TED日本語 - シーナ・アイエンガー: 選択術


TED Talks(英語 日本語字幕付き動画)

TED日本語 - シーナ・アイエンガー: 選択術

TED Talks

The art of choosing
Sheena Iyengar


シーナ・アイエンガーは人が選択する方法や傾向、感情を研究しています。TEDGlobalでは、コーラVSペプシといった日常的な選択からシリアスなものに渡り、選択における 驚くべき見解を明らかにします。


Today, I'm going to take you around the world in 18 minutes. My base of operations is in the U.S., but let's start at the other end of the map, in Kyoto, Japan, where I was living with a Japanese family while I was doing part of my dissertational research 15 years ago. I knew even then that I would encounter cultural differences and misunderstandings, but they popped up when I least expected it.

On my first day, I went to a restaurant, and I ordered a cup of green tea with sugar. After a pause, the waiter said, "One does not put sugar in green tea." "I know," I said. "I'm aware of this custom. But I really like my tea sweet." In response, he gave me an even more courteous version of the same explanation. "One does not put sugar in green tea." "I understand," I said, "that the Japanese do not put sugar in their green tea, but I'd like to put some sugar in my green tea." (Laughter) Surprised by my insistence, the waiter took up the issue with the manager. Pretty soon, a lengthy discussion ensued, and finally the manager came over to me and said, "I am very sorry. We do not have sugar." (Laughter) Well, since I couldn't have my tea the way I wanted it, I ordered a cup of coffee, which the waiter brought over promptly. Resting on the saucer were two packets of sugar.

My failure to procure myself a cup of sweet, green tea was not due to a simple misunderstanding. This was due to a fundamental difference in our ideas about choice. From my American perspective, when a paying customer makes a reasonable request based on her preferences, she has every right to have that request met. The American way, to quote Burger King, is to "have it your way," because, as Starbucks says, "happiness is in your choices." (Laughter) But from the Japanese perspective, it's their duty to protect those who don't know any better -- (Laughter) in this case, the ignorant gaijin -- from making the wrong choice. Let's face it: the way I wanted my tea was inappropriate according to cultural standards, and they were doing their best to help me save face.

Americans tend to believe that they've reached some sort of pinnacle in the way they practice choice. They think that choice, as seen through the American lens best fulfills an innate and universal desire for choice in all humans. Unfortunately, these beliefs are based on assumptions that don't always hold true in many countries, in many cultures. At times they don't even hold true at America's own borders. I'd like to discuss some of these assumptions and the problems associated with them. As I do so, I hope you'll start thinking about some of your own assumptions and how they were shaped by your backgrounds.

First assumption: if a choice affects you, then you should be the one to make it. This is the only way to ensure that your preferences and interests will be most fully accounted for. It is essential for success. In America, the primary locus of choice is the individual. People must choose for themselves, sometimes sticking to their guns, regardless of what other people want or recommend. It's called "being true to yourself." But do all individuals benefit from taking such an approach to choice? Mark Lepper and I did a series of studies in which we sought the answer to this very question. In one study, which we ran in Japantown, San Francisco, we brought seven- to nine-year-old Anglo- and Asian-American children into the laboratory, and we divided them up into three groups.

The first group came in, and they were greeted by Miss Smith, who showed them six big piles of anagram puzzles. The kids got to choose which pile of anagrams they would like to do, and they even got to choose which marker they would write their answers with. When the second group of children came in, they were brought to the same room, shown the same anagrams, but this time Miss Smith told them which anagrams to do and which markers to write their answers with. Now when the third group came in, they were told that their anagrams and their markers had been chosen by their mothers. (Laughter) In reality, the kids who were told what to do, whether by Miss Smith or their mothers, were actually given the very same activity, which their counterparts in the first group had freely chosen.

With this procedure, we were able to ensure that the kids across the three groups all did the same activity, making it easier for us to compare performance. Such small differences in the way we administered the activity yielded striking differences in how well they performed. Anglo-Americans, they did two and a half times more anagrams when they got to choose them, as compared to when it was chosen for them by Miss Smith or their mothers. It didn't matter who did the choosing, if the task was dictated by another, their performance suffered. In fact, some of the kids were visibly embarrassed when they were told that their mothers had been consulted.

(Laughter) One girl named Mary said, "You asked my mother?" (Laughter)

In contrast, Asian-American children performed best when they believed their mothers had made the choice, second best when they chose for themselves, and least well when it had been chosen by Miss Smith. A girl named Natsumi even approached Miss Smith as she was leaving the room and tugged on her skirt and asked, "Could you please tell my mommy I did it just like she said?" The first-generation children were strongly influenced by their immigrant parents' approach to choice. For them, choice was not just a way of defining and asserting their individuality, but a way to create community and harmony by deferring to the choices of people whom they trusted and respected. If they had a concept of being true to one's self, then that self, most likely, [ was ] composed, not of an individual, but of a collective. Success was just as much about pleasing key figures as it was about satisfying one's own preferences. Or, you could say that the individual's preferences were shaped by the preferences of specific others.

The assumption then that we do best when the individual self chooses only holds when that self is clearly divided from others. When, in contrast,two or more individuals see their choices and their outcomes as intimately connected, then they may amplify one another's success by turning choosing into a collective act. To insist that they choose independently might actually compromise both their performance and their relationships. Yet that is exactly what the American paradigm demands. It leaves little room for interdependence or an acknowledgment of individual fallibility. It requires that everyone treat choice as a private and self-defining act. People that have grown up in such a paradigm might find it motivating, but it is a mistake to assume that everyone thrives under the pressure of choosing alone.

The second assumption which informs the American view of choice goes something like this. The more choices you have, the more likely you are to make the best choice. So bring it on, Walmart, with 100,000 different products, and Amazon, with 27 million books and Match.com with -- what is it? -- 15 million date possibilities now. You will surely find the perfect match. Let's test this assumption by heading over to Eastern Europe. Here, I interviewed people who were residents of formerly communist countries, who had all faced the challenge of transitioning to a more democratic and capitalistic society. One of the most interesting revelations came not from an answer to a question, but from a simple gesture of hospitality. When the participants arrived for their interview, I offered them a set of drinks: Coke, Diet Coke, Sprite -- seven, to be exact.

During the very first session, which was run in Russia,one of the participants made a comment that really caught me off guard. "Oh, but it doesn't matter. It's all just soda. That's just one choice." (Murmuring) I was so struck by this comment that from then on, I started to offer all the participants those seven sodas, and I asked them, "How many choices are these?" Again and again, they perceived these seven different sodas, not as seven choices, but as one choice: soda or no soda. When I put out juice and water in addition to these seven sodas, now they perceived it as only three choices -- juice, water and soda. Compare this to the die-hard devotion of many Americans, not just to a particular flavor of soda, but to a particular brand. You know, research shows repeatedly that we can't actually tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi. Of course, you and I know that Coke is the better choice.


For modern Americans who are exposed to more options and more ads associated with options than anyone else in the world, choice is just as much about who they are as it is about what the product is. Combine this with the assumption that more choices are always better, and you have a group of people for whom every little difference matters and so every choice matters. But for Eastern Europeans, the sudden availability of all these consumer products on the marketplace was a deluge. They were flooded with choice before they could protest that they didn't know how to swim. When asked, "What words and images do you associate with choice?" Grzegorz from Warsaw said, "Ah, for me it is fear. There are some dilemmas you see. I am used to no choice." Bohdan from Kiev said, in response to how he felt about the new consumer marketplace, "It is too much. We do not need everything that is there." A sociologist from the Warsaw Survey Agency explained, "The older generation jumped from nothing to choice all around them. They were never given a chance to learn how to react." And Tomasz, a young Polish man said, "I don't need twenty kinds of chewing gum. I don't mean to say that I want no choice, but many of these choices are quite artificial."

In reality, many choices are between things that are not that much different. The value of choice depends on our ability to perceive differences between the options. Americans train their whole lives to play "spot the difference." They practice this from such an early age that they've come to believe that everyone must be born with this ability. In fact, though all humans share a basic need and desire for choice, we don't all see choice in the same places or to the same extent. When someone can't see how one choice is unlike another, or when there are too many choices to compare and contrast, the process of choosing can be confusing and frustrating. Instead of making better choices, we become overwhelmed by choice, sometimes even afraid of it. Choice no longer offers opportunities, but imposes constraints. It's not a marker of liberation, but of suffocation by meaningless minutiae. In other words, choice can develop into the very opposite of everything it represents in America when it is thrust upon those who are insufficiently prepared for it. But it is not only other people in other places that are feeling the pressure of ever-increasing choice. Americans themselves are discovering that unlimited choice seems more attractive in theory than in practice.

We all have physical, mental and emotional (Laughter) limitations that make it impossible for us to process every single choice we encounter, even in the grocery store, let alone over the course of our entire lives. A number of my studies have shown that when you give people 10 or more options when they're making a choice, they make poorer decisions, whether it be health care, investment, other critical areas. Yet still, many of us believe that we should make all our own choices and seek out even more of them.

This brings me to the third, and perhaps most problematic, assumption: "You must never say no to choice." To examine this, let's go back to the U.S. and then hop across the pond to France. Right outside Chicago, a young couple, Susan and Daniel Mitchell, were about to have their first baby. They'd already picked out a name for her, Barbara, after her grandmother. One night, when Susan was seven months pregnant, she started to experience contractions and was rushed to the emergency room. The baby was delivered through a C-section, but Barbara suffered cerebral anoxia, a loss of oxygen to the brain. Unable to breathe on her own, she was put on a ventilator. Two days later, the doctors gave the Mitchells a choice: They could either remove Barbara off the life support, in which case she would die within a matter of hours, or they could keep her on life support, in which case she might still die within a matter of days. If she survived, she would remain in a permanent vegetative state, never able to walk, talk or interact with others. What do they do? What do any parent do?

In a study I conducted with Simona Botti and Kristina Orfali, American and French parents were interviewed. They had all suffered the same tragedy. In all cases, the life support was removed, and the infants had died. But there was a big difference. In France, the doctors decided whether and when the life support would be removed, while in the United States, the final decision rested with the parents. We wondered: does this have an effect on how the parents cope with the loss of their loved one? We found that it did. Even up to a year later,

American parents were more likely to express negative emotions, as compared to their French counterparts. French parents were more likely to say things like, "Noah was here for so little time, but he taught us so much. He gave us a new perspective on life." American parents were more likely to say things like, "What if? What if?" Another parent complained, "I feel as if they purposefully tortured me. How did they get me to do that?" And another parent said, "I feel as if I've played a role in an execution." But when the American parents were asked if they would rather have had the doctors make the decision, they all said, "No." They could not imagine turning that choice over to another, even though having made that choice made them feel trapped, guilty, angry. In a number of cases they were even clinically depressed. These parents could not contemplate giving up the choice, because to do so would have gone contrary to everything they had been taught and everything they had come to believe about the power and purpose of choice.

In her essay, "The White Album," Joan Didion writes, "We tell ourselves stories in order to live. We interpret what we see, select the most workable of the multiple choices. We live entirely by the imposition of a narrative line upon disparate images, by the idea with which we have learned to freeze the shifting phantasmagoria, which is our actual experience." The story Americans tell, the story upon which the American dream depends, is the story of limitless choice. This narrative promises so much: freedom, happiness, success. It lays the world at your feet and says, "You can have anything, everything." It's a great story, and it's understandable why they would be reluctant to revise it. But when you take a close look, you start to see the holes, and you start to see that the story can be told in many other ways.

Americans have so often tried to disseminate their ideas of choice, believing that they will be, or ought to be, welcomed with open hearts and minds. But the history books and the daily news tell us it doesn't always work out that way. The phantasmagoria, the actual experience that we try to understand and organize through narrative, varies from place to place. No single narrative serves the needs of everyone everywhere. Moreover, Americans themselves could benefit from incorporating new perspectives into their own narrative, which has been driving their choices for so long.

Robert Frost once said that, "It is poetry that is lost in translation." This suggests that whatever is beautiful and moving, whatever gives us a new way to see, can not be communicated to those who speak a different language. But Joseph Brodsky said that, "It is poetry that is gained in translation," suggesting that translation can be a creative, transformative act. When it comes to choice, we have far more to gain than to lose by engaging in the many translations of the narratives. Instead of replacing one story with another, we can learn from and revel in the many versions that exist and the many that have yet to be written. No matter where we're from and what your narrative is, we all have a responsibility to open ourselves up to a wider array of what choice can do, and what it can represent. And this does not lead to a paralyzing moral relativism. Rather, it teaches us when and how to act. It brings us that much closer to realizing the full potential of choice, to inspiring the hope and achieving the freedom that choice promises but doesn't always deliver. If we learn to speak to one another, albeit through translation, then we can begin to see choice in all its strangeness, complexity and compelling beauty.

Thank you.


Bruno Giussani: Thank you. Sheena, there is a detail about your biography that we have not written in the program book. But by now it's evident to everyone in this room. You're blind. And I guess one of the questions on everybody's mind is: How does that influence your study of choosing because that's an activity that for most people is associated with visual inputs like aesthetics and color and so on?

Sheena Iyengar: Well, it's funny that you should ask that because one of the things that's interesting about being blind is you actually get a different vantage point when you observe the way sighted people make choices. And as you just mentioned, there's lots of choices out there that are very visual these days. Yeah, I -- as you would expect -- get pretty frustrated by choices like what nail polish to put on because I have to rely on what other people suggest. And I can't decide. And so one time I was in a beauty salon, and I was trying to decide between two very light shades of pink. And one was called "Ballet Slippers." And the other one was called "Adorable."

(Laughter) And so I asked these two ladies, and the one lady told me, "Well, you should definitely wear 'Ballet Slippers.'" "Well, what does it look like?" "Well, it's a very elegant shade of pink." "Okay, great." The other lady tells me to wear "Adorable." "What does it look like?" "It's a glamorous shade of pink." And so I asked them, "Well, how do I tell them apart? What's different about them?" And they said, "Well,one is elegant, the other one's glamorous." Okay, we got that. And the only thing they had consensus on: well, if I could see them, I would clearly be able to tell them apart. (Laughter)

And what I wondered was whether they were being affected by the name or the content of the color, so I decided to do a little experiment. So I brought these two bottles of nail polish into the laboratory, and I stripped the labels off. And I brought women into the laboratory, and I asked them, "Which one would you pick?" 50 percent of the women accused me of playing a trick, of putting the same color nail polish in both those bottles. (Laughter) (Applause) At which point you start to wonder who the trick's really played on. Now, of the women that could tell them apart, when the labels were off, they picked "Adorable," and when the labels were on, they picked "Ballet Slippers." So as far as I can tell, a rose by any other name probably does look different and maybe even smells different.

BG: Thank you. Sheena Iyengar. Thank you Sheena.


今日は18分間 みなさんを世界に案内します 私の活動ベースは米国ですが まずは 遠く離れた― 京都での話から始めます 日本人家庭に下宿し 学位論文の調査をしていました 15年前のことです カルチャーショックや誤解を 経験するとは思っていましたが 予想もしない形で訪れました

日本到着の1日目 レストランに入り “砂糖入り”の緑茶をオーダー ウェイターが一瞬戸惑い 言いました “緑茶に砂糖は入れません” “その習慣は知っていますが 甘い緑茶が好きなんです” 前よりも礼儀正しい口調で 同じことを言われました “緑茶には… 砂糖を入れませんので…” “日本人が無糖で飲むのは 十分存じていますが わたくしは 砂糖を入れるんです” (会場の笑い声) 私がしつこいので 彼は困って 店長のもとへ すると間もなく 彼らは長い話し合いをし 最終的に店長が謝りに来ました “あいにく 砂糖がございません...” (会場の笑い声) 私好みの緑茶がないので コーヒーを頼みました すぐさま コーヒーが運ばれ そこで見たのは 2袋の砂糖!

私の注文 甘い緑茶が 通らなかった原因は 単純な誤解ではありません 選択に対する双方の 根本的な考え方の違いです 米国人の考え方では お客さんが好みに基づいた 分別ある要求をする限り 叶えてもらう権利があります バーガーキング曰く “自己流で召し上がれ” スタバ 曰く “幸せは選択肢にある” (会場の笑い声) でも 日本人の考えでは 無知な人を護るのは我らの務め (会場の笑い声) この場合 無知なガイジンを 誤った選択から護ること 私好みの緑茶は 文化的基準に不適切 私の面子を保とうと彼らは努めました

反して 米国人は 選択術の頂点を 極めていると考えがち すべての人間は先天的に 選択肢を求めるものだと― 米国人は思っています 残念ながら それは思い込みであり 異なる国や文化では 当てはまらないこともあります 米国においてですら 時には当てはまりません これらの思い込みと それに伴う問題について話します みなさんも ご自分の思い込みや それが形成された過程を 一緒に考えてみてください

1つめの思い込み “選択が自分に影響をもたらすなら 自分が選択するべきだ 己の優先事項や利益を 最大限 反映させるには 自ら 選択するしかない” 成功には不可欠です 米国では 第一の選択権は 個人にあります 自分で選択するのが当たり前 人に左右されず信念を守る 自分に正直に生きる でも この選択方法が 万人に有利と言えるでしょうか マーク リッパーと共に この疑問を解く調査をしました このリサーチで サンフランシスコの日本人街に行き 7~9歳の白人系とアジア系米国人を 研究所に呼び 子供を3グループに分けました

第1グループに スミスを紹介し 6つの文字並べ替えパズルを見せました 子供は 好きなパズルを選択 答えを書くマーカーペンまで 選択できます 第2グループが同じ部屋で 同じパズルを見せられます でも今回はスミスが どのパズルをするか どのマーカーを使うかを指示 第3グループは 母親が決めたパズルとマーカーを 使うよう指示されます (会場の笑い声) 実際には スミス または母親に 指示を受けたとは言え 作業はまったく同じ 第1グループだけは 選択の自由がありました

この手順で 3グループに 同じ作業を与え 成果を比較しやすいように アレンジしました 小さな差を設けただけですが 子供の成果に  目を見張る差がでました 白人系米国人は 自分でパズルを選んだ場合 2.5倍もの量を解きました このデータは スミスや母親が決めた時との比較です 誰が選ぶかには関係なく 他人から命令されると 能力が落ちました 母親が決めたと言うと 露骨に恥ずかしがる子もいました

(会場の笑い声) メアリーという子が言いました “なんで ママに聞くわけ?” (会場の笑い声)

それと反対に アジア系米国人の子供は 母親が選んだ時 最もよく出来ました 2番目が自分で選択した時 最下がスミスが選んだ時でした なつみという子は 別れ際 スミスに駆け寄り ぴったり くっついて言いました “ママの言う通りにしたって ママに伝えてくれる?” 二世である子供は 選択において 移民である両親から 強い影響を受けていました 彼らにとって 選択とは 個性の明示や主張の 手段だけでなく 信用し尊敬する人たちに 選択をゆだねることで 社会や調和を築く手段でもあります “自分に正直に”という考えを持つとすれば おそらく 彼らの“自己”は 個人ではなく 集団的なものでしょう 大切な人を喜ばせることは 自分自身の望みを 満たすことに匹敵する 言葉を変えれば 個人の選択傾向は 特定の人の望みによって形成されている

自分が下す決断が 最も正しいという思い込みが 成り立つのは 自己が明らかに 他者から隔てられているときのみ それに反して 何名かの 選択と成果が 絡み合っている場合 共同体として選択することで 互いの達成感が 高まることがあります 逆に 個人の選択に徹すれば 互いの能力や関係まで 損なう結果に なりかねません されど これが アメリカの模範 相互存存をほとんど認めず 人間の不完全性に対する認識に欠けています 選択は 私的なもので 自ら定める行為だと見なされる このような模範の中で育った人なら 刺激を感じるでしょう でも 誰もがプレッシャーの中 一人で選択しながら 成長すると思うのは間違いです

米国人が持つ― 2つ目の思い込み “選択肢が 多ければ多いほど 最高の決断をする” ウォールマートには10万の品数 アマゾンには2700万冊の本 出会いサイト Match.comでは 現在 1500万人の登録者 それゃ最高のパートナーが見つかるでしょう 東ヨーロッパを例に この思い込みをテストしましょう インタビューを行いました 共産主義から 民主的かつ資本主義への 移行を経験した人を 集めて話を聞きました 興味深い事実は インタビュー中ではなく 単なる もてなしの場で発見しました 参加者がインタビューに現れたとき 飲み物を勧めました コーラやスプライトなど 全部で7種類のソーダ

最初のインタビューは ロシアで行いました 参加者の一人が言ったことに 不意を突かれました “どれでもいいです 結局どれも炭酸飲料ですから” (会場のざわめき) このコメントに衝撃を受け 全員に7種のソーダを 勧め始めました 選択肢はいくつかと 皆に尋ねました 彼らは7種のソーダを7つの選択肢ではなく 1つのものとして 見ていました 果汁ジュースと水を 7種のソーダに加えたら 選択肢は3つと言いました 果汁ジュースと水とソーダ これに比べ 米国人の多くは ソーダのフレーバーだけでなく ブランドにも とことん こだわります 調査結果が示すように 消費者はコーラとペプシを 実際には 区別できません もちろん 会場の私たちは コーラのほうがよいと分かってる


他国に比べても 現代の米国は 選択肢や 広告で飽和しています 自ら選択した商品は 自らの存在を表しているようなもの “多いほどベター”という思い込みを加えると 細部にこだわり 全ての選択は重要― そんなグループが成立します でも 東欧人にしてみれば 突然 店頭に並んだ― 数々の商品は圧倒的 泳げないと反論する間もなく 選択の海に投げこまれたようなもの 選択という言葉で 何を連想するか― ワルシャワ出身の グレゴアさんに尋ねました “私には恐怖です ジレンマを抱いています 選択するのに慣れてませんから” キエフ出身のボーディンさんは 新しい消費者市場に対し こんな意見を述べました “限度を超えている こんなに多くの商品は必要ない” ワルシャワ調査局の 社会学者はこう説明しました “年配の世代は 何もない社会から 選択の社会に飛び込びました 彼らは どう対応していいのか 学ぶ機会がなかったのです” 若いポーランド人 トーマス曰く “20種類のガムなど必要ない 選択肢は要らないという意味ではないが 見せかけの選択肢が多いと思う”

実際に 多くの選択肢には たいした差はありません 選択の価値は 数ある中から違いを見出す― 我々の能力に左右されます 米国人は 一生涯を通して 違いを見出す訓練をしています 幼い頃から 訓練してますから 先天的に持つ能力だと 米国人は思っています 人間は皆 選択に対し 基本的なニーズや欲望を持っていますが 誰もが 同じ環境または度合いで 選択をとらえる訳ではありません 複数の選択肢に 違いを見出せない 比較するには選択肢が多すぎる そんな時 選択という行為は 複雑で ストレスの原因になります よりよい選択をするどころか 困惑してしまいます 時には 恐れすら感じます 選択が 好機をもたらすどころか 強要され 縛られます 選択が象徴するものは 開放ではなく 無意味でくだらない抑圧 言い換えると 心の準備ができてない人に 選択を強要すれば 米国人がイメージする― 選択のあらゆる要素が まったく逆のものに変化し得るのです 増え続ける選択肢に プレッシャーを感じているのは 他国の人だけではありません 米国人だって 実際に 選択肢を多く持つよりも “無数の選択”という理論を 語るほうが魅力的― そう 気づき始めています

人間は皆 身体的 精神的― 感情的な限界があり 何から何まで 選択するのは不可能 一生涯で行う― 選択の数は莫大です 私の研究結果が示すように 10以上の選択肢を与えると 人間の決断力は鈍ります 健康保険であれ 投資であれ その他の重要な物事でもそうです それでも 多くの人は 自分ですべて選択するべきだ さらなる選択肢を探すべきだと言う

これが最も問題のある― 3つ目の思い込みと関係します “選択肢を前に 決して 背をむけてはならない” これを試すべく 米国に話を戻し その後 フランスに移りましょう シカゴの郊外で 若い夫婦 スーザンとダニエルに 一人目の子が誕生しようとしていました 赤ちゃんの名前も決めました 祖母の名をとり バーバラ 妊娠7ヶ月のある夜 陣痛が始まり 救急病院に急ぎました 帝王切開で生まれた 娘のバーバラは 脳無酸素症でした 脳内の酸素不足です 自分では呼吸ができず 人工呼吸器を装着 2日が経ち ドクターはこの夫妻に 選択肢を与えました 生命維持装置を 外すべきか この場合 娘は数時間で亡くなります もしくは 延命処置を続けるか この場合も 数日で 亡くなる可能性があります 生き延びたとしても 一生 植物状態のまま 歩くことも 話すことも 人との交流も不可能 この夫婦はどうしたでしょう? 一般的な親ならどうするでしょう?

二人の研究者と共に リサーチを行い 米国人とフランス人の親を インタビューしました 彼らは 皆― 同じ悲劇で苦しんだ人たち どのケースも 生命維持装置は外され 彼らの赤ちゃんは亡くなりました でも 1つ大きな差がありました フランスでは 生命維持装置を外すべきか― また その時期を決めるのは医師 米国では 最終決断を下すのは親 私たちは考えました わが子の喪失と向き合う上で この事実は 影響を及ぼすのか? 影響していました 1年経っても

米国人の親は 否定的な感情を表す傾向がありました 対して フランス人の親は こんなことを言いました “息子との時間は 僅かだったけど たくさんのことを教えてくれた 新しい人生観を与えてくれた” 米国人の親は こんなことを言いました “もし 他の選択をしていたら?” 別の親の不満 “ドクターの意図的な拷問としか思えない なぜ あんな事を私にさせるの?” 別の親の言葉 “死刑執行に加担した― そんな心境です” でも 米国人の親は ドクターが決断したほうが良かったかと 尋ねられると 全員 ノーと答えました 彼らには その選択を 他者に委ねるなど 考えられなかった 自分で選んだ結果 罪悪感や 怒りに苛まれたとしても 多くの人は うつ病と診断されていました なぜ 彼らは選択放棄を 熟思できなかったのか? 選択を放棄することは 今まで教わってきたことや 選択が持つ目的や 選択が持つ力への 信念に反するからです

ジョーン ディディオンのエッセイ― 「60年代の過ぎた朝」から引用します “人は生きるために 物語に意味づけをする 現実を分析し 多数の選択肢から 最も有効なものを選ぶ 心に浮かぶ断片的な 回想イメージを 物語の筋書きにこじつけ 刻々と変わる情景を 意識的に静止させながら 我々は生きている”  米国人が語る信念 アメリカンドリームに 基づいた― 限りない選択の物語 この物語は 実に多くを保証します 自由や幸福 そして成功 揺ぎない世界を築き 語りかけます “何だって 手に入れられる” 素晴しい物語です 信念を貫きたいのも 理解できます でも 注意深く見てみると 落とし穴が見えてきます この物語が色んな形で 語ることができると気づき始めます

米国人は 何度も 米国の選択観を広めようとしました オープンな心と知性をもって 受け入れられるものだと信じて しかし歴史書や新聞で見られるように そう うまくは行きません 刻々と変わる情景― 物語を通して 理解し 理由付ける行いは ところ変われば その姿を変えます 万人のニーズにかなう― 物語は存在しません また 米国人も 長年 選択を左右してきた― 自らの物語に 新しい見方を取り込むことで 恩恵を受けられます

ロバート フロストの言葉 “詩は 翻訳の過程で失われた” この言葉が示唆するのは どんなに美しく 感動的で 新しい見解をもたらす詩であろうが 他の言語を話す人には 伝わらない ということ 反して ヨシフ ブロツキー曰く “詩は 翻訳の過程で 向上したのだ” 翻訳とは 創造的で 影響力のある行為だと 示唆しています 選択に関して言えば 多くの物語の翻訳物に関わることで 失うものよりも 得るものが多いのです 物語を別のものに 取り替えるのではなく 既存する色んなバージョンや 今後書かれていくバージョンから 学び 楽しむことができるのです どこで生まれようが 物語がなんであれ 選択が持つ― 幅広い可能性や 数多くの意味に 心を開ける責任が我々にはあります この考えが モラル相対主義を 麻痺させることはありません むしろ いつ どのように 行動すべきか 教えてくれます 選択がもつ可能性に 気づかせてくれます 希望を吹き込み 保証はあっても 必ずしも実現しない― 自由の獲得へと近づきます たとえ 翻訳を通してでも 他者との交流を学べば 選択がいかに 奇妙で 複雑で 絶対的な美しさを持つか 分かるはずです



ありがとうございました 貴女に関することで パンフレットには 書かれていないことがあります もう皆さんもお気づきでしょうが 目が不自由です 誰もが この疑問を抱いたと思います 目の障害が どんな影響を及ぼすのか? 選択という行為は 美的感覚や色など 視覚的な情報と関連していますよね?

面白い質問ですね 盲目として生きてて 面白いことは 目の見える人が選択するのを 観察する上で 異なる利点があるんです おっしゃるように 視覚的な選択も 最近ではたくさんあります 察しはつくでしょうが 選択で イライラすることもあります 例えば 色を選ぶとき 他人の提案に頼るしかなく 自分では 決められません ある日 マニキュア購入の際 2色の薄ピンクで迷っていました 1つ目の名前は “バレエ シューズ” もう1つは “可憐”

(会場の笑い声) 2人の女性に意見を求めました 1人のお勧めは “バレエ シューズ” “どんな色?” “とてもエレガントなピンクよ” “あら いいわね” もう1人のお勧めは “可憐” “どんな色?” “華やかなピンクよ” 今度は2人に尋ねました “2色には どんな違いがあるの?” “1つはエレガント もう片方は華やか” さっきと同じ答えです 2人の意見が一致したのは もし目が見えたら その違いが はっきりと分かるだろう ということ (会場の笑い)

選択に影響を与えるのは 名前の印象? それとも色? そこで 実験をしてみました 研究室に 2本のマニキュアを持ち込み ラベルをはがしました 研究室に女性を呼び どちらを選ぶか尋ねました 半数の人は 疑ってかかりました 私が2本に まったく同じ色を 入れたんじゃないかと (会場の笑い) (会場の拍手) トリックにかかったのは誰でしょう? とにかく 色を区別できた人たちは ラベルなしだと “可憐”を選び ラベルがあると “バレエ シューズ”を選びました 盲目の私に言えるのは バラに 別の名を与えれば 花のイメージや 香りまで 変わるのでしょう

シーナさん ありがとうございました


― もっと見る ―
― 折りたたむ ―


  • 主語
  • 動詞
  • 助動詞
  • 準動詞
  • 関係詞等