring notice of intent to claim attorneys fees, and the prohibition of the automatic stay of the Bankruptcy Code against taking any action against a debtor. In Re: Shangra-La, Inc., 167 F.3d 843, 851; 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 594; Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH) P77,879; 33Bankr. Ct. Dec. 999 (4th Cir. 1999).
[edit] In media
One of the harshest choices appears in Sophie's Choice, in which the title character must choose which of her children is to be taken from her and killed by the Nazis; should she refuse to make the choice, the Nazis kill both.
The editors of The New American use the term in a way which implies fraud or deceit as an essential element in a Hobson's choice; but their usage is nothing more than the choice between two nothings noted above.
The lead character of Early Edition received tomorrow's newspaper today and would try to avert disasters reported therein. He was named Gary Hobson, a reference to this aphorism.
In the Discworld novels of Terry Pratchett, the most successful stable owner in the city-state of Ankh-Morpork is named Hobson.
In Half-Life, the choice facing Gordon Freeman at the end of the game is an example of a Hobson's choice: Employment with the G-Man or death in an unwinnable battle.
In the movie The End of Evangelion, it is mentioned that SEELE had threatened Fuyutsuki with being "disappeared"; the implication is that Fuyutsuki's recruitment into SEELE was a Hobson's choice.
In the movie Hard Candy , Haley threatens Jeff with the revelation of his pedophelia and his role in the murder of a young girl if he does not commit suicide.
[edit] In business
Henry Ford was said to have sold the Ford Model T with the famous Hobson's choice of "... any colour ... so long as it is black".[1] (In reality, the Model T was available in a modest palette of colors, but the rapid production required quick-drying paint, which from 1915-1925 was available in only one color—black.)
[edit] References
- ^ Ford, My Life and Work, Chapter IV
