I've noticed among many of my friends a disdain for money, or rather, for the making of money. I don't mean that they are outraged at greed and the oppression of the poor, though that may also be true. No, what I see is a good, old fashioned class issue - the disdain of the academic and leisured classes for those activities that make money. They are seen as unclean and beneath contempt, and are often portrayed as essentially identical with greed and the oppression of the poor. That I would sell something and earn a commission, or earn dividends from the trading and ownership of equities; that, in short, I would work on the street to earn money, makes me a lower class of person.*
Mind you, they really like the things money can buy them. They like endowed chairs for professors; the like concerts and mp3's; they like guitars and banjos and drums and all manner of musical instruments. They definitely want good hospitals, good clinics, and well-tended roads and bridges. A decent stadium wouldn't go amiss I should think. Perhaps the more pious among 'em would like their parish churches to be well-endowed, with good central air and heating and a copious supply of communion wine for the Eucharist which constitutes the Church. If they're not particularly 'traditional', they might need a lot of startup capital for the praise band, Powerpoint screens, lights, smoke machines, and payroll. And finally, we must fund conferences, where attendees can spend at least some of their time insulting those of us who move money around and thus earn a living making such things possible.
So, we have the Clerks against the Merchants, as of old. As something of a combination of the two, I find the conflict foolish, and I more and more take the disdainful and moronic comments as personal insults.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have business to attend to before I can settle down and read Julian of Norwich.
Mind you, they really like the things money can buy them. They like endowed chairs for professors; the like concerts and mp3's; they like guitars and banjos and drums and all manner of musical instruments. They definitely want good hospitals, good clinics, and well-tended roads and bridges. A decent stadium wouldn't go amiss I should think. Perhaps the more pious among 'em would like their parish churches to be well-endowed, with good central air and heating and a copious supply of communion wine for the Eucharist which constitutes the Church. If they're not particularly 'traditional', they might need a lot of startup capital for the praise band, Powerpoint screens, lights, smoke machines, and payroll. And finally, we must fund conferences, where attendees can spend at least some of their time insulting those of us who move money around and thus earn a living making such things possible.
So, we have the Clerks against the Merchants, as of old. As something of a combination of the two, I find the conflict foolish, and I more and more take the disdainful and moronic comments as personal insults.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have business to attend to before I can settle down and read Julian of Norwich.
*Need I point out that if you've made your millions as a soulful pop star, then it's probably all right? Mind you, that money came from somewhere - the label financed your first tour, marketed the first singles, and so forth. People with jobs bought tickets to your concerts and downloaded or otherwise bought your music. Someone, somewhere signed on the line that is dotted, and collected a commission, but it's best to forget about such regrettable realities.
I understand your complaint about disdain for "making money". Interesting thought that it is a class issue. But I think there might be a lack of clarity regarding the phrase "making money". Since in one sense in our current economy everyone "makes money", given that we aren't in a barter economy.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do have a version of this disdain, in that I do think that certain types of "making money" are the sorts of activity that at one point in time would have been condemned by the Church as usury, and as sinful. now probably the people you have in mind probably aren't thinking about usury nor reviving prohibition of it, but that is a sort of making money that maybe does deserve disdain and condemnation, and it is quite prevalent in our current economy.
Then we have to shut down the whole economy, as that would mean no more roads, bridges, highways; sewers and streetsweepers. There goes your power grid, and your elevated trains and your taxis. Good luck finding any books, and if you do find them, that means you're wealthy beyond words. Say goodbye also to your interwebs, search engines. Of course, we will have to shut down our hospitals, and there will have to be an immediate end to all research and development of new medicines and treatments for diseases and injuries.
ReplyDeleteBy the by, yours truly becomes an object of disdain and condemnation under these conditions. I can live with it, after all that's life in the big city. But let me ask you, how much of this has to do with real theological, biblical, ecclesial concerns, and how much of it has to do with a simple, personal, prejudice against that kind of business? How much experience do most people who make such remarks have with such work? And how often have such high-minded people found themselves dependent on just that kind of economy, so that they make all sorts of caste distinctions to keep the *unclean* at arm's length?
I ask all these questions because, for one thing, I once thought as you do. Over the past few years, as I've seen how things really work - that it's at once flawed as all things are, and not really evil and avaricious for the most part, but necessary for the sustaining of life on more than a subsistence level of provincial poverty - I have been forced by my experience to change my mind. It seems to me that most people with views like I once held live in a fantasy, a fantasy made possible by the protected position they have within the very economy they despise.
Certainly you are correct. In fact it was my own major criticism of the Occupy movement that it couldn't recognize how (or wasn't honest enough to admit) that they were calling for the entire dismantling of the economy. Also, you are correct if you assume that Church and society should function by the same principles, i.e. that Christendom should exist.
DeleteI personally make no claim to be at a distance from what I might criticize. And I have worked in the more purely "money making" industry with members of my family. So for me it is a bind that one can't free oneself from. I at least have worked in the arena of banks and loans, and investments, what I consider strictly speaking "money making". As for others who may share my view I would have difficulty answering the question.
Personal bias? Again hard to say since I'm not clear what my perceived social location is. Nor what would be the basis for this personal bias. but it's a good question. However, I do feel my position comes from an interpretation of Scripture and tradition and not simply personal bias against a particular class of people or type of economic activity.
So, I agree with you that for some they haven't reflected what "money making" has made possible. I however, am not convinced as you are that what is has to be, nor should be. Also, I don't know how to test whether or not our current system in all is glory is necessary for having an economy beyond subsistence poverty.
i will also admit that this isn't a great focus for me, nor have I attempted to extricate myself entirely from the current system nor deny that as a participant in the system than I benefit from it, and that possibly I'm even able to pursue a certain disengagement from a certain type of "money making" because others are so involved. No purity here.
Larry, I would also challenge you to explain how the Church's classical reasoning concerning usury would apply now. Do you, that is, assert that usury is a grave sin because it asserts ownership over time itself, and that is the prerogative of God alone? And is every of instance of the accrual of interest on a principal usury?
ReplyDeleteI will admit that I have not fully studied nor fully understand the Church's classical reasoning concerning usury. However, it also seems that one would also need to explain why the Church's classical reasoning concerning usury shouldn't apply now? I actually hadn't thought that usury asserts ownership over time, but that makes sense to me. And yes I'd think that seeking to own time is problematic, perhaps for the reason you give. As for whether or not every instance of accrual of interest on a principle is usury, I'll admit I'm uncertain, and this goes back to that this is an undeveloped thought, and one I haven't had a chance to fully pursue.
DeleteBut then the issue as I see it isn't about the forming of an economy, nor even of hard and fast rules, but recognizing that the systems of the world are to give way to the Kingdom of God. We may actually each negotiate continued engagement with that which is passing away, but how we engage should be less informed by supposed realism and informed by an other worldly call that may be something very close to Jesus address to the Rich Young ruler and which made the apostles dispaire over Jesus words. That a certain system creates wealth does not mean that I as a Christian must simply accept as necessary that system of wealth creation since it is something that is already passing away. yet also, I shouldn't attempt to create a fantasy or utopia based on what is to come either!