New frugality as old cultural war
I was thinking more about a line in the last paragraph of James Surowiecki’s New Yorker column about consumer spending.
But the evidence for a radical shift in the way we consume seems more like the product of wishful thinking (there’s a palpable longing among pundits for Americans to become more frugal) than anything else.
It’s what is in the parenthesis that interests me, that “palpable longing” that most likely refers to David Brooks, who pined for “economic self-restraint” in this recent New York Timesop-ed. Since I tend to think of cheerleaders for the consumer society as being situated ideologically on the pro-business right, I regarded this kind of rhetoric as a move by Brooks toward the crunchy left, with its preoccupation with environmental responsibility and conservation and recycling and the like. But an old Joan Didion piece about the Washington press corps during the Clinton years (aptly titled “Vichy Washington”), reminded me of the obvious point that Brooks is reaching back to an older tradition of conservative intolerance personified back then by Robert Bork:
Bork is worth some study, since it is to him that we owe the most forthright statements of what might be required to effect “a moral and spiritual regeneration,” the necessity for which has since entered the talk show and op-ed ether. Such a regeneration, Bork speculated in Slouching Towards Gomorrah, by one of four events: “a religious revival, the revival of public discourse about morality, a cataclysmic war, or a deep economic depression.”
This puts a religious-bigot spin on the The Shock Doctrine thesis: rather than use crisis to implement a neoliberal program of economic deregulation, conservatives should seize the opportunity presented by widespread economic misery to push through a variety of behavioral proscriptions. Didion quotes Bork’s outrageous dictum that “moral outrage is a sufficient ground for prohibitory legislation. Knowledge that an activity is taking place is a harm to those who find it profoundly immoral.”
This tradition makes it more understandable why pundits are “palpably longing” for a more frugal America and why they overlook the evidence that Americans have been spending more largely because the cost of housing, medical care and education have risen precipitously (thanks in part to the flood of credit inflating asset values). The new frugality seems malleable enough a concept to serve as fresh code for an old battle, that of restricting individual freedoms to preserve religious authority in society. Religious institutions once had a monopoly on meaning and doled it out in return for obedience. Consumerism, and the identity fashioning it enabled at the individual rather than community level, usurped that power, demanding only an obedience that often felt like liberty—the restriction of self-expression to choosing among a plethora of goods in the consumer marketplace. The longing for a more frugal America is one of way of renewing the call for a more “spiritual” America, which is a way of demanding the legislation of morality in the name of values presumed to be universal and incontestable.



Comments
“The new frugality seems malleable enough a concept to serve as fresh code for an old battle, that of restricting individual freedoms to preserve religious authority in society”
I think David Brooks is trying to be bipartisan here. He’s seizing on an ambiguous concept that liberals and conservatives agree on because they interpret it in very different ways. But I think its harmless (and ineffective), mainly because today’s conservative populist activists try to preserve religious authority by *removing* restrictions on individual freedom. Once the welfare state is fully dismantled, the poor will have no choice but to turn to religious charities and churches for help, which ensures that they are “reformed” as a condition of getting help.
On the Left, frugality is connected with all those thoreauvian ideals of simplicity, environmentalism, getting back to nature, etc. But isn’t this also part of the problem? The problem with consumerism is understood as preventing us from accessing the sublime, and connected to wastefulness, disposability, and over-indulgence of shallow pleasures. Wall-E’s nostalgic, reverential attitude toward the consumer goods which have been carefully rescued from a planet-wide thrift store to nourish his soul in quiet solitude are held as the ideal. The movie contrasts this to the bad form of consumerism, exemplified by the obese humans who buy mass-produced garbage at Walmart, etc.
This leftist view of frugality is the one that is really problematic today. Advertising has been on to these ideas for decades, so that everything from SUVs to dish soap is sold to us by claiming that it will help us unlock our deepest desires, find our true selves, enhance creativity and achieve fulfillment in life. The idea that consumerism is bad except when it provides you with truly sublime pleasure is a loophole you can drive a truck through.
Comment by mike — October 9, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
That’s a good point about the unreasonable expectations of consumerism that the pervasiveness of advertising helps disseminate. That’s what I try to limit my use of the word “consumerism” to—the way in which we are encouraged to consume ideas about ourselves through goods, rather than straight-up “consumption” of the goods themselves. There’s a strong corporate push to make consumerism into a secular religion, but I wouldn’t ascribe that to the Left. But I agree that the idea that goods consumption inherently inhibits us from sublime experience—that anything obtained in a market is somehow cheapened—is totally counterproductive.
Comment by Rob Horning — October 9, 2009 @ 1:53 pm