Why Didn’t You Say That in the First Place?
In their interesting book, The Rebel Sell, Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter argue the point that “decades of countercultural rebellion have failed to change anything because the theory of society on which the countercultural idea rests is false…The culture cannot be jammed because there is no such thing as ‘the culture’ or ‘the system.’”[1] They make some fair points, but it isn’t until the conclusion that they make the point that finally made some sense to me: “Yet it is crucial to realize that criticizing the distribution of wealth or the distribution of other ‘advantages,’ such as education, is not the same thing as criticizing capitalism.”[2]
Well why didn’t you just say that in the first place?!
Admittedly, throughout the past several decades, capitalism and consumerism have been held up as some sort of universal evil against which economic, sociologic, and ecologic super heroes must pit their 
powers for good. The problem is that Heath and Potter do what they disdain and lump all who try to live counter-culturally (whatever that means to them) into one big group of punk-rockers, WTO protesters, and others who simply rage against the machine with little or no change to “the establishment,” instead feeding the machine of capitalism. They assume that everyone who wants to force change sees capitalism as the ultimate enemy. And many do. But many, many more think capitalism is just sometimes broken and we are determined to fix it and make it our own.
If Heath and Potter had simply argued that, when discussing capitalism and culture we must clarify that capitalism itself isn’t the issue, but rather the flaws and injustices which are allowed to flourish are where we must focus our attention,[3] their points about building structures and rules to ensure justice would 
have been much clearer from the beginning. Instead, it seems like they fell into their own trap of trying to be cool to show how right they are and how wrong (and uncool) those of us who work and live counter-culturally are. Maybe I’m being unfair. Maybe I was insulted by the way they appropriated their brief dabbling in punk-rock culture to make their point, assuming punk was simply anti-capitalism. That’s probably it.
Mostly, I think I was just annoyed that Heath and Potter make such broad, dismissive statements about countercultural thinking. “The greatest weakness of countercultural thinking has always been its inability to produce a coherent vision of a free society, much less a practical political program for changing the one that we live in.”[4] As far as I can tell, Christians have been trying to live counter-culturally for centuries, offering a beautifully upside-down but coherent vision of a free society. It is fair to say that “not all Christians” have presented this vision, and that lately many Christians seem to have lost sight of what that free society has to offer capitalism or any other system of government. It is also fair to say that many Christians spend too much time either avoiding politics or falsely embracing a civil religion that fails to offer that vision. On the other hand, Christians who employ women transitioning from sexual 
slavery to create garments that sell for a pretty penny are living this counter cultural vision right in the heart of capitalism. They are paying fair wages and using sustainable, organic textiles while reveling a bit in the capitalistic system that allows them to charge more because of the message. This goes back to Vincent Miller’s Consuming Religion: Christian Faith and Practice in a Consumer Culture in which he makes the point that our faith requires that we always move toward the betterment of humanity and creation when we participate in the cycle of consumerism.
For all of my complaining, I actually liked the fact that Heath and Potter have put their theory (yes, it’s just a theory) out there for discussion and dissection. I may disagree with them that breaking certain societal rules is not dissent but deviance,[5] or that America is more likely to become more Hobbesian than experience the rise of fascism (I guess NO one saw this administration coming, eh?). But I do agree that we must find ways to work within the systems and structures that are in place if at all possible. 
Unfortunately, I think some systems will never be free of the injustices that were built into them and those may need to be completely eliminated and rebuilt if we are ever to see justice. Change, however, starts with our voices in the street as well as on the phone to our representatives. Dissent and working within systems of capitalism are not mutually exclusive by any means. In fact, I believe that they are perhaps the checks and balances that will keep us from imploding. Maybe.
[1]. Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter, The Rebel Sell: Why the culture can’t be jammed, (Toronto: Harper Perennial, 2004), 8.
[2]. Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter, 327.
[4]. Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter, 253.
[5]. Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter, 323.
About the Author
Kristin Hamilton
20 responses to “Why Didn’t You Say That in the First Place?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Great point Kristin – “As far as I can tell, Christians have been trying to live counter-culturally for centuries, offering a beautifully upside-down but coherent vision of a free society.” We are called to be in the world but not of the world, which gives us a countercultural role in society. I am reminded of the importance that we as Christians should be attractive to society as we offer a new and fresh perspective to living an abundant life. It saddens me when Christians are perceived as unapproachable, sour, and judgemental. This is not a beautiful vision of a free society that I want to be a part of. What do you think society considers attractive about Christianity?
That’s a great question, Jennifer. I believe that when we are living the love of Christ, we don’t have to try to attract others to the gospel because it is so genuinely winsome. Like Mary’s daughter participating in an ecumenical refugee outreach, or people in churches dedicating time and other resources to AIDs hospice. These acts of love and sacrifice do so much more to call others to relationship in Christ.
“Change, however, starts with our voices in the street as well as on the phone to our representatives.”
Do you think the recent demonstrations against Trump on the streets achieved anything Kristin, except giving people the opportunity to vent their collective spleen? Ultimately, the right to vote for someone else, political representation, judicial reviews and interventions, the checks and balances of the political system – aren’t they more the things that will effect change, rather than people burning effegies of Trump? This seems to be what Heath and Potter are saying?
You know, 10 years ago my answer to your question would probably have been “No,” Geoff, but that all changed with Black Lives Matter and the Women’s March. We are no longer protesting against “the machine” as happened with the WTO protests. These protests are now a very public declaration that we are watching and the deaths of black children or the grabbing of women is something we are going to act against.
I think this gets to the heart of what Heath and Potter were saying – protest alone doesn’t change the world, but protest that is followed by working within the system is effective. I have spoken with friends who work in government offices and they tell me that our representatives FREAK OUT when protests happen because they know it will be followed by a storm of letters, phone calls, and visits asking what they are doing, holding them accountable.
I agree, Kristin. While I marched to make public my concerns about the administration, I also followed that by calling my representatives to remind them that their citizens, whom they represent, do not agree with the administration, and are watching how they respond. I agree, Geoff, that marching is not sufficient. But when it is part of a broader response, it can make a powerful statement– think about the Civil Rights walk across the Pettus Bridge in Selma, and march to Montgomery, AL, in 1965.
Both you and Geoff are correct that marching/protesting alone won’t work, but it is a powerful tool for awakening. I love your example of Selma, Katy. As a history teacher, those are the visuals I drew upon to wake up my students. I’m hoping that some of them are watching the protests and marches happening now saying, “Ohhhhhhhhhh, got it!”
Great post! I see that Jennifer honed in on the same quote as I: “As far as I can tell, Christians have been trying to live counter-culturally for centuries, offering a beautifully upside-down but coherent vision of a free society.” I’m so glad that you brought out the point of Christians working within capitalism to correct or a least fight against social justice. From my view, capitalism is a tool that can be used for good or for evil. Without a moral compass—it seems like it can only go one way. However, many many Christians are using it for good and making a different in the world. Thanks for pointing that out Kristen.
I feel the same way, Jim. The greed that is so often present in capitalism was present in communism as well. We each have the choice to embrace that greed or turn away from it. I think it was Miller that used the example of buying beef from ethical ranchers versus corporate beef mills. If we choose to support the ethical, it will likely cost us more but it is one more declaration that we will not support greed. I believe these are the steps that Christians are called to take.
Ok, make it 3, Kristin!!
As usual you hit the nail on the head. Yes, Heath and Potter did write much to get us to think. I kinda thought it good the way they did it – they wanted the left/liberal to think about how they might not be achieving what they want and they did it in a ‘fun’ way. My old dad used to say you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Do you think Heath and Potter had as one motive all left/right getting together and discussing the issues and balancing each other so we can find real solutions?
I really do think that they are pushing both left and right to examine what we really want and how that can be achieved, Mary. Unfortunately, they used more vinegar than honey so it took me a while to get to their point. The discussion is much more important than their theory. We can’t see our blind spots unless someone pushes us to.
Whenever the term “counterculture” comes up in pop culture and modern music discussions, the Sex Pistols are often brought up because of their anti-capitialistic rants. Yet, you can buy “Never Mind the Bollocks” today on iTunes for $9.99. You can even get a Sex Pistols “Anarky in the UK” branded MasterCard. Irony anyone?
The most “counterculture” musician I ever encountered was Keith Green. As he encountered success in the blossoming contemporary Christian music scene in the early 1980s, he was convicted at the high cost of overhead for the production of his music (albums and cassettes).
Green had the desire to give away his music at concerts to anyone who wanted it…even if they did not have the money. The problem was that Green’s record company would not agree to such a plan.
Green left the record company and formed his own record company for the sole purpose of giving his music away. I went to one of Keith Green’s concerts while I was in High School. As an idealistic teen, I was amazed at this man who announced that you could take home his music “for whatever you can afford.”
Now that’s counterculture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd9MaBu3gAg
I feel the same way about Rich Mullins, Stu.
We are seeing a counter-cultural movement in the music industry now as people like Chance the Rapper retain rights to their own masters rather than signing contracts with studios that dictate the music and reap the majority of the profits. This is really what Sex Pistols, the Ramones, and other punk artists were fighting for, they just didn’t know how to organize so they lashed out against capitalism. I hear artists now, though, referencing them as they work together to form collectives and determine to maintain both control and integrity in their music.
This, I believe, is one of the things that Heath and Potter missed. There is always someone in the beginning who rants and rails against the system (usually blaming the greed of capitalism). They don’t make much headway, but they plant the seed for those who organize and work within the system or completely create a new system. Just because the early ranters were wrong about capitalism being the whole problem (as opposed to the flaws of capitalism) doesn’t mean they were wrong about the need for change.
Shoot! When I read Stu’s mention of Keith Green (my first introduction to Christian music), my first thought was Rich Mullins (my favorite Christian musician). Great minds. Yes, he, too, challenged the Christian music industry and was not well liked in many professional circles.
I remember the day he died. The on-air personalities on the Christian radio station got into a debate and invited other to call in with their thoughts about Rich Mullins’ “brand of Christianity.” At first I thought they were being really disrespectful, but then I realized they were actually mourning the loss of someone who rocked the boat simply by living as he thought Jesus called him to live.
It is so true Kristin that protest followed by action is what is needed to truly bring change! “Change, however, starts with our voices in the street as well as on the phone to our representatives.” We cannot give up the fight and the work because others think it will not move the needle. Saying the system is broken is an understatement because it is working as designed. In some cases we must deconstruct the system from within to reconstruct one that is for all people and not the select privileged.
“Saying the system is broken is an understatement because it is working as designed.” EXACTLY! People who know nothing of the history of policing struggle to understand why we want to take that system apart and start over. Those who choose not to understand the racism and misogyny in our country completely miss that the things that we call “normal” are by their nature oppressive. But how do we change that when so many say it’s time to “get over it” and “move on to the future?”
Kristen, thanks for the post. I found it challenging – because I found myself nodding in agreement with you in places: I thought things like the typesetting and physical formatting of the book (my copy at least) were very interesting, but definitely designed to be ‘cool’ which was ironic and a little annoying.
At the same time, in spite all that, I found myself agreeing with a lot of what they are saying. I think a fully realized and incarnated Christianity provides a powerful critique/alternative to their points – but sadly, that doesn’t seem to present itself that often.
And, outside of the Christian variation of ‘counterculture’, I found their observations and theory to be depressingly accurate
I’m with you Chip. I really do see the value of what the authors are trying to say, but I felt that they stayed in the safe zone of almost caricatures of the positions they critiqued, instead of dealing with the messy grey areas where their theory doesn’t quite pan out the way they suggest.
I want to thank you for articulating so well some of the frustrations I also had for their theory. Broad hyperbolic brush strokes, lumping all countercultural ideas into one straw man disturbed me. I’m curious, if they were to revise this book 12 years after it was written, what (if anything) they would change.
Again, all of their mentions of the church were criticisms, and their pseudo-solutions were void of faith-based alternatives, especially social justice responses.
Apparently great minds think alike, Katy. 😉
I would love to read an updated version of this book based on how this country has changed and what is happening with nationalism and populism right now.