Last time, I opined that consumerism wasn't invented by Americans. Nevertheless, the USA economy is largely based on the consumption of its ordinary people. The pressure to consume can flow through obvious routes, like billboards and TV commercials and ads in printed or digital publications. It also can flow through subtle routes, like peer pressure and status-seeking and desires concealed by self-deception. Fortunately, Christians aren't helpless against the empty values of consumerism, and I have some advice to counteract it.
First, be on guard for consumerism's influence. Signals abound: excessive usage of credit, "fits" of shopping that consist of a string of unplanned purchases in a short time period. However, quantity isn't the only factor. Consider a vivid obsession of just one specific product, entangled with hopes and longings. Beware the thought, "If I had this, I would be so happy."
The dividing line is illustrated by the biblical story of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac, which ranks among the most disturbing sections. That extreme is in contrast with a petty soul who refuses to sacrifice mere stuff for God's sake. In my opinion, Christian devotees aren't required to live according to vows of poverty, but they're required to be "ready" to take such a vow. Anything is up for "grabs" by the Lord of all. This is a useful test. Nonessential things are to be held loosely. And most things that average Americans possess are nonessential.
In addition to conscious detachment from material goods, regular giving is a potent vaccine. Givers tend to not overspend their income. When they give, they reiterate that selfish hoarding is incompatible with Christian attitudes. Resources that are given away can't act as temptations to find fulfillment outside of God's kingdom.
While Christians certainly don't need to give everything they own or earn, they may wish to forgo their usual items from time to time. Withdrawal of these familiar items forces fewer distractions and dependencies. God remains. He's always present, but people often look elsewhere when they have the opportunity. Consumerism is the substitution of a never ending stream of trinkets.
I don't believe that objects are evil. I believe that inappropriate attention to objects can obscure God. Objects appear to be solid saviors for one purpose or another, and by comparison God appears to be shadowy and untouchable. Christian devotees should invert that perspective. God should be the solid savior who surpasses every weaker competitor, and by comparison objects should appear to be flimsy pretenders that break and rot.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Monday, October 10, 2011
consumerism is not an American invention
People work frenziedly, then spend frenziedly, in order to accumulate frenziedly. Sellers and producers advertise frenziedly. Credit is lent frenziedly (i.e. "revolving" credit). To complain about "consumerism" is generally to complain about these economic frenzies. Christianity emphasizes morals, people, and relationships, which puts it into conflict with consumerism's values of greed, inanimate objects, and exclusive ownership.
Maybe consumerism was "perfected" in the USA. The joint causes could be abundant resources and population, technological and financial ingenuity, relatively unhampered markets, and sufficiently competent oversight. Large roles are played by the most successful retailers, product-making corporations, mass media, investment funds. Undoubtedly the economy, consumerism, and culture have reshaped one another. For now, the strongest bastion of consumerism is right here.
It's too simplistic, however, to equate consumerism and American culture. People are born with grasping urges for novelty. They reach for anything that promises to please. No teaching or training is necessary. Consumerism has extended deep roots in some nations, yet it spreads and grows to others without much resistance. Culture always matters, but culture itself changes over time.
"Rich" observers marvel at the simple contentment of people who live in nations that have minimal economies and technology. But this appearance is misleading. All people can adapt to their economic surroundings. One constant across all times and places is that people notice and compare their wealth and/or status. Some learn to be happy despite the differences, but some don't. Beyond a minimum standard of food and clothing and shelter, people can be quite happy as long as they don't consider themselves poor...
The gap is one of scope and opportunity. When societies produce very few goods for the domestic market, and mechanization and communication are primitive, the economic stratification in the society seems to be smaller. Americans have the option to consume in countless ways, and they're encouraged to exercise that option. Once presented with similar levels of encouragements and options, why wouldn't the same hold true for those of any culture? Immigrants to the USA who achieve acceptable income tend to start consuming at comparable rates, although their consumption patterns vary. "Consumerism" is what a typical person naturally does with their discretionary income, i.e. the remainder after taxes and bills and necessities. Lesser amounts of discretionary income are the likelier explanation for less consumerism. The cause isn't American culture, it's human nature.
Maybe consumerism was "perfected" in the USA. The joint causes could be abundant resources and population, technological and financial ingenuity, relatively unhampered markets, and sufficiently competent oversight. Large roles are played by the most successful retailers, product-making corporations, mass media, investment funds. Undoubtedly the economy, consumerism, and culture have reshaped one another. For now, the strongest bastion of consumerism is right here.
It's too simplistic, however, to equate consumerism and American culture. People are born with grasping urges for novelty. They reach for anything that promises to please. No teaching or training is necessary. Consumerism has extended deep roots in some nations, yet it spreads and grows to others without much resistance. Culture always matters, but culture itself changes over time.
"Rich" observers marvel at the simple contentment of people who live in nations that have minimal economies and technology. But this appearance is misleading. All people can adapt to their economic surroundings. One constant across all times and places is that people notice and compare their wealth and/or status. Some learn to be happy despite the differences, but some don't. Beyond a minimum standard of food and clothing and shelter, people can be quite happy as long as they don't consider themselves poor...
The gap is one of scope and opportunity. When societies produce very few goods for the domestic market, and mechanization and communication are primitive, the economic stratification in the society seems to be smaller. Americans have the option to consume in countless ways, and they're encouraged to exercise that option. Once presented with similar levels of encouragements and options, why wouldn't the same hold true for those of any culture? Immigrants to the USA who achieve acceptable income tend to start consuming at comparable rates, although their consumption patterns vary. "Consumerism" is what a typical person naturally does with their discretionary income, i.e. the remainder after taxes and bills and necessities. Lesser amounts of discretionary income are the likelier explanation for less consumerism. The cause isn't American culture, it's human nature.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
impossibility or incorrigibility?
I'm somewhat amused when I read the perspective, "Merely eating less and exercising more is an approach to weight loss whose effectiveness has been disproved innumerable times throughout recorded history." While I agree that it's ridiculous to think that a person of any shape can target any weight they wish, surely it's beyond doubt that weight is affected by habits of eating and physical activity? Practically speaking, people come naturally in all sizes, but each person has the final decision on how to adjust those two "levers". Someone with the same inborn body range as me could be heavier or lighter than me, via the multitude of choices.
Some cultures put excessive emphasis on weight. Like the stars on the Dr. Seuss "sneetches", it's an easily identifiable distinction for sorting individuals by superiority. Cultural taboos and attitudes are quite variable. People who would be acceptable in one society could be scorned in a second. No sensible or universal rationale is necessary for the shaky "morals" of appearance and behavior that are invented by capricious earthly judges.
As Christians who follow God's laws, we think differently. In this case, we recognize the plain sin of gluttony, but we also acknowledge that conspicuous sins are often less deadly to the spiritual life than unseen or subtle sins. A greedy dependence on food may attract more stigma than a greedy dependence on money. Regardless, Christians shall forbid either in order to be free from enslavement to any created thing.
And when we repent of gluttony or the worship of Mammon, we live in faith of the possibility of change. We don't scoff at the idea of self-discipline. Instead we comply with the metaphorical crucifixion of our sinful leanings. Rather than contemplating and wrestling with temptation, we do something simpler: we deny it less than a toehold in our thoughts. The path to committing a sin of action or omission starts by committing the sin mentally within one's fantasies or mental plans.
Cynics are accurate in their observations of the failures of the unspiritual person to achieve personal transformation through weak natural willpower. Flesh demands fleshly actions. In contrast, Christians exercise their godly focus in practice. They release their hungers to Him, and they're revitalized to reject sin in general, including the unspiritual person's fixation on gluttony.
Some cultures put excessive emphasis on weight. Like the stars on the Dr. Seuss "sneetches", it's an easily identifiable distinction for sorting individuals by superiority. Cultural taboos and attitudes are quite variable. People who would be acceptable in one society could be scorned in a second. No sensible or universal rationale is necessary for the shaky "morals" of appearance and behavior that are invented by capricious earthly judges.
As Christians who follow God's laws, we think differently. In this case, we recognize the plain sin of gluttony, but we also acknowledge that conspicuous sins are often less deadly to the spiritual life than unseen or subtle sins. A greedy dependence on food may attract more stigma than a greedy dependence on money. Regardless, Christians shall forbid either in order to be free from enslavement to any created thing.
And when we repent of gluttony or the worship of Mammon, we live in faith of the possibility of change. We don't scoff at the idea of self-discipline. Instead we comply with the metaphorical crucifixion of our sinful leanings. Rather than contemplating and wrestling with temptation, we do something simpler: we deny it less than a toehold in our thoughts. The path to committing a sin of action or omission starts by committing the sin mentally within one's fantasies or mental plans.
Cynics are accurate in their observations of the failures of the unspiritual person to achieve personal transformation through weak natural willpower. Flesh demands fleshly actions. In contrast, Christians exercise their godly focus in practice. They release their hungers to Him, and they're revitalized to reject sin in general, including the unspiritual person's fixation on gluttony.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)