Skip to content

Stop whining and shop

December 27, 2010

While Christmas ought to be a time of great joy, it can also be a season where a nascent gnosticism shows up in our pulpits and Sunday school classes. Consumerism bad. Spending evil. After all, how could Aunt Thelma buy me that Christmas sweater when Gela is starving in Mozambique? What a hell cat. (Thelma, that is).

Here are (extended) quotes from three sources that I think help provide a saner view of the holidays. Please excuse some of the language.

1) Andrew Potter on what the critique of consumerism really is:

Whenever you look at the list of consumer goods that (according to the critic) people don’t really need, what you invariably see is a list of consumer goods that middle aged intellectuals don’t need. Budweiser bad, single-malt Scotch good; Hollywood movies bad, performance art good; Chryslers bad, Volvos good; hamburgers bad, risotto good and so on… Consumerism, in other words, always seems to be a critique of what other people buy. This makes it difficult to avoid the impression that the so-called critique of consumerism is just thinly veiled snobbery, or worse, Puritanism.

2) Andrew Sullivan links to a critique of Adbusters and its promotion of “Buy Nothing Day”

I don’t know if Kalle (the Adbusters founder) realizes it, but a lot of people spend most of the year not buying anything. That’s partially why they do go out shopping on days like Black Friday: They’re preparing for a special occasion during which they buy things to give to the people they love. They spend every other day of their lives not buying shit, having Buy Nothing Days in practice because they either: a) don’t have any money; b) don’t have any time; c) aren’t pathological shoppers as Kalle appears to be.

Are hoards of Americans lining up at 4 A.M. outside of Best Buy or fighting for the last copy of Halo 7 in GameStop on Black Friday clues that our society is too preoccupied with material things? Yeah. But it’s still a lot better than a bunch of yuppies giving themselves congratulatory handjobs because they postponed their Christmas shopping.

3) And of course, we can’t forget Doug Wilson:

Now, to the cash registers. What is seen? Every year we are shown footage of the malls, crowds and lines, crowds and more lines, and lots of money changing hands, cash registers just a-going. Oh, the commericialism! But through the whole history of the whole world markets have always been like this. Money changes hands, and you can always take pictures of the places where that happens.

Sometimes we are treated to footage of landfills and bulldozers, so we can see the pathetic aftermath of all this consumerism. But this is like showing us a picture of a cow, which is where the steak comes from, and then a picture of a sewage treatment plant, which is where it is all going, without showing us a picture of the candlelit anniversary dinner, with the filet mignon done to perfection. In other words, what we are shown may represent the seen in a way that misrepresents and forgets the whole point.

We are shown this kind of cash register footage, because it is seeable, and seen, and can be videotaped. We are also constantly hectored about our consumerism, and how we are forgetting the whole point. But it is the nay-sayers taking these pictures, and issuing these warnings. They are the ones who are forgetting the whole point. All those shoppers are heading home to give presents to people they love.

You are shown pictures of harried shoppers standing in line, but you are not shown all the child-like delight that occurs when the presents are opened. Picture a family celebrating Christmas like they ought to, and exchanging gifts with true love and real thoughtfulness. Every one of those presents went by a cash register somewhere, and there was a little electronic beep to prove it.

 

12 Comments leave one →
  1. December 27, 2010 9:10 pm

    They are the ones who are forgetting the whole point. All those shoppers are heading home to give presents to people they love.

    Or, you know people who they don’t particularly care for but for whom they feel socially pressured to purchase something due to family or business ties.

  2. December 27, 2010 10:09 pm

    I believe that Karla Homolka also brought some presents home to somebody she loved (at Christmas time, too).

    (The stunningly obvious point being that the mere act of giving a gift to a loved one does not negate the ethical issues related to the type of gift given and how it was acquired, and so on.)

    • David permalink
      December 29, 2010 9:03 am

      That argument is hollow and does not serve any purpose. Just because a person commits evil acts does not mean that everything they did was evil, or negate everything they did from being inherently good.

    • December 29, 2010 1:33 pm

      Dude,

      Educate yourself before you speak. The Christmas gift Homolka gave to Bernardo was her sister, who was then raped and murdered. Just in case you’re still confused, that is an evil act.

      Therefore, my original (stunningly obvious) point remains true.

    • December 29, 2010 2:57 pm

      Your point is stunningly obvious but totally useless. If you read the article Wilson is responding to those who hector us about consumerism by showing us pictures and videos of people shopping. He’s saying there’s more to the story than that. See here:

      “The apostle Paul does teach us that covetousness is idolatry (Col. 3:5). To make an idol out of stuff is no good. Don’t do it. But if you want to persuade me that people are committing that sin, you are going to have to show me more than a picture of them standing in line at a cash register. What did you want them to do? Steal it?”

      It’s really a simple point and post.

      I think one issue with the consumerism debate is that some want us to return to an economy about as complex as pre-teen boy scout summer camp. I for one prefer to live in a society where I can visit the kit shop more than once every two weeks and with more than 2 bucks in my pocket.

    • WenatcheeTheHatchet permalink
      December 29, 2010 5:08 pm

      In this case “stunningly obvious” needs the addendum “stunningly obvious straw man”. It’s not as though there is clear proof Amnon lived in a free market system when he raped Tamar. Your appealing to a crime that has been and will be committed by other people regardless of the prevalent economic system in the society in which the crime is committed.

      Ecclesiastes 7:10 never stops being relevant to these kinds of discussions, does it?

    • December 29, 2010 8:01 pm

      Hey WTH,

      Not a straw man. In the quotation (the other) Dan provides, the original author is implying that giving gifts to loved ones trumps consideration of the ethical issues involved in consumption (or economics more generally). That is, I quote, “the whole point.”

      Therefore, my original point remains: the mere act of giving a gift to a loved one does not negate the ethical issues related to the type of gift given and how it was acquired.

      In the case with Homolka, the gift given was her sister who was raped. In the case of other items in our economy the gift comes at the expense of the health, land, and lives of others. Both are morally wrong, regardless of how sweet it is that people give gifts to loved ones, and we should not allow that sort of thinking to divert us from the broader moral and economic analysis that is necessary to understand these things.

    • WenatcheeTheHatchet permalink
      December 29, 2010 8:53 pm

      If I grant your point is not a straw man can you concede that it is also not ultimately a significant critique of any one economic system? :) It would apply in every economic system and you’d have to unpack it more to explain why it is a more meaningful critique to activities in one system and not another.

    • December 29, 2010 9:08 pm

      Sure. But I’m not offering my comment as a criticism of any one economic system, I’m criticizing the remarks made by the ding-dong quoted in this post. Therefore, I have no problem granting your point, since it misses the point! ;)

  3. December 29, 2010 12:34 am

    Thanks for these links. I enjoyed each thoroughly. I offered my thoughts on the matter last week, focusing specifically on the ties between Christmastime consumerism and charity:

    http://www.cfmpl.org/blog/2010/12/21/christmas-consumers-and-charity/

  4. thebrooks permalink*
    December 29, 2010 12:57 am

    Thanks! I’ll be sure to check that out.

  5. WenatcheeTheHatchet permalink
    December 29, 2010 3:22 am

    Solzhenitsyn lost a wife because he was so absurdly disapproving of what he considered frivolous purchases on her part it put a strain on his marriage. There were, of course, other problems but let’s not forget that arguably one of the greatest dissident writers of the last century destroyed his marriage in the process of objecting to what most would now describe as “consumerism”. As Ecclesiastes warns us, it is good to hold on to one and not let go of the other.

    I agree that the problem with the way most people define “consumerism” is that at root it is simply a disapproval of the spending habits of other people. The most absurd manifestation of this I saw living in Seattle in 2010 was Mark Driscoll making the following cumulative declaration: 1) we need to not be consumers 2) he’s not against culture or film because he has two home theaters and three Tivos and 3) he then denounced Avatar as a demonic film.

    More recently he blogged about how he and his dad went to Ireland to visit the castle from which the O’Driscolls once ruled part of the old country for three centuries. He thanked the church leadership team for approving of the time off and resources to make that international trip possible. When he signed the blog entry “a nobody who’s trying to tell everybody about somebody” I wondered how he could take himself seriously with that slogan. In Driscoll’s mind there is obviously no inherent contradiction between telling people at his church to not be consumers while being able to make an international trip with his dad thanks in part to their donations. The tensions pile up so quickly I don’t have words for them. Now if I were to say that going on a trip to Ireland with your old man to see the castle where your ancestors used to rule a chunk of the old country IS consumerism I suspect Mark’s fans would defend him because he works so hard and has planted so many churches and has been used by God.

    Okay, fine, but at what point does conspicuous consumption of things that aren’t needed become a blade to trim the fat off of one’s OWN life rather than as a critique of the spending habits of others? I’ve gone through the last fourteen months and barely made it past four digits of any kind of income. Some of my friends have wondered whether or not I have superpowers of frugality (I don’t, I just avoid buying things unless I am certain I need them).

    I have never once given a gift to someone out of any sense of social pressure. I can’t really grasp why anyone would. I don’t say that as a boast because I’ve found my overtly utilitarian approach to gift-giving that eschews any aspect of surprise has been off-putting to some of my family. Why would anyone feel any social pressure to get gifts for people they don’t want to give to? Is this something that happens once a person acquires a significant other?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.