This Month's Colloqium

Colloquia Archive

Worship at Cathedrals of Consumption: Some Reflections on the Hedonistic 
Tradition, the Protestant Ethic and Western Culture

The most immediate issue is how to live a more meaningful life within a society increasingly defined by consumption and the settings that help make it so irresistible.[i] 

Aristotle-Pleasure is a Good

The pursuit of pleasure has been with mankind since the Garden of Eden. The sense of meaningless associated with this pursuit, as an ultimate end, is well known by the writer of Ecclesiastes.  Aristotle argued that pleasure is a good, a sentiment with which most all would agree.  He further argued that as there are higher and lower ends there are higher and lower pleasures. The higher or nobler pleasures are associated with the higher or nobler ends.   Although Aristotle argued that pleasure is a good he did not argue that pleasure is an end.  There is, for example, a noble pleasure that accompanies the achievement of wisdom and even perfects the virtue of wisdom.  The end, however, is not the pleasure that we get from wisdom but wisdom itself.  Christians would find much in this with which to sympathize.  The highest virtue for the Christian is to love God and one’s neighbor. True wisdom leads us to this conclusion and loving God and neighbor enhances wisdom.  Furthermore, loving God and one’s neighbor contributes to one’s pleasure.  The goal, however, is not the pleasure that accompanies love or even the wisdom that accompanies love but the love itself.

Epicurus-Pleasure is the Good 

Epicurus was a metaphysical materialist who started with the assumption that he universe contains no meaning.  Therefore he argued that pleasure is the only good and that the pleasure of the individual is the only good.  Thus, he was an egoistic hedonist.  Furthermore, unlike Aristotle he argued that all pleasures are equal in value.  No type of pleasure is more virtuous or noble than another type of pleasure.  He was thus a quantitative hedonist.  It is true that he argued that the pleasures of the mind (philosophy) are better than the pleasures of the body but this is only because they last longer and produce less pain.  Furthermore, philosophy teaches us that we are not immortal and those superior material beings that he called gods (with a small “g”) are not out to either get us or reward us. This releases us from needless worry about punishment after death and the wasting of our material resources trying to appease the gods. 

Epicurus, however, did not provide us with a theory of justice. Power politics produces far more pain than pleasure and is a risky business. A wise man or woman interested I his or her own pleasure will avoid it if possible. Epicurus valued friendship (phileo) and not love (agape). Agape love is an impossibility for human beings and the pursuit of it brings much pain. 

Jeremy Bentham-The Greatest Pleasure for the Greatest Number is the Good

Jeremy Bentham links utilitarianism with egoistic hedonism and does provide us with a theory of justice.  That rule which produces the greatest good (pleasure) for the greatest number is the just rule.  But why would a world full of egoists or completely selfish persons care about the greatest good for the greatest number? The answer lies in the empirical assumption that there exists a natural identity (complimentarity) of interests or failing this natural identity of interests that we can create an artificial identity of interests. To the degree that it is a fact that that the best way for us both to get what we want is to cooperate with one another  (and we both know that this is a fact) we can dispense love.  Pure enlightened self-interest will be sufficient to motivate us to cooperate.  Thus Bentham (1748-1832) the younger contemporary of Adam Smith (1723-1790) provided a philosophical basis for Adam Smith’s laissez faire economic theory as put forth in his Wealth of Nations (published 1776).  Smith’s argument for laissez faire, however, was directed at proving that governmental control of commerce was unnecessary and harmful.  Bentham’s argument quite explicitly makes a more radical point. Moral control of commerce (if by moral one means action that is motivated by benevolence) is impossible and attempts to control economic or non-economic behavior by benevolence is an illusion that can only be harmful.  Of course, Bentham did not think that his theory was immoral. Justice is determined by good consequences (the greatest good (pleasure) for the greatest number. The motive for all persons those we call good and those we call evil is the same—the selfish desire to maximize one’s own pleasure.

The justification for Bentham’s economic theory is found in a natural identity of interests.  Of course, there will always be individuals who either because they lack intelligence or sufficient education will think that their best interest conflicts with obey rules that result in the greatest good for the greatest number. For these persons we must develop a penal code that creates an artificial identity of interests.  I will not expand on this except to point out if one is an egoistic hedonist who believes in a natural identity of interests then one will be committed to a laissez faire economic theory.  If, however, one is an egoistic hedonist who believes that a natural identity of interests does not exist but that an artificial identity of interests can be created by government intervention then one will argue for government intervention to create the greatest good (pleasure) for the greatest number.  Logically egoistic hedonism by itself neither requires nor precludes government intervention.  Bentham applied the hypothesis of natural identity of interests to economic theory and artificial identity of interests to the penal system but there is no intrinsic reason why artificial identity of interests cannot be applied to the economic system. 

There are numerous logical and empirical difficulties with Bentham’s theory that I will not go into here.[ii]  I will not go into that critique here.  I will make several assertions.  First, I would make the empirical claim that egoistic hedonistic utilitarianism is a dominant worldview if not the dominant worldview of contemporary American society and indeed the Western world.[iii] This is not, of course, because most Americans have read and rejected Aristotle or read and embraced Jeremy Bentham.  Later on in this essay I will explore some sociological reasons for both making this claim and explaining how it came to be true. 

Secondly, whatever one might think of my empirical claim that we live in a culture largely dominated by egoistic, hedonistic, utilitarianism. Several things are clear. The position that all persons are always completely selfish is not consistent with Christian faith. Love of God and neighbor is the ultimate basis of Christian ethics.  Secondly, living for the glory of God rather than living for maximum pleasure is the primary obligation of a Christian ethic.  Thirdly, utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethic in that it affirms that the ultimate test for the morality of any action or rule is whether or not it leads to good consequences.  Christianity along with the ethical assumptions of other religions like Judaism and Islam although they may take consequences into account affirms with respect to some ethical decisions one is required to do what is right because God commands it (regardless of consequences). To put this in the language of technical philosophical discourse when push comes to shove Christianity requires a non-consequentialist or deontological ethic.  These points will appear obvious to any reflective Christian.  I believe it is important to make them, however, because egoism, hedonism and utilitarianism are fundamental and largely unquestioned assumptions of our culture to which Christians are not immune. 

Karl Marx-Overcoming Alienation is the Good 

Marx (1818-1883) differs from Bentham in a number of important respects.  Most strikingly, whereas Bentham believed in a natural identity of interests, Marx under Capitalism believed in a natural conflict of interests.  This conflict of interest produced injustice where the bourgeoisie (the Capitalist Class) exploited the proletariat (the laboring class).  This exploitation produced alienation in several senses. In the first place, bourgeoisie (which was an inherently exploitive and unproductive class) forced the proletariat or the productive class to be alienated from its own labor.  Secondly since our labor is a spiritual extension of our productive selfhood this alienation from the labor of the working class caused the members of this class to be alienated from their own spiritual selves. Thirdly, the working class is alienated from political community and finally until the working class achieves self-consciousness as a member of an exploited class the laborers are alienated from each other.  The Communist State is the solution to the removal of this exploitation and the alienation that is derived from it.  Marxism promises neither a natural or artificial identity of interests driven by egoism and hedonism but community and a just and productive order. 

Thus, the secular soteriology of Marx is certainly antithetical to a Christian soteriology but is still closer to the Biblical perspective than that of Bentham. 

Max Weber and the Iron Cage 

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism by Max Weber (1864-1920) may be the most famous and widely read piece of sociological literature at least by people who are not professional philosophers.  It is also widely misread and misquoted by those who have not read the book.  This, of course, is a fate of many books including the Bible.  Weber wrote a number of books on the relationship of religion to economic life. In addition to the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, these included The Religions of India, The Religions of China, The Religion of Islam and The Religion of Judaism. Weber’s thesis in all of these works was to show that Marx was wrong in affirming that the economic structure was the sole determination of all cultural phenomena. Of course economic structure influences the expression of religious faith.  However, it is also the case and this is Weber’s point, that religion has an impact on economic life.  In particular the 17^th Protestant faith had the effect of developing a geist or spirit that was a necessary condition for the development of Capitalism in the West. The Spirit of Capitalism can be described as a set of social psychological attitudes that especially met the needs of an emerging Capitalist economy.  These social psychological attitudes (the virtues of the Protestant Ethic) included (1) a religious legitimization of the accumulation of wealth  (2) a deep seated drive to accumulate wealth (3) a de-legitimization of the consumption of wealth.  To put it simply, Capitalism especially in its formative stages needs capital.  This requires large numbers of people who are committed to the accumulation and investing of wealth. The growth of Capitalism requires the virtues of hard work and of delayed gratification. 

One sometimes hears Protestants who have heard of Weber’s thesis, his criticism of Marx and the relationship of Capitalism and the Protestant Ethic who regard Weber as a secular defender of Christianity particularly in its Protestant manifestation.  This is a misreading (or non-reading) of Weber.  Weber’s thesis goes something like this.  Protestants[iv] affirmed the doctrine of (1) justification by faith and not by works. (2) that true faith led to good works (3) that Christians could be “called” to tasks other than the ministry including the calling to economic life and (4) the doctrine of the “priesthood of the believer.  These 16^th century doctrines developed by the Protestant reformers had some curious consequences when they confronted the emerging capitalist economy of the 17^th century.  What if I have doubt and anxiety about my salvation? I know that salvation is by grace through faith but do I have true faith?  The Medieval Catholic could go to confession and the priest for reassurance.  The “liberated” Protestant had no such option.  If he is truly saved, however, he knows that he will produce good works.  He is thus, encouraged to work at his calling as a “sign” of grace.  If one’s “calling” is business then working at one’s business is a way of alleviating this anxiety.  How does one tell that one is working at one’s business?  Of course, by successful accumulation of wealth.  But how much accumulation of wealth is necessary for assurance? There is no clear answer to this question. 

Several things need to be pointed out in this context. What started out as a liberating doctrine of grace ends up producing an anxiety ridden “workaholic.”  Secondly, although Weber attributes the origin of this perspective to Protestantism, especially in its Puritan manifestation he believes that this set of attitudes has become secularized so that since the 19^th century people of various religious traditions or no particular religious persuasion are imbued by the “Protestant Ethic.”   Furthermore, Weber sees this psychological disposition as encouraging a type of rational efficiency.  His project is to attempt to understand the growth of rationality in the West.  But “rational efficiency” is not the “rationality” of Plato or Aristotle that can lead us to an understanding of the “good.”  Rational efficiency in the West has become a final end in itself that leaves us unable to talk about final ends. 

Weber, Marx and Bentham 

Compared to Weber, Marx was optimistic.  He believed that Capitalism was destructive of the human spirit but at least it will someday (soon) self-destruct.   Weber believes that Capitalism will continue and spread (globalization).  At the close of The Protestant Ethic he quotes and comments on the words of the Puritan writer Richard Baxter noting of course, the Puritan rejection of materialism. “In Baxter’s view the care for external goods should only lie on the shoulders of the “saint like a light cloak, which can be thrown aside at any moment”. But fate decreed that the cloak should become an iron cage. [v]   

Clearly Weber disagrees with Bentham about the reality of hedonism as a philosophical anthropology and as the primary motivation for the rise of Capitalism.  For Weber it is not the desire for pleasure but “this worldly asceticism” that accounts for the rise of Capitalism in the West.  Also although Weber may despair of hope for the West, clearly for him man’s ideal destiny is something more than the maximization of pleasure. 

The Iron Cage and the Velvet Cage 

The contemporary sociologist George Ritzer quoted at the beginning of this essay develops a critique of contemporary society that is informed by reading of Marx, Weber and postmodernist social theory.  He argues that although Marx’s emphasis on exploitation by controlling the means of production was appropriate for the 19^th century, in the late 20^th and early 21^st centuries we need to be concerned about exploitation by the means of consumption. We have developed “cathedrals of consumption” that encourage and are designed to encourage hyperconsumption.  Hedonism rather than this worldly asceticism has come to the fore. More accurately, Ritzer may be said to claiming that the commitment to “rational efficiency” that was produced by the marriage of Capitalism and the Protestant Ethic has become married to the view that personal pleasure is the ultimate good.  We have developed more and more efficient ways of producing and marketing material goods.  Implicit within his critique is the view of that modern society not only efficiently satisfies human desire but shapes human desire in ways that dehumanize.  Ritzer sees this as a worldwide phenomenon.  In his The McDonaldization of Society (which by the way is translated into Romanian) he uses McDonald’s as a metaphor for Western Capitalism which through the process of globalization Ritzer sees as taking over the world.  McDonaldization is characterized by efficiency, calculability, predictabilty and control through Nonhuman technology.  A number of things bother Ritzer about a world characterized by McDonaldization.  It is a rational world but not a rich world filled with meaning.  It is a world characterized by sameness, a world where all cultures are leveled and lose their uniqueness. 

In Enchanting A Disenchanted World, however, we see a continuity in Ritzer’s critique but also a shift in emphasis.  Cathedrals of Consumption among which are Malls, athletic stadiums, educational settings, mausoleums and new gated communities) are more than just efficient places where we can get our wants and needs met.  They have as the metaphor “cathedrals” suggests become for many the functional equivalents of places of worship where our desires are shaped and the meaning of our lives is defined.  They are places that produce fantasy, magic and dreams.  They create spectacles that are designed to obscure rationalization.  They create simulations that allow us to visit places, cities and natural phenomena all over the world without having to bother to go to these places.  They break down the boundaries of time and space of real and fake.  They manipulate and make it difficult for us discern a difference between good and bad, true and false valuable and worthless.  

Whether and to what degree my readers will find Ritzer’s analysis descriptive of the world in which we are forced to live will perhaps be a matter of some debate. At least I hope that this will be the case.  The degree to which we find his description accurate will affect our response.  A few things, however, should be clear. From a Biblical perspective it is wrong to be either compulsive accumulators of wealth and power or compulsive consumers of material things.  Such things do not provide the mystery in which rejoice. They do not give meaning to life.  The “Brave New World” that Ritzer describes is not and cannot be our heavenly home.  How shall we live out our lives in this world without being seduced by these false gods?  That may be a more difficult question to answer.

Richard Von Dohlen
January 27, 2005