Written by: Julie Dodge on February 28, 2014

“Out of the crooked timber of humanity nothing straight was ever made.” (Immanuel Kant)[i]

As an undergraduate I took a course in psychological theory in which we were encouraged to consider each major theory and ask critical questions about their theological basis (if any). One of the exercises that stood out to me was a comparison of Psychoanalytic Theory (Freud), Behavioral Theory (Skinner), and Humanistic Theory (Jung). Freud suggested that man is essentially bad and motivated by selfish desire, while Skinner suggested that man is essentially neutral and learns all behavior, with Jung arguing that man is essentially good and motivated by positive outcomes. What does the Bible teach? That man is sinful and in our fleshly state, essentially bad. If left at that, Freud wins.

However, human nature is a bit more complex. There are elements of truth in most of the major psychological theories (and their many adaptations), and to say that one theory is summative would be inaccurate.  Skinner is accurate in that we learn behavior and cultural values from the people and environment to which we are exposed.  Social theory expands some of these ideas. Jung is correct in that people make more significant and lasting change when they focus on positives and strengths. The vast majority of people desire good: They want the best for their children, their communities, and themselves, even if they don’t always know how to provide that. We wrestle with a spiritual truth that we are made in God’s image and desire to be more like that image (even if only in our subconscious), while we struggle with our sinful nature. We want to be good and yet, as Paul wrote, “I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.” (Romans 7:15, NIV).

Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter[ii] commit what I consider one of the cardinal sins of social theorists by basing their discussion of the psychology of human and social behavior primarily on Freud. This creates a weak foundation for a discussion of collective human behavior. As a social worker, I am a theoretical generalist. Social workers draw from a wide variety of theory and apply it in real life. We are pragmatists. We view the whole person – the physical, emotional, cognitive, social, and spiritual well being – in the context of their environment. We sometimes puff ourselves up when we see other disciplines following our lead. For example, psychology in its early state, focused only on emotional and cognitive function of the individual. Today psychology embraces the bio/psycho/social method of social work, and community psychology draws from social work as well. But I digress. The primary point is that human beings, society, and how we function, are complex. We are influenced not only by our individual characteristics, but our familial, community, cultural, economic, political, ecological, theological, and other contexts.

I adhere to another theory about man: we long to belong. We seem to have a built in desire to connect to other human beings in meaningful ways. I think this is a spiritual design. I recall God saying something about it not being good for man to be alone (Genesis 2:18). Throughout the Bible there is a consistent theme of our need for community, connection and belonging.

Which leads me back to The Rebel Sell. Heath and Potter argue that the counterculture has failed in its attempts to sabotage mainstream culture, and in fact has merely merged with it in terms of consumerism. Of course it has. A basic understanding of counterculture reveals that typically any counterculture movement is merely a reaction to the mainstream, and often becomes a mirror image, perhaps more like a photo negative. It espouses what it believes are radical ideas by adopting the opposite values of the mainstream. But in the end, it is not independent. It is reactive and it retains many of the most basic values.

I had a hard time focusing on what to write about, because I found myself at odds with much of Potter and Heath’s arguments. In my opinion, many of their arguments rested on flawed foundations. But they still highlight a key social issue, that of consumerism and the failed attempts by the counterculture to influence the market economy and consumption.

This week in one of my classes we focused on the culture of poverty. We wrestled with the idea that a mother living in poverty may take the limited cash on hand that was supposed to pay the rent, and instead buy her two sons new Nike’s for $80 each, or pack up and take the family to Disneyland. Why? My middle class, majority culture students all said that they should pay the rent first. But for that mom, well, perhaps she just wants to fit in. Perhaps she just wants her sons to feel like they belong. Perhaps she just wants her sons to have what she thinks everyone else has. Many of us would say that we don’t have those things. We don’t all go to Disneyland. But when you are on the outside and you don’t belong, you may have ideas about what “everyone else” has or does. Where do those ideas come from? Some are based in fact. Some are based in advertising. Some are based on television. But for the most part, she is driven by a desire to belong.

If we want to make an impact on consumerism, maybe there are other approaches. I would suggest that these are multi-faceted. Some of these approaches are about inclusion and belonging; about creating space for people of all backgrounds in our communities – especially our spiritual communities. Some of these approaches are legislative, as Heath and Potter suggest. Some of these are about community norms and values. Some of these are about our basic desire to be whole spiritually.

Man does not live in a vacuum. We are not alone and it is unfeasible for the vast majority of us to move to a cabin in the woods and live off the land. We live in connection to one another. We also, to abuse a religious cliché, seem to have a God-shaped hole in our hearts that we strive to fill, often with things. Perhaps one consideration for changing the impact of consumerism is to move toward wholeness with God and with one another. I’m not sure how to accomplish that on a global scale, but I do know how to do that, one person, one relationship, at a time.

About the Author

Julie Dodge

Julie loves coffee and warm summer days. She is an Assistant Professor of Social Work at Concordia University, Portland, a consultant for non-profit organizations, and a leader at The Trinity Project.