Haunted by unconditional responsibility
Reading Collateral Damage by Zygmunt Bauman creates a tremendous argument for good biblically reflective public theology. In fact I would encourage a revision in the reading order for the next cohort, the trio of books on contextual theology would be a practical next step after reading Bauman; largely because this book cries out for God’s wisdom and power to address public concerns. In light of that, the focus of this post will be Bauman’s chapter: “Consumerism and morality”. [1]
I don’t have a background in the social sciences, so my perspective might be a bit sophomoric, but Bauman seems to see society as the great organizing principle, and almost god-like in its sovereignty. Perhaps this is the influence of Marxism. However, and this seems significant, “society” is only an “imagined principle” and an amoral one at that. Without any basis or a standard for morality, Bauman in his scholarly way, attaches a moral standard to society. He borrows it from Emmanuel Levinas whom he considers “perhaps the greatest ethical philosopher of our time”. [2] That moral standard is the “unconditional responsibility of the Other”[3]. Jewish thought helps me understand the origin of this concept, yet with no basis for this propositional truth, Bauman accepts it as a societal standard. This approach creates a tension with consumerism, which he goes on to explore.
Bauman, reflecting on Levinas, makes the case that perfect “responsibility for the Other” isn’t really possible, in as much as your care for your Other, might conflict with another’s care for their Other. He also sees it as an unattainable standard: “few people can manage to rise to the level of saints”.[4] He postulates this standard then discounts it but doesn’t discard it. He writes that we’re “haunted by unconditional responsibility”[5] (read unconditional love). Society, in its god-like way, “trims down” this impossible standard and replaces it with “ethical and procedural rules.” Consumerism is yang to morality’s ying; good and evil battling for preeminence.
Somehow “society” in collaboration with the “universe of moral obligations”[6] works out a system where by moral persons—I’m not clear on who’s included—can limit their responsibility to others, to refuse some ethical responsibility, and be absolved of a measure of moral guilt. Ethical rules are in flux and change with the populations’ willingness to do or not do the moral thing. Consumerism is positioned as the evil that is slowly eroding our society. Over time human relationships are affected: we don’t eat dinner with the family, we work too many hours, we’ve abandoned our weekends, and all because of our consumerism[7]. Inasmuch as consumer markets have so completely captured our psyche, we even use shopping to numb our guilty conscience.[8] For example, earlier today our women’s ministry sent out an email asking all the church women to buy items for the homeless, “blessing bags for the homeless,” they are calling it. Bauman might argue that they are assuaging their materialistic guilt through more consumerism. He writes that we’ve gone from the morality of “Responsibility for the Other,” and under the influence of our consumer markets we’ve bought into the “responsibility for oneself”[9]. Our selfishness doesn’t stop at buying what we want and need, but we justify our consumerist tendencies, our self-indulgence, with the rationale that “I’ve got to have more so that I can do more and eventually give more.” As our morality shifts from “responsibility for the Other” to a focus on oneself, it begins to be redefined not as sacrificial for others but as self-improvement.[10]
A word of praise and a hope: my praise is yes, Zygmunt Bauman has his finger on the pulse of the American consumerist culture. He describes a reality that is common, a bent towards materialism that most of us know all too well. He rightly exposes even how our bent towards consumerism influences our altruistic activities, ultimately exposing our core selfishness.
And now the hope: Bauman’s arguments necessitate morals, absolutes, convictions, guilt, and allegiance to a higher being. He’s basically a prophet without a god. He’s preached a wonderful message without the authority of scripture, or the enlightenment of the Spirit. So often as I read, I was reminded of the parable of the good Samaritan, but by no means did I hear Jesus’ voice in Bauman’s writing. Eccl 3:11 says “He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end.” I think eternity is haunting professor Bauman and I hope his social thinking leads him know God, and know him more deeply.
[1] Zygmunt Bauman, Collateral Damage: Social Inequalities in a Global Age (Cambridge, UK.: Polity, 2011), 72-82.
[2] Ibid, 73.
[3] Ibid,.
[4] Ibid,.
[5] Ibid,.
[6] Ibid, 74.
[7] Ibid, 76.
[8] Ibid, 77.
[9] Ibid, 78.
[10] Ibid,.
About the Author
Dave Young
husband, dad, friend, student of culture and a pastor.7 responses to “Haunted by unconditional responsibility”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Good observation Dave,
I liked Baumans sociology even though he may need the Lord. Its a shame that people with theology and Christ dont emulate the ideas he has postualted. He deals with a great concept of society to me because of the many disparity that exists within society and races. I think that consummerism is creeping big time into the the church and that we need to get back to the love of Christ and the great principles he advocated. Blessings!
“this book cries out for God’s wisdom and power to address public concerns.”
Dave, this encapsulates what I was thinking as I read Bauman. Bauman does a great job of identifying the problem but turns to the same human wisdom that created the problem to find a solution.
Brian and Dave, it is kind if reminiscent of government isn’t it? Create a problem then try to use government to solve it!
It does seem overwhelming to think about solutions. We can always look at the problem and analyze it, but if the answer was easy then the problem wouldn’t exist in the first place. The sad truth is that we spin our wheels looking to “humanity” or the government to fix the issue. The Christian community fails to look to Christ for the answers. If all Christians took action based on the individual response that Christ calls us to, then the world would be a much different place. I’m not sure we are looking at the right issue – I believe the issue is really that Christians don’t truly follow Christ’s example. If they did, then there would be more Christians on this earth and their example would speak loudly. Thousands of people have debated social justice issues for many years and our solutions are making the situation worse. Would there be a greater (positive) impact if we simplified life within the Christian community (and churches) and just lived as Christ calls us to?
Dave, Well done. Thanks. I as well read a lot of truth in Bauman but Jesus was clearly missing. After putting this book down I was struck by the great need for Jesus. It seems to simple to say Jesus is our only hope but it’s also true. I think you’re assesment of studying Public theology after this book was spot on. How do we know take what we’ve read and who we know God to be to actually do something in our communities?
Dave, “Bauman seems to see society as the great organizing principle, and almost god-like in its sovereignty.” I similarly noticed and felt the same thing. I found it interesting the some who understands so well how we have become so broken, still thinks we can put ourselves back together again. What is he, related to Humpty, Dumpty? Even all the King’s horsemen couldn’t put him back together. To think that sociology, us studying our selves, can think our way back to what we ought to be seems like a silly thought for such a brilliant man:)! Nice post and thanks for unpacking that chapter.
At so many points in your articulation of Bauman’s words, I wanted to start another conversation. Striking key ideas, you capture our reading succinctly and delineate what’s most significant.
As well, you have engaged his stance that reflects a haunting quality to Bauman’s postulation – it’s almost like Bauman swims around the truth, but never truly landing on it. With your reminder of God setting “eternity in our hearts,” I want to find Dr. Bauman at his ripe age of 89 to ask, “So what’s next? Do you still believe what you’ve propose will work?”