Language – Sophie’s Choice

Such language is modern idiom, deriving from a 1979 novel and 1982 film (starring Meryl Streep and Kevin Kline) of the same name.

The Collins English Dictionary (Online) defines the term as: “A choice between two persons or things that will result in the death of destruction of the person or thing not chosen”.

The Free Dictionary (by Farlex – Online) defines the term as: “An extremely difficult choice between two or more things one considers to be equally valuable, important or essential. A reference to the 1979 novel ‘Sophie’s Choice’, in which the title character was forced by a doctor at the Auschwitz concentration camp to choose which one of her young children would be killed”.

Such Dictionary gives the following examples of usage:

1. “We were left with a Sophie’s choice – either accept the terms of the contract and be happy we got paid, or demand more equitable treatment and risk getting nothing at all.”
2. “When my parents divorced, I was tasked with picking which one to live with. The painful Sophie’s choice left our family deeply divided for years.” 

The Slang Dictionary (Online) says of the term: 

Since the publication of the book and release of the film, this phrase has experienced broadening in meaning. It can now refer to any life and death decision with no good outcomes, as in the original novel.  Additionally, it can be used in reference to any difficult choice, with outcomes that are both equally good or equally bad. It can also be used in a joking, hyperbolic way to describe a relatively inconsequential situation. However, some people may consider a more light hearted use of the phrase offensive.”.

Sophie’s choice is sometimes confused with Hobson’s choice. The original meaning of Hobson’s choice can best be summarised as ‘take it or leave it’. The choice is between taking one thing that is offered or nothing. It is not really a free choice, even though it appears to be. But if you were making a Sophie’s choice, you actually do have two or more options, aside from the option of not choosing. It’s just that neither one is better than the other. Confusion between the two, however, has resulted in an alternative definition for Hobson’s choice that is more like Sophie’s choice.

The language has found its way into caselaw.  In Cribb v Lankester [2017] FCCA 1629, Judge Purdon-Sully – in a dispute over change of residence of a child due to unacceptable risk of emotional harm in primary care by a mother – wrote:

[359]  The unhappy choice for the court, insightfully put by Counsel for the ICL Ms Carmody, is whether it is better for [X] to have an unhealthy relationship with her primary attachment figure mother and no relationship with her father or be allowed to develop a normal relationship with her father and his wife at the expense of disruption of her primary care relationship with the mother.

[360]  There is no Solomon-like solution for the Sophie’s choice the court is potentially being asked to decide.

[361]  However, based on the court’s assessment and findings, a change in [X]’s primary care would be in her best interests. It is a proposal which provides at least some scope for [X] to have a normal relationship with both her parents and I place particularly significant weight on that finding.

Unsurprisingly it is difficult to find an application of the language outside the Family law space.