User:STS Gentle Tyranny

Overview
Gentle Tyranny is a sociological concept that describes the unintended restrictions placed on a population through social constructs. Some hallmarks of gentle tyranny include restriction on choice and is typically very subtle. The concept of Gentle Tyranny can be generally thought of as a projection of “Hobson’s choice”, wherein the illusion of choice is presented, but in reality, the consumer (in the classic example) actually has none. Referencing a stable owner named Thomas Hobson (1544-1631), he infamously would offer customers the choice of buying the horse in the stall closest to the door or not purchasing one at all. This “take it or leave it” attitude is endemic to Gentle Tyranny. While Gentle Tyranny is not explicitly defined in sociological circles, but more a general nomenclature for certain social and technological side effects, including the unintended consequences that arise from new developments. However, Gentle Tyranny, across all fronts, describes the phenomena of "living with the enduring consequences of sociotechnical changes that occurred years of even generations ago."

Examples
Examples of Gentle Tyranny can be found in virtually every social and technological sector. Some, such as environmental pollution and "brown chemicals", do not involve an explicit choice by the affected population whatsoever. The waste generated as a side effect of large-scale manufacturing is a prime example of this form of gentle tyranny. While the population affected isn’t forced to endure the reduction in air quality (i.e. they are free to move, wear a respirator, etc.), these “take it or leave it” options are not necessarily feasible and place an unsolicited burden on the population. Gentle Tyranny can also involve an explicit decision made by the public, but under duress, in a sense, to avoid larger societal backlash. While purchasing an automobile is completely voluntary, the architecture of our society, both literally and metaphorically, presents serious consequences for certain people. Transit by other means is not always feasible, particularly with workers whose commute would not otherwise be possible. Facing restricted travel or unemployment, there is not a “choice” in the true sense whether or not to own an automobile.