Much of the debate over how to address the economic crisis has focused on a single word: regulation. And it's easy to understand why. Bad behavior by a variety of businesses landed us in this mess--so it seems rather obvious that the way to avoid future economic meltdowns is to create, and vigorously enforce, new rules proscribing such behavior. But the truth is quite a bit more complicated. The world economy consists of billions of transactions every day. There can never be enough inspectors, accountants, customs officers, and police to ensure that all or even most of these transactions are properly carried out. Moreover, those charged with enforcing regulations are themselves not immune to corruption, and, hence, they too must be supervised and held accountable to others--who also have to be somehow regulated. The upshot is that regulation cannot be the linchpin of attempts to reform our economy. What is needed instead is something far more sweeping: for people to internalize a different sense of how one ought to behave, and act on it because they believe it is right.
That may sound far-fetched. It is commonly believed that people conduct themselves in a moral manner mainly because they fear the punishment that will be meted out if they engage in anti-social behavior. But this position does not stand up to close inspection. Most areas of behavior are extralegal; we frequently do what is expected because we care or love. This is evident in the ways we attend to our children (beyond a very low requirement set by law), treat our spouses, do volunteer work, and participate in public life. What's more, in many of those areas that are covered by law, the likelihood of being caught is actually quite low, and the penalties are often surprisingly mild. For instance, only about one in 100 tax returns gets audited, and most cheaters are merely asked to pay back what they "missed," plus some interest. Nevertheless, most Americans pay the taxes due. Alan Lewis's classic study The Psychology of Taxation concluded that people don't just pay taxes because they fear the government; they do it because they consider the burden fairly shared and the monies legitimately spent. In short, the normative values of a culture matter. Regulation is needed when culture fails, but it cannot alone serve as the mainstay of good conduct.
So what kind of transformation in our normative culture is called for? What needs to be eradicated, or at least greatly tempered, is consumerism: the obsession with acquisition that has become the organizing principle of American life. This is not the same thing as capitalism, nor is it the same thing as consumption. To explain the difference, it is useful to draw on Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of human needs. At the bottom of this hierarchy are basic creature comforts; once these are sated, more satisfaction is drawn from affection, self-esteem, and, finally, self-actualization. As long as consumption is focused on satisfying basic human needs--safety, shelter, food, clothing, health care, education--it is not consumerism. But, when the acquisition of goods and services is used to satisfy the higher needs, consumption turns into consumerism--and consumerism becomes a social disease.
The link to the economic crisis should be obvious. A culture in which the urge to consume dominates the psychology of citizens is a culture in which people will do most anything to acquire the means to consume--working slavish hours, behaving rapaciously in their business pursuits, and even bending the rules in order to maximize their earnings. They will also buy homes beyond their means and think nothing of running up credit-card debt. It therefore seems safe to say that consumerism is, as much as anything else, responsible for the current economic mess. But it is not enough to establish that which people ought not to do, to end the obsession with making and consuming evermore than the next person. Consumerism will not just magically disappear from its central place in our culture. It needs to be supplanted by something.
A shift away from consumerism, and toward this something else, would obviously be a dramatic change for American society. But such grand cultural changes are far from unprecedented. Profound transformations in the definition of "the good life" have occurred throughout human history. Before the spirit of capitalism swept across much of the world, neither work nor commerce were highly valued pursuits--indeed, they were often delegated to scorned minorities such as Jews. For centuries in aristocratic Europe and Japan, making war was a highly admired profession. In China, philosophy, poetry, and brush painting were respected during the heyday of the literati. Religion was once the dominant source of normative culture; then, following the Enlightenment, secular humanism was viewed in some parts of the world as the foundation of society. In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the influence of religious values in places like Russia and, of course, the Middle East. (Details can be found in John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge's new book, God is Back--although, for many, he never left.) It is true that not all these changes have elevated the human condition. The point is merely that such change, especially during times of crisis, is possible.
To accomplish this kind of radical change, it is neither necessary nor desirable to imitate devotees of the 1960s counterculture, early socialists, or followers of ascetic religious orders, all of whom have resisted consumerism by rejecting the whole capitalist project. On the contrary, capitalism should be allowed to thrive, albeit within clear and well-enforced limits. This position does not call for a life of sackcloth and ashes, nor of altruism. And it does not call on poor people or poor nations to be content with their fate and learn to love their misery; clearly, the capitalist economy must be strong enough to provide for the basic creature comforts of all people. But it does call for a new balance between consumption and other human pursuits.
There is strong evidence that when consumption is used to try to address higher needs--that is, needs beyond basic creature comforts--it is ultimately Sisyphean. Several studies have shown that, across many nations with annual incomes above $20,000, there is no correlation between increased income and increased happiness. In the United States since World War II, per capita income has tripled, but levels of life satisfaction remain about the same, while the people of Japan, despite experiencing a sixfold increase in income since 1958, have seen their levels of contentment stay largely stagnant. Studies also indicate that many members of capitalist societies feel unsatisfied, if not outright deprived, however much they earn and consume, because others make and spend even more: Relative rather than absolute deprivation is what counts. This is a problem since, by definition, most people cannot consume more than most others. True, it is sometimes hard to tell a basic good from a status good, and a status good can turn into a basic one (air conditioning, for instance). However, it is not a matter of cultural snobbery to note that no one needs inflatable Santas or plastic flamingos on their front lawn or, for that matter, lawns that are strikingly green even in the scorching heat of summer. No one needs a flat-screen television, not to mention diamonds as a token of love or a master's painting as a source of self-esteem.
Consumerism, it must be noted, afflicts not merely the upper class in affluent societies but also the middle class and many in the working class. Large numbers of people across society believe that they work merely to make ends meet, but an examination of their shopping lists and closets reveals that they spend good parts of their income on status goods such as brand-name clothing, the "right" kind of car, and other assorted items that they don't really need.
This mentality may seem so integral to American culture that resisting it is doomed to futility. But the current economic downturn may provide an opening of sorts. The crisis has caused people to spend less on luxury goods, such as diamonds and flashy cars; scale back on lavish celebrations for holidays, birthdays, weddings, and bar mitzvahs; and agree to caps on executive compensation. Some workers have accepted fewer hours, lower salaries, and unpaid furloughs.
So far, much of this scaling-back has been involuntary, the result of economic necessity. What is needed next is to help people realize that limiting consumption is not a reflection of failure. Rather, it represents liberation from an obsession--a chance to abandon consumerism and focus on ... well, what exactly? What should replace the worship of consumer goods?
The kind of culture that would best serve a Maslowian hierarchy of needs is hardly one that would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs--the economy that can provide the goods needed for basic creature comforts. Nor one that merely mocks the use of consumer goods to respond to higher needs. It must be a culture that extols sources of human flourishing besides acquisition. The two most obvious candidates to fill this role are communitarian pursuits and transcendental ones.
Communitarianism refers to investing time and energy in relations with the other, including family, friends, and members of one's community. The term also encompasses service to the common good, such as volunteering, national service, and politics. Communitarian life is not centered around altruism but around mutuality, in the sense that deeper and thicker involvement with the other is rewarding to both the recipient and the giver. Indeed, numerous studies show that communitarian pursuits breed deep contentment. A study of 50-year-old men shows that those with friendships are far less likely to experience heart disease. Another shows that life satisfaction in older adults is higher for those who participate in community service.
Transcendental pursuits refer to spiritual activities broadly understood, including religious, contemplative, and artistic ones. The lifestyle of the Chinese literati, centered around poetry, philosophy, and brush painting, was a case in point, but a limited one because this lifestyle was practiced by an elite social stratum and based in part on exploitation of other groups. In modern society, transcendental pursuits have often been emphasized by bohemians, beginning artists, and others involved in lifelong learning who consume modestly. Here again, however, these people make up only a small fraction of society. Clearly, for a culture to buy out of consumerism and move to satisfying higher human needs with transcendental projects, the option to participate in these pursuits must be available on a wider scale.
All this may seem abstract, not to mention utopian. But one can see a precedent of sorts for a society that emphasizes communitarian and transcendental pursuits among retired people, who spend the final decades of their lives painting not for a market or galleries but as a form of self- expression, socializing with each other, volunteering, and, in some cases, taking classes. Of course, these citizens already put in the work that enables them to lead this kind of life. For other ages to participate before retirement, they will have to shorten their workweek and workday, refuse to take work home, turn off their BlackBerrys, and otherwise downgrade the centrality of labor to their lives. This is, in effect, what the French, with their 35-hour workweeks, tried to do, as did other countries in "old" Europe. Mainstream American economists--who argue that a modern economy cannot survive unless people consume evermore and hence produce and work evermore--have long scoffed at these societies and urged them to modernize. To some extent, they did, especially the Brits. Now it seems that maybe these countries were onto something after all.
A society that downplayed consumerism in favor of other organizing principles would not just limit the threat of economic meltdown and feature a generally happier populace; it would have other advantages as well. Such a society would, for example, use fewer material resources and, therefore, be much more compatible with protecting the environment. It would also exhibit higher levels of social justice.
Social justice entails redistribution of wealth, taking from those disproportionally endowed and giving to those who are underprivileged through no fault of their own--for reasons ranging from past injustices and their lingering contemporary effects to technological changes to globalization to genetic differences. The reason these redistributions have been surprisingly limited in free societies is that those who command the "extra" assets tend also to be those who are politically powerful. Promoting social justice by organizing those with less and forcing those in power to yield has had limited success in democratic countries and led to massive bloodshed in others. So the question arises: Are there other ways to reduce the resistance of elites to redistribution?
The answer is found when elites derive their main source of contentment not from acquiring more goods and services, but from activities that are neither labor nor capital intensive and, hence, do not require great amounts of money. Communitarian activities require social skills and communication skills as well as time and personal energy--but, as a rule, minimal material or financial outlays. The same holds for transcendental activities such as prayer, meditation, music, art, sports, adult education, and so on. True, consumerism has turned many of these pursuits into expensive endeavors. But one can break out of this mentality and find that it is possible to engage in most transcendental activities quite profoundly using minimal goods and services. One does not need designer clothes to enjoy the sunset or shoes with fancy labels to benefit from a hike. Chess played with plastic pieces is the same game as the one played with carved mahogany or marble pieces. And I'm quite sure that the Lord does not listen better to prayers read from a leatherbound Bible than those read from a plain one, printed on recycled paper. (Among several books that depict how this kind of culture can flourish is Seven Pleasures by Willard Spiegelman.) In short, those who embrace this lifestyle will find that they can achieve a high level of contentment even if they give up a considerable segment of the surplus wealth they command.
As for actually putting this vision into practice: The main way societies will determine whether the current crisis will serve as an event that leads to cultural transformation or merely constitute an interlude in the consumerism project is through a process I call "moral megalogues." Societies are constantly engaged in mass dialogues over what is right and wrong. Typically, only one or two topics dominate these megalogues at any given time. Key recent issues have included the legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and whether gay couples should be allowed to marry. In earlier decades, women's rights and minority rights were topics of such discussions. Megalogues involve millions of members of a society exchanging views with one another at workplaces, during family gatherings, in the media, and at public events. They are often contentious and passionate, and, while they have no clear beginning or endpoint, they tend to lead to changes in a society's culture and its members' behavior.
The megalogue about the relationship between consumerism and human flourishing is now flickering but has yet to become a leading topic--like regulation. Public intellectuals, pundits, and politicians are those best- positioned to focus a megalogue on this subject and, above all, to set the proper scope for the discussion. The main challenge is not to pass some laws, but, rather, to ask people to reconsider what a good life entails.
Having a national conversation about this admittedly abstract question is merely a start, though. If a new shared understanding surrounding consumption is to evolve, education will have a crucial role to play. Schools, which often claim to focus solely on academics, are actually major avenues through which changes in societal values are fostered. For instance, many schools deeply impress on young children that they ought to respect the environment, not discriminate on racial or ethnic grounds, and resolve differences in a peaceful manner. There is no reason these schools cannot push back against consumerism while promoting communitarian and transcendental values as well. School uniforms (to counter conspicuous consumption) and an emphasis on community service are just two ways to work these ideas into the culture of public education.
For adults, changes in the workplace could go a long way toward promoting these values. Limits on overtime, except under special conditions (such as natural disasters); shorter workweeks; more part- and flex-time jobs; increased freedom to work from home; allowing employees to dress down and thereby avoid squandering money on suits and other expensive clothes--all these relatively small initiatives would encourage Americans to spend more time on things besides work.
Finally, legislation has a role to play. Taxes can discourage the purchase of ever-larger houses, cause people to favor public transportation over cars, and encourage the use of commercial aviation rather than private jets. Government could also strike a blow against consumerism by instituting caps on executive pay.
Is all this an idle, abstract hypothesis? Not necessarily. Plenty of religious Americans have already embraced versions of these values to some extent or other. And those whose secular beliefs lead them to community service are in the same boat. One such idealist named Barack Obama chose to be a community organizer in Chicago rather than pursue a more lucrative career.
I certainly do not expect that most people will move away from a consumerist mindset overnight. Some may keep one foot in the old value system even as they test the waters of the new one, just like those who wear a blazer with jeans. Still others may merely cut back on conspicuous consumption without guilt or fear of social censure. Societies shift direction gradually. All that is needed is for more and more people to turn the current economic crisis into a liberation from the obsession with consumer goods and the uberwork it requires-- and, bit by bit, begin to rethink their definition of what it means to live a good life.
Amitai Etzioni served as president of the American Sociological Association and is the author of The Active Society.
By Amitai Etzioni
Print
COMMENTS (42)
I'd like to see a megalogue on the transformation of the workplace that will allow mothers to become a stronger voice in our society's governance. Until rule of human communities is meaningfully shared by those who give birth and those who do not, they will flounder.
Your suggestions -- "For adults, changes in the workplace could go a long way toward promoting these values. Limits on overtime, except under special conditions (such as natural disasters); shorter workweeks; more part- and flex-time jobs; increased freedom to work from home; allowing employees to dress down and thereby avoid squandering money on suits and other expensive clothes--all these relatively small initiatives would enc ... view full comment
I'd like to see a megalogue on the transformation of the workplace that will allow mothers to become a stronger voice in our society's governance. Until rule of human communities is meaningfully shared by those who give birth and those who do not, they will flounder.
Your suggestions -- "For adults, changes in the workplace could go a long way toward promoting these values. Limits on overtime, except under special conditions (such as natural disasters); shorter workweeks; more part- and flex-time jobs; increased freedom to work from home; allowing employees to dress down and thereby avoid squandering money on suits and other expensive clothes--all these relatively small initiatives would encourage Americans to spend more time on things besides work" -- are all initiatives that could help the voice of mothers be heard in society.
On its face, it’s not clearly stated whether the group to which the author advocates redistributing wealth, i.e. “those who are underprivileged through no fault of their own,” is seen as a smallish subset of the less advantaged or if the case is being made that most (or all) of those of limited success have had no part whatsoever in crafting their position. Given the broad recommendations and lack of discussion, I expect that the assertion is that the group should encompass all of them. To justify the proposed redistribution, it seems that one also would need to infer the corollary that those who have secured disproportionate advantage also have had no part in securing their successe ... view full comment
On its face, it’s not clearly stated whether the group to which the author advocates redistributing wealth, i.e. “those who are underprivileged through no fault of their own,” is seen as a smallish subset of the less advantaged or if the case is being made that most (or all) of those of limited success have had no part whatsoever in crafting their position. Given the broad recommendations and lack of discussion, I expect that the assertion is that the group should encompass all of them. To justify the proposed redistribution, it seems that one also would need to infer the corollary that those who have secured disproportionate advantage also have had no part in securing their successes. These positions once again highlight what is perhaps the key personal belief contrast underlying much of our ongoing political debate – the extent to which one believes that adults generally bear responsibility for their situations. I would not presume to offer a solution to the debate – though my position on it is probably becoming clear at this point.
The essay also falls into something of a contradiction that trips up a number of the efforts trying to lay the foundation for broader redistributions. It extols the joys and satisfaction available to the advantaged if only they would give up their unrewarding material advantages, but also makes the case that redistributing these same resources to the less advantaged would increase their levels of satisfaction. Beyond providing the essentials to those who lack them, which no one seems to oppose, the call here goes to providing resources to secure some of the goods “that no one needs” so their feelings will not be hurt because someone else earns more. It does seem that whenever someone makes the case in a public setting that you focus too much on money for your own good, they are about to advocate taking it away from you to pay for something they value more highly (and in fact, that is pretty much the only time you hear from them). In that sense, it’s reminiscent of an earlier age when the aristocracy disdained those who were in “the trades” whose taxes were nevertheless needed to fund the higher-minded pursuits of that aristocracy.
Ultimately, however, humans are social creatures evolved to live in hierarchical societies. As such, to the extent that status goods and economic values waned, other factors would emerge as markers that differentiated status. In fact, based on the author’s criteria for success, there are large segments of the U.S. population (presumably including the author) who do in fact pursue the goals and values advocated, often with great success. What seems to motivate the author is the perception that society at large currently chooses to view those who are economically successful as the elite rather than share the value system being proffered. In that light, perhaps this may incorporate a very human cry for recognition (Hey look! I’m doing important things that should be valued!) as much as it includes a prescription for society at large. Even so, I hasten to add that authors of such essays deserve no criticism (or praise) since any personal failings (or successes) were, of course, “through no fault of their own.”
I'm happy to see Amitai Etzioni raising issue with consumerism at this opportune moment in our economic history. Two points though:
1) I wish Amitai had in this article pondered how those who want to overcome consumerism can take on the opposition that will surely arise not only from industry but consumers if efforts against consumerism become law rather than just (often self-righteous) voluntary lifestyle alternatives. It's easy to offer alternatives a minority of people will embrace. It's a lot harder to pass laws discouraging consumerism (e.g., "green taxes" on gas, SUVs, expensive packaging, bottled water, etc.).
2) I don't think the concept of a "megalogue" -- which appears to simply ... view full comment
I'm happy to see Amitai Etzioni raising issue with consumerism at this opportune moment in our economic history. Two points though:
1) I wish Amitai had in this article pondered how those who want to overcome consumerism can take on the opposition that will surely arise not only from industry but consumers if efforts against consumerism become law rather than just (often self-righteous) voluntary lifestyle alternatives. It's easy to offer alternatives a minority of people will embrace. It's a lot harder to pass laws discouraging consumerism (e.g., "green taxes" on gas, SUVs, expensive packaging, bottled water, etc.).
2) I don't think the concept of a "megalogue" -- which appears to simply mean wide public discussion --adds much to our understanding of the possibilities for reform. Too many pundits call for wide public discussion of various and ever changing issues. The tougher challenge is to figure out how to institutionalize broad public discussion in a democratic society, given what usually passes for "broad public discussion" is debate among the "chattering classes," whether these be paid pundits, academics, or other more educated Americans. How do we get more Americans, and citizens of the world (and especially those least inclined) meaningfully involved in public discussion of vital issues like consumerism? There are lots of possibilities, some being practiced (e.g., James Fishkin's deliberative polls), but still not enough to make the frequent calls for wide public discussion or "megalogues" more than a fleeting and facile plea.
Etzioni touches on legislation as a way to combat consumerism. Maybe he would like a return to the sumptuary laws of Elizabethan England and other periods. How about having the experts set basic standards for the commodities and services of modern life and then imposing an annual progressive and punishing tax on anything in excess of those standards? For example, 1,200 square feet of living space is adequate for a family of four. Make this in a five-story walkup building (no elevators; handicapped people can live on the ground floor). If you'd prefer a Park Avenue duplex or a 2,000 square-foot house in the suburbs, those would be taxed on a sumptuary basis, in addition to property taxes. S ... view full comment
Etzioni touches on legislation as a way to combat consumerism. Maybe he would like a return to the sumptuary laws of Elizabethan England and other periods. How about having the experts set basic standards for the commodities and services of modern life and then imposing an annual progressive and punishing tax on anything in excess of those standards? For example, 1,200 square feet of living space is adequate for a family of four. Make this in a five-story walkup building (no elevators; handicapped people can live on the ground floor). If you'd prefer a Park Avenue duplex or a 2,000 square-foot house in the suburbs, those would be taxed on a sumptuary basis, in addition to property taxes. Same for autos where public transportation is available, all autos above a minimum standard, taxis (take the bus or subway), big-screen TVs, air-conditioning, designer clothing, computer games, private jets, cosmetic surgery, all jewelry, movies (reading books is good enough,and paperbacks at that), restaurants (eat at home)-- the list could go on and on. So much of our contemporary life is way beyond Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of human needs.
Then, to encourage participation in community affairs, award tax incentives or cash payments for volunteerism or any activity, such as education, that doesn't lead to increasing consumption.
What this will mean to the American economy remains to be seen. But the intention is good, and that's all counts, isn't it?
this is idiocy. consumption is a key factor in aggregate output. If we do as this guy suggests and consume less and save more, all we'll accomplish is to lower our GDP and make Obama's stimulus package ineffectual by messing with the expenditure multiplier. Read a basic economic textbook and put down the stupid psychobabble order of needs stuff that isn't even endorsed by psychologists. Or if you're too lazy there's a hilarious south park episode that explains in great detail why this anti consumerist stuff is completely ridiculous. I couldn't even go on to the second page. The guy claims regulation doesn't work, ignoring the fact that India, a nation of billions, was able to avoid thi ... view full comment
this is idiocy. consumption is a key factor in aggregate output. If we do as this guy suggests and consume less and save more, all we'll accomplish is to lower our GDP and make Obama's stimulus package ineffectual by messing with the expenditure multiplier. Read a basic economic textbook and put down the stupid psychobabble order of needs stuff that isn't even endorsed by psychologists. Or if you're too lazy there's a hilarious south park episode that explains in great detail why this anti consumerist stuff is completely ridiculous. I couldn't even go on to the second page. The guy claims regulation doesn't work, ignoring the fact that India, a nation of billions, was able to avoid this entire fiasco through proper oversight and regulation. Go buy a margaritaville.
A consumer cannot consume without money. The causal connection is the artificially increased real estate values that made people flush with money that everyone on TV was telling them they would always have.
Blaming the consumer for the money dumped in his lap is shoddy analysis. Didn't the people who created all that money wanted it to be spent?
A consumer cannot consume without money. The causal connection is the artificially increased real estate values that made people flush with money that everyone on TV was telling them they would always have.
Blaming the consumer for the money dumped in his lap is shoddy analysis. Didn't the people who created all that money wanted it to be spent?
Why mothers? I know a lot of mothers and they aren't very good ones. Besides, just because you are a mother doesn't mean you are smarter then everybody else, and from your post it doesn't sound like you are one of the exceptions. I don't mean to rail on you so much but people who spout the nonsense you do gets on my nerves. I'm a mother and I have sense enough to know that just because I can give birth means I've got all the answers. As for your shorter work-weeks and so forth, have you ever considerd moving to France? However, I hear their system is collapsing so you might want to move there soon to ensure you get all your socialist perks.
Why mothers? I know a lot of mothers and they aren't very good ones. Besides, just because you are a mother doesn't mean you are smarter then everybody else, and from your post it doesn't sound like you are one of the exceptions. I don't mean to rail on you so much but people who spout the nonsense you do gets on my nerves. I'm a mother and I have sense enough to know that just because I can give birth means I've got all the answers. As for your shorter work-weeks and so forth, have you ever considerd moving to France? However, I hear their system is collapsing so you might want to move there soon to ensure you get all your socialist perks.
Maybe the most glaring flaw in consumerism as it has evolved since WWII is not in the choices that we are making, rather in the choices that we are not making. We have essentially checked the box marked "all of the above." I was surprised in rereading William Whyte's "The Organization Man" to see his description of our parents "consumer affliction". He called it "budgetism". It described how our parents would make a decision to purchase particular items on credit essentially by determining if the payment for that item could be fitted within a budget. The distinction from what later evolved was that it was an article of faith that the debt for the items purchased would be extinguished be ... view full comment
Maybe the most glaring flaw in consumerism as it has evolved since WWII is not in the choices that we are making, rather in the choices that we are not making. We have essentially checked the box marked "all of the above." I was surprised in rereading William Whyte's "The Organization Man" to see his description of our parents "consumer affliction". He called it "budgetism". It described how our parents would make a decision to purchase particular items on credit essentially by determining if the payment for that item could be fitted within a budget. The distinction from what later evolved was that it was an article of faith that the debt for the items purchased would be extinguished before the item lost its utility. With the evolution of "revolving credit" we have ultimately reached the point (especially during the last decade) where the debts we incurred endured beyond the useful life of the items we purchased. From 2000 forward, households were spending more than five percent more each year than they earned. This was somewhat camouflaged by real estate values which appeared to make, on total, the value of the things we purchased continuously outpace the amount of debt we incurred to purchase them. We now realize that we are holding debts of all kinds for things we purchased which no longer have any value -- whether it is our homes, or the Gucci handbag which we charged in 2002 and is no longer in use -- but for which we continue to pay on our credit merry-go-round. Most of our current pain would have never occurred if we had a simple ethic of paying for the things we buy before they are used up.
The article seems a harmless and well meaning if somewhat flakey left wing bromide up until it begins making gestures towards compulsion and punishment for consumerism. Mandatory maximum work weeks? Punitive taxes on "consumption" over some arbitrarily set level? In these well intentioned phrases you can hear the slither of utopianism and dictatorial thinking. I have nothing against anti-consumerism so long as it stays where it belongs, at an interpersonal level like religion. When it reaches for the levers of government to compell compliance with its particular tenants it metasythizes into a malignant dogma just like religious fundamentalism and must be fought.
The article seems a harmless and well meaning if somewhat flakey left wing bromide up until it begins making gestures towards compulsion and punishment for consumerism. Mandatory maximum work weeks? Punitive taxes on "consumption" over some arbitrarily set level? In these well intentioned phrases you can hear the slither of utopianism and dictatorial thinking. I have nothing against anti-consumerism so long as it stays where it belongs, at an interpersonal level like religion. When it reaches for the levers of government to compell compliance with its particular tenants it metasythizes into a malignant dogma just like religious fundamentalism and must be fought.
As usual, Etzioni is thought provoking. To contribute to that Conversation of Democracy which he calls a "megalogue" -- a discussion among many regarding fundamental issues -- I propose instigating a broad-based determination that this megalogue shall also be a "metalogue" ... as defined by Gregory Bateson.
A metalogue is a dialogue or megalogue in which the "topic" includes the following:
(1) Simple linguistic or denotative messages, as in "the cat is on the mat" or "look before you leap";
(2) More complex metalinguistic messages, as in "the word 'cat' is not on the mat" or "when I say 'look before you leap' I'm offering a metaphor that endorses thinking before acting";
(3) H ... view full comment
As usual, Etzioni is thought provoking. To contribute to that Conversation of Democracy which he calls a "megalogue" -- a discussion among many regarding fundamental issues -- I propose instigating a broad-based determination that this megalogue shall also be a "metalogue" ... as defined by Gregory Bateson.
A metalogue is a dialogue or megalogue in which the "topic" includes the following:
(1) Simple linguistic or denotative messages, as in "the cat is on the mat" or "look before you leap";
(2) More complex metalinguistic messages, as in "the word 'cat' is not on the mat" or "when I say 'look before you leap' I'm offering a metaphor that endorses thinking before acting";
(3) Highly complex metacommunicative messages about all mediums or tools of thought and communication, including, especially, the people producing the suppositions of facts and values under consideration, as in (from my perspective) "how nice of me to warn you not to take metaphors too literally" or (from your perspective) "I think you are making too much of linguistic, metalinguistic, and metacommunicative distinctions, but I'll 'play along' to see whether you can carry your burden of persuading me that these distinctions are worth highlighting."
You have been "doing metalogues" all along. People are "tools" of each other's thinking, communicating, and even "perceiving" -- instruments of collaborative enlightenment or, too often, the fog of faith, dogma, and "received authority" which, being merely received, cannot possibly render us wise.
Carrying this metalogue further: To "know" without "inquiry" -- trusting our world's future to the hubris of those who proclaim that their faith-based knowledge is the best kind -- is foolish, a contradiction in terms, like a fried snowball. It takes courage to say this, especially to oneself.
Wise or foolish, we belong to the "human family" and, hence, to one another. When wise, we take on noble responsibilities towards each other's enlightenment; when foolish, we perpetuate unexamined living, the feeblest excuse for clinging to relic conceptions of "civilization" that collide -- potentially calamitously -- with others' equally-unexamined zealotries.
It is a boringly-prevalent malady to believe that one belongs to a "chosen people" whose faith-based certitudes shall, with divine endorsement, trump the certitudes of all others who, believing themselves to be chosen too, are deluded infidels.
That we serve as one another's tools in the metalogues that "make culture" -- and thereby distinguish us as humans -- should be evident, indeed obvious; even so, we can benefit from self-reflective examinations that explicitly state what hitherto remained tacit, implicit:
As the unexamined life is not worth living, so unexamined truths are not worth having. And the best forum for such examination, in this internet age, is a megalogue that is also a metalogue -- attending simultaneously to the denotative, metalinguistic, and metacommunicative "content" of the Conversation of Democracy by which, through enhanced wisdom and reduced hubris, humanity improves itself.
This article lays out the truth, and I greatly appreciate it because that's what Americans need right now, to wake up from consumerism and embrace a more practical life. I read a study conducted in Harvard that the one thing that matters to people are not their money, it's their relationships with other people. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if your driving a Porsche or just a Honda. However, there's one thing that troubles me about the proposed change of lifestyle this article proposes. In this tough economic situation, boosting up consumer spending is necessary to start the macroeconomic cycle to roll again, open up those markets. So it's kind of ironic that we have to spen ... view full comment
This article lays out the truth, and I greatly appreciate it because that's what Americans need right now, to wake up from consumerism and embrace a more practical life. I read a study conducted in Harvard that the one thing that matters to people are not their money, it's their relationships with other people. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if your driving a Porsche or just a Honda. However, there's one thing that troubles me about the proposed change of lifestyle this article proposes. In this tough economic situation, boosting up consumer spending is necessary to start the macroeconomic cycle to roll again, open up those markets. So it's kind of ironic that we have to spend more when the reason for this fiscal downturn is that we spent more that we can afford. That's why Obama proposed this stimulus package which apparently did not work out. Let's face it, the Republicans were right. We really are in deep pothole here. I think what the administration has to do here is to rethink their economics.
It really is not hard to implement this stuff.
The basic requirement would be a shift from income and corporate taxation into consumer taxes and the creating of new tax bracket for all incomes over 5 million a year, oh say at 75%.
As for the degree of redistribution that the commentors are hackling about, all that can be resolved in the rates, how high the consumption taxes go and how low the corporate and income taxes go.
It really is not hard to implement this stuff.
The basic requirement would be a shift from income and corporate taxation into consumer taxes and the creating of new tax bracket for all incomes over 5 million a year, oh say at 75%.
As for the degree of redistribution that the commentors are hackling about, all that can be resolved in the rates, how high the consumption taxes go and how low the corporate and income taxes go.
Its nice to see Etzioni get down off his f-111 and help us become a non-mass society.It is a really great comfort that he is helping us become new persons at the same time his buddy Alain Enthoven is helping us figure out health care. Why worry?...just sit back and enjoy the comedy.
Its nice to see Etzioni get down off his f-111 and help us become a non-mass society.It is a really great comfort that he is helping us become new persons at the same time his buddy Alain Enthoven is helping us figure out health care. Why worry?...just sit back and enjoy the comedy.
This is utopianism at its worst. Etzioni reads like a right-wing caricature of a left-wing pundit. The entire essay could be reduced to a fairly banal, self-help conclusion, "Don't count on money or things to make you happy".
And he's more or less right on that front (though there have been studies that show that a sudden influx of wealth can make people less unhappy. I'm thinking of a longitudinal study that was examining the mental health of high school students in a poor community. The community primarily consisted of whites and native americans-- during the course of the study, casino gambling was introduced on the reservation, and the mental health outcomes for the native american ... view full comment
This is utopianism at its worst. Etzioni reads like a right-wing caricature of a left-wing pundit. The entire essay could be reduced to a fairly banal, self-help conclusion, "Don't count on money or things to make you happy".
And he's more or less right on that front (though there have been studies that show that a sudden influx of wealth can make people less unhappy. I'm thinking of a longitudinal study that was examining the mental health of high school students in a poor community. The community primarily consisted of whites and native americans-- during the course of the study, casino gambling was introduced on the reservation, and the mental health outcomes for the native american students improved markedly. Can't remember the author off-hand).
However, his social prescriptions range from the insulting to the terrifying.
"However, it is not a matter of cultural snobbery to note that no one needs inflatable Santas or plastic flamingos on their front lawn or, for that matter, lawns that are strikingly green even in the scorching heat of summer. No one needs a flat-screen television, not to mention diamonds as a token of love or a master's painting as a source of self-esteem".
Is a premise of his argument. Of course, it hinges on what the definition of "need" is. And telling a person what he or she needs, or what SHOULD bring him or her pleasure (because you know better) is practically the definition of snobbery, regardless of what Etzioni contends. As Bernard points out above, it's an "I know it when I see it" sort of definition, which is very problematic for a political implementation.
More fundamentally, Etzioni completely misses the aspect of work (or working slavish hours) that brings contentment or satisfaction without an emphasis on remuneration. I consider myself and my colleagues counter-examples. I'm an engineer, and the work that we do often involves long hours, our pay is very comfortable though nowhere near that of a financiers or businessperson, but the "communitarian" aspect and the creative satisfaction is very high. My wife is a psychologist, and my sister a doctor. Neither is in the game for the money. The point is not to get more stuff, it's to do a good job. Raises are small, and more of a way of keeping score, than proportional to the amount of work.
The entire start-up culture that has developed, while using riches as a carrot, is more focused on producing something new and useful with a team of similarly aligned and motivated folks around you. There is immense satisfaction to be derived from that. Further, that satisfaction won't be reported in studies, because you *KNOW* there's a way to make whatever you are creating better. Additionally, given the service nature of our economy, I would suspect that the greatest amount of capital is spent procuring time to engage in the pursuits (transcendental or otherwise) that we would like.
But even consider the "Transcendental pursuits" Etzioni proposes...
"The answer is found when elites derive their main source of contentment not from acquiring more goods and services, but from activities that are neither labor nor capital intensive and, hence, do not require great amounts of money. Communitarian activities require social skills and communication skills as well as time and personal energy--but, as a rule, minimal material or financial outlays. The same holds for transcendental activities such as prayer, meditation, music, art, sports, adult education, and so on."
He goes on to blame consumerism for making these activities capital-intensive. I think this statement is false in many ways. Take the construction of a cathedral-- well before the rise of modern consumerism. It's almost the definition of an artistic and religious transcendental pursuit, yet was one of the most capital-intensive undertakings in medieval Europe.
Or, for example, take pure science. Is mathematics or theoretical astrophysics more "transcendental" than particle physics or radio astronomy simply because the latter require capital for construction of instruments? Is poetry more worthy than sculpture because of the cost of materials? (And who NEEDS either?) None of these costs are driven by consumerism, but by a desire to explain the universe or produce beauty.
By defining worthwhile pursuits by their lack of capital, Etzioni falls into the same trap as those he's aiming to criticize- defining a creative endeavors worth by cold hard cash.
--jt
Geez. This article is a downer. I have read far too many like this, lately - elite's ideas about accepting poverty as "the simple life". Are these writers trying to make being economically stalled a virtue? This is like the guy who whips out a bible at a cocktail party - a damp blanket at a picnic. Or- wait a minute - what with uniforms and all this "for the good of the people/state/lord" an oppressive dictatorship. I'll take economic freedom and its pitfalls anytime over living in a society of prigs and scolds. It's just an excuse for the government to strip us of more money. It worked so well in the USSR, didn't it?
Geez. This article is a downer. I have read far too many like this, lately - elite's ideas about accepting poverty as "the simple life". Are these writers trying to make being economically stalled a virtue? This is like the guy who whips out a bible at a cocktail party - a damp blanket at a picnic. Or- wait a minute - what with uniforms and all this "for the good of the people/state/lord" an oppressive dictatorship. I'll take economic freedom and its pitfalls anytime over living in a society of prigs and scolds. It's just an excuse for the government to strip us of more money. It worked so well in the USSR, didn't it?
I would rather suffer the consequences of freedom perpetrated by free men, than all the terrors that come from those who desire to protect us from ourselves.
I would rather suffer the consequences of freedom perpetrated by free men, than all the terrors that come from those who desire to protect us from ourselves.
This is a naive and puerile proposal. It is a textbook example of the classic socialist 'it only works if everyone is on board' argument.
Historically, governments that have tried it ended up resorting to mass murder to attempt to reach that mythical 'everyone' by eliminating those that would not go along.
This is a naive and puerile proposal. It is a textbook example of the classic socialist 'it only works if everyone is on board' argument.
Historically, governments that have tried it ended up resorting to mass murder to attempt to reach that mythical 'everyone' by eliminating those that would not go along.
"What is needed instead is something far more sweeping: for people to internalize a different sense of how one ought to behave, and act on it because they believe it is right."
The author should fear the distant prospect of his values ever being adopted. Then people of genuine intelligence and talent would seek to teach sociology, and the weak, the glib and the blind would seek the despised entrepreneurial occupations. He would be competed out of his current job.
Usually people who are credited with the kind of changes of values he's advocating do things like fast for 40 days in the desert then endure crucifixion and resurrection, come down from the mountain with tablets from the almighty, ... view full comment
"What is needed instead is something far more sweeping: for people to internalize a different sense of how one ought to behave, and act on it because they believe it is right."
The author should fear the distant prospect of his values ever being adopted. Then people of genuine intelligence and talent would seek to teach sociology, and the weak, the glib and the blind would seek the despised entrepreneurial occupations. He would be competed out of his current job.
Usually people who are credited with the kind of changes of values he's advocating do things like fast for 40 days in the desert then endure crucifixion and resurrection, come down from the mountain with tablets from the almighty, sit under a lotus tree... etc, etc. By this they get the karma, and insight, to move people deeply. They don't get tenure and then play academic politics. They deal with core issues that affect the deep self and deal with the nature of reality and of human freedom.
As an enemy of freedom, this gentleman is an enemy of the deep human self. He uses consumerism as a dysphemism for human freedom because he realizes that to attack the engine of human progress and fufillment would expose him to ridicule and marginalization. He takes the undoubted fact that human freedom requires traditional ideas about community to be modified as an excuse to quash freedom altogether. If freedom really destroyed the blessings of community, then it would make sense to go back to the middle ages -no, actually Christianity destroyed the primitive communitarianism of pagan religion and slavery -so it should be back to paganism -no, pagan learning taught man to use the freedom of the mind, art and learning -so let us go back to tribal societies where true communitarianism ruled every human life and all truth, by definition, was sociological.
I'm surprised tnr would give space to such pernicious nonsense. Somebody buy this guy a nice car and nice home already.
As a conservative Republican I loved this article but there are some flaws. One, the French even with all their less consumerism ideals are less happy than Americans and have been for the last 33 years when happiness among nations started to be measured. Personally I think it has to do with work. When someone engages in a task that is challenging but not overwhelming it provides high levels of happiness. So, I think work should be left alone. Distribution is a nasty word, why distribute more resources if it wont make them happier? Out of fainness? We should look after those with less, food stamps (no one should go hungry in American) and basic healthcare. It is what we do with those ... view full comment
As a conservative Republican I loved this article but there are some flaws. One, the French even with all their less consumerism ideals are less happy than Americans and have been for the last 33 years when happiness among nations started to be measured. Personally I think it has to do with work. When someone engages in a task that is challenging but not overwhelming it provides high levels of happiness. So, I think work should be left alone. Distribution is a nasty word, why distribute more resources if it wont make them happier? Out of fainness? We should look after those with less, food stamps (no one should go hungry in American) and basic healthcare. It is what we do with those resources we gain from our work that is the real question. Invest or spend. Spending hasnt done a world of good for us, so maybe we should start saving. GDP calculation includes Investment and Spending, so the clown who wrote that we must spend to increase GDP is off base.
Can we please get some new ideas up here?
I could tell this essay would go nowhere as soon the author dropped the Maslow's-Hierarchy bomb. Dude, know your audience. Do you really think the average TNR reader did NOT take Psych 101? You're preaching to the choir.
There is not a single original idea in Etzioni's piece -- just a lot of common-sense truisms that many people already always understand, because we've always persued this communitarian/bohemian lifestyle. We never needed taxes, regulation, or government policy to teach us how to shop secondhand, love our neighbors, and learn how to live.
Can we please get some new ideas up here?
I could tell this essay would go nowhere as soon the author dropped the Maslow's-Hierarchy bomb. Dude, know your audience. Do you really think the average TNR reader did NOT take Psych 101? You're preaching to the choir.
There is not a single original idea in Etzioni's piece -- just a lot of common-sense truisms that many people already always understand, because we've always persued this communitarian/bohemian lifestyle. We never needed taxes, regulation, or government policy to teach us how to shop secondhand, love our neighbors, and learn how to live.
The article is utopianist. First of all, "consumerism" is almost impossible to define. Is buying a second TV reasonable? Or would it be a "consumerist" excess? How about art work on my walls; certainly not essential for life & liberty...I'm sure some would define it as "excessive".
So, what you end up with, is a govt bureaucrat subjectively defining "consumerism"...as well as "need" and "excess". It reminds me so much of the utopianists who believed Marxism would eliminate anti-semitism, war, and "unfairness". It's patently absurd.
And how ironic these ideas primarily come from the Left. The crew that claims to want to stay out of our bedrooms (gay rights, abortion) apparently wants to vis ... view full comment
The article is utopianist. First of all, "consumerism" is almost impossible to define. Is buying a second TV reasonable? Or would it be a "consumerist" excess? How about art work on my walls; certainly not essential for life & liberty...I'm sure some would define it as "excessive".
So, what you end up with, is a govt bureaucrat subjectively defining "consumerism"...as well as "need" and "excess". It reminds me so much of the utopianists who believed Marxism would eliminate anti-semitism, war, and "unfairness". It's patently absurd.
And how ironic these ideas primarily come from the Left. The crew that claims to want to stay out of our bedrooms (gay rights, abortion) apparently wants to visit us in every other room of the house (kitchen; what we eat. Living room; what we drink, smoke. Garage; what we drive. Office; how much discretionary income we have and how we spend it).
The problem here lies with economists who treat consumer spending as a positive indicator even if the spending comes from maxed out credit cards. So far, nothing in our financial crisis has changed their outlook.
The problem here lies with economists who treat consumer spending as a positive indicator even if the spending comes from maxed out credit cards. So far, nothing in our financial crisis has changed their outlook.
Again enslavement by utopianism. The solution to consumerism is not the regulation of life to limit possessions. Personal ambition and competitiveness always will produce those who acquire more, as the failed experiments in communism show. The answer is the ascendence of the values the author endorses – sort of the "don't kill more than you can eat" rule.
Plenty of Americans live by that standard today. While it's true that many have been swayed by the appeal of excess, the traditions of voluntarism and the core of the American union movement always have been about making living wages and working as a community to help those who cannot make it one their own. What keeps the basic standard of ... view full comment
Again enslavement by utopianism. The solution to consumerism is not the regulation of life to limit possessions. Personal ambition and competitiveness always will produce those who acquire more, as the failed experiments in communism show. The answer is the ascendence of the values the author endorses – sort of the "don't kill more than you can eat" rule.
Plenty of Americans live by that standard today. While it's true that many have been swayed by the appeal of excess, the traditions of voluntarism and the core of the American union movement always have been about making living wages and working as a community to help those who cannot make it one their own. What keeps the basic standard of living high enough to be enjoyable is the profit motive and the reward of hard work.
What the author conveniently forgets is that the easy lives of the long-ago literati engaged in poetry and brush-painting was the poverty and servitude of the great mass of the lower classes.
i thought "keeping up with the joneses" was mandatory. i don't want to work less lest i fall behind and feel ashamed of myself. my kids will forgive me when i buy them everything they want.
i thought "keeping up with the joneses" was mandatory. i don't want to work less lest i fall behind and feel ashamed of myself. my kids will forgive me when i buy them everything they want.
want a cure for the consumerism malaise? read the bible.
i do not mean become someone who tells others what to do. do gooders of secular and religious stripes are a pain.
but read the bible and find peace and satisfaction in something bigger than yourself or property.
want a cure for the consumerism malaise? read the bible.
i do not mean become someone who tells others what to do. do gooders of secular and religious stripes are a pain.
but read the bible and find peace and satisfaction in something bigger than yourself or property.
There are a number of "transcendental" groups active in our society, with millions and millions of members. These groups are called Christians, Jews, Buddhists ... I don't know if the author realizes it, but his proposals in practice seem to be a call for using government persuasion, or even compulsion, to force people to return to that ole time religion (or some new religion that is in the process of being invented - environmentalism? Wicca?).
Extremes meet! And in this case, the extremes of the right and left seem to have come full circle ...
There are a number of "transcendental" groups active in our society, with millions and millions of members. These groups are called Christians, Jews, Buddhists ... I don't know if the author realizes it, but his proposals in practice seem to be a call for using government persuasion, or even compulsion, to force people to return to that ole time religion (or some new religion that is in the process of being invented - environmentalism? Wicca?).
Extremes meet! And in this case, the extremes of the right and left seem to have come full circle ...
Good article even if I disagreed with most of the second half where Etzioni made recommendations. As someone who has spent almost 30 years in the extended retail industry, I am a big believer in Maslow. Retailers, and by extension, their suppliers, make their margin by converting whimsy into desire then needs. I would argue society makes social and economic progress doing the same thing collectively over time (Etzioni's air conditioning example). My wife has lived across all spectrums of Maslow from survival needs (Cambodian killing fields) to consumptive self-actualization (this season's Chanel purse) - all in all, she much prefers the problems of the higher levels in Maslow's hierarch ... view full comment
Good article even if I disagreed with most of the second half where Etzioni made recommendations. As someone who has spent almost 30 years in the extended retail industry, I am a big believer in Maslow. Retailers, and by extension, their suppliers, make their margin by converting whimsy into desire then needs. I would argue society makes social and economic progress doing the same thing collectively over time (Etzioni's air conditioning example). My wife has lived across all spectrums of Maslow from survival needs (Cambodian killing fields) to consumptive self-actualization (this season's Chanel purse) - all in all, she much prefers the problems of the higher levels in Maslow's hierarchy. A flaw I see in Etzioni's arguement is the usual unstated complaint of the "enlightened" about the "brutes" - I like driving my Mercedes, not just because it is a good car, but because it is a better car than yours. When we are all driving Obamamobiles, I am sure some segment of us will want ours to be faster, more luxurious, have better MPG, this year's model, whatever, than yours, and will pay some business for that privilege. I find it amusing to talk to people (consumers) who say "I've stopped being so consumptive, and spending money on silly things like new couture, and am focused on my music or the environment.." etc, and then they spend $12,000 on a custom guiter or to go trekking in Nepal, instead of on the second floor of Saks. As you move up to the top levels of Maslow your needs may be more services than goods oriented, but they are still consumptive and can still be quite expensive. This exists at all economic strata - look at the growth of "unneeded" nail saloons and massage therapy. Much of the growth of our economy comes from inventing new goods, and services, and creating increasing demand for them, and then making them affordable for more and more people via productivity. Was just as true in the Middle Ages as now. I guess we are all lucky to live in a society where you can make a good living being an intellectual arguing about where we are and where we should go on Maslow's hierarchy. I personally don't resent Etzioni's ability to convert self-actualization into personal income, not sure if he would think poorly of my first retail job, trying to get teenage girls to buy a new $75 bikini at the mall when they already had a perfectly good one from last summer, or last month.
"One does not need designer clothes to enjoy the sunset or shoes with fancy labels to benefit from a hike." True, but...tell that to America's First Family who are being extolled by the MSM as excellent role models - $450 for suede tennies to walk the dog and perform communitarian services at a food bank, or the deprivation many little girls will now feel if they can't fly to Paris to shop and hop over to London to meet the cast of Harry Potter for that all-important milestone in life - an 8th birthday! The conspicuous consumption of the nouveau riche hasn't had this much adoration since the turn of the 20th century, so I'm wondering why Etzioni would target people who put pink flamingos on ... view full comment
"One does not need designer clothes to enjoy the sunset or shoes with fancy labels to benefit from a hike." True, but...tell that to America's First Family who are being extolled by the MSM as excellent role models - $450 for suede tennies to walk the dog and perform communitarian services at a food bank, or the deprivation many little girls will now feel if they can't fly to Paris to shop and hop over to London to meet the cast of Harry Potter for that all-important milestone in life - an 8th birthday! The conspicuous consumption of the nouveau riche hasn't had this much adoration since the turn of the 20th century, so I'm wondering why Etzioni would target people who put pink flamingos on their lawn, not exactly a trendsetting crowd of consumers. I've never priced those tacky plastic flamingos, but I suspect they provide more lasting joy to their owners than a date night in NYC to the tune of $500,000 ever could. This is class warfare!
I think the author misses a fundamental issue. Not all who resist redistribution do not do so out of a fetish for consumerism. The issue is one of autonomy to make one's own choices when one wants to. Look at Warren Buffett or Bill Gates. They accumulated vast wealth but gave it away when they chose and for the purposes they chose. Another person may indeed choose to tell herself, I will teach myself to be as happy with 20,000 as they are with 2,000,000,000 and we should all respect that choice. But the author goes further and says, the government should redistribute people's wealth when the government chooses to and use it for the purposes it chooses, and people who dislike that trans ... view full comment
I think the author misses a fundamental issue. Not all who resist redistribution do not do so out of a fetish for consumerism. The issue is one of autonomy to make one's own choices when one wants to. Look at Warren Buffett or Bill Gates. They accumulated vast wealth but gave it away when they chose and for the purposes they chose. Another person may indeed choose to tell herself, I will teach myself to be as happy with 20,000 as they are with 2,000,000,000 and we should all respect that choice. But the author goes further and says, the government should redistribute people's wealth when the government chooses to and use it for the purposes it chooses, and people who dislike that transfer have no choice but to adopt the outlook of the woman in the preceding sentence to become happy. That is cultish and Orwellian and should be resisted at all costs.
Utopian, socialist drivel.
Utopian, socialist drivel.
Conspicuous consumption is a vice of the wealthy; most of us in America are perfectly aware that more isn't necessarily better. All us weirdo religious conservatives believe that money does not equal happiness, and I'd wager there's not a preacher of any faith in America that hasn't had something to say in his career about "serving God or Mammon" or equivalent. This whole article actually presumes to be saying something new, but there isn't an older story in the world. Tocqueville summed up this entire article in one statement: "Do what you may there is no true power among men except in the free union of their will, and patriotism or religion are the only two motives in the world which ca ... view full comment
Conspicuous consumption is a vice of the wealthy; most of us in America are perfectly aware that more isn't necessarily better. All us weirdo religious conservatives believe that money does not equal happiness, and I'd wager there's not a preacher of any faith in America that hasn't had something to say in his career about "serving God or Mammon" or equivalent. This whole article actually presumes to be saying something new, but there isn't an older story in the world. Tocqueville summed up this entire article in one statement: "Do what you may there is no true power among men except in the free union of their will, and patriotism or religion are the only two motives in the world which can long urge all the people toward the same end."
There's communitarian & transcendental motives for you.
After doing everything possible to destroy religion and patriotism in America, it's not surprising that the worst conspicuous consumers are all to be found on the left, with the notable and ignoble exception of the smarmier televangelists.
It's not that ordinary folks don't want stuff in addition to bare necessities, but rather that anyone who actually takes religion to heart (or patriotism, as our soldiers demonstrate by some of the noblest behavior in all of history), he will understand that setting one's heart on junk that will someday end up in a landfill or maybe a Egyptian-style tomb at best is a losing proposition. It is only those persons who have no patriotic or religious beliefs that believe in consumerism for its own sake. And every last one of them is a fool, and what's more they all know it. EVERYONE knows that a bigger diamond or snazzier suit won't make one happy. This is not a mystery. Consumer junk is just a stopgap, a salve while one waits for happiness to come calling, but since so many people have divorced themselves from all sources of happiness, it's an exercise in futility. And they know it.
Those who have turned politics into religion are also barking up the wrong tree. Politics will never replace religion because transcendence is impossible through the political process. That's why your evangelical revolutionaries have murdered so many people over the last couple of centuries. They get frustrated that they can't quite force everyone to see things their way, and after all they're just a new super-Puritan/Inquisition in disguise.
Religion is not in itself good, and neither is patriotism. Yet they provide the only two means of seriously changing society--for better or worse. Change is all very well, but there's no point in changing if you trade bad for worse, or worse for worst.
I read the second sentence of the article and the first posted comment and decided I would be better off returning to Planet Earth.
I read the second sentence of the article and the first posted comment and decided I would be better off returning to Planet Earth.
You know, people who went without "things" during the 30s also produced great music, art, literature (all free) and socialized a lot in their communities. Whether you remember Maslow from Psych 101 or not, his hierarchy is still valid.
We would do well to transform our culture from consumerism to communityism.
You know, people who went without "things" during the 30s also produced great music, art, literature (all free) and socialized a lot in their communities. Whether you remember Maslow from Psych 101 or not, his hierarchy is still valid.
We would do well to transform our culture from consumerism to communityism.
Amitai, you could learn something about human nature by checking out a few old Green Acres episodes. Some people like the simple life; others yearn for Park Avenue. The scary thing about you and your fellow communitarians is that you want to use the police and tax powers of the state to impose the values of the former on the latter. Who are you to decide how others should live?
Amitai, you could learn something about human nature by checking out a few old Green Acres episodes. Some people like the simple life; others yearn for Park Avenue. The scary thing about you and your fellow communitarians is that you want to use the police and tax powers of the state to impose the values of the former on the latter. Who are you to decide how others should live?
This article brings up some good ideas in theory. However, when Amitai offers more concrete solutions they seem to be overly simplistic and represent an outdated model of the world. To offer an anecdote, my grandparents came of age in the great depression and would be considered remarkably averse to materialism by our standards. They drove a car til it wore out, only bought nice things on occasion, lived in small homes, saved a remarkable amount considering they were essentially working class, etc. Nevertheless, they owned a nice suit/dress or two, and always dressed nice even when casual. My point being not that we should all begin wearing three piece suits all the time, (not a terrible ide ... view full comment
This article brings up some good ideas in theory. However, when Amitai offers more concrete solutions they seem to be overly simplistic and represent an outdated model of the world. To offer an anecdote, my grandparents came of age in the great depression and would be considered remarkably averse to materialism by our standards. They drove a car til it wore out, only bought nice things on occasion, lived in small homes, saved a remarkable amount considering they were essentially working class, etc. Nevertheless, they owned a nice suit/dress or two, and always dressed nice even when casual. My point being not that we should all begin wearing three piece suits all the time, (not a terrible idea) but that wearing a suit in this day and age has very little to do with consumerism, and wearing a t-shirt and jeans has little to do with offering a communitarian reaction. In fact the exact opposite is true. Americans dress more casually now than we ever did in less consumerist eras yet we consume more than ever. Getting people to wear t-shirts and jeans to work (which more and more do) could just as easily enforce a consumerist binge towards these items as well. In fact it already has considering I can often buy a nice suit for far less than a pair of designer jeans. Amitai essentially infers that dressing more formal, perfectly coincides with a rabidly consumerist culture when that is simply not true. Even in many hunter gatherer and more traditionally communitarian societies there is still an importance on dressing more formal for certain rituals, festivals, etc. Even more suspect, and slightly discomforting, is Amitai's insistence that school uniforms are a reaction to consumerism. Basically he seems to be stating that self expression and individualism (However crude and contradictory it may be in our formative years) is completely averse to communitarian ideals. The hard thing in my opinion is celebrating peoples individualism, self expression (outwardly and inwardly) , and creativity in American society (something we encourage), while separating that from rampant consumerism (Something that should obviously be discouraged). I don't have the answers for how to do that, but I think that if you don't recognize that self expression, and a value for certain formalities, can be separated from consumerism, and also coexist with communitarian ideals, then you are going to have a non-starter with the public. By the way, I wear T-shirts and jeans as much as the next guy, in case one thinks this is some tired George Will reaction ism. Also I shop vintage often, and don't understand why anyone would pay $1200 for a suit just because it's Armani, blah, blah blah..but still enjoy dressing nice sometimes.
It's amazing how far apart the two sides are on this. He's right that consumerism is a problem. He's nuts to want to regulate it away. And those of you who think (over)consumption is good for the economy, well... you should do some more thinking.
It's amazing how far apart the two sides are on this. He's right that consumerism is a problem. He's nuts to want to regulate it away. And those of you who think (over)consumption is good for the economy, well... you should do some more thinking.
Rejecting consumerism for its own sake is a good idea, and I agree that the world would be better if more people stopped trying to fulfill themselves by pushing for more money, at the expense of spending their time doing other things. I especially agree that community service is an excellent way to find fulfillment (better than a new TV!), and that it's accessible to virtually everyone - all it takes is a bit of spare time.
BUT in suggesting this kind of massive cultural change, the author of this article is living in a dream world. I believe people want money because they want power and influence, and it's impossible to remove that drive from human nature. We might as well ask how to elimina ... view full comment
Rejecting consumerism for its own sake is a good idea, and I agree that the world would be better if more people stopped trying to fulfill themselves by pushing for more money, at the expense of spending their time doing other things. I especially agree that community service is an excellent way to find fulfillment (better than a new TV!), and that it's accessible to virtually everyone - all it takes is a bit of spare time.
BUT in suggesting this kind of massive cultural change, the author of this article is living in a dream world. I believe people want money because they want power and influence, and it's impossible to remove that drive from human nature. We might as well ask how to eliminate the desire for alcohol in humans. Booze is too much fun, it will always be a major aspect of life - even if some people never touch the stuff. The same could be said for sex -- the drive for it is simply part of us. Perhaps there would be some moderation of the drive towards money if we grant influence to those with other things to offer. For instance, if it were possible to become famous and respected (and therefore influential) through activities that are not associated with money, then I'd expect to see some people choosing to follow that path. But our western mass-media culture is not set up for that. As an exercise, TRY TO THINK OF SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE POWERFUL AND NOT RICH. I'm unable to come up with name -- can anybody suggest someone who fits these criteria?
"Public intellectuals, pundits, and politicians are those best- positioned to focus a megalogue on this subject and, above all, to set the proper scope for the discussion."
This may be about as witless a suggestion as I have read in a very long time. My lady friend puts it less politely: "absolute rubbish." The tripartite elite whom the writer proposes to lead us out of the present materialist wilderness has repeatedly shown itself to be, respectively, self-serving, just plain wrong and cash-corrupt. These hardly seem qualities for the type of leadership required. We would all probably be better served if we sent the public intellectuals to Palau to jabber among themselves, disenfranchi ... view full comment
"Public intellectuals, pundits, and politicians are those best- positioned to focus a megalogue on this subject and, above all, to set the proper scope for the discussion."
This may be about as witless a suggestion as I have read in a very long time. My lady friend puts it less politely: "absolute rubbish." The tripartite elite whom the writer proposes to lead us out of the present materialist wilderness has repeatedly shown itself to be, respectively, self-serving, just plain wrong and cash-corrupt. These hardly seem qualities for the type of leadership required. We would all probably be better served if we sent the public intellectuals to Palau to jabber among themselves, disenfranchised or - at the very least - licensed pundits the way we license drivers and drove the present lot of politicians from office. (the writer is a columnist for the NY Observer - and would happily submit to performance-based licensing.)
AnotherPerspective,
As I understand it, the author uses Maslow's hierarchy of needs to argue that our society contains people who are unable to meet their most basic needs -- food, shelter, medical care -- which are essentially only available to those with money. Meanwhile, the wealthy are wasting their time and spending ridiculous amounts of cash futilely trying to buy their way into the upper echelons of the pyramid, trying to meet higher needs that money simply can't buy. So, one group needs money desperately in order to survive at a most basic level, while the other is erroneously trying to buy love. See where the redistribution comes in?
You spend a lot of time arguing about the source of ... view full comment
AnotherPerspective,
As I understand it, the author uses Maslow's hierarchy of needs to argue that our society contains people who are unable to meet their most basic needs -- food, shelter, medical care -- which are essentially only available to those with money. Meanwhile, the wealthy are wasting their time and spending ridiculous amounts of cash futilely trying to buy their way into the upper echelons of the pyramid, trying to meet higher needs that money simply can't buy. So, one group needs money desperately in order to survive at a most basic level, while the other is erroneously trying to buy love. See where the redistribution comes in?
You spend a lot of time arguing about the source of poverty, but I think you miss the point. To state that the poor are ALL poor through no fault of their own is disingenuous, and I would seriously doubt the author is defending such an idea. What is clear, however, is that at least SOME of the poor certainly are victims of bad luck, prejudice, etc. They work every bit as hard as anyone else, and do not deserve to be in the position they are in. Why should we not help them to meet their basic needs?
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" —Samuel Johnson
Mr Wilson, patriotism -- putting one's nationality above one's humanity -- as a source of inspiration is certainly debatable. Do you really not see this?
And the problem with religion is that is founded on myth, superstition and fairy tale. No thanks, I'll keep looking for another way to organize human society.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" —Samuel Johnson
Mr Wilson, patriotism -- putting one's nationality above one's humanity -- as a source of inspiration is certainly debatable. Do you really not see this?
And the problem with religion is that is founded on myth, superstition and fairy tale. No thanks, I'll keep looking for another way to organize human society.
"Social justice entails redistribution of wealth, taking from those disproportionally endowed and giving to those who are underprivileged through no fault of their own..."
While generally a fan of Professor Etzioni, this is neither a comprehensive, sophisticated, nor sustainable definition of social justice. Putting that aside for a moment, it would seem to me that if we replaced consumerism with a different value structure, there would be no need to "take" from anyone. The healthier value structure would inform giving. The current administration's obsession with taking is governmental violence, and as such violates core American values of altruism, generosity and respect for property righ ... view full comment
"Social justice entails redistribution of wealth, taking from those disproportionally endowed and giving to those who are underprivileged through no fault of their own..."
While generally a fan of Professor Etzioni, this is neither a comprehensive, sophisticated, nor sustainable definition of social justice. Putting that aside for a moment, it would seem to me that if we replaced consumerism with a different value structure, there would be no need to "take" from anyone. The healthier value structure would inform giving. The current administration's obsession with taking is governmental violence, and as such violates core American values of altruism, generosity and respect for property rights. The continued violation of these values discourages ever citizen from growing spiritually, as they limit individual freedom. Without liberty, there can be no spiritual development.
Thanks for your insights, especially about structuring our public resources to make more meaningful pleasures and pursuits available and marketed effectively. I myself am an avid consumer, deep in debt and working long hours with less satisfaction to show for it. My calculations are rational-I am almost 58 years old, and I have succeeded in living a life beyond my means (and the wildest dreams of almost any human being over the course of human history)since leaving school in 1977. Family has been little help, and there is no inheritance coming, like many of my peers. It is now touch and go-but I have raised two daughters and almost finished with college tuition.
As a youth I was a f ... view full comment
Thanks for your insights, especially about structuring our public resources to make more meaningful pleasures and pursuits available and marketed effectively. I myself am an avid consumer, deep in debt and working long hours with less satisfaction to show for it. My calculations are rational-I am almost 58 years old, and I have succeeded in living a life beyond my means (and the wildest dreams of almost any human being over the course of human history)since leaving school in 1977. Family has been little help, and there is no inheritance coming, like many of my peers. It is now touch and go-but I have raised two daughters and almost finished with college tuition.
As a youth I was a fervent capitalist and patriot, and now I think of our democracy as warlike and moving farther away from the dreams of our founders. Values like the ones you espouse are important to me, despite my consumerism. I have always served the poor in my community. On taxes, I think my money is being used to kill people, so I cheat when I can. I am very generous with progressive charitable appeals(using borrowed money). You will think it interesting that I would be willing in a minute to give up this standard of living in favor of equality with my poorer neighbors, and many of my peers agree: put two families in my house, or just build standard houses for all of us, and standard cars, and well....you get it. We are ready. All we need is some leadership, instead of a consensus builder like Obama.