From top: Christmas shopping in Henry Street, Dublin 1 last December; Eamonn Kelly
One of the ideas at the centre of David Edward’s book “Free To Be Human: Intellectual Self-Defence in an Age of Illusions”, is the idea that corporate consumerism is actually a religion.
The book draws on ideas contained in a wide range of other books, by people like Erich Fromm, Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, Noam Chomsky and others, bringing together various useful observations made by these writers, in order to build a persuasive argument for the ill effects of corporate consumerism, not just on the environment, but also on society and the individual.
The Economy
It is as if all existential concerns have been subjugated to the one task of continued economic development through perpetual consumption. During the boom, RTÉ used to lead the news every day with a story on the economy’s health, as if for all the world the economy was a being, like some kind of queen bee people were serving.
Edwards characterises this enslavement to the economy as being similar to people serving a religion, with the advertising of the lifestyles promised by corporate consumerism as the liturgy.
Even though it is clear by now that corporate consumerism is eating up the planet, the system must continue as if that is not the case. This is the delusion on which corporate consumerism and advertising depend. The idea that it is possible to consume indefinitely within a finite system, without adverse effect. Once you look clearly at this proposition, as Edwards does here, the delusion collapses.
However, advertising, which is corporate consumerism’s propaganda, is tasked with keeping people blind to this contradiction at the heart of corporate consumerism.
Atheism
Edwards identifies atheism, which he also characterises as a “religion”, as being the underlying “belief” system that allows for the pursuit of perpetual consumption. Atheism is a religion in the sense that, like religions, it is founded on a “certainty”, a belief, the certainty in atheism being that life is meaningless. Whereas in religion the “certainty” is that there is a God and a divine plan and so on.
In both cases neither can know with any certainty whether there is or isn’t a God or a purpose to life. That’s where faith comes in. With atheism, the “faith” is that faith is also meaningless, since the certainty is, in atheism, that the universe is Godless.
It is into this vacuum that corporate consumerism inserts itself, becoming a religion of its own, based on the belief that life is meaningless and short, and should therefore be enjoyed to the fullest by consuming.
When put like that it is immediately obvious that such a belief system has absolutely no regard or concern for anything that may happen after the current “enjoyers” of this system of consumption have faded to their own personal oblivion.
The idea is to take what you can because “you deserve it”, one of the tenets of this religion, and let future generations make what they can of what’s left, if anything is left. If nothing is left: well, tough shit.
No Conspiracy
This system, as described by Edwards, is not like some kind of conspiracy, but operates by a series of filters that have the effect of filtering out those who might be opposed to such a short-sighted system, while favouring those who serve the system. The filtering works a bit like an algorithm set to always make choices, both in people and things, that ensure short-term profits and instant pleasure.
This filtering occurs across all aspects of the system, having the effect of rewarding those with “success” who support the system, while side-lining critics of the system, who are often characterised as “odd” or even “insane”. This is the system’s way of disarming criticism and is used routinely, through media, to discredit critics of the system, including scientists warning about impending climate catastrophe due to over-consumption.
A good example of how the system protects and perpetuates itself would be the manner in which whistle-blowers are treated, often characterised as “enemies” of the system they are reporting on, or delusional, or working some, as yet undiscovered, angle of self-interest.
The point is, the system doesn’t need a “conspiracy”, or some collective of “controllers” or planners to ensure outcomes that, even in the face of climate disaster, ensure that it’s always business as usual in the system.
In fact, corporate consumerism works at its most efficient when people are asleep to its logical outcomes, in this case the certainty that unfettered consumption in a finite system must eventually end up consuming everything, like a black hole.
Corporate consumerism not only seeks to deny that such an outcome is inevitable, but also implies that if this is the case then, so what? Enjoy yourself, have fun while you still can.
Contempt For Life
This is what makes this ideology an enemy of nature, and is perhaps one of the reasons why its political representatives, the neo-liberals here at home, chiefly in the person of Varadkar, are suffering so badly in the polls.
It would appear that ordinary people are beginning to realise the nihilism at the heart of the neo-liberal ideology. The uncaring creation of poverty and homelessness, and ultimately, on the macro level, the destruction of the environment itself and the planet’s life support systems, in the name of short-term profits and share-holder satisfaction.
Corporate consumerism, the ideology served by neo-liberalism, is a project which encourages the abandonment of ideas of social justice, along with the abandonment of those people perceived to be expendable, along with a disregard for impending climate catastrophe; all in the name of business requirements and short term-profit. An ideology that amounts to a declaration of contempt for life.
Eamonn Kelly is a Galway-based freelance Writer and Playwright. His weekly round-up appears here every Monday.
Previously: Eamonn Kelly on Broadsheet
I don’t think Atheism is about life being meaningless, isn’t it more about not believing in the existence of deities
exactly, you don’t need the divine/ supernatural to have meaning or morals
All I want is a new pair of shoes. Then ill stop..honest!
Two things.
First, consumerism is not a religion, its an addictive activity that provides short term dopamine hits and hence becomes a need, then a compulsion as people are constantly chasing that high – its like drinking, opiates or gambling. Calling it a religion is just silly, end of story.
Second, this is utter horsepoop:
”Atheism is a religion in the sense that, like religions, it is founded on a “certainty”, a belief, the certainty in atheism being that life is meaningless.”
I have no certainty in my lack of belief in the supernatural/God or whatever, I just don’t really think about God or an afterlife etc. 99.99999% of the time and I most certainly do not think life is meaningless, far from it. As if religion was a prerequisite for meaning FFS.
Nor do I wander around assured of myself about the world and the universe. I read about the physics behind existence and its fascinating stuff but I don’t think it can explain everything, maybe the Christians are actually right and I am wrong, its possible? Maybe its the Muslims who have hit the nail on the head, Zoroastrians? Jainists? Bahai? Who knows, maybe its turtles all the way down?
But trying to equate atheism as most people experience it as being akin to religion is like trying to say someone having no interest in soccer is actually engaging in the ‘sport’ of having no interest in soccer.
Oh and bonus points to Eamonn for linking to Amazon, quite literally the worst example of rampant corporate greed and avarice possible.
Couldn’t find an independent stockist to promote no? Worried Bezos might miss a dividend payout?
I’m sure those people pictured are just buying bedding. Some interesting ideas for a Monday but the difference is necessity. Prayer is not purely necessary to even those of a religious tradition but adequate coverage and a place to literally lay your head is something where you won’t find any arguments. Unless you’re talking to an ascetic but then they wouldn’t visit bs. No there is a real connect between parts outlined but overall the biggest difference between religious belief and commercial consumption is big enough that it becomes a different representation. Maybe the thing which connects them is just the condition of subjected masses who are exploited for having the notion to consider themselves having needs above simply being.
Only the truly religious become so irate by criticism of their religion.
Well done, you have two people who go to the trouble of writing lengthy replies, and that’s the best piddling reply you can up with, clearly you don’t even believe most of what your writing
But which ‘religion’ am I getting so irate about, is it atheism or consumerism?
So any intention of debating any of the opposing points Eamonn or will it just be one liners with no meat to them?
Irate. . Irate. . Shakes fist at god heads over the bed.. all fifty of them
No I think I got confused there.. nobody was responding to me. Apologies.
Nice article Eamonn
Cheers, Liam.
Sanctimonious guff
can you forgive him?
I can
Conflating atheism and meaningless(ness!) reminds me of a linked argument:
‘You can’t have morals without religion’
Yeah; we’ve seen how well that worked out.
You can have morals without religion, but you can’t rationally explain the existence of objective morality without affirming the existence of God.
Which god? there are lots and lots of gods. And they all have different objective moralities.
There can only be one God, metaphysically. If God is ultimate being, i.e., being in all its fulness, then that being must be singular – otherwise it would be neither ultimate being nor being in all its fulness. Hence many of the great philosophers – Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, Husserl, etc. etc. etc. – have judged that God existed and that polytheism is impossible.
There are it is said about 5000 ‘gods’ being worshiped by humans. Of which you believe in only one of them and not the other 4999.
I simply don’t believe in one less god than you.
“I simply believe in one less god than you.”
or
“I simply don’t believe in one more god than you.”
(unless you explicitly believe in two gods)
Yeah. That was a tad clumsy. Intent remains the same. One less that Tom.
bull,
morality arises out of our necessity to collaborate as pack animals, it’s an evolutionary necessity to work as a team, nothing more
Survival of the fittest doesn’t sound like a very moral principle. And if morality arises out of necessity then how is it compatible with free-will? And if it is only a question of working as a pack, then how can individual rights be morally justified? Finally, how do you get from an “is” (evolution) to an “ought” (morality)?
except we didn’t get where we are by survival of the fittest but by collaboration
Working together to secure a shared objective is the “fittest” bit in “survival of the fittest.”
+1
1. Janet didn’t mention “survival of the fittest”, that is moot.
2. Janet didn’t mention “free will”, that is moot.
3. Janet didn’t mention individual rights, that is moot.
See a trend? Strawman.
I’m an atheist, to me it means I don’t believe in a God or Gods and certainly not any that would give a monkeys about me or you or anyone else.
I don’t believe there’s anything out there to ask for help as me crawl, run or dribble our way through what we call consciousness.
There’s no religion in that belief only, the lack of need for an all seeing being to make me feel safe or a set of rules to which a belief in a higher power compels me to obey.
There’s no certainty only the chaos of the universe and my perception of this reality and that’s enough for me.
Religion requires faith, I have none, on good days I have faith in myself, if anything an atheist doesn’t need certainty.
Well put Janet.
This would describe me too.
a religon is an end in itself. the economy is a means to an end so not really a religon. a strong economy allows me to get a job so i can pay for my kids food, clothes, and even disposable income such as gaa membership.
Many atheist philosophers acknowledge that on the atheist’s assumption life is indeed ultimately meaningless. Creating one’s own little piece of meaning within a framework of ultimate meaningless is – logically – an ultimately meaningless endeavor. Since we instinctively sense that there is real meaning to life, we have grounds for rejecting atheism.
A similar arguement could be made for religion. They can’t all be the One True Religion™.
If it turns out that atheists are wrong and there is a God the atheists will join all the other adherents of all other religions (the 95%) on the celestial naughty step.
Sounds pretty meaningless for the vast majority of people…
Union with God is neither so binary nor so simple. There are atheists and non-Christians who are closer to the God revealed by Jesus Christ than many who externally appear to be Christians. As a theological claim, your point is not credible and is a poor reason to overlook the reality of God.
of course there’s no meaning to your life, unless it’s to successfully pass on your DNA like any other grub,
only your ego can’t take it.
QED.
QED your mystical being
Nice bit of defiant shopping there on the left.
“Working together to secure a shared objective is the “fittest” bit in “survival of the fittest.”
Inaccurate re: evolution. “Fittest” refers to individuals in the first instance. In the second instance it may refer to groups, but even then unfit individuals are of no evolutionary benefit to the group.
Evolutionary biology won’t delivery morality for you; even less so will it be able to rationally justify the idea of objective morality.
you hav a very narrow view of ” fittest ” or the group dynamics that make a community,
the whole point of collaboration is not just to be a win for the A types as you seem to perceive them,
also you may find through history and different cultures across the world that a morality may mean something very different to them, you may not call it moral at all.
I don’t need to look into either history or another culture to find an example. For example the treatment of wemon in most established religions , moral ? No, not very.
treatment of wemon
I know it’s a typo, I’m just undecided if “women” or “demon” is a better fit.
ah sure we are all demons ;)
i have to do useless work stuff tonight. my wemon just handed me a bottle of bacardi, coke and ice while she puts the kids down.
there is a god
and i’m married to her :)
now that’s divine
my doudou cooked a protein filled dinner and had it ready for when I came in from my run, no hanging around, no hangry Jan :)
Get a room.
free breakfast ?
What’s a doudou?
I disagree Tom, I see fittest as being whichever behavioural components align to ensure the advancement of a species. Not to be taken in isolation either of course as the ability to adapt is another behavioural attribute that also combines to help achieve a shared objective. Look at our simian cousins who create social groups and rules by which they thrive collectively.
Morality existed long before formal, organised religion though in truth humans have deified that which they cannot explain out of a sense of respect and fear. Over the centuries our shared objective to understand the world around us has for the most part brought a greater rationality to “being” and a lesser reliance on faith.
Whatever gets you through is fine by me but personally the ship sailed on God a long time ago. I believe what I see and that which I can understand and am not content to accept the idea of faith in a omnipresent omnipotent being who, I’m told, my mind is too fragile to comprehend. Artifice upon artifice has been constructed by man and layered upon the tenets of religious doctrine to confound, embellish and turn the relatively straight forward into that which is now opague, often contradictory.
We all have a moral compass with which we are infused, the children of atheists are no less kind or loving than those of Christian, Muslim or Buddhist parents. Yes, there is much to be shared and because I do not have faith does not mean that I cannot derive learning from spirituality, class it how you will.
good comment
Surely in reality we are ALL agnostic (as no one knows) and we have chosen to be a theist or atheist.
I personally prefer the label “agnostic atheist” as I have no clue if there’s a God, and I haven’t seen any proof that would make me a believer in the Judeo-Christian faith.
That said, I do FEEL that there’s something that connects us and nature though. A kind of spirituality maybe?
I think of it more like a rhythm of sorts, like a beat of the universe. (Cheesy I know)
I think we’ve all felt it at times. If you’ve ever meditated I think you know what I’m talking about.
Maybe it’s just a feeling in my head, but sure everything is in MY head.
I’m not 100% sure if the rest of you Homo sapiens are even real…. ;-)
Faith is the difference here I think Micko and separates believers from agnostics etc. – you believe though you do not know nor have not seen with your own eyes.
Think you misunderstood me there, I don’t believe in any supernatural power.
I just feel a connection to things. There may be a scientific explanation for that.
We are literally made of stars. And to paraphrase Bill Hicks, we are the universe experiencing itself subjectively.
Apologies – i did misunderstand and i agree on feeling connections, rare as they can be. In my experience the most beatific, connected experiences have been when in nature and living in the moment, lost in a reverie and forgetting my head.
Mindfulness i think they call it now.
I particularly like Einstein’s Law of Conservation of Energy that says “energy cannot be created or destroyed” rather converted from one form to another which is as close to getting to the root of what the meaning of life is as anything I’ve read or been told.
“I think of it more like a rhythm of sorts, like a beat of the universe. (Cheesy I know)”
Fun fact, the universe produces a frequency or note and …. drum-roll …. it’s B flat.
That’s the black key to the left of middle C on a piano (okay, or A# as it could also be know) … !
Not sure which octave the universe is on though, clearly something well outside our range of hearing ….
Read more about this fascinating, non-pandemic related “news” at the link below :-
https://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/30/movies/reverberations-move-over-middle-c-the-speculative-case-for-the-cosmic-b-flat.html#:~:text=”%20Since%20the%20black%2Dhole,lowest%20E%20on%20a%20piano.