Consuming Freedom
William Cavanaugh in his book Being Consumed: Economics and the Christian Desire lays out a framework for how western Christians should respond to the economic system they live in. Should Christians be for or against (insert political/economic controversial issue here) is part of the premise of Cavanaugh’s book. However, instead of trying to give direct answers for each issue, Cavanaugh shifts the conversation to how a Christian should respond and live within the current system they find themselves. In a sense, Cavanaugh criticizes the current system but digresses from attempting to change it due to its sheer size and perceived invulnerability. Instead of taking the stance of revolution and raising his fist to the system, Cavanaugh challenges the reader to engage in the right posture when interacting with their environment. Cavanaugh speaks primarily about free markets, consumerism, Globalization, and scarcity of resources. This blog post will specifically look at Cavanaugh’s viewpoints on free markets, as it was the most challenging for me.
Partly this topic was most challenging to me because I’ve really shied away from economic philosophy. I tend to spend much more of my passion on the theological and practical ministry issues right in front of me. These economic problems on a global scale seem too insurmountable for me to be worth attempting to making any difference in. The way of capitalism and global markets seem invincible and therefore it seems wasteful to spend effort wrestling with it. This is one reason, in particular, I liked Cavanaugh, because he recognized the reality of our current state and didn’t just spit out theory of how the whole system should change. The average Christians has been begging to ask “But what is there for us to do now?”, and Cavanaugh writes his chapter with that in mind. Beyond just chapter 1 of this Being Consumed I also caught an interview of Cavanaugh and he summarized some of his main ideas on the free market and all of his economic theory in a way in which I did not find it in the book. Cavanaugh said in a powerful summary of his work “To try and help people recover a sense of their own freedom is really what I’m about.”[1]
Cavanaugh attempts to change the entire premise of the conversation when it comes to free markets. He does this by offering a new definition of the word freedom. Freedom according to Cavanaugh and Augustine is that which leads to the more beneficial end. An alcoholic who is free to buy a drink is not actually free. He is enslaved to the drink. But an Alcoholic who is prevented from buying a drink, he then becomes truly free. Cavanaugh says, “The key to true freedom is not just following whatever desires we happen to have, but cultivating the right desires”[2] and “In order for him to regain freedom of choice, he cannot be left alone.”[3]
These are true statements and most people would be in full agreements when speaking of the individual. However, it seems like a stretch to make the jump to the economy. In another sense, with Cavanaugh changing the definition of the word, all of this conversation becomes jargon. Cavanaugh takes the word freedom and injects the metaphysical and moral freedom idea into the word meant to be used about trade. Now freedom is meant something entirely different than what most people are trying to say when they say freedom. One could come back to Cavanaugh and put forth a new definition of the world market, and then all the sudden the words “free market” are meaningless. My biggest qualm with Cavanaugh is his definition of freedom. I would define freedom as “the ability to do otherwise” while Cavanaugh’s definition of true freedom is to take away the ability to do what someone else has decided to be the lesser of the two decisions.
Cavanaugh is likening morality and virtue to politics and the economy. Slavery to one’s own desires is serious, and we need outside forces to help us free ourselves. However outside forces that are there against our preference is another form of slavery. Cavanaugh says for a market to be free there must be outside forces manipulating it for it to be the most beneficial. The problem this comes to when talking about a corporate group of people there brings in many different defections of better or beneficial.
If true freedom is found in what is only what an outside force deems best for the individual then we would find ourselves in another prohibition. And 100 years from now we would find ourselves in worlds like Fahrenheit 451, The Giver or the 2002 movie Equilibrium. If these might be too extreme of an example, we certainly would be surrounded by more and more censorships and regulations according to what a select few deem as “true freedom.” As CS Lewis says in regards to temperance, and the idea of forced temperance on Christians, “One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting every one else to give it up.”[4] Should I be able to force what I deem as best on everyone else?
But when I got to to the end of the chapter I was surprised that Cavanaugh was not arguing for more state regulation, I thought for sure that’s where he was going. “It is a false dichotomy to limit the possibilities to either requiring state intervention or blessing the unfettered reign of corporate power. Neither state intervention nor its absence ensures the freedom of a market.”[5]
But of course, I was reminded of his statement in the introduction suggesting that “the era of grand revolutions has passed.”[6] Instead the change will come from microtransactions, with each Christian being more concerned that each transaction adds to the flourishing of both parties involved. That is a definition I can get behind. Every Christian should do that. I do however realize my very strong resistance against the government taking that position to enforce flourishing on each side because I fear the one who gets to make the definition “beneficial”.
Cavanaugh ends his chapter with, “From a Christian point of view, the churches should take an active role in fostering economic practices that are consonant with the true ends of creation.”[7] Yes. Absolutely. The church should be the one doing this, and the charity as well. The whole welfare system could disintegrate if families and friends kept tribal mentality or early Christianity practices of providing for those in need around you. I agree the church should be an agent in this, but I cant get behind the government defining what is the objective good that all laws should force people toward. Which of course Cavanaugh clarifies in his introduction, “The key question in every transaction is whether or not the transaction contributes to the flourishing of each person involved, and this question can only be judged, from a theological point of view, according to the end of human life, which is participation in the life of God.”[8]
Works Cited
[1] “Consumerism and Christianity – 1/2,” May 6, 2010, accessed February 14, 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh22rJpL7zM.
[2] Cavanaugh , William T. Being Consumed: Economics and Christian Desire. (Kindle Edition). 178.
[3] Cavanaugh , William T. Being Consumed: Economics and Christian Desire. (Kindle Edition). 149.
[4] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (London, England: William Collins, 2017).
[5] Cavanaugh , William T. Being Consumed: Economics and Christian Desire. (Kindle Edition). 382.
[6] Cavanaugh , William T. Being Consumed: Economics and Christian Desire. (Kindle Edition). 30.
[7] Cavanaugh , William T. Being Consumed: Economics and Christian Desire. (Kindle Edition). 388.
[8] Cavanaugh , William T. Being Consumed: Economics and Christian Desire. (Kindle Edition). 25.
7 responses to “Consuming Freedom”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi Kyle,
Your CS Lewis “temperance” citation really got me thinking, “One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting every one else to give it up.”
Ouch. I am guilty as charged! I don’t know if it is a herd mentality, or a strength in numbers thing. Somehow it makes me feel better about myself if I’m not the only one. Am I the only one who experiences this?
Great Blog Kyle!
Thanks, Kyle! I resonated with your starting perspective: the idea that the big, global “systemic” issues around economics are so large, as to be almost too much to take on. I also tend to focus on the pastoral/theological issues within my own context.
I liked the way that you named that, and then engaged with his writing to see what he has to say to someone like you (or me!). It is interesting that he ends with this idea of the “microtransactions” that Christians might be a part of. Do you think it’s too small of a vision? Or too limited of a scope to really be bold and vibrant? Or, in the end, is this probably about all that we can do?
Hey Kyle, thanks for your post brother. I appreciated your summary of Cavanaugh’s main arguments and your engagement with him. I wonder if you think we are able to make significant progress against the pitfalls of capitalism with this “one Christian at a time” approach. It seems like wishful thinking to me. But still, I am trying to make greater efforts in the directions that Cavanaugh laid out for my own sense of well-being and faithfulness to the gospel. It’s hard though…I like good food and nice things! haha
Kyle,
I too try to shy away from economics. I think some people have the ability to understand the world through markets and patterns created from them. I too see and hear jibberish when someone is telling me about finances. Yet, I recognize that I am apart of the problem if I am not helping seek the solutions that are overwhelming. Appreciate you understanding of these concepts.
As you note, Cavanaugh does not advocate for governments limiting the freedoms of markets, but rather for induviduals to be more discerning about limiting themselves so that their freedom does not, in fact, result in the slavery of another. I felt like he was trying to get Americans (who are highly autonomous) to see how their decisions and purchases affect other people. And that even if I think I am free, I’m not really because my selections are more limited that I realize.
You define freedom as “the ability to do otherwise.” I felt like this was part of Cavanaugh’s point. Cavanugh was saying that even if you desire, for example, to buy local beers, that globalization makes that choice impossible because even your local brewery is owned by some large conglomerate. In other owrds, you don’t have the choice to “do otherwise.”
Kyle,
I wonder why you have shied away from economic issues to pursue theology. As Cavanaugh stated in his text, consumerism is inextricably linked with spirituality. We cannot meaningfully connect people with their spiritual selves if we do not first acknowledge what else they are pursuing in that realm. Yes, it does seem to be taking on a battle that we cannot win but, surely that is part of our task as we seek to lead others into right relationship with God in Jesus. Keep up the good work.
Kyle,
I have felt for quite a while that most of the social programs the government provides were a need because Christians have fallen behind on taking care of the needs of our communities. I wonder what a country would look like where we were less interested in building walls, and more interested in taking care of those God has put in our path. Interesting thought don’t you think?
Jason