How could rebellion and non-conformity, the kind espoused by the Church in contrast to the dominant culture, actually be fueling the consumeristic culture it allegedly rails against? If, in fact, Heath and Potter are correct in this argument as found in their book \u2018The Rebel Sell\u2019, what efforts could ever unhinge the overpowering influence of the consumeristic culture which surrounds humanity?<\/p>\n
There would be few in the world today that have any awareness of life outside their myopia that would argue consumerism has no negative impact on the world. Whether these be oppression of certain labor forces, intense wastefulness, or catastrophic impact on the environment, it is clear that not everyone or everything is a \u2018winner\u2019 when assessing the global impact of consumerism. Yet, it seems that at least according to Heath and Potter, the impact of so-called countercultural movements has not only made no visible positive impact but has actually only served to exacerbate the consumerism it argues against. \u201cThe critique of mass society has been one of the most powerful forces driving consumerism for the past forty years<\/em>.\u201d[1]<\/a> \u201cThe counterculture, in all its attempts to be subversive, has done nothing more than create new segments of the market, and thus ends up feeding the very monster of consumerism and conformity it hopes to destroy.\u201d[2]<\/a> So what hope is there to combat the evident corruptions brought about by this all-powerful force? Probably none. So, I don\u2019t know about you, but I think it\u2019s high time to stop trying. There is not really much point in carrying on with this blog. Have a good day.<\/p>\n Dang, but that\u2019s only 267 words out of the requisite 1000, so while I suggest you stop reading now I will continue writing a whole lot of tripe to meet the necessary requirements. (Now we\u2019re at 304!)<\/p>\n Consumerism at its core is not really of the fear inducing \u2018conspicuous\u2019 variety, but for most simply a means of distinguishing oneself from the masses. \u201cIn the beginning, it was a system concerned with selling people things they needed. But once those needs had been largely satisfied, in rich countries at least, capitalism became about selling things that would make people feel distinctive.<\/em>\u201d[3]<\/a> Even the critique of consumerism is little more than a means to set oneself apart so as not to be deemed conformist. \u201cConsumerism, in other words, always seems to be a critique of what other people buy.\u00a0 This makes it difficult to avoid the impression that the so-called critique of consumerism is just a thinly veiled snobbery or, worse, puritanism<\/em>.\u201d[4]<\/a><\/p>\n And, after the initial and significant change in lifestyle brought about by increased wealth it even ceases to bring about any genuine improvement in the sense of happiness and contentment. \u201cFirst, it is worth noting that in developing countries, economic growth does an enormous amount to promote overall happiness. It is only once a society has become quite wealthy that growth no longer delivers increased happiness<\/em>.\u201d [5]<\/a><\/p>\n On top of all that we have the apparently unstoppable global movement toward homogenization, where products are almost universally similar despite the geographic region in which one is found. \u201cEvery place in the world is starting to look more and more alike<\/em>.\u201d[6]<\/a><\/p>\n But, perhaps despite minor distinctions, that is a consequence of globalization and the greater digital connectivity we have with one another regardless of geographic barriers. We even see evidence of this in our own doctoral program. The movement toward homogenization is not confined to restaurants and clothing retailers. It is evident in the Church (think Saddleback and\/or Hillsong), musical tastes, film, technology, even language. Maybe this is more evident of personal preference than it is of a purposeful move toward mono-culturalism. \u201cNot all uniformity is bad uniformity<\/em>.\u201d[7]<\/a> And; \u201chomogenization is a consequence of genuine consumer preference<\/em>.\u201d[8]<\/a> In their discussion of countercultural tendencies and the development of consumeristic options to satiate those developing desires, Heath and Potter come up with the quote that I think most succinctly recognizes the heart of their argument but also the highlights the likelihood that any human endeavor to alter consumerism will ultimately fail. \u201cNo matter what we do, chickens will never be the rugged individualists that we would like them to be<\/em>.\u201d[9]<\/a> Are they really talking about \u2018free range\u2019 chickens or is that a thinly veiled innuendo about humanity? One can only guess but it seems apropos to human nature and our inability to change much at all.<\/p>\n While Heath and Potter attempt to explain the ideological failures associated with the various counterculture movements and suggest alternatives, it does raise the question as to why they felt the need to write a book about it. I wonder how well the book sold and whether or not its success afforded them opportunities to take on paid speaking engagements, book signings and travel at the expense of others. Did it provide for them some kudos in their work environments or amongst their peers? Were they able to increase savings toward their children\u2019s college funds? I should have thought of this instead of spending money on a doctoral program that will leave me in debt till I die. But, someone at George Fox is probably glad I did.<\/p>\n There is no real point in over-spiritualizing consumerism. It is a fact of life. Should the Church be aware of the negative impact of consumerism? Of course. The Church\u2019s responsibility is unchanged from its inception until now, much as God\u2019s desire for the people was in the time of the prophets. \u201cFor if you truly amend your ways and your doings, if you truly act justly one with another, if you do not oppress the alien, the orphan, and the widow, or shed innocent blood I this place, and if you do not go after other gods to our own hurt, then I will dwell with you in this place<\/em>.\u201d (Jeremiah 7:5-7) Keep the focus on those things that matter, and have always mattered, to God.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [1]<\/a> Heath, Joseph, and Andrew Potter.\u00a0The Rebel Sell: Why the Culture Can’t Be Jammed<\/em>. Toronto: HarperPerennial, 2005. P. 98<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> “The Selling of the Counterculture.”\u00a0The Economist<\/em>, May 26, 2005. Accessed February 21, 2018. http:\/\/www.economist.com\/node\/4027702.<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> Beckett, Andy. “Branded for Life.”\u00a0The Guardian<\/em>, June 3, 2005. Accessed February 21, 2018. https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/books\/2005\/jun\/04\/highereducation.news1.<\/p>\n [4]<\/a> Heath, Joseph, and Andrew Potter.\u00a0The Rebel Sell: Why the Culture Can’t Be Jammed<\/em>. Toronto: HarperPerennial, 2005. P. 105<\/p>\n [5]<\/a>\u00a0Ibid\u00a0P. 113<\/p>\n [6]<\/a>\u00a0Ibid\u00a0P. 245<\/p>\n [7]<\/a>\u00a0Ibid\u00a0P. 230<\/p>\n