Posts
Oct 16, 2010
#dmingml
In this post I review Part II of Rebel Sell: How the Counterculture Became Consumer Culture. For those of you following my posts, last week I concluded my review of Part I with the question, would Jesus identify more with mainstream society, the counterculture movement, or neither? Thanks to those who shared their thoughts. I have been asked, who do I think Jesus would identify with the most? This is an interesting question. I do think Jesus was countercultural, for reasons that he continually challenged mainstream thinking about consumerism and materialism and challenged people to think carefully about where their treasure was stored as it was often a reflection of their hearts. He revealed the hypocrisy of present day institutions and the abuse of power. He certainly did not exclude the religious leaders of the day who he saw as placing greater burdens upon the people of the day that had nothing to do with God and were not founded in scripture. Surprising to some, was the power of transformation that occurred in people’s lives as a result of either his intervention or spontaneous interactions. It could be argued that although he sought reform, he did not impose this upon people in a coercive manner. The example of Jesus and Zaccheus the tax collector demonstrates this well. There is no record of Jesus telling Zaccheus what he should do. He merely modeled grace and mercy and invited himself to dinner that ended up having a profound impact on Zaccheus’ life. The result? Zaccheus turning his life around and giving back more money than he had taken from people from the abuse of the power he had exercised. However, although I believe Jesus was countercultural, I don’t think he went to the extreme of what some would today. He did not try to alienate himself from mainstream, although he was certainly different. The gospels clearly indicate that he was deeply involved in the lives of people – he ate with them, he journeyed with them from town to town, he fished with them, he went to weddings and funerals (although it seemed they didn’t remain funerals for long when he was present J), he went to the synagogue with them, he attended parties, obviously drank the occasional glass or pitcher of wine, and he was clearly attached to a strong family and network of disciples. Although many wrestled with his teachings, both rich and poor were clearly comfortable being around him and vice versa. Even though he loved the outdoors, I’m sure that like me, if he were physically living on earth today, he would definitely be a Mac user! All this to say: I believe Jesus was both countercultural and mainstream, but at a point where they both intersected. Jesus, as the incarnate God, became flesh to dwell among us so that we wouldn’t see him as some aloof and impersonal god, or one that only came for a segment of our culture. He came for all, that all might be saved. To achieve this, his countercultural views might have offended many from mainstream society, but they were not presented in such a way that prevented many from seeing the wisdom of his words and the fruitlessness of relentlessly pursuing status, possessions and wealth. In some ways, this reinforces for us the views presented by Hunter, in his book, To Change the World, where he claims believers are more likely to have far greater impact if they could merely practice the faithful presence of God within their own respective spheres of influence. Anyway, forgive my little digression, although it does help to lay a foundation for what I am about to delve deeper into.
A quick recap: Although there are multiple viewpoints held by those who prescribe to the countercultural movement, at its core, it is the belief that consumerism delivers a system of rigid conformity that define our individual identities (p. 187). The consumer can disrupt the system by refusing to shop where he has been told to – the birth of the rebel consumer. This rebellion finds expression in being alternative, cool, more hip, and different. Although, as Heath & Potter (Authors of Rebel Sell), they have merely created additional market segments for consumers.
Ranging from a range of attitudes, countercultural proponents saw themselves as being the opposite to the consumerists of the day. They fought against consuming products that would limit their freedoms and self-expression. They were wary not of a few institutions, but of all institutions. Institutions represented oppression: Coercing people to behave, live and consume in such a way that the mainstream illusion could be maintained. They shared the idea that all social injustice is based upon repressive conformity. Many solutions have been pursued by the countercultural movement as a way of rebelling against the system held together by consumerism. Unfortunately, as Heath & Potter reveal, their attempts have been largely unsuccessful. For example, the countercultural claimed that uniforms and uniformity of dress inevitably leads to a uniformity of mind; if you are conforming to the dictates of others, then you are conforming to an externally determined way of being (p. 167). However, getting rid of uniforms led to rampant consumerism. Another example, Feminists quickly saw that without appropriate social norms, ‘Free love’ opened the door to the sexual exploitation of women. What was discovered in creating a new social order with its own system of punishment and reward was that individual incentives did not always align with the common good (p.78).
Heath & Potter explain how advertisers and marketers go to great lengths in promoting their goods to society, while at the same time ensuring that potential consumers understand what benefits can be derived from those purchases, and how some consumers have transitioned from status-seeking to Coolhunting! (p. 193), with cool, being one of the major factors driving the modern economy. Kalle Lasn goes as far as suggesting that cool is a form of branded conformity, the opiate of the contemporary masses (p. 195). Describing how the early American class system was rooted in the bourgeois values of material wealth, productive work, social stability and respectability, and changed to where possession and accumulation of wealth resulted in respect and esteem, Heath & Potter follow an historical timeline showing how attitudes have changed. The emergence of the Bohemian ethic challenged the bourgeois value system. It was hedonistic, individualistic and sensual. It valued experience, exploration and self-expression and opposed conformity, directly contrasting with hard work, wealth, and the significance of institutions (p. 201). When the baby boomers graduated and moved into positions of authority with their hippie value system, trading their “bongs for Beemers”, the counterculture’s values couldn’t be sustained. At the very least, they could no longer be described as authentic. The boomer bobos (or bourgeois bohemians) also emerged. They became know as the ‘creative class’ – “A group who became “prosperous without seeming greedy; they have pleased their elders without seeming conformist; they have risen to the top without too obviously looking down on those below; they have achieved success without committing certain socially sanctioned affronts to the ideal of social equality; they have constructed a prosperous lifestyle while avoiding the old clichés of conspicuous consumption.” (p. 203) Prosperity has changed so that power is increasingly wielded not by the bourgeois, but by the cool, bohemian types. However, this new value system also drives consumerism. They just consume differently. While Heath & Potter have provide an excellent review of the countercultural movement and claim that their rebellion against consumerism has been largely unsuccessful, I feel they offered very little substance to dealing with the challenges of a consumer culture. Although in my view they fell short of upholding the legitimacy of a consumer culture, they did advocate the need to recognize some of the strengths of mass society, economies of scale, and the need for conformity and a system of cooperation. They did however, caution that this does not necessarily have to occur at the expense of individualism, unless it is secured at the expense of another. In closing, I found myself resonating with Heath & Potter, that as we become increasingly alienated from each other and from the social practices that are supposed to give weight and meaning to social existence, we are forced to look elsewhere in search of the real (p. 275). This is reminiscent of the present-day challenge for the Church.
Coming back to my theory that Jesus was both countercultural and mainstream, I don’t think we can opt out of the culture of consumerism. We can however, reflect on our attitudes towards it, and be more thoughtful about what it is we need to consume, and whether or not what we consume has indeed been produced at the expense and abuse of another. The problem is our values have become so enmeshed with the values of a consumer culture that there is no longer any distinctiveness.
Although we are all uniquely created and gifted differently, this is not the same as accepting that our individuality cannot be adequately expressed in the context of community and serving the needs of others around us. We must choose to opt out of individualism, not individuality.
And then finally, we need to recognize that God is indeed a creative God, while yet being committed to social order. Social order is not reinforced by coercion, but choice. He asks individuals to voluntarily commit to belong to a community where a relationship with him is central to that community. The alternative is buying into an eternal system of oppression!
#dmingml
In this post I review Part II of Rebel Sell: How the Counterculture Became Consumer Culture. For those of you following my posts, last week I concluded my review of Part I with the question, would Jesus identify more with mainstream society, the counterculture movement, or neither? Thanks to those who shared their thoughts. I have been asked, who do I think Jesus would identify with the most? This is an interesting question. I do think Jesus was countercultural, for reasons that he continually challenged mainstream thinking about consumerism and materialism and challenged people to think carefully about where their treasure was stored as it was often a reflection of their hearts. He revealed the hypocrisy of present day institutions and the abuse of power. He certainly did not exclude the religious leaders of the day who he saw as placing greater burdens upon the people of the day that had nothing to do with God and were not founded in scripture. Surprising to some, was the power of transformation that occurred in people’s lives as a result of either his intervention or spontaneous interactions. It could be argued that although he sought reform, he did not impose this upon people in a coercive manner. The example of Jesus and Zaccheus the tax collector demonstrates this well. There is no record of Jesus telling Zaccheus what he should do. He merely modeled grace and mercy and invited himself to dinner that ended up having a profound impact on Zaccheus’ life. The result? Zaccheus turning his life around and giving back more money than he had taken from people from the abuse of the power he had exercised. However, although I believe Jesus was countercultural, I don’t think he went to the extreme of what some would today. He did not try to alienate himself from mainstream, although he was certainly different. The gospels clearly indicate that he was deeply involved in the lives of people – he ate with them, he journeyed with them from town to town, he fished with them, he went to weddings and funerals (although it seemed they didn’t remain funerals for long when he was present J), he went to the synagogue with them, he attended parties, obviously drank the occasional glass or pitcher of wine, and he was clearly attached to a strong family and network of disciples. Although many wrestled with his teachings, both rich and poor were clearly comfortable being around him and vice versa. Even though he loved the outdoors, I’m sure that like me, if he were physically living on earth today, he would definitely be a Mac user! All this to say: I believe Jesus was both countercultural and mainstream, but at a point where they both intersected. Jesus, as the incarnate God, became flesh to dwell among us so that we wouldn’t see him as some aloof and impersonal god, or one that only came for a segment of our culture. He came for all, that all might be saved. To achieve this, his countercultural views might have offended many from mainstream society, but they were not presented in such a way that prevented many from seeing the wisdom of his words and the fruitlessness of relentlessly pursuing status, possessions and wealth. In some ways, this reinforces for us the views presented by Hunter, in his book, To Change the World, where he claims believers are more likely to have far greater impact if they could merely practice the faithful presence of God within their own respective spheres of influence. Anyway, forgive my little digression, although it does help to lay a foundation for what I am about to delve deeper into.
A quick recap: Although there are multiple viewpoints held by those who prescribe to the countercultural movement, at its core, it is the belief that consumerism delivers a system of rigid conformity that define our individual identities (p. 187). The consumer can disrupt the system by refusing to shop where he has been told to – the birth of the rebel consumer. This rebellion finds expression in being alternative, cool, more hip, and different. Although, as Heath & Potter (Authors of Rebel Sell), they have merely created additional market segments for consumers.
Ranging from a range of attitudes, countercultural proponents saw themselves as being the opposite to the consumerists of the day. They fought against consuming products that would limit their freedoms and self-expression. They were wary not of a few institutions, but of all institutions. Institutions represented oppression: Coercing people to behave, live and consume in such a way that the mainstream illusion could be maintained. They shared the idea that all social injustice is based upon repressive conformity. Many solutions have been pursued by the countercultural movement as a way of rebelling against the system held together by consumerism. Unfortunately, as Heath & Potter reveal, their attempts have been largely unsuccessful. For example, the countercultural claimed that uniforms and uniformity of dress inevitably leads to a uniformity of mind; if you are conforming to the dictates of others, then you are conforming to an externally determined way of being (p. 167). However, getting rid of uniforms led to rampant consumerism. Another example, Feminists quickly saw that without appropriate social norms, ‘Free love’ opened the door to the sexual exploitation of women. What was discovered in creating a new social order with its own system of punishment and reward was that individual incentives did not always align with the common good (p.78).
Heath & Potter explain how advertisers and marketers go to great lengths in promoting their goods to society, while at the same time ensuring that potential consumers understand what benefits can be derived from those purchases, and how some consumers have transitioned from status-seeking to Coolhunting! (p. 193), with cool, being one of the major factors driving the modern economy. Kalle Lasn goes as far as suggesting that cool is a form of branded conformity, the opiate of the contemporary masses (p. 195). Describing how the early American class system was rooted in the bourgeois values of material wealth, productive work, social stability and respectability, and changed to where possession and accumulation of wealth resulted in respect and esteem, Heath & Potter follow an historical timeline showing how attitudes have changed. The emergence of the Bohemian ethic challenged the bourgeois value system. It was hedonistic, individualistic and sensual. It valued experience, exploration and self-expression and opposed conformity, directly contrasting with hard work, wealth, and the significance of institutions (p. 201). When the baby boomers graduated and moved into positions of authority with their hippie value system, trading their “bongs for Beemers”, the counterculture’s values couldn’t be sustained. At the very least, they could no longer be described as authentic. The boomer bobos (or bourgeois bohemians) also emerged. They became know as the ‘creative class’ – “A group who became “prosperous without seeming greedy; they have pleased their elders without seeming conformist; they have risen to the top without too obviously looking down on those below; they have achieved success without committing certain socially sanctioned affronts to the ideal of social equality; they have constructed a prosperous lifestyle while avoiding the old clichés of conspicuous consumption.” (p. 203) Prosperity has changed so that power is increasingly wielded not by the bourgeois, but by the cool, bohemian types. However, this new value system also drives consumerism. They just consume differently. While Heath & Potter have provide an excellent review of the countercultural movement and claim that their rebellion against consumerism has been largely unsuccessful, I feel they offered very little substance to dealing with the challenges of a consumer culture. Although in my view they fell short of upholding the legitimacy of a consumer culture, they did advocate the need to recognize some of the strengths of mass society, economies of scale, and the need for conformity and a system of cooperation. They did however, caution that this does not necessarily have to occur at the expense of individualism, unless it is secured at the expense of another. In closing, I found myself resonating with Heath & Potter, that as we become increasingly alienated from each other and from the social practices that are supposed to give weight and meaning to social existence, we are forced to look elsewhere in search of the real (p. 275). This is reminiscent of the present-day challenge for the Church.
Coming back to my theory that Jesus was both countercultural and mainstream, I don’t think we can opt out of the culture of consumerism. We can however, reflect on our attitudes towards it, and be more thoughtful about what it is we need to consume, and whether or not what we consume has indeed been produced at the expense and abuse of another. The problem is our values have become so enmeshed with the values of a consumer culture that there is no longer any distinctiveness.
Although we are all uniquely created and gifted differently, this is not the same as accepting that our individuality cannot be adequately expressed in the context of community and serving the needs of others around us. We must choose to opt out of individualism, not individuality.
And then finally, we need to recognize that God is indeed a creative God, while yet being committed to social order. Social order is not reinforced by coercion, but choice. He asks individuals to voluntarily commit to belong to a community where a relationship with him is central to that community. The alternative is buying into an eternal system of oppression!
No comments:
Post a Comment