These used to be regarded as failings, deficiencies and sins: greed, envy, gluttony, lust. Now our highest values seem to be embodied in these once deadly sins which are now reformed into virtues. By the forces of materialistic consumerism and consumption we are being consumed. Every day we are fed a steady diet of dissatisfaction, frustration and desire; we consume dissatisfaction, frustration and desire. And what we consume we become.
Christianity has long known this principle (what we consume we become) in the core of its practice of Thanksgiving (Eucharist), the practice of Communion where the body of the deity is consumed either as a symbol of entering into Communion with God and one another, or in a more visceral way in the hope to become what we consume in a kind of divinization or theosis. Christians say to one another in the act of ritual Communion, “The Body of Christ,” as the host is generously given and gratefully received.
As a theology teacher (and I might say a rather progressive, or liberal theologian in sometimes conservative environments) in high schools and colleges, I have never been challenged by anyone when I have discussed a theology that would allow for full and equal participation of women, or when I explored theological perspectives that challenge ordinary authority structures. No matter how scandalous my theology might be to a conservative sensibility, I have never heard one word of complaint.
The only time I have ever been challenged or threatened (and I have been threatened) by any parent or student is when I had the audacity to call into question the matrialistic consumption-structures that we consume and that consume us. If I dare to point out that the way we consume material products in this country has the direct result of turning other human beings into machines, dehumanized, desubjectified things, and mere means of production, I can be assured that my email box will contain enraged ‘how dare yous’ and epithets about how un-American I am. Indeed: how dare I be so un-American as to question the destruction of the human spirit? Only when I call into question the devastating cultural indoctrination that transforms these young people into dehumanized consumers—only then am I charged with indoctrination.
Protestant theologian Paul Tillich said we all have faith in something because we all have an ultimate concern. From my experience as a teacher, it seems clear that the only truly holy, truly sacred ground against which we must not dare speak a single word is the Consumerist Mandate (the universal American ultimate concern). That means, in spite of so much hand-wringing and pontificating about God, Christ, Christianity, Islam (etc.) the only real God in this country is the God Money. In 1963, Paul Simon was onto something when he said that “the people bowed and prayed to the neon God they made.”
When we fail to see that we are members of one another, that the cosmos, our precious Earth comprises a sublime and vast interconnectedness, fail to see that we are composed of relationships that require profound generosity and demand from us exquisite gratitude– when we fail in this sensitivity (as Paul Simon has more recently said), “man becomes machine, oil runs down his face, machine becomes a man with a bomb in the marketplace.” We are turning one another into machines with bombs in the marketplace.
So, when I saw this image on the side of the Target Headquarters building in downtown Minneapolis on Sunday, I was not surprised: We have become the Body of Priced.
But, I challenge us all to cast off the chains of materialistic consumerism, honor one another in our breathtaking interrelatedness, breathe-in deeply the fact of our membership in one another, and become a new creation together!
Well done, Paul. It truly amazes me (and it has been my experience, too) that when we rattle the cages of Americans, challenging them to consider something other than the paradigm of materialism/consumerism begetting itself to the detriment our our individual/corporate souls, the reaction is to lash out against the truth that lies within that challenge. Perhaps this is because we as a nation/society (dare I use the word “culture?”) have truly become “The Body of Priced” and that our reaction to the truth is so visceral because what runs through our veins is “The Blood of Priced.”
Lord, have mercy.
Christ, have mercy.
Lord, have mercy.
Perhaps we should go back to the once dominant Christian mandate? Everyone knows that consumerism and materialism have their many many flaws(that still, . Saying that, it is hard for me to agree that consumerism and materialism destroys the human spirit, or even that there is a mandate to consume. Rather than a mandate it is instead a suggestion (albeit a very very strong one). Several counter cultures exist that express an anti-consuming ideology, and they are allowed to thrive and are not persecuted. Consumerism is a dominant ideology, and it is invasive in America. But, I think bashing it, saying it destroys the human spirit, turns us into machines with bombs in the marketplace and turns us into dehumanized and desubjectified things is counter-productive. I am more interested in your last italicized paragraph. We cannot announce an institution ‘evil’ and expect it to fall apart. We must build a better institution that will replace it. Maybe we can take those things that are so effective and- dare I say it- positive about the consumerist and materialistic ideologies, and reshape it and mold it to raise up humanity everywhere.
I kinda like that target ad. I also really dislike going to target.
Thanks Ashby. The offensiveness of the Target ad would only be perceptible to a Christian. By making the Taget logo into a substitute for the host, the body of Christ, Target is (in effect) saying to the Christian: we are your God. Apart from the co-opting of Christian symbolism and ritual, there is nothing offensive in the ad.
But I do think consumerism destroys people, and turns them into machines. The fact that we are insulated from the real effects of our consuming does not mean that those effects are nonexistent. It just means that we can go on our merry way pretending that they are not there. We do not see the devastated lives of children and women who make our clothing, or the early deaths of workers who are exposed to toxic chemicals for our cellphones and tablet computers.
I do also think there is a mandate to consume. We are bombarded by messages convincing us, manipulating us in highly developed, highly effective and insidious ways, that we are insufficient, that we should be unhappy with what we already have, and that the key to our happiness is consumption of the next product. If there were even a fraction of the number of messages that bombard us to consume, but that came from religion– people would be OUTRAGED! But because the real God is Consuming, the real God is Money, and this is the truly sacred in our culture, we let it wash over us, and penetrate us like the holy unquestionable it has become.
While I do suggest that there might be elements from a religious inheritance that might help us answer the dilemma, I do not call for a restoration of a by-gone Christian mandate. You are right: I call for a new creative advance that will require total honesty about the evil side of our way of life, the evil side of consumption-culture. Apart from such honesty, I do not see how anyone will be motivated to create a viable alternative, a real creative advance. As long as we can continue in our ignorant bliss, there will be no reason to change our ways.
I always get a little uncomfortable when I read screeds against “consumerism” on this site, because it seems to me they’re always extremely one-sided and lack an appreciation of the extraordinary benefits free trade (which is essentially what you mean by “consumerism” I think) has brought to the world.
Certainly the expansions of markets has not removed the horrendous inequalities of wealth that exist in the world – but those inequalities existed before, and weren’t created by our current economic system. Further, the vast majority of people have benefited enormously from freer movement of goods and labor, as well as the innovation spurred by our acquisitive nature.
There is also something of an irony, in my mind, in someone from a religious perspective decrying the fact that “We are bombarded by messages convincing us, manipulating us in highly developed, highly effective and insidious ways, that we are insufficient, that we should be unhappy with what we already have”.
A significant project of Christian churches throughout its history has been to ensure people are dependent on the church for physical and spiritual welfare, and in so doing it has consistently peddled a message of the insufficiency and fundamentally flawed nature of humankind. It continues to do so to this day, in service of its own power and resulting in the misery of millions.
I have to laugh when you say “If there were even a fraction of the number of messages that bombard us to consume, but that came from religion– people would be OUTRAGED!” This seems to me completely myopic – we ARE bombarded with religious messages and the weight of religious messages is much heavier in other nations.
And what do you mean by a “new creative advance”? What specific measures would you implement which would create a better system?
Thanks, for your reply, James. Thought-provoking as always. I’ll try to respond to your several points…
* Success: I am offended by your evidently intentionally offensive use of the term “screed.” I have treated you with respect whenever I have responded to you, and do not know how I merited the insult– which doesn’t seem worthy of this State of Formation forum.
*As for my one-sidedness, there are so many cheerleaders for our economic system, with such loud voices (and political power, and money), that I figure they do not need me to point out that there are benefits to some people (myself included—please don’t think for a second that I am not a beneficiary of this economic system, because I am) in this economic system as it stands.
*If anything, the expansion of markets has intensified and expanded the pre-existent condition of inequality. Do you really think that the “vast majority of people have benefited enormously”? The truth is that very few people hold almost all of the benefits of the current economic system. Here’s a great UN article from 2006 (and the inequality has worsened since then): http://www.wider.unu.edu/events/past-events/2006-events/en_GB/05-12-2006/
*Agreed about the irony. I think the truth is that religion has laid the foundations for what I complain about: it has enforced the structures of influence that manipulate people (what Tillich calls demonic holiness); and it has impressed a tragic docility upon people in that it has accustomed us to be manipulated in these ways. And while religions are rightly faulted for their leaving millions in misery, part of my point here is that the consumerist economics of greed results in the misery of billions. And both of those institutional structures are also guilty of benefiting the comparably very few.
*Well, at least I made you laugh. I mean that religions can’t compete with the 800-3000 ads Americans see every day. We are submerged in highly effective corporate efforts to manipulate us at every turn. I guess what I was trying to get at is that it’s the sheer volume of corporate messaging that overwhelms religions (and individuals). People, I think would be offended if the Catholic Church had the kind of ad-buys that Go-Daddy.com has, or Toyota. These days, I think people are wisely more ready to filter out the manipulative effect of religion, and have an automatic suspicion of religious manipulation because of the hard work of those who critique religion (like you). I only want the same kind of suspicious and critical thought applied to consumerism, that has been so rightly applied to religions. But, if a religious person (or even a non-religious, but theologically-minded person like me) speaks out against the Consumerist God—yes there is the irony of hypocrisy since religion and its structures made this new God plausible—then they better hold onto their hats because there is nothing that riles up the people more than words against the New God.
*And, James, I am ashamed to say, again, that I am probably as embedded in the consumerist ideology as anyone else. My only hope for a leap forward, or a creative advance, is that in recognizing the devastation that our way of life enforces upon so many people, and upon ecosystems, and the planet as a whole we will choose to consume in a new way, taking on an ethic of gratitude and generosity that can somehow overcome the magnificent momentum currently enjoyed by greed and selfishness. I don’t know how. Because I want an iPad II, too.
I think you and I have a slight disagreement over the strength of the word “screed”, but you can hardly argue that you presented a nuanced appreciation of world economics when you talk about the “destruction of the human spirit”. It’s at the very least rather hyperbolic.
“there are so many cheerleaders for our economic system, with such loud voices (and political power, and money), that I figure they do not need me to point out that there are benefits to some people”
I actually don’t think that’s so much the case among our generation, and it certainly isn’t the case on this site. “Consumerism” is continually blasted by hip young intellectuals without any appreciation of its upsides. I think in that context it is responsible to try and present these complex issues in something of a balanced way.
“If anything, the expansion of markets has intensified and expanded the pre-existent condition of inequality. Do you really think that the “vast majority of people have benefited enormously”?”
I do believe that, yes. Think of the state of wealth of most of the world’s population 200, 300, 500 and 1,000 years ago and try to defend the idea that the opening of markets and the profit motive haven’t improved living standards for the vast majority of people. The fact that inequality remains or has increased by some measures does not change this fact – it is quite irrelevant to it. One of the important things about the economic system is that the pie can get bigger, meaning that even if you have a smaller percentage of the pie than you had 50 years ago you could still be getting more pie.
Here’s one video which demonstrates this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDhcqua3_W8
“I think would be offended if the Catholic Church had the kind of ad-buys that Go-Daddy.com has, or Toyota.”
This is interesting. I walk past more churches on my way to Harvard Square every day than I walk past advertisements. Bells fill the air every hour, advertisements for religious groups are all over the T, on radio and elsewhere, and there are whole TV Channels dedicated to spreading the word of God! I think it’s simply we are USED to the ways religion seeks to influence us (note I don’t say manipulate – I, like ashby, want to maintain a distinction there).
You raise an important ethical question, I think, about how we consume and how we think about how we consume. We should all try to be mindful of that. But I think you go too far in attempting to demonize the consumerist impulse. Our current economic system has been one of the most successful organizational structures for promoting human welfare we have yet devised as a species. It has brought a level of material comfort and longevity of life to millions and is steadily raising others out of miserable poverty.
I simply do not regard the idea that our material wealth leads to the poverty of others as a case that has successfully been made. I’d like to see it made, but as of yet I haven’t seen it.
Thanks, James. I really appreciate your engaging this topic! Keep pushing, and maybe one of us will be able to do a better job of illumining what is so obvious to good folks like me, but fails to impress good folks like you.
You make some great points Paul!
There are several ways to hold an object. Yes the target logo is held the same way the body of christ is delivered in mass. However, you can’t assume that Target’s intent was to substitute the logo for the host in order to express that they are god. Many objects can be held that way. I think the intent was for it to be evocative. I doubt CEO’s have the time to figure out ways of comparing themselves to god, especially the department store types. It’s more likely that this was an art director’s idea, and that they thought it was cool and fun, and “hey, maybe someone will compare this to a sacred catholic ritual, and wouldn’t that be a good time?”
The point of advertising is to help a consumer feel good about a product so that they buy it, and it is an essential way to let the consumers know that the product actually exists. I agree that they are convincing but I don’t think anyone is being manipulated. The quality of a product is actually what matters most. No matter how good the advertising and messages are, if the product is crap, people will buy it once or never, get angry and never return as a customer.
Advertising is not insidious and it does not brainwash. It is there as a tool to drive up market shares. It’s easy to attach an insidious narrative to the way corporations go about business, especially when there is still so much inequality in the world. The truth is, trying to subliminally fool someone into being unhappy so that they buy your product is just really bad marketing. Company’s aren’t trying to tell us to be unhappy with what we already have and that the next new thing will fill the gap in our soul. They are advertising an innovation. They are telling us how they made a faster, cheaper computer that uses less energy, or how they just made a safer car that gets better gas mileage(it’s true that very often an advertised innovation is implied and mostly false, but that is done to keep consumers from switching brands).
It is sad that board rooms of business men have to move jobs oversees to remain competitive. It is sad that people of impoverished nations don’t have the right labor laws or minimum wage laws and that the global environment is being changed by the way we humans do business. It is a tragedy that corporations make decisions for short term profit which yield long term consequences. These are all important issues to be addressed.
You say that we don’t see how the lives of women and children making or clothing or those working with dangerous chemicals but a lot of us do, and there are journalists and film makers out in the world enlightening us and connecting us and spreading knowledge on the interweb. More and more consumers are fighting to be smart consumers. More and more corporations are trying to be ethical corporations. The industrial capitalistic global economy is only a few hundred years old. It might take a little while for everyone to get it to work the right way(or to see if it will even work at all).
I might not be able to comment expertly on how religion and business influence the masses. Different in kind, similar by degree? As a pragmatist, a populist, an atheist, and a designer, I think the term ‘evil’ is antiquated. I think creating a negative narrative around the engine(markets, trade, consumerism, the distribution of goods and services, business, capitalism, what have you), that helps our species thrive, is counter productive. Doesn’t everyone want to make the world a better place? Solid communication and ethical policy is what we need.
Good times.
Thanks. You state your case well, Ashby.
I wind up using terms like evil because i am in an anachronistic field. Maybe there will be a breadline that accepts theologians during the next Great Depression.
One good example of the manipulation (yes I think we are in some way intentionally manipulated by people with advanced degrees in psychology and human behavior) is the total change in thought from the 1980s to now about bottled water. What was once rightly seen as an absurd waste of resources (you’re going to make bottles, and ship them all over the world?), an elitist snobbery (I only drink Evian) and a ridiculous inconvenience (you’re going to lug home bottles of water when you have a tap at home?) is now seen as more convenient. It took many years, but the campaigning worked. The public is convinced that bottled water is a better and more convenient way to get their water.
Good times, Great taste. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9_6_Xuhwjo
You’re totally right Paul. People will sell anything to make a profit. Nice you-tube link. It made me feel tacky.
:)<<< I forgot to add that!
Oh no! I didn’t mean to make you feel bad. It was meant to implicate my own self in the mess I am describing, since your words triggered a memory (in my mind)of that very very old ad campaign.
No worries, brother! 🙂 That old ad campaign triggered something thought provoking on my end as well, but in a good way!
Greetings friends. Please go see this film, which I just saw. http://www.iamthedoc.com/thefilm/ Beautiful. I think it applies in many ways to the conversation we have just had.
-Peace & Love, Paul
Paul
Thank you for your thoughts. As a social-justice advocate in Washington, DC, I second your opinion that challenging the status quo of consumerism in the American context (particularly by Christians) often brings out the worst in folks. I’m not sure if the following tool would be helpful for you or not, but I have found it helpful in my own ministry. Enjoy: http://whoarethejoneses.org/
Brandon Turner
Thanks, Brandon. That is really great!