|
Progress and affluence: reconsidering capitalism
By Mark Schemper
Staff Writer
In his recent book "Habits of the High-Tech Heart," Calvin Professor Quentin Schultze writes in the introduction that “we have naively convinced ourselves that cyber-innovations will automatically improve society and make us better people, regardless of how we use them.” Last week in Chimes, Beth Heinen wrote that, in light of the recent Colombia disaster and the seemingly useless purpose the United States space program serves, “America needs to step back from its silly obsession with space and reevaluate its priorities." While the foci of the two are different – Schultze is addressing the detriment to “the moral fabric of our lives” caused by the information technology explosion and Heinen is addressing the reckless ambition of the space program – both speak to a much larger, and recurring, problem within Western society. Both address the fact that economic and technological progress has become our contemporary tower of Babel.
In an effort to create economic and technological marvels, we may have lost sight of what is important. Economic and technological progress have polluted all other realms of life. Need more examples than the observations of Schultze and Heinen? Take pop music: artists are forced to compromise their identities in order to maximize profits and as a result we get cookie-cutter artists like Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera and Avril Lavigne. As different as the three may claim to be, they all fit a certain model intended to play well on MTV: young, attractive and in possession of a “rebellious” spirit. If economics were not the governing principle of the music industry, we would certainly have a much more variegated array of artists.
How did we get into this situation? When did economic and technological process become our north star? Some insight can be garnered from Free University economist Bob Goudzwaard.He suggests that the origins of this movement can be traced back to the 18th century Enlightenment and the development of capitalism that followed from the industrial revolution. Human accomplishments in science, economic prosperity and the expanding boundaries of the known and inhabited world at the time of the Enlightenment created a “trust in the constant growth of man’s ability, insight, and earthly happiness.” The humanism that began to gain popularity during the Renaissance had found its culmination during the Enlightenment. The subsequent industrial revolution only served to reinforce these optimistic notions. Goudzwaard claims that the increased efficiency and prosperity created by inventions like the steam engine generated a “belief in progress…attributed a newly sacred significance to the technical and economic pioneering efforts of the industrial revolutionaries…the forces of economic growth, technical innovation.” Faith in God as the source for redemption was replaced by faith in technology or economic success.
Goudzwaard claims that this has resulted in a society in which “norms of ethics and justice are allowed to play a role only after economic production has already occurred.” To put it another way, the reformed notion of God’s sovereignty over all creation has been replaced by the sovereignty over all creation of economic and technological progress. This change is apparent in the examples I used to introduce this topic. In each case economics are allowed to dominate the values of a separate realm of life.
My motivation for writing about this topic does not come from a desire to decry the ills of society. Rather, my motivation for exploring this topic came from reading Calvin Professor John Schneider’s recent book, “The Good of Affluence. ”While the questions that this book asks are important to explore, the conclusions that Schneider reaches seem to be a dangerous rationalization of an “I’m rich, I’m righteous, everything is great” position that can only result in complacency towards the plight of the poor. Space prevents me from treating the book in its full complexity, but I will attempt to summarize the major points made by Schneider as accurately as possible.
Central to the book is Schneider’s contention “that capitalism (for all its problems) is not just the greatest liberating power in human history, but also that its cultural workings provide an unusually good opportunity for the expression of true Christian faith and virtue.” Schneider first evaluates the morality of capitalism. After doing so he comes to the conclusion that “modern economic habits of acquisition and enjoyment as they flourish under capitalism are not necessarily immoral. Nor is it obvious that they are always destructive to the human psyche and thus to the inner spiritual strength of society.” In fact Schneider contends that affluence may in fact be beneficial to the spiritual strength of society. He cites the fact that many wealthy people became spiritually enlightened when they found that their affluence failed to provide feelings of fulfillment.
Schneider then attempts to show that, throughout scripture, material prosperity is a part of God’s "cosmic vision" for humanity. Genesis suggests that “physical and material delightfulness is needful for healthy human well-being everywhere.” The story of the exodus shows that part of the liberation of the Israelites is finding their way to the Promised Land, a place of material prosperity. When the Israelites were in exile the prophets warned of the dangers of affluence. Schneider also claims that proverbs like “The reward for humility and fear of the Lord is riches and honor and life” (Prov. 22.4) present a “moral universe that is working the way it should. The righteous people prosper, and the unrighteous are impoverished.” A very key question that Schneider fails to address here is whether or not these proverbs are talking of spiritual poverty or material poverty.
He then considers the New Testament and argues that Jesus did not live a life of poverty. Instead we should consider Jesus to be a member of the middle class who engaged rich and poor alike. Jesus lives a life characterized not by poverty but rather by celebration of material prosperity. His disciples are middle-class and one of his most prominent followers is Zacchaeus, who might be considered a capitalist hero. Schneider's claims are questionable in light of the fact that throughout Christ’s life we are presented with situations where Christ is dependent on the charity of others. Consider that in order for Christ to have a proper burial, Joseph of Arimathea had to appeal to Pilate and provide for Christ’s funeral.
Schneider concludes his examination of Christ by arguing that certain parables that have been interpreted as condemnatory of wealth are in actuality not. One of the four parables he uses is that of the rich fool. In this parable “[the rich fool] is not covetous simply because he desires a secure and pleasant retirement, or material things he does not need. He is covetous and foolish because he believes the storage of grain (think IRA’s, 401ks, and the rest) solves the problem of his human existence.” While I have only been able to address a limited number of the myriad
of interpretational questions that need to be asked about Schneider’s
view of God’s “cosmic vision,” I would like to address certain problems
that exist even if Schneider’s interpretation is accurate.
The book ends with a consideration of the question of the moral obligation of the affluent to the less fortunate. Earlier in the chapter on Exodus, Schneider addresses the question of moral proximity with respect to moral obligations. Moral proximity is the view that “our moral obligations in economic life are greater or lesser in proportion to their moral proximity to us” and, according to Schneider, a similar principle “operated in the ethics of ancient Israel.” Schneider acknowledges that this principle is necessary to his argument for material delight. If we had an equal moral obligation to all people, near or far, the “blessing of material delight would be impossible to accept” since we would be obligated to part ways with this material delight in order to fulfill our obligation.
The greater ability to reach impoverished people with increased globalization does not change this obligation. Although we can reach those in far-away lands, we should continue to use the principle of proximate morality in order to maintain our state of material delight. This line of thinking is problematic because the blessings of material delight are dependent on our accession to proximate morality. At the same time claims that we should accede to proximate morality are dependent on material delight being part of God’s redemptive scheme. Schneider seems to be drawing a normative conclusion from the
Israelites’ empirical state. Perhaps moral proximity was incorporated
into Israel’s ethical framework for more pragmatic purposes and not
simply to allow for the Israelites to enjoy material prosperity. In a
world where you cannot fly thousands of miles in a matter of hours, it
is impractical for the Israelite’s to use an ethical framework that
demands an equal obligation to all people throughout the world. In
making the claim that our moral thinking should include a provision to
maintain our material prosperity, Schneider comes close to saying that
material prosperity is a normative state, one in which Christians ought
to be. If this is so, then to leave that state of material prosperity
by sacrificially giving to others could even be considered a rejection
of God’s will. Schneider's interpretation here and throughough are exactly what Goudzwaard has warned against: he lets economics dominate norms of ethics and morality
The examples that were used to introduce this article illustrate another problem with this idea that capitalism encourages Christian virtue and morality. Goudzwaard’s contention that the current form of capitalism is problematic because it makes economic and technological progress the ultimate end seems like a much more appropriate treatment of capitalism. In his book, Schneider gives an example to illustrate how capitalism rewards virtue and penalizes vice that is indicative of this problem. He considers an incident where he bought a car that was a lemon. By telling everyone he knew that the car dealership was crooked, he penalized the car dealer. The key, though, is that he parenthetically indicates that, to his dismay, the car dealership remains open. Capitalism may in many cases reward hard-work and penalize those who are crooked, but just as this car dealership remains free to prey on other unsuspecting customers, crooked behavior is also rewarded in many cases. This past summer’s corporate scandals make this clear. Some get caught, but many don’t. The problem is that they operate under an ethical framework where economic and technological progress is considered the ultimate good. They may discover at the end that this is a vacuous pursuit and may even come to the realization that they need some sort of spiritual fulfillment. But this seems to be a case of ends justifying means.
I am not saying that capitalism is inherently wrong. Schneider is right to say that there are affluent people out there who are honest, hard-working, and use their wealth appropriately. I grew up in a community that was incredibly wealth and I know that many of them achieved this by virtuous means. I cannot count the times I was impressed by their generosity. The danger though is that this sort of thinking – comfort with our material wealth – may not be appropriate in a society that is as a whole not using wealth appropriately. We give, but do we sacrifice to the extent of the impoverished widow who gives an offering of two penny as Christ looks on in the temple? Perhaps if we were being too charitable and were, in fact, becoming impoverished as a result, this would be the time to make the argument that God want us to experience material delight.
|
