Capitalism and ‘quality of life’
Gary Gutting, a professor of philosophy at Notre Dame, on “What Work Is Really For“:
Suppose that in 1932, when [Bertrand Russell] wrote his essay [“In Praise of Idleness”], we had followed his advice and converted all gains in productivity into increased leisure. Antibiotics, jet airplanes and digital computers, then just glimmers on the horizon, would likely never have become integral parts of our lives. We can argue about just what constitutes real progress, but it’s clear that Russell’s simple proposal would sometimes mean trading quality of life for more leisure.
But capitalism as such is not interested in quality of life. It is essentially a system for producing things to sell at a profit, the greater the better. If products sell because they improve the quality of our life, well and good, but it doesn’t in the end matter why they sell. The system works at least as well if a product sells not because it is a genuine contribution to human well-being but because people are falsely persuaded that they should have it. Often, in fact, it’s easier to persuade people to buy something that’s inferior than it is to make something that’s superior. This is why stores are filled with products that cater to fads and insecurities but no real human need.
“It would seem, then, that we should increase leisure — and make life more worthwhile — by producing only what makes for better lives. … But this raises the essential question: who decides what is of real value? The capitalist system’s own answer is consumers , free to buy whatever they want in an open market. I call this capitalism’s own answer because it is the one that keeps the system operating autonomously, a law unto itself. It especially appeals to owners, managers and others with a vested interest in the system. But the answer is disingenuous. From our infancy the market itself has worked to make us consumers, primed to buy whatever it is selling regardless of its relevance to human flourishing. True freedom requires that we take part in the market as fully formed agents, with life goals determined not by advertising campaigns but by our own experience of and reflection on the various possibilities of human fulfillment. ”
To summarize: consumers, because they are not fully formed agents, shouldn’t choose how to spend their money; but if we could somehow figure out how to fully form them, then we can allow them to be free to spend their money; and presumably, when we reach that point of full formation, consumption of beer and Doritos will decline, while consumption of tomes of philosophy will increase.
I’ll not be signing on to that particular program.
Jim,
I suspect you already have. I suspect you strongly disapprove of the very lucrative pornography industry, for example; and I suspect you disapprove of it in terms reducible to Gutting’s: that the regular comsumption of pornography damages the conscience and thereby impairs one’s moral agency. But who are you to tell the millions of Americans who spend money on pornography that their appetites are malformed? And please tell me: Where does Gutting suggest that “we” can allow people to spend their money freely only after “we” have figured out how to form them? His article is about the importance of education, not indoctrination or coercion.
When it comes to pornography, it appears that the institutions we entrust to produce the “liberally educated” are intentionally failing (see. e.g., http://us.macmillan.com/sexandgodatyale/NathanHarden ).
I am reminded of Benjamin Franklin’s response when asked what sort of government they created in Independence Hall:
“A republic, if you can keep it.”
Capitalism is analogous to the republic. Culture or, as it’s sometimes disparagingly called, “family values”, help us to keep it. It’s hard to expect an economic system to do what is outside of its domain.
Jim P. –
No, the government shouldn’t “form” our choices in what we buy except to the extent that 1) some choices (e.g., porn) injure the common good and 2) that government fosters good choices (e.g., discouraging eating potato chips as lunch). In other words, some regulation seems good.
The question is: should a capitalist, an entrepreneur, sell stuff that injures individuals or the common good somehow? Can he just take the attitude, well, I make guns and I’m not responsible if people kill people with them? And consider the advertising business. Does an advertising company have the obligation NOT to push gun sales? Having a gun in the house is more dangerous than not having one! Should clothes manufacturers sell immodest dresses? I could go on.
How would you solve these problems?
Hi, Ann, my view is that suppliers/producers/owners/entrepreneurs do have moral responsibility. I wouldn’t want to work for a company that produces shoddy goods or that had earned a reputation for dishonesty.
For many years, Playboy was a significant employer in Chicago. My view is that the enterprise exploited females and contributed substantially to the culture’s objectification of women, and I would never work for them. But hundreds and hundreds of employees, both men and women, managed to make peace with it (a classmate of mine in graduate school, a woman, was in their IT department), and I understand that they maintained a professional environment, paid competitive wages, and so on. Perhaps they were forced to pay even better than competitively because a substantial portion of the labor market feels as I do about working there. I’m sure a lot of decent family lives depended on Playboy wages – it enabled the creation of a lot of social capital in that respect.
Matthew – I take Gutting’s point to be that education is the key to creating fully formed agents who are capable of resisting the siren call of advertisers and making intelligent consumer choices in full human freedom.
You’re quite right that I disapprove of pornography. But pornography is an interesting example as regards education; my experience living in a men’s dorm in college, and the time I spent in fraternity houses, lead me to conclude that nowhere else in the world are pornographic products so concentrated as at institutions of higher learning. I don’t have time to Google the relationship between education level and consumption of pornography, but if education is the key to reducing consumption, I don’t think we’re doing a very good job of educating our citizenry out of consuming it.
I don’t think that advertising is nearly as manipulative as Gutting seems to; my own view is that it serves beneficial and important – even crucial – social goods, e.g. in providing information to consumers. I also think that people who are unable to moderate their consumption of pornography or booze or gambling bring those character traits (weaknesses?) to the marketplace; they existed prior to those consumers’ entering the market square, and I’m not convinced that level of education has much to do with it.
And just speaking for myself, by sheer number of college degrees I’m more educated than the average American, but as a savvy consumer I am almost certainly in the bottom half. The things I don’t know about taking care of personal health, or the local real estate market, or the best way to purchase car insurance, or apps for smart phones, undoubtedly shame the people who admit to knowing me. There are a lot of consumers out there with less education than me who are making better consumer choices every day – choices that contribute to their quality of life
But the main point is that it’s a mathematical truism that 99% of us aren’t in the top 1%, and for that majority, our balance of work and leisure aren’t a matter of informed human choice; they’re a necessity. If I worked half as many hours as I do, perhaps my family could get by on less than it does if we consumed less. But that would mean making trade-offs (e.g. living in a community with higher crime and/or worse schools) that we’re not willing to make. Like most people, we’ve accepted that we need to spend our lives working, and within that reality, we’re building ourselves the best life we’re able to.
Jim P. –
If manufacturers didn’t build things to break, the working hours would be much shorter. Put one poorly made part in a washing machine and it’s going to break down and you’ll need a new one, no matter how well put together it is, how fine its materials, or how well designed. Planned obsolescence is the name of the American game. And because people have to work so many hours, they do not have enough time to give their children. Sorry, but that’s the way I see it. Kids just don’t have enough time with trusted, loving adults, and it’s partly because of our shoddy products.
And, yes, TV advertisers do persuade people that they *need* new products. Nonsense in most cases.
Ann (12:39), advertising appeals to the desire for the new and the better, not for the necessary.
Mr. Gutting, quoted by Mr. Boudway, writes:
Mm, yes, right. And?
David ==
You are naive about the advertising industry’s understanding of human psychology. We are not even conscious of appeals being made to us and how the appeals are made by subtle little cues and sometimes by not so subtle ones. Complexity, complexity.
Advertising is not complex, It is simple. Advertising appeals to our baser instincts. People who are healthy in their souls and secure in who they are do not succumb to it readily. Most Americans are not healthy in their souls nor are they secure in themselves. They need things to fill the voids in their lives. Which of course things cannot fill. When you come to realize this you realize how incredibly sick you have been and you can then begin to heal. That is when you begin to purchase with a purpose: proper food to eat, sturdy well made clothes to wear, well made chairs to sit on, etc.
Patricia –
I agree about the well-made, but things should also be beautiful. If our things were beautiful we’d respect them more and need fewer of them.
“Advertising appeals to our baser instincts. People who are healthy in their souls and secure in who they are do not succumb to it readily.”
As I type this comment, there is an advertisement up at the top of this very web page, along the right margin. Its copy reads, “Special web offer. Six months of print and online for just $17.” Three issues of Commonweal Magazine are pictured.
In my opinion, this advertisement does not appeal to baser instincts – in fact, I’d go so far as to say that it appeals to some of our nobler instincts, because Commonweal, in my view, promotes faith and civic virtue. It presents information that may be quite welcome to readers of dotCom – Commonweal subscriptions are extremely affordable! – and certainly it attempts to persuade. This is good stuff.
I heard about Commonweal Magazine because a theology professor recommended it to me (along with America Magazine) back in about 1981 or so. If he hadn’t mentioned it, I probably never would have run across it. People need to know about things like Commonweal. Advertising helps immensely in this endeavor.
(And $17 for both print and online is a *great* deal!)
Jim P. ==
Yes, Commonweal needs to be better known. I noticed that in Laurie Goodstein’s article about the Dolan-Colbert affair that a correction had been made in the online version, changing “America” to “Commonweal”. She apparently had misidentified GRant (?) as being from America Magazine. Anyway, now she knows they aren’t the same. Good. I find that she is a very balanced reporter. Commonweal ought to send her a complimentary subscription.