Peter Maurin and the culture of consumption

"Who is telling people it's a lie? The churches? Please. If the churches did tell them, would they hang around to listen?"

Believe it or not, Rod, there are some churches that ARE telling people it's a lie and pointing out their misplaced passions. For one, my home parrish, though we've lost nearly half our congregation within the last year and a half or so. Quite frankly I'm grateful, as I and I'm sure many others are hungry for the straight skinny without any sugarcoating. The musical liturgy, however, is yet another story.

Part of the problem is what you touched base on in the first paragraph. Mentors and popular speakers like to tell people to be good without elaborating on precisely what 'being good' requires; therefore they stay on safe ground. After all, who's going to contest the message to be good or to think positive? A lot easier said than done, my friend.

Freddie de Boer's bit on consumerism to me seemed right on, though.

The Churches don't preach on this? Rod, dare I point out that in most of the Catholic parishes I've made my home in, or even visited, greed, consumption, and consumerism have always been preached against. Frequently. Yet according to you, when you were a Catholic (and after you left as well), and other "Conservative Catholics", this was just a bunch of social justice nonsense, and the priests should have instead been talking about abortion instead! Sheesh!

Here's my theory about this bit of schizophrenia on your part: the "Conservative Catholics" don't want to hear the social justice "nonsense" because it might actually require them to, you know, reconsider their love-affair with the Republican party and their comfortable lifestyles. So they bitch and moan about how they never hear priests talk about abortion, or other sins that your average pew sitter doesn't have experience with because hey... listening to the priest rail on about how bad someone else's sins are is much more fun than being challenged on our own. How far off am I?

But really, you can't have it both ways. Conservatives need to shut up about not hearing enough abortion, or you'll need to shut up about parishes going overboard on social justice/greed/consumerism issues. Make up your minds.

Oh, and add the obligatory complaint about the new captcha system here. :D

Rod: "And I wonder: where does the countercultural message come from?

WALL-E came out on dvd today. Available at fine stores everywhere. :)

Excellent and thoughtful post Rod...__I have no idea how to counter the consumerism other than what is actually happening. The American consumer is not consuming. Of course it is fear based and doesn't really represent a change in habits, but, it does prove that we can be frugal when necessary. I think that most people are externally motivated to some extent and the current economic adversity is providing that external motivation.____Now as far as permanent, habitual frugality that creates a cohesive society capable of supporting "goodness"....well, I just don't know if that has ever existed. I guess the first thought I have is stories I've read about how folks helped one another during the Depression. But the kids and I read a story called The Children of the Dust Bowl recently, and those poor people were treated monstrously by resident Californians when they first got there. Some farmers even burned their excess crops instead of donating it to the starving "Okie" children and families. It was US Gov't intervention, the establishment of camps and schools, that saved the Okies....not the kind heartedness of the Californians. I'm sure there were a few kind folks, but by far the majority were scared to death by the mass influx of these needy, "uneducated" Okies. ____So I just don't know. The most profound thing we can do is change ourselves and teach our children. ____Favorite book and story about this: The Tightwad Gazette. I was so inspired in the 1990's by what this family was able to achieve for themselves through thrift and conservation...a beautiful farm in Maine with acres of good ground, a lovely old barn and house for $30,000, fully paid for. Knowing what the goal is and knowing that frugality and savings are the way to get there has changed our life and lifestyle.

I think this is more complicated than it sometimes seems.

For instance, I could say that we, as a family, don't have the same "consumerist" values as some others: we have a decades-old television, one car which we paid off last year, a modest-sized house, and so on. But what does that mean?

Have you ever walked through your house and looked at the sheer number of things you consider more or less indispensable, to the point that you'd replace them if they stopped working, and then considered how many of them your grandparents or great-grandparents never even owned? I'm not just talking about high-tech products like computers, cell phones, and other paraphernalia of the 24/7 work environment; I'm talking about dishwashers and microwave ovens and various music players and washing machines and dryers and vacuum cleaners and central heat/air conditioning units and crock pot/slow cookers and rice or vegetable steamers and pressure cookers and steam irons and gadgets and gizmos in every drawer of every closet of every corner of every room?

Have you ever considered how much time and energy and money you spend replacing things you already own--not to upgrade to a better model, or to get the latest and greatest, but simply because your current model stopped working? We had a great toaster that lasted more than seven years, but it finally gave up the ghost last week. We bought, brought home, tried, and returned two inexpensive toasters before finding a third one that actually worked--and by worked, I mean "did not burn the toast on the lightest setting." I would have preferred to take the old faithful one to a repair shop--but who's going to repair a toaster when a new one can be purchased for $20 or less? I have no skill with reading a schematic or attempting a home repair, and sad though it is, I'd rather throw an old toaster away than risk a "repair" that ends up setting the kitchen cabinets on fire.

We've lost more than a sense of sanity when it comes to consumption--we've been surrounded for so long by the cheap and disposable and replaceable that many of us no longer know how to repair even a simple machine--and many machines today aren't simple, and have computerized components that fail, turning the device in question into a large plastic paperweight. But so long as the local Stuff N Junk has new ones for "only" $19 or $29 or $59 or $99 or $199, what's the problem?

So we buy bed linens or dishes expecting them to last a year or two, and furniture expecting it to last five or ten years, and everything in between expecting to replace it again and again, because that's how we live. And while restraining the impulse to add that DVD or that book or that bauble to the shopping cart may be the beginning of virtue, the shopping cart is still filled to overflowing with this week's replacement items, which makes the self-restraint feel less like the beginning of a solution and more like a symbolic gesture.

I credit my contrarian nature with allowing me to remain frugal in the face of consumerist pressures.

Before I preach to those poorer than I am, how do I get rid of all the crap I have?

How can I lead a simple life if bring my own lunch to work seems like a burden?

It begins with me. As Ferlinghetti wrote, "I am a social climber climbing down/And the descent is difficult."

I have no skill with reading a schematic or attempting a home repair, and sad though it is, I'd rather throw an old toaster away than risk a "repair" that ends up setting the kitchen cabinets on fire.

Well, the trick is to start with simple things and work your way up to complex items. You could probably do more than you think you can with some practice.

There are a lot of internet resources available. I've spent a good bit of time from Saturday to today diagnosing why my car's AC/heater blower stopped working. Just flat out on my own, I probably could not have done it, but I had good help with folks on a car repair forum and some of the write-up guides about my car model.

so instead of a $250 or more repair bill to fix the problem, I've just spent some research time and $60 ordering a new blower over the internet.

I hope, anyway. I won't know for sure until the blower arrives later this week.

But at a deeper level, I can't repair the existing fan blower because the parts are sealed up in a plastic case. The problem is probably due to worn out brushes in the blower, which probably could be replaced for less than $60 if they were user - accessible.

And meh, you say the sweetest things...

Ack! Erin, you have hit on one of my pet peeves! Nothing lasts longer than 3 years anymore. I inherited my grandma's Kenmore vac when I got married. At that time it was 17 years old. It last 10 more years. I replaced it with a new Sears Kenmore vac as close in style as possible. It broke in 3 months, was replaced completely by Sears. That happened 3 times....3 new vacs in two years__ After 2 years of giving new broken vacs back to Sears for brand spanking new vac replacements I finally gave up and bought an old used vac from an Asian guy who does small appliance repair. Tha was 5 years ago and it still works.____So you are right because the quality of stuff is so low that consumption is inevitable. Does anyone remember shoe repair shops? They don't exist anymore...throw away the old shoes and buy new ones...and on and on, examples ad infinitum.____

Anne,

You make an excellent point. There are plenty of Catholics who are put off by priests challenging their materialism. But isn't the point of the Crunchy Con movement to define a group of people that are socially traditional but uncomfortable with the gung-ho capitalism of the GOP.

The fundamental problem with social justice is that it is rooted in Marxism and modern egalitarianism. I have heard social justice advocates admit that they are essentially motivated by the desire for equality more than justice. The Church has wisely condemned the most extreme versions of "social justice," i.e. liberation theology, because these subvert the Gospel into an explicitly political tool.

Finally, there is the idea of a hierarchy of importance. As unfair and unfortunate as inadequate health care is, it pales in comparison to issues of life and death. I am hard-pressed to imagine that any issue of social justice deserves the same consideration that the life issues do. After all, who is going to argue that materialism and greed are worse than murder?

don't advocate socialism but I do think that if you take Christ at his word you believe that greed and the oppression of the poor and the alien is evil. Just look at how many times they are both mentioned in both the old and New testaments. No no matter how much we try we cannot get around these issues. It is just as much of a sin and a "moral" issue as abortion and gay marriage. So people say it's still not and issue that should be addressed on a structural level. It should be left up to the individual, the private sector, and the church. No. Greed, consumerism, and materialism have infected our culture and the church to the point that giving in our churches is extremely low compared to when our countries were not prospering at all (Yes I know we are not prospering right this moment). I challenge you to look at the numbers especially in Protestant evangelicalism.The bottom line is that It is a moral failure no matter how much we want to deny it so t we need to start taking it seriously.

Churches, incl. Catholic ones, won't condemn consumption (even the conspicuous kind) because they fear turning off or alienating big donors sitting in the pews. Those donors don't want to give X-thousand dollars a year to the church, then come in on an occassional Sunday to hear their lifestyles blasted. That'll make 'em leave church, and drive home in their Jaguars to their McMansions. I have heard more than one pastor/priest say that they need the big $$ too badly for many church projects, so they don't push social action/poverty/consumption stuff too hard.

Look, I'm only toying with these issues, but don't you think that possessions fall into different categories:

Rombald, I tend to agree. Yeah, I have a double-digit savings rate, but I also have a car, computer, & cell phone. I'm thinking of getting a huge flat-panel monitor if I can find a good deal in this holiday season's retail carnage. I have _lots_ of books, and a decent stockpile of DVDs. I cook for myself, but I certainly don't have a green thumb.

A thought: between the extremes of overconsumption & poverty, perhaps there is a zone wherein one owns things, but is not owned by them. Moderation, anyone?

Let's not romanticize poverty. if being poor actually made it easier to be good, wouldn't there be an awful lot of saintly people in this world? I can't believe that on the one hand, conservatives (some of them) wax overwrought about Mexicans, inner city dwellers, and impoverished Muslims ruining our nice culture, and on the other hand, they dream of a day when we'll all be poor. Is there a special kind of poverty for educated white people that will make us wondrously spiritual, whereas the poverty that people have all over the world right now makes them do bad things like kill people out of jealousy and rage, or sell their children because they can't feed them?

Just try living in constant pain because your teeth are rotting out of your head and you can't afford a dentist. Try living with a child who's mentally ill and you wouldn't even know where to look for treatment. Try being picked on at school because you have holes in your shoes. Or not being able to go because you don't have any shoes. Trying being a little kid with the pillow over your head because your parents are screaming at each other over the fact that the car broke down again and there's no money to fix it. My great-grandmother, who was poor, used to say "Poor folks have poor ways." She didn't have poor ways, but she was an exception. Poverty is hell, and poverty makes it really, really hard in many ways to be "good." It's really irritating to listen to people go on and on about this weird type of virtue measured by how many toys you don't buy yourself. Why not focus on using all your benefits to do something good for someone else who doesn't have as much, RIGHT NOW?

Sigaliris@ "Let's not romanticize poverty. if being poor actually made it easier to be good, wouldn't there be an awful lot of saintly people in this world? I can't believe that on the one hand, conservatives (some of them) wax overwrought about Mexicans, inner city dwellers, and impoverished Muslims ruining our nice culture, and on the other hand, they dream of a day when we'll all be poor. Is there a special kind of poverty for educated white people that will make us wondrously spiritual, whereas the poverty that people have all over the world right now makes them do bad things"

But poor people in rich countries don't, on the whole, do bad things because they can't afford food and shelter (they generally can), but because the culture stigmatises poverty, so they envy wealthier people, and either steal from them, or live in a dysfunctional manner (drugs, etc.) to escape from a world in which they are looked down on. With the exception of the very poorest countries (mainly sub-Saharan Africa), life expectancy correlates better with poverty relative to other people in the same country than with absolute poverty. Therefore, trying to establish a less materilistic culture, in which little prestige is attached to possessions, really would help the poor in one's own country.

I think the culture responds to changing material circumstances.

Most people are hedonists (sensate). The smarter ones become Epicureans, or ascetical hedonists, in tough times, and pursue pleasure from the security of meeting basic needs. What they advocate becomes more popular among average hedonists who become increasingly frustrated with the pursuit of 'having it all' in bad economic times. ('Your Money or Your Life' by Joe Dominguez and Vicki Robin is classic Epicureanism at least in how it addresses material wants and needs.)

The dumber hedonists, who are in the majority, just keep joy riding off a cliff.

Most of the average hedonists do not stick with ascetical hedonism in good times, and thus the cycle repeats itself.

Then, there are the 'ideational' Stoics who derive a sense of well-being from making good choices, which (they believe) is the only thing wholly under their control, and the 'idealistic' Christians (Fulfillment in Christ by Germaine Grisez and Russell Shaw is an almost pitch perfect contemporary restatement of this vision). While these people are always a tiny minority in all times, they sometimes hold great sway over the frustrated hedonists in certain epochs as Sorokin explains.

That's a very good point, rombald! Also, of course, it would free up more resources to be used for helping those who are still poor. I would just add one caveat--that merely because people don't lack food of some kind and shelter of some kind doesn't mean they aren't really suffering, even if they live in a rich country. It's horrible to be sick and poor here in the U.S., for example.

I was grumpy when I posted my last--I admit it. So it wasn't entirely germane to Rod's question about how to make excessive consumption unfashionable. I've come up with a better suggestion. Stop judging people based on anything to do with appearances. Stop commenting on their housekeeping, their yard, their car, their clothing. Stop caring. Look past appearances into the heart and embrace everyone as a brother or sister, whether they or their possessions look rich or poor, dirty or clean, tidy or messy, old and worn or shiny and new. If you're with a rich person and they want to talk about their stuff, don't lecture them. Just smile and praise their stuff till they're happy, and then go on to ask about what's really on their minds. People who don't feel judged will not obsess so much over presenting a good image. People who feel loved don't need as much stuff. The secret to changing society is to put plenty of love out there in the world. That will change people. It's kind of a tall order, so we'd better get busy.

Oh, yeah, and we also have to be willing to set a good example by letting go of our own claims to be tidy, clean and proper at all times. Letting go of our claim to be "good," in fact. Letting people judge us, if they feel they must, and not caring. And not getting mad at them for doing it, because they don't know any better. Saying "It's not about stuff, it's about people." And meaning it. Always remember the sage admonition of St. Gordon Liddy: "The secret is in not minding." ; )

I'm new here . . . and often have to consult my dictionary to keep up with the conversations!
But I so appreciate the discussion on this topic. My struggle with fighting Affluenza is how quickly my efforts become a source of pride. And ya know what C.S. Lewis said about pride . . . yep.
But I'll keep trying!

Along with Sigaliris' point, life becomes a lot simpler when you stop caring what other people think.

Uh... sorry, this deceased equine is getting very heavy... there.

Ahem.

The culture of consumption is the outward expression of the cult of entitlement. They feed upon each other like Ourouborus. The operant description for its function and continuation is denial. The only "cure" for denial is to back them into a corner and force them to face reality. So long as they have an escape or loophole, it just won't happen.

I say let the crash happen. For all that many of us will be hurt by it, where we had little or no hand in setting it up or causing it, it is the only way to break through the denial.

Doing the same thing over and over while expecting different or better results is no less insane when people see it as a good thing.

It depends on which "people", Frog Leg.

Consumers will buy as much as they are able. If they only have the cash left over after necessities for discretionary spending, that is how much they will spend. If the credit market floods them with money to borrow, they will spend that as well.

Producers are the key, from my POV. "Enough" and "excess" are very different concepts for them. Enough means they don't push their stock values ever upward, or increase their dividends forever. Excess means they do those things, and are more attractive to investors whose money will facilitate their ever-upward and forever.

For the rest, see above what I wrote about denial. ;-)

We can probably attribute this in part to smaller families. When parents have one or two children, they want to give those children everything. I know that my children's friends have multiple gaming systems, big flat screen TVs, and are always trading up to better cell phones, computers and ipods. We have what is by current standards a large family, and our kids have always known that they can't have the newest and latest of everything. I have to admit, though, that I would like to give them everything they want because I love them so much. Having grown up in a farm family that had enough but none to spare, I know they are really better off learning to do without. It's hard to be the kid without all the toys though.

Baldy, those building codes you mention - isn't that strictly a city/town thing?

And not even every town - out here in my rural East Texas town of 600, I could probably put up any sort of structure I wanted to live in.

I'm pretty sure that is true of the county land.

oops - deleted the post and typed the watchword in the wrong box. Damn. Anyway -

Kudos to Pyrrho for recalling the true teaching of Epicurus (and blame to Horace for his "hog from the sty of Epicurus" self-parody):

Me pinguem et nitidum bene curata cute vises,
cum ridere voles, Epicuri de grege porcum.

(when you want to laugh, you will see me fat and spruced-up, a hog from the herd of Epicurus.)

This is the source of the misunderstanding of Epicurus among the vulgar rabble, among the "dumber hedonists" as Pyrrho rightly calls them.

The true Epicurean goal is ataraxia or freedom from the strife and distress caused by the unbridled pursuit of pleasure. True pleasure is of the intellect -- it comes from understanding; understanding of the universe, whose atoms will ultimately be dispersed (a state of maximum entropy); understanding of the mortality of the soul, whose atoms are dispersed at death; understanding of the apathy of the gods in human affairs -- indeed fear of the supernatural is the most excruciating mental pain. Liberation from superstition about the supernatural puts even the purest practitioners of Epicureanism at odds with the Christians. Epicurean pleasure is pleasure of the mind, and does not require superfluous possessions, indeed spurns those possessions which do not lead to the wise conduct of life.

Jefferson wrote: "I am an Epicurean. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greek and Roman leave to us."

Epicurus' own austerity is evident in his adage: ᾧ ὀλίγον οὐχ᾽ ἱκανόν, ἀλλὰ τούτῳ γε οὐδὲν ἱκανόν. (For whom a little is not enough, to him nothing is enough.)

A chat with Jefferson at Monticello over a bottle of Hermitage on the virtue of asperity would be the ideal way of spending eternity, if there were such a thing.

Human action's legitimacy is not mutable -- its not a contemporary calculus of conformity to an aggregate of ethical opinions (varing over time'n'place) -- it is "a priori," it comes first, before considerations of time'n'place. It is rooted in the rudimentary nature of being human, as we use our free will to move from "being" to "doing" our potency to act gains legitimacy. By forming intentions in pursuit of a flourishing "end" (and choosing a subjective set of sustaining "means" in pursuit of that end) we do "good deeds," we act as a vir (from the Latin for "man"), aka virtuously. To act otherwise leads to decay of the human spirit, to a decline in the human species, to obliteration and death.

Monsignor Livio Melina, president of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family, gave the opening address at the lecture and spoke about the importance of agape love to gain knowledge. “Love itself is a form of knowledge, and this knowledge cannot be objectified,” said Melina. “It is a unique relationship between the believer and God. . . The experience of love introduces us in a specific way to moral knowledge,” added Melina.

"The Persuasive Realism of the Christian Ideal"
http://www.zenit.org/article-22230?l=english
(quotation cited from the newspaper of the Catholic University of America "The Tower" http://tinyurl.com/6ecf8k)

The continued prosperity of our communities rests on how we inculcate the exchange of value in our economy. If we preach objective temporal means, love will find no place, it will be excluded by expediency, as life becomes reduced to the "price" worth paying (or not in the case of abortion). Rather than emulating a canny thriftiness in our material existence, we must enter into a subjective relationship of liberty, building desire for the value of the permanent things. Defending that which is priceless. True freedom leads to an encounter with eternity - the soul's potential for everlasting good. Life is finite, we have only so much time to perfect the choices we make and seek to amend the damages wrought by failed attempts. The Christian path promises us supernatural grace on our way, avoiding the pitfalls
"noted by the American poet T.S. Eliot in his Choruses from “The Rock”: “They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within by dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good.”

I disagree that the social pressure to consume is overwhelming. Get wiser friends and surroundings, meet your own unmet proper needs if you have any, and it disappears.

We can have a lot of fun coming up with codes of virtue to suppress material desires. But most people simply will violate these codes until their unmet needs are met; the only serious collective solution is the one we have of permitting a lot of consumption. Internalized poverty or fear/contempt of lack is the fundamental problem, whether it manifests itself as wasteful behavior or miserliness. And it is going to remain a driving force in the culture until we have met all unmet legitimate material needs. Since it often manifests as trauma a dying away of the most affected is also going to be necessary.

Of course, we can and should generally tamp down the consumption that just serves psychological needs that are insatiable or counterproductive. Which is a sizeable chunk of the whole.

The first time always fails. and I have to do it again. frustrating!

The new anti-spam thingy where you have to type in some gibberishy combination of letters comes with a timer, i.e. there is a limit imposed since last loading the page during which you are permitted to post. I think the time limit is about 10 minutes.

It's frustrating when you forget about that after typing in a long, careful, informative reply. These impositions favor the quick, short, glib rejoinder.

And it's a feature, not a bug!

"Your Name"

Can someone explain to me why deflation is bad?

This is probably a topic for another time but, simply put, there are two problems with deflation: [1] consumers and businesses put off purchases with the expectation that prices will be lower tomorrow and this causes the economy to contract more than it would otherwise (throwing people out of work, etc.), [2] individuals and institutions are currently deep in debt and so paying off debt with an appreciating currency (in terms of purchasing power) is much more onerous.

LK,

Bursting with insights, as always.

Divorce seems to be a major part of the problem, as do medical costs and the costs associated with unemployment.

Spot on! I wish more people understood this.

oops missing citation to amortization http://wealthyreader.com/calculators/monthly-savings-calculator-with-chart/

Rod, when you note "What Freddie's post brings to mind is how our permissive, hedonistic culture hurts the poor and the working class the most," it reminds me of how abortion and consumerism are fascinatingly intertwined (that would be a morbid fascination, natch).

When Hollywood stars and recording artists and supermodels have multiple abortions as birth control, they can still manage the STDs and fertility problems and get counseling (or Kabbalah) by paying up front for the talk therapy or medication or E-meter sessions that help them deal with the guilt and angst.

Poor women who go through multiple abortions find their own health, their economic and social options, and their ability to deal with their inner questions kicked to the side of the road. Poor women who are divorced three times don't find a glamorous new boy toy at 37, and there isn't the same cachet to a complicated relationship history between a celebrity magazine and explaining it to the case officer at CSEA or your second child's probation officer.

What Clark Gable and Jean Harlow and Joan Crawford and Errol Flynn could model as flashy, edgy, glittering options in the 40s and 50s became the grim grimy daily grind for many in poverty who followed their lead into the 60s and 70s and 80s.

Of Britney i speaketh not.

I honestly don't get the whole thrust of this discussion, but I am beginning to think it's indicative of an important difference in worldviews. I don't think I need society's help to practice individual virtues like thrift. Nobody's ever forced me to buy a luxury, unless you count the root canal I had Monday ...

If I want to be thrifty and charitable, nobody's going to stop me. But if people really want society's help in making them be thrifty and charitable, and making all of their neighbors do likewise, it seems to me that it would be better to encourage the government to tax all of us for charitable purposes. That would accomplish the same thing without trashing the economy and throwing people out of jobs.

thanks Stephanie - as sarcasm is hard to put into a combox, allow me to reiterate my interest-rate-to-inflation-rate point again for emphasis:

"She would be living under indentured servitude if her savings institution took that money for "FORTY YEARS" with narry a return on her deposits!"

We have failed abyssmally to teach "economics."
Heck, we've failed to teach our kids plain "math"!!!

The financial rot is endemic to the system of fractional reserve FIAT currency. This is not a new phenomenon, but as long as Gold was the reserve standard, the civic authorities were forced to practice some prudence in deficit spending, since they owed those debts in Gold not dollars. Now the world operates on dollar reserves, untethered from any real asset (incorruptable valuable material), and our debtors are getting nervous that we will default, and have nothing to back up our "promise to pay". They have good reason to be nervous... there is no collateral behind us except the goodwill of the Fed - and its running out of options as the interest rate approaches ZERO.

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

Deborah

http://termlifeinsurance2.com