FAIRFAX, VA – “Not all consumerism is bad. Consumerism is appropriate in the marketplace. It is good to be careful consumers, to exercise the freedom to choose within our budgets and personal tastes, and to protect ourselves from fraudulent or predatory businesses.
Consumerism becomes problematic, however, when we let it permeate the rest of our lives, for example, our approaches to government, Church, and even family. Consumerism corrupts government. Since the 1960s, citizens and politicians alike increasingly view government as a buffet of goods and services. Policy debates devolve into crass arguments about which politician can provide the greatest value for the least taxes. Appeals to the virtues of freedom and self-reliance are lost; civic duty becomes irrelevant.”
Click here to read the entire article
Dan Graham, celebrated American author, has written articles for Catholic Truth – two published, one to come in the March edition and more in the pipeline. Dan’s article comparing the novus ordo with the traditional rite of Mass was easily the single most popular article we’ve ever published and his study of the pre and post-Vatican II rites of the Sacrament of Penance was also a big hit with our readers. Dan’s third article for us is another terrific read and is scheduled for the March edition, so with that teaser, I’ll leave you to click on ‘comments’ with your thoughts on the dangers of consumerism. Do you agree with Dan or not?
Tags: church, consumerism, family, religion
-
I think Mr. Graham actually does his readers a disservice by not defining his term: what does he mean by consumerism? It’s an imprecise term, so a definition is not simply helpful it is necessary. I’ve seen different uses for the word over the years; I have no idea at what Graham’s meaning is — the only clear point is that he thinks it’s a bad thing.
For example, a number of socialists and communists find fault with capitalism’s consumerist mindset and characterize it as the epitome of evil. Is that Mr. Graham’s perspective too? I can’t tell one way or the other from his article.
But perhaps what is meant is something of the distributist perspective, which is a sort of light socialism that has been given a superficially Catholic veneer by the adoption of a Catholic idiom. Is that where Mr. Graham is coming from?
Then again, perhaps he means what our Lord does when He warns against serving Mammon. But I can’t tell if this is Mr. Graham’s perspective either.
Let’s have a definition. We don’t necessarily need a definitive, final explanation, but we do need to know what the parameters are before being able to make much sense of Mr. Graham’s argument.
-
Personally, I don’t buy into consumerism. I purposely don’t watch TV commercials. I only buy something if I need it, and even then, I wait until I have the cash to pay for it.
I am appalled at how the younger generation squander their money as it extravagance were a virtue to be practised without end.
It makes me wonder where their sense of values lies, and how they would respond in a crisis. Furthermore, how has this affected their attitude towards other entities that one might think they would hold dear – like their parents and grandparents? Or are we to be jettisoned as “out of fashion” too?
-
It seems to me that few people realise to what extent the Western free-market democracies depend upon consumerism. Were this to come to an end, for whatever reason, the Western democracies as we know them would cease to exist.
Few of us, very few indeed, are immune to consumerism’s necessary handmaiden, i.e. advertising. This phenomenon, direct or indirect, permeates our lives to an incredible degree. Not only does it advise us of what is available, which is by istself acceptable, but it makes people think they need things which they don’t need at all, thus engendering desire for the superfluous as well as sentiments of inferiority and jealousy.
Don’t get me wrong, I am no Luddite. (For example, I am about to invest in Amazon’s Kindle e-book reader, something which I consider to be a truly useful technological development.) But I do feel that it is consumerism which is killing the soul of the West.
Don’t believe me? Just take a trip to the Braehead shopping centre one fine day and observe. It is truly an educational, if soul destroying experience.
And as for keeping consumerism in the market place, that is just wishful thinking. In all the Western democracies, it is the economic dog which wags the political tail. Indeed, this is the essence of the European Community and the Lisbon Treaty in particular. In the eyes of the ideology which underlies this institution, we must live to generate wealth.
In this scheme, God is at best a risky distraction.
-
“In all the Western democracies, it is the economic dog which wags the political tail.”
Am curious: under what form of government has economics not dictated what governing persons can or will do?
For example, for all the modern calumnies about the excesses of the wars of religion, religious wars in the west have been infrequent; the overwhelming majority of wars have been about land, natural resources, inheritance claims, and a host of other factors inseparable from economics.
Anyway, I still don’t know what people mean by the term “consumerism” — not that I can’t think of several possible definitions, but I’m unclear which one (or ones) people have in mind. To add to the list of possibilities I mentioned above:
* Is it simply a supply-side economy?
* Is it a fixation on the acquisition to material goods to the exclusion of more important factors?
* Is it the Darwinian accumulation of properties and goods?Help.
-
Isaac, my first thought on reading your initial post was that Dan would be referring to “consumerism” as defined in any standard dictionary. However, just to be sure, I emailed him the link to this thread. He replied as follows:
FROM DAN GRAHAM…
I would send Isaac to the dictionary. I am not coining a new meaning. When I don’t know what a word means, I look it up. The definition follows:
1. The movement seeking to protect and inform consumers by requiring such practices as honest packaging and advertising, product guarantees, and improved safety standards.
2. The theory that a progressively greater consumption of goods is economically beneficial.
3. Attachment to materialistic values or possessions: deplored the rampant consumerism of contemporaryI argue in the article that consumerism (as defined by all the dictionaries) is appropriate in the marketplace but not in other institutions because government, religion, and families are in the final analysis not to be “consumed.”
-
Excellent article, as always, from Dan G. It reminded me of my experiences as a Protestant in the mid-90s, when the minister started talking about ways to enhance the “worship experience,” as if God needed to be packaged in more attractive ways to increase His shelf appeal. I also noticed something the other day on Father Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz’s blog, in which he stated that Mass has to be absolutely “fascinating” in order to attract more people back to the Church. In both cases, the consumerist mentality applied to religion.
BTW, I would add one more definition to the dictionary entries above: consumerism is a collective self-destructive materialist insanity.
However, I have to wonder: can consumerism be isolated in the marketplace without bleeding over to the other areas of our lives? Or does the marketplace as we know it need to come to ruin in order that faith, once again, becomes the center of our lives, not consumption?
-
Thanks, but that doesn’t really help.
My point was that the term “consumerism” yields several different legitimate meanings (not all of which are listed in his dictionary reference — did Dan look at any of the explanations I provided? No matter).
My question was not whether Dan was coining a new definition, but which meaning did he intend? Presumably his meaning was clear in his own head — well and good; it wasn’t clear in his writing.
Western consumerism is condemned by a variety of sources, some of whom want to counteract the excesses of a liberal capitalist system, others who want to eradicate capitalism altogether.
I’m afraid I find Dan’s glib remark unhelpful and patronizing, and his essay shallow and banal. “Let’s be rid of materialist consumerism” — yes, thank you very much; let’s move on.
-
Another interesting thing is that consumerism has its roots in the Protestant rebellion, followed by the rise of fractional reserve banking (“capital”), followed by the Industrial Revolution (you’ll forgive me if I don’t use the term “Reformation” – if that was reform, then I’ll start claiming I’m Scottish).
So you have rebellion against the Church, combined with usury, as the forces which drive the modern “economy.” And the worldview which motivates this economy, in addition to the “Protestant ethic,” is the secular religion of “progress,” which has swept the Church aside. Everything must be newer, bigger (or more miniaturized), more efficient, faster, more powerful, and more technologically advanced in some way, in order to convince the “consumer” to open his pocketbook to purchase it, or to pay for it with higher taxes.
Several years ago I did a Flying Buttress issue called “The Death of Progress,” in which I theorized that this progress religion had now turned against itself, as manifested by such regressive frauds as climate change and population control (in other words, that progress had spun out of control and must now be tightly regulated). And further, now that this had happened, it presented a unique opportunity for the Church to re-assert its social primacy.
That is, capitalism and consumerism are well on their way to being destroyed, by the very greed which created them.
-
Isaac
I’ve never come across the accumulation of properties and goods under the heading “Darwinian.” Could you explain that? And how is that different from your second bullet point, “a fixation on the acquisition to material goods to the exclusion of more important factors”?
-
@Tomas de Torkay,
I wrote, “the Darwinian accumulation of properties and goods”
I had in mind sheer thuggery; might-makes-right acquisition of property and goods; brigandage. The mere accumulation of goods is not by itself Darwinian, however.
I wrote, “a fixation on the acquisition to material goods to the exclusion of more important factors”
By this I meant culpable neglect and ommission of spiritual and moral considerations; modern liberal materialism (probably sans violence).
-
Isaac,
I took it that Dan was using this definition (I quote it below from his dictionary definitions in the post by editor) because he is saying that consumerism (i.e. the buying and selling, acquiring of material things) should be kept out of church life etc. and stay put in the market place. This is the definition I took (without knowing the actual definition if you see what I mean) when I read his article: “Attachment to materialistic values or possessions: deplored the rampant consumerism of contemporary” (I think the last part is unfinished – contemporary what?)
I’m surprised you didn’t find the article interesting, Isaac, because I thought it was very readable and made me think about the issue of consumerism (also, in my mind, ‘materialism’) in a way I’d never thought of it before.
Torkay also made me think about consumerism differently when he quoted Fr Z about the Mass. That is exactly what has been happening, making the Mass more appealing to the young etc. That is to use the consumerist mentality and apply it to spiritual things. I’ve never thought of it like that before. I always think of money and material things when I think of consumerism, but it is more the mentality that is dangerous, I can see that now.
-
Sorry, I didn’t explain that very well. I meant to say in the first part of my post, that I took it that Dan meant that it was holding material things as of first importance and that somehow carries over into family and church life. Then when I read Torkay’s post with the Fr Z quote it became clearer to me that it was the way of thinking, the mentality, that can be “consumerist” etc. I kind of understood that from Dan’s article but Torkay made it even clearer with that example of the Mass.
-
Isaac,
I hate to disagree with you (and I seldom do – who could: your posts are always terrific!) but I think the majority of people reading Dan’s article would understand that he is referring to what is popularly understood as “consumerism” – that aspect of our lives concerned with buying/selling/treasuring material goods. I think, in the context of the entire article, the 3rd part of the definition Dan submitted via email, best fits his piece: “Attachment to materialistic values or possessions…” Because, in spiritual terms, it’s not the goods themselves, but the danger of attachment to the goods, that poses the challenge for us all.
Dan wrote: “Senior clergy run the church on a corporate model, offering more and more services, novelties, and conveniences.”
And I think that is a very good example of “consumerism” or “attachment to materialistic values…” permeating our lives, in this case, within the Church.
I think, Isaac, that, in fact, you hit on the definition that I think comes across in Dan’s article – the danger of “serving Mammon” and your other suggestion “a fixation on the acquisition to material goods to the exclusion of more important factors” I think all of these concepts are implicit in Dan’s article.
Horatio,
I keep meaning to visit the Braehead Shopping Centre but you’ve made me think twice – I have quite enough soul destroying experiences in my life as it is!
leprechaun,
If only I had your will power! I never could understand that song “Diamonds are a girl’s best friend” when every girl knows her real best friend is her credit card! Only (kind of) joking!
rebel,
I agree that the Fr Z quote is another very good example of a consumerist mentality in the Church – using popular methods and gimmicks of a material nature to “sell” the supernatural. Doesn’t work, of course, but the liberal modernists don’t realise it yet.
Comments are now closed.
13 comments