“The Brilliant Wickedness of Oprah”
My friend and Commonweal contributor, Anthony Domestico, alerted me to this interview with Yale religious studies professor, Kathryn Lofton, who has a new book coming out March 4 analyzing Oprah through the lens of American religious history. The book is called Oprah: The Gospel of an Icon, and it argues that Oprah has created and embodied her own brand of modern spirituality based on the idea that the “narrative of personal discomfort” can be profitable if it is only turned into a historical commodity. This is to say that the suffering of a human spirit in history can bring salvation by innocently giving itself over to a dysfunctional human economy. Sound familiar? It’s a Jesus story for the late capitalist.
The message seems to be that if you master the discipline of virtuous consumption, you too might have the opportunity, in an ironic twist, to give your “self” over to the very market you have just transcended, thus serving to elevate the crass world that once oppressed you. This, of course, is Oprah’s own narrative. After achieving success in the seedy world of daytime television, she was able, through personal conversion and discipline, to offer her “self,” her own life story (along with a few of her “favorite things”) for the betterment of her followers. Having thus died to the world, she was able to rise again as “O,” the transcendent Other of late capitalism that simultaneously serves as its judge and sanctifier. And, now that the sun is setting on her show, the cross from which she has instructed her disciples, her work is accomplished as her ghost is given over to, reintegrated, and installed at the right hand of the One from whom she was begotten. She will now serve her friends by giving them a community of their OWN to ensure that this day they will be with her Father in Television. As Lofton says,
Now she is conjuring the very network that will represent, I would argue, the future of the way networks will be construed. Even as her physical self slowly evaporates, she becomes increasingly an icon, a brand. One Oprah will fade, and another Oprah will strengthen and redact, with her physicality dissolving to an eventual brand “O.” That kind of programming for the self—which seems highly particularized, but of course prescribes its own particularization—is the genius of Oprah Winfrey.
Of course, this is the worst kind of idolatry. It does not radically transform the particular by creating something truly new, but it simply pours new wine into old wineskins by claiming to elevate the particular as it really is. The genius, of course, is that Oprah finds ways to repackage the old as something new by creating a kind of pagan ritual in and through which the same old commodity is imbued with a new meaning. She first did this with her own show, as Lofton explains, not by changing the actual content, but by reciting a new incantation over it. Lofton writes, quoting Oprah:
“Originally our goal was to uplift, enlighten, encourage, and entertain through the medium of television,” Winfrey explained. “Now our mission … is to use television to transform people’s lives, to make viewers see themselves differently, and to bring happiness and a sense of fulfillment into every home. [...] I am talking about each individual coming to the awareness that, ‘I am Creation’s son. I am Creation’s daughter. I am more than my physical self. I am more than this job that I do. I am more than the external definitions I have given myself. … These roles are all extensions of who I define myself to be, but ultimately I am Spirit come from the greatest Spirit. I am Spirit.” Much of the content for her show stayed the same, as celebrities continued to sell their films, mothers continued to weep about their wayward daughters, and amazing pets still strutted their special stuff. Now, though, it was enchanted with a straight-backed righteousness of the spiritually assured.
This enchantment is, of course, also for sale. Oprah employs a team of high priests, like Dr. Phil, to say the magic words over your life, so that it might be given a new narratival significance in the context of the new capitalist utopia fueled by offerings left at the altar of “O.” Take, for example, high priest of fiscal responsibility, Suze Orman:
Suze Orman appears in every other episode about money, a wry voice about balancing a budget, warding off credit card compulsion, and sensible planning for the independent woman. The liberation of women from economic ties that bind is an incredibly important message of the show and, I would argue, for the broader discourse of liberal economics. Women in particular are struggling over the issue of consumption, which was a key part of the economic crisis. But the brilliant wickedness of Oprah is that she’s simultaneously telling you how to save and how to spend. At the end of an episode, once a couple has gotten control over their credit cards, there has to be some way of finding a reward for them. Peace of mind is one thing, but wow, much better if they get to take a road trip with their new Hyundai! Whatever the counsel is, the glamorous and the visual are the conclusion, creating a tableau of success even amidst practices of austerity.
The ultimate message, then, seems to be that all change is merely formal. It’s about the way you consume, not that, or even what, you consume. It’s about the way you do trashy TV, not that you do it. The aesthetic presentation of the conversation is the thing, and what’s talked about is only incidental. The important thing is that we all maximize the expression of the Human Spirit (whatever that is) in everything we do, and with this, all actual criticism that might lead to a real revolution goes out the window. Lofton brings this point out most clearly at the conclusion of the interview. When asked what Oprah might think of her book, she says:
This is not the sort of book she reads—or, rather, this is not the sort of book that the product Oprah endorses—since it neither prescribes a better reality nor posits an alternative reality to which you could escape. If she and I were talking, though, the first thing she’d want to know is how this book fit into the first-person journey of my life. Then I’d find myself quickly formatted into her production as a signifying woman of one sort or another. This is her real legacy. After Oprah, what first- person iteration is not a commodity?
It seems to me that this is the scariest thing about the Oprah-fication of religion, or the religiosity of Oprah. Real people and positions are actually eclipsed by personal narratives and idiosyncrasies. The idea is that if we all just get together and tell our own stories, the deep Spirit beneath our most closely held positions will reveal itself and we can all have a good empathetic cry over the discovery of our mutual humanity. What this actually reveals, however, is the poverty of a world in which we can’t recognize our neighbor as human unless we can commodify her between the covers of a book that can be sold for $19.95 and read while sipping a cup of coffee at Starbucks. This is a world in which we can’t bring ourselves to love enough even to properly disagree, because the terms of the debate are no longer set between right and wrong, but between humanity and monstrosity. And what kind of monster criticizes Oprah?
I have no problem with critque but I found this particularly critique really one-sided, polemical and lacking in balance.
1. Oprah has used her “commodity” in order to effect social and political change particularly as it pertains to race; “albatross which has hung around the neck of America” (BTW that quote is from the conservative African-American justice Clarence Thomas). America has a very poor history with regard to race; from the treatment of First Nation people (just think of that horrendous and idolotrous American self-concept of manifest desting, to slavery, to segregation, to the internment of Japanese Americans, to the over the top paranoia of Muslims). That Oprah is able to transcend the conditions imposed on her by American society is truly remarkable – she must be doing something right!!!
When Obama was running, Oprah used her public cache to publicly endorse Obama and was able to fill an arena in South Carolina which vaunted Obama in the primary and increased his value in Democratic circles.
2. I saw an interview with Oprah and she discussed her fame and how she chose to use that fame. Oh that more famous people would use that commodity to offer hope to people who are suffering.
I think from the point of view of a Catholic publication, we should be taking the splinter out of our own eye rather than others. How effective have we (Catholic lay people) in transmitting Catholic spirituality and mysticism in popular culture?
Oh and by the way. She recently had a program in which the audience was filled with MEN who had been sexually abused (and yes there were Catholic men who had been abused by priests in the audience). It was truly moving and healing. Catholic bishops and leaders should thank her on behalf of the Church for Christ was working through her (and “outsider”) at that time.
George, America does not have a monopoly on hateful behaviours. Europe has done far worse. In fact America is a beacon of freedom and helped millions free themselves of the tyranny of Communism and many millions more avoid it in the first place.
Anyway, the issue is not that a black woman was able to become incredibly rich — good for her — the issue is that she spreads a mythical neo-pagan nonsense religion which only confuses people. She is spreading her own propaganda. If that article was polemical, that’s because the media is usually so biased for Oprah that articles such as this one have to be written.
At the end of the day salvation is a real thing, achieved by the grace of God and not talking heads on TV speaking of Godless nonsense. It leads to everlasting life with God and not some pantheistic placebo effect. If you don’t see that then I fear you should revisit your Catholic faith.
Eric, thanks for your post.
As a student of hagiography, I have long been interested in (though not particularly a fan of) Oprah and her cultus.
Lofton’s book is on my wish list.
Oprah as a force for “social and political change”? Oh yeah, she backed Obama — Senator Change You Can Believe In whose speech the other night sounded like one long advertising seminar.
Excellent post. It fits right in with my own research on the capitalist employment and transformation of “enchantment.” Oprah’s fundamentally New Age spirituality is an especially beguiling form of commodity fetishism.
I am enchanted (ha ha) by Lofton’s dissection of Oprah. The details are outstanding. But does Lofton do the same as Oprah by fitting Oprah the Icon within Lofton’s own constructs. I like that Lofton does not place Oprah with the prosperity preachers. A regrettable phenomenon in my view. In any evaluation of Oprah, one must compare her with what she came upon when she started the show. Many of those crazy talk tv shows are not around or at least minor today. Secondly, Oprah has a brand of positive thinking that focuses on doing something about ones attitude and behavior. Why is that just psychology? Certainly, Jesus was more than just psychology. But he lifted up all the time. The third point is this is an indictment of organized religion which fails to bring people hope the way Oprah does. Sure she has commercial breaks. But she doesn’t tithe nor does she demand one quarter of your paycheck.
Drew Christiansen in the 1/24/issue of America writes: “What is integrating and unifying for religious people is not some theological framework but their experience of holiness in others and the striving for holiness in their own lives, and through the prism of that holiness the overwhelming holiness of God.” Who is to say Oprah is not there “striving and sharing holiness?”
“Real people and positions are actually eclipsed by personal narratives and idiosyncrasies.”
Why is this true, Eric? I don’t see where Oprah does not allow criticism. Where does Oprah say that we can’t disagree? And your idolatry comparison seems off the top.
At any rate I am open on this. I have to think about it more. This certainly stirred my thinking. She is certainly not perfect. Yet her achievement is a wonderfully positive one. As I see it so far you nor Lofton have made a convincing argument.
Would this commentary have been posted if Oprah was Oliver? A male?
The fact is, We Are All Oprah. And knowing this makes me already feel better about myself.
Knowing how you feel, unagidon, makes me feel better too.
Bill, yeah, I think Lofton comes down a little hard on Oprah compared to some of the Jesus shills (Benny Hinn et al). But I think she’s right to put the Oprah phenom in religious terms.
Little Bear, no I don’t see this as an instance of sexual politics, but I think whenever somebody starts bashing successful women it’s good to ask the question.
Unagidon, I feel better knowing you feel better about yourself! And everything happens for a reason, one of Oprah’s dopier mantras.
This might be a good time to look at the major icon in the Western Church. Augustine of Hippo. More than Oprah he orchestrated the development of himself as icon. But it is the opposite of Oprah. Augustine made polemics a sine qua non of the church. So where Oprah seeks agreement on accepting people as they are, Augustine will allow agreement on his terms. Namely if you are within his church. For the most part until this century Augustine succeeded. Augustine did not have a worldwide talk show. But he does have the Confession and more words than any other Christian writer.
I think that all Augustine needed was a hug.
Given that Oprah doesn’t seem to have any religious belief in the ordinary sense (though she does “believe in love”) it seems to me that to fault her for using her talents and money to help others (while making a buck) makes no sense. So what, she enjoys it. So what so she makes more money doing it. I smell envy.
About capitalism and what to do with money after you have enough –
Robert Skidelsky, the Keynes expert, has a splendid little article (“Life after Capitalism”) about how the capitalists of the developed world have reached the point where all they can think of doing with the money they already have is making basically unneeded and unwanted products in order to make even more money. (At least Oprah gives large chunks of her money to work for the poor.)
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/skidelsky37/English
The Confessions of Augstine represents a watershed moment in Christian literature. The human spirit becomes that landscape of grace. Recall that Augustine wrote the Confessions after HE had received “fame”, acclaim and prominence.
The Confessions are introspective and Augustine uses his personal experience to make certain inferences about the activity of grace (the Divine as he experienced and understood it). Sound familiar?
Is it actually true that we can do no good absent grace. Is human experience, human flourishing, really sola gratia or do we play a role in it. If so what is the distinction.
The nature/grace distinction remains a theological mystery.
Oprah articulates it a bit differently, using a different kind of language.
An aspect of theology is reflection on personal experience in light of faith. Oprah does do exactly that although she does not use the language of “faith”. she may use awareness, or awakening, or maybe borrow a term from the east “enlightenment”. While, these may not have exactly the same meaning, Oprah is not a systematic theologian.
However, Confessions does not contain specific theological definitions either. They are reflections on experience in light of faith. And Augustine admonishes the reader to take from it what is profitable and leave the rest.
And Bill is correct. Why isn’t Augustine roundly criticized for his association and support of politics and the empire to further his beliefs (what Loughton criticizes regarding Oprah’s capitulation to capitalism).
Ann,
The critique of Oprah’s capitalist religiosity goes much deeper than money-envy. The BIGGEST problem with it is what I stress at the end. Capitalism fundamentally changes the way we think about ourselves and others such that we no longer see them as people but as commodities. The point is primarily about the ontology of capitalism, not its justice. Though, the two are linked. It is because capitalism fundamentally alienates people from the actual sources of communal value by treating them as individual consumers each seeking simply to fulfill their own autonomous desires within their own individual life stories that justice can only be achieved by a total rejection of the entire market regime. Sure, you can work for justice within the system, but it will always only be meted out in particular instances of charity (not in the sense of the theological virtue!) done by particular philanthropic agents. And, that’s fine, but philanthropists aren’t saints and the church is not a charitable organization. (That’s what’s wrong with government funding of faith-based initiatives.) So, the idea that all of the critics of capitalism are just jealous because they aren’t rich still only works on the basic capitalist assumption that we are all just individuals trying to get ours. And it is precisely THAT framework, which must be challenged and overcome. Only then will we have justice. In the meantime we will just have “at least…” measures, and I believe the Scriptural instruction had something to do with “what you do for the least” not doing the least you can.
“Capitalism fundamentally changes the way we think about ourselves and others such that we no longer see them as people but as commodities.”
Eric –
That’s quite a generalization. Americans generally are capitalists at heart, and I don’t think that most Americans view either ourselves or others as commodities. Why do you think that we do?
Yes, our current capitalist version is hugely unjust and getting worse. But it is also true that we are persons with choice, specifically with the choice of who will govern us. It follows that many of us get what we deserve — the corrupt politicians we voted for who sell out to the masters of industry. Are you saying that we do this because we think we’re only commodities?
I don’t share your view that the Church, indeed other churches too, are not charitable organizations. I used to work summers for United Fund and know a good deal about just how much charitable work the various churches do across the board. Sure there are such people as the lady bountifuls who would make anyone resentful of a handout, but there are also everyday people (some of whom are actually quite saintly) who want to lend a hand to the less fortunate. I don’t think the poor people share your negative opinion of those groups generally. What evidence do youo have to support your view?
Hi Ann,
I don’t think anyone can be a “capitalist at heart.” Capitalism is a particular system for organizing our economic life, which like all social systems disciplines people to think and act in certain ways. But, there will always be some undisciplined remainder, which is why people can still do crazy things like sell all their possessions and live in community with the poorest of the poor, which is crazy precisely because it cuts against the logic of properly restrained, everything-in-moderation capitalist virtue. From a capitalist point of view Mother Teresa and Dorothy Day should be considered terrorists because they thumb their noses at the system. If everyone did what they did, our whole system would collapse. The commodification of human persons comes out most clearly in phrases thrown around in business settings, such as “human capital.” The idea being that human beings can be given a monetary value based on their value to the company, usually measured as a function of productivity. But, beyond business settings, our public discourse often seems to parse out the worth of some persons based on their contribution to society. Just think about conservative worries about people receiving unearned benefits through social welfare programs. The idea is precisely that not enough “use value” has been created by such individuals in order for them to be able to exchange it for goods and services. I would argue that Christianity has this crazy idea that all people are inherently valuable just by virtue of being human regardless of their productivity, or “use value.” Now, you might say that unproductive people are acting selfishly or slothfully, but that they are sinners has no bearing on their value as human beings. But, by the logic of capitalism, sin is economized such that a failure of virtue means a loss of value. This is why capitalism has been so historically connected with a certain kind of religion. The very idea that we “get what we deserve” is tailor made for capitalist deployment. You have a specific value that can be quantified and duly compensated. That seems to be the definition of a commodity.
As for charity done by churches, I am not denying that churches do good works and help people out, and that those people are usually appreciative. But, is that what churches ARE? Is that their mission? You don’t need a church to tell you that it might be nice if you fed a hungry person. But you might need a church to tell you that you ought to risk your own life for that hungry person if it means that he might be able to feed himself. This kind of mission, however, would be a threat to the capitalist regime. We can’t have good, highly motivated people risking their lives to save their neighbor, especially one that doesn’t have any “use value.” So we have to take the teeth out of the social mission of churches by integrating them into the system by instrumentalizing (commodifying) this mission as a faith-based initiative, which has the quantifiable economic role of mitigating the injustices of the system itself. Basically, we just can’t let the poor get too hungry, or they won’t be able to work for us anymore.
In the end, I don’t want to say that we are completely determined by this system. We do have the freedom to try to strike out and create a more just society, but Oprah-like ideologies undermine this freedom by making it seem like the new social order can use the same logic as the old one but with just a little more “be your best self” attitude. Real justice has to be about more than the “audacity of hope.”
Eric
I understand what you are driving at and I agree with much of it insofar as the counter-cultural force of Christianity. However, Flannery O’Connor was once asked why she portrays such off the wall characters in her novels. She said that in areas where Catholicism loomed larger, those characters would be in monasteries.. Whereas in the US they are roaming freely.
Now there is a great deal of truth in that. Historically, I think what you describe in terms of the ideal of the Christian was in fact monastic spirituality. Monasticism developed in order to have a place for people like this (and I think I may have missed my calling ;) – and maybe you too – thats a joke).
But in the economoy of the Church, not everyone is called to be a monk and we haven’t developed a strong lay spirituality although Dorothy Day is close and even Martin Luther had some good thoughts on it.
I think Oprah is trying to find her place. I think God is calling her and she just has to try to figure it out as best as she can.
Also, as far as poverty is concerned, consider what one minister (politician) of India said about Ghandi. He said something to the effect that it costs the government of India millions to keep Ghandi in poverty. That is quite humorous and cynical but there is a grain of truth there.
George D., I agree with your latest response here. It probably did cost millions to keep Ghandi in poverty. I do think we are all called to do what we can spiritually (which becomes material when it comes to helping people) in this world. Oprah is no exception. Her platform has just become larger than that of the rest of us. I’ve watched enough of her to like and dislike her at different stages of her life. In my opinion she has evolved as a more mature and likable person when she embarked on this spiritual journey of hers a bout midway in her TV life. I watched her latest interview with Piers Morgan last week. At the end of it, she said that he had not asked her what she did best. Her response to this self-querie was “being present in the moment with her guests free of any personal distractions.” I thought that is what makes her a great interviewer and a person who has garnered a huge following. We all want attention and we all want to be listened to. She provides that to her guests.
None of us are perfect; nor is she. But I don’t begrudge her her forum because I think she has helped more than she has harmed. I do believe she offers hope and a brand of spirituality to those that have little of either. She gives large sums of money away because she has it to give away. It’s better than hoarding it. Anyone can make their own interpretation about her sincerity, but I’d say her grandmother did something to instill Christian velues in her. She just may have become the self actualized person we all would like to be by virture of her place, time, and means.
Eric –
I agree that some business people view other people as commodities, as do the ideologues who defend them. But most of us aren’t business owners, and I don’t think most of us agree with them.
There is one aspect of the popular culture which, I think, does confirm your opinion. Most Americans classify people as “successful” to the extent that they have accumulated a lot of money — in other words success as a person is equated with one’s investment portfolio or ownership of property. This is most unfortunate. And how boring — nothing more exciting in such a world than a bottom line. Sigh.
Where does this notion come from? I suspect it’s the influence of the Puritans and their work ethic. Once their religious beliefs were gone all that is left is respect for one’s property. Pitiful.
By the way, I watched the Piers MOrgan-Oprah Winfrey interview. Both of them equated “success” totally with money, though Oprah seemed more interested in using hers to help others. What this shows more is shallow thinking, not a selfish heart.
Eric –
Yes, I do think that part of being a Christian is helping the poor (and there are all sorts of poverty). But the motive should be somewhat different for Christians than for, say, an agnostic. We are to love the poor as brothers and sisters, not simply have pity on them as suffering creatures. As I see it, this means not just helping them to get through the day, but helping them to get through their whole lives with the opportunities they need. This means being willing to pay more taxes for, for instance, better schools for them, and supporting other programs that lead to their financial independence. Being Lady or Sir Bountiful is not an option.
Ann–Your response is touching and true. Our bottom line world drives out many virtues that need to be resurrected and further cultivated. One thing I do agree with in your piece, Eric, is the juxtaposition of Suzy Orman on the one hand, and the materialistic give aways and gimics that Oprah portrays on the other hand. As in any show, most of it is “show” and the kernals of truth need to be carefully chosen by the viewer. Has she created her own religion? For herself, maybe, but for the viewing audience—that’s a stretch. Like most performers, she most likely won’t know when to truly “quit”, and I’m sure she will continue to promote her brand as long as the public is willing to buy it. Judging from most of the TV shows we have on today, I don’t think her brand is without virtue or merit.
Ann – Thanks so much for your comments. I don’t think we’re too far apart on what can and should be done given that we have the economic system that we do.
George,
You raise several interesting points. I think there has been something of a modern turn to monastic spirituality with popular spiritual writers like Kathleen Norris, and I think there’s something in that. But, like anything, that too can become an industry selling a fixed identity. So, I wouldn’t be too quick to endorse it. In the end, I think that we have to make sure we are continuing to engage in the struggle for justice within society more broadly, and some of the modern appropriations of monasticism tend to focus on retreating from society and cultivating extremely personal rather than communal virtues.
Getting back to Oprah, my (and I think Lofton’s) issue is with “Oprah” the brand and not Oprah the person. The truth of the matter is that I know absolutely nothing about her as a person, and I’m sure she’s being called by God in her own way, as all of us are. But, the problem with “Oprah” the brand is that she presents herself in public as if there is no remainder that exceeds who she is as a commodity. The idea is that what you see is all that there is. And, when a person insists on so fully identifying with her public persona, and encourages others to do the same, I think she contributes to the notion that individuals are only who they are as constructed by and for the market. Which is why any criticism of “Oprah” the brand is immediately construed as some kind of attack on Oprah the person. We all just become trapped in the ideology, which is really the secret to the success of the brand. She’s selling a kind of invincibility.
This is actually something I think Obama avoids well, which also makes him frustrating for our Oprah-fied culture as well as being more open to criticism. People describe him as cold, aloof, etc. But I think he has just cultivated a way of creating distance between who he is as a public political commodity and who he is as a private person with a value independent of his public role, and that is actually a good thing because it gives him the ability to engage in rational debate without forcing that debate into a kind of soul-to-soul combat. With someone like Palin or Beck, for example, there is no debate, because every criticism has been already contextualized as a personal attack on them/us or their/our way of life. Obama’s problem is that he hasn’t inoculated himself against attack by identifying his political self with his real self, which is why he has been losing the public relations campaign, but actually successful at accomplishing things.
Lastly, I think the point about Ghandi fits perfectly with the logic of capitalism that I have been describing. Of course, it costs a lot to keep people in poverty, but the expectation is that there is more money to be made by doing that than liberating them. For example, as I understand the healthcare issue, there is significant evidence to show that a single payer, mandated insurance program would be the most efficient and cost-effective because it would distribute the risk over the largest amount of people and close the “leaks” in the system where life-saving services that go unpaid for are transfered onto the payers driving costs higher and higher, because the payer is always paying for more than they personally received. Thus, it is actually costing us millions to keep people from receiving healthcare. But, the logic is that if I can convince the people who can pay that the care they receive is actually worth the money they pay for it, then I can continue to control the price of the services I am providing and maximize my profit margins. If the cost of care was made transparent by handing the industry over to the public, there would no longer be as much money to be made. The fundamental madness of the system is that the consumer wants to pay the least amount for the most, and the seller wants to charge the most for the least. Along with this workers want to be paid the most for doing the least, and employers want to pay the least for the most work. Thus, the whole system is built on the logic of competing interests. It is no wonder then that there are various mechanisms that can be used to deceive buyers and sellers, as well as workers and employers, into thinking that the market value (price or wage) is just the actual value. I don’t mean this deception as a moral term, but only as a descriptive term.
So, as costs are mysteriously driven higher and higher, more money is flowing through the system, more people are making big profits, more people are going into debt to pay for goods and services that it is getting increasingly harder for them to afford, this debt is transfered onto consumers in the form of higher prices as well as government investment of public monies, the national debt goes up, inflation, etc…. Thus, it is, as you say George, costing us a lot of money to keep people poor.
That great commodity “Catholic nuns” stopped evangelization in its tracks in the US. That is also the original and present reason for mandatory celibacy. The commodity of the celibate is much greater than the married clergy. That other commodity, monks, has always been a staple of bishops to ward off those who questioned their authority. The new commodity is Opus Dei, Focolari, international youth day and papal visits. It was Legionnaires and Neocathecuminates before one fell in shame while the other found a different voice than Rome.
So does that make the hierarchy capitalist or just old fashioned empire? Michael Novak and that whole Ethics and Public Policy Center are wholly capitalistic. They have all become rich in their championing of orthodoxy. There is a return on capital. Just too many icons out there.
Eric
I’ve not watched enough Oprah to say anything confidently about her and her gospel. But I once spent a lot of time reading Marx, the young and the old, and thinking about commodification. I don’t regret it, except for the time I might have spent reading Augustine. Something I read here a while ago gave me the impression that unagidon had a similarly disreputable youth.
Commodification is a huge problem — “problem” is too trivial a word to use for it. On the other hand, it is quite possible to reify our economic relations, and that very Marxian term might be applied to Marx himself. Which is why getting down to real cases is so important, as I believe you do with the health care issue.
I’m sure that you realize how modestly a single-payer system, which I think I favor although I see workable alternative in some European multi-payer systems would affect the commodification problem. The single payer still pays the healthcare providers (and competes for them against other choices of work they might purse) and the construction and equipment costs and maintenance staff, all of which, in inanimate and human forms, are in some senses and to some degrees commodities. Unless, of course, the entire economy is transformed to do away with markets and competition for profits between producers of surgical equipment or maybe even for human talents.
That, in fact, is what you propose — without giving the slightest hint of how this might actually work. You are hardly alone in doing this. There is McCarraher, the Righteous Scourge of the Running Dog Lackeys of Wall Street, and legions of others. I’m open to the possibilities. I don’t think that they have been exhausted by the brutal and dehumanizing regimes that have come forward as alternatives to capitalism. But sooner or later one has to get concrete and put your cards on the table. Endless critique won’t do. Marx went from Left Hegelian abstractions to studying facts and figures on his sore bottom. That was once seen as a decline from the humanistic young Marx to the economistic old one. I understand the criticism but I’m sympathetic to the trajectory as unavoidable.
Peter,
Thank you for your response. You are right to read some young Marx in my comments. But, I have also read my Augustine, and I’m not sure there is an either/or between the two. They would agree, I think, that true justice requires a complete transformation of the social and political structures. Marx, though, thinks that this can happen within history, or rather will happen as a necessary evolution of history (hence, Hegel), and Augustine rejects the possibility of this kind of realized eschatology, encouraging those watching their Empire crumble around them to work against the horizon of the Kingdom that is always only “to come,” not in service to saving or mourning the current regime. Since, it often seems that we, even Christians, have lost the idea that there is such a horizon, radical critique (in either an Augustinian or Marxist shade) seems to be in short supply. As for getting practical, it seems to me that this is exactly where Marx went wrong from an Augustinian point of view, and thus began to oscillate between desperate nostalgia for and overweening confidence in the political potential of humanity. This is what made Marx just another humanist, rather than what Terry Eagleton might call a “tragic humanist” or what Augustine (or Herbert McCabe) might just call a “Christian,” who recognizes that the grand eschatological horizon of critique is only ever going to be incarnated in history in tragically partial, halting, stumbling, idling, suffering, cruciform interventions. Nevertheless, the horizon remains as our judge and our hope. So, I guess I’m in the “decline” camp of Marx readers.