Saturday, January 14, 2012

We the Consumers

If the financial stakes are really being raised in the political sphere as high as I indicated in my last post then I would like to predict at least one high profile assassination in the U.S. in the next three years.

Secondly, I would like to remind you that I promised to unveil an idea for a new form of democracy in the blog post after this one. That is still my plan. Be prepared. It will take the world by storm.

If you have one of these you are an active voter.
Now to the topic at hand: just wages. In my last post I explored money in politics, which I find vaguely frustrating since I can't do much about it. So now I want to think about the money in my wallet. The value of our political vote may be on the wane, marginalized by the rising influence of corporate cash, but our economic vote (how we spend our money) is as important as ever. Not only does it exert economic influence on the companies we are buying from, but it also has a moral component that influences our very character.

There is a good chance that you have eaten chocolate from
cocoa grown by these kids at this gunpoint. 69% of the
world's cocoa is grown in West Africa.


Unfortunately, the moral implications of our spending are often obscured by the increasingly impersonal relationship between us and the people we buy things from. This makes economic justice in the modern world bedevilingly complex. My argument here is that we are hurting not only others but even ourselves when we fail to strive for a better understanding of what our spending means. Ignorance is no excuse, but it is the only one we have. Consider the following passage from the Bible. 

"Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the righteous person. He does not resist you." - James 5:1-6

This passage is basically saying that living large while taking advantage of other people is not only wrong, but will hurt you. With all the talk about fields, harvesters, and moth-eaten garments the passage might not seem very relevant to my highly sophisticated readership, but I think it is extremely important that we consider this passage in a modern context. So, if they aren't out your back door, then where are your fields? And if they aren't in your backyard, then who are your harvesters?

Sure, it looks like easy living now, but you should have seen
this guy an hour ago in the milking parlor.
In the time Jesus' brother wrote these words there would have been lots of people who were proprietors of some sort. Some of them were so rich that they didn't have to work their own fields. They were lucky enough to escape the curse of Adam. "Cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken." With the exception of one good friend (shout out to Rohne's Long Island Dairy!) I don't know anyone who works their fields for a living. There are also very few of you who win your bread by "the sweat of your face" like Dirk does. I've seen him. It's not pretty. For the rest of us who have escaped this part of Adam's curse we need to look elsewhere to make sure that we are paying the mowers and harvesters of our food (and the producers of all the other products we consume) appropriately and that their cries of injustice will not ascend to the Lord's aural cavity.

Rather than the occasional wealthy landowner of biblical times, there are whole nations of wealthy individuals now who live with luxuries that our ancient forebears could never have dreamed of. If you are reading this you are one of them. Additionally, our world economy is structured so that we don't ever have to look the exploited people in the face. They are separated from us by oceans and centuries. They might be harvesting our 30-cent bananas right now in Ecuador or suffering from our depletion of resources one hundred years from now.

You are what you eat. Feedlot beef for feedlot people?
But it is not just they who pay a price. Those of us living in luxury risk being fattened in the day of slaughter by ignoring what luxury, self-indulgence, and self-obsession do to our souls. As James says earlier, friendship with the world is enmity with God. To follow Christ you have to "deny yourself" because you will either find your comfort ultimately in this world's pleasures or in Christ. No one can serve two masters. For me one of the saddest and most troubling passages in the Bible is Luke 16, which ends with a rich man in hell being told, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. Woe to us if we love our good things too much and do not count them as rubbish, in order that we may gain Christ.

Now I am not suggesting that we all should become Amish and categorically reject modern luxuries. I don't think the Bible goes quite that far. I'm not suggesting that income inequality should somehow be abolished. I'm not even suggesting that you should grow some of your own food in a garden if you aren't into that kind of thing. But I am saying that we need to think very carefully about what we buy and who is getting paid to produce it. If comparing prices is more important to us than comparing ethics then we are serving the wrong master.


Consider Tillamook Cheese. I don't like everything about Tillamook, but there are good reasons to believe that buying more expensive Tillamook products is morally superior to giving any more of your money to Kraft Foods. I realize that this is a bold and controversial statement, but consider the following. Tillamook is cooperatively owned (so my buddy Dirk is part owner). The cows are largely grass fed. Farms are "family" sized and thus the land is less vulnerable to the shortcuts of agribusiness. Farm laborers are valued and well paid. Finally, for those of us in the Pacific Northwest Tillamook is local so that shipping and refrigeration externalities are minimized. I realize that deciding which cheese is most ethically produced is a complex and somewhat subjective issue. You may not think that Tillamook is all I have made it out to be, but I hope you will accept the principle nonetheless. If it is a more ethically produced product, then you have some explaining to do if you are unwilling to pay more for it.

From latinorebels.com
If you were lucky enough to escape the working-your-own-land-for-your-own-food part of Adam's curse, then someone is probably suffering the curse for you. It might be exploited children on a cocoa farm in West Africa. It might be your great-grandchildren who will have to pay the external costs (low crop yield and thus higher food prices) incurred by our decision to drain the Ogallala aquifer and deplete our soil and water quality through over-fertilization. It might be small farmers who have been driven out of business because of policies, regulations, and manipulation that favors the big moneyed interests that produce the cheapest products.

So, I think we need to adopt a new attitude when we go to the grocery store. I admit that it is difficult to do and we won't be able to figure it all out right away, but let's walk the aisles thinking about fairness, sustainability, and if you believe in him, God. Remember that when we buy it we are complicit in whatever circumstances brings the food to the supermarket shelves. It may sound like a duty you will be shackled with, but I really believe this will set us free. We will be free from obsession with cheap food and good deals. We will be free to pay what our food is really worth. Our relationship with our food will be the slow, deliberate, lingering enjoyment of a man with his wife rather than the obsessive, lustful, exploitative fix a man gets from his mistress. As the Bible says elsewhere, he who loves his wife loves himself.
Love your food!

9 comments:

  1. Wow! I loved it for many reasons the least of which are your uses of "bedeviling," "the Lord's aural cavity," and the sexy metaphor at the end.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sara, thanks so much for reading and caring. I love you!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Seriously, great post. Did you write this at 3:30 am?

    The James post is shocking. It's such a strong condemnation of our culture. I'm overwhelmed with the injustice and suffering in the world, but at least I have some control over how I spend my dollars. I do think spending money both shapes and reveals your character in addition to affecting the state of the world.

    What are your views on Tillamook chocolate ice cream?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks so much Dan. I don't know why it says AM. I must have messed something up. I like the idea of spending both shaping and revealing our character. That's a good way of thinking about it. It seems like it is so hard to make a difference in the world, so spending thoughtfully can be therapeutic I suppose, especially since we are so used to spending thoughtlessly. I like chocolate, but I'm a bigger fan of Mudslide!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Great post Jesse. I'd say that our blogs are talking about a lot of the same stuff... but I haven't been talking through my blog in a while. Keep it up!

    It's interesting, but I think we as consumers have ceded much of our control and decision making to profit focused companies and macro economists. The whole of the conversation of consumption seems to traditionally revolve around the premise that we should buy what is the cheapest (and therefore most efficient). Left to be said is how we define "cheap" and "efficient" as "cheap" for one company to make and one US consumer to consume is very different than "cheap" when expanded to the whole earth and all of it's inhabitants over seven generations.

    What traditionally has been left completely out of the conversation is the notion of being a consumer who consumes in a just and equitable fashion. It's a strange blot on American Christianity that we traditionally have done so much to seek justice, except in the area where we can arguably make the greatest impact; where we spend our money.

    ReplyDelete
  6. By the way, I thought this article in the Wall Street Journal was really interesting: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203735304577168591470161630.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLE_Video_Third

    As corporations are currently structured, their primary obligation is to shareholders and making them money, if they don't act with this in mind, the company's board can be sued. With this new "benefit corporation" idea, the board can also contemplate social or environmental issues when making their choices. I don't know if this concept will actually work, but it's an interesting idea that could put a legal structure in place that allows corporations to pursue more just policies.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yeah man, I agree. Our blogs are pretty similar, except for that you know all that crazy philosophy stuff.

    As for ceding power, I was thinking that we the people are losing even more power simply because we don't have as much money to spend as we used to. Perhaps we will get sucked dry and have to sell ourselves as indentured servants to Coca-cola execs. Then we won't even be able to vote with our dollars.

    I think we as Christians are behind the curve a little bit sometimes, but I have a theory on that too. When someone becomes a Christian it takes a long time just to figure out how that all works. Then when you turn around again to re-engage the world you realize that you've gotten a little behind on social/civic development. Just an idea.

    As for the benefit corp, that sounds very intriguing. I hope it works. The bigger a corporation gets the more impersonal everything becomes including the investing side (which I hadn't really thought about). With lawsuits a possibility, execs must literally feel desperate to make things efficient, which always leads to the cutting of corners socially and environmentally. Arrrggggghhh! Making goods cheaply is becoming REALLY pricey. If corporations are people they are worse than sociopaths!!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. "If corporations are people they are worse than sociopaths!!!"

    I think this is pretty much true. Corporations, by design, are constructed to put profit above all else. It's in their charter. In addition, corporations are by design, impersonal. If something goes wrong, it's the company's fault, and the company gets sued. Rarely does the blame spread to the individuals who comprise the company (both monetary in terms of lawsuits and shame in terms of public opinion).

    Yet, in our minds there is this great disassociation. When think of Apple computer, we generally have happy thoughts and think of a innovative and competitive company. But, this is a company that continues to use Foxconn (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/asia/foxconn-chairman-compares-his-workforce-to-8216animals/776) to supply cheap labor and continues to generate quite a bit of toxic waste through it's manufacturing and product waste.

    If those decisions to use near slave labor and the decisions to keep prices low to the detriment of society and the environment were tied to an individual, they would be abhorred. But, we tie them to Apple Corp instead and we give it a pass in the name of cheap products, capitalism and profits.

    Reigning in the excesses of corporations is something that is really interesting to me. I think the efficiency of capitalism is something to be admired, but we have to figure out better ways to curtail it's excesses.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Maybe things would be better if corporations actually became more like people. They already have all the freedoms that people have. We just need a way to make them feel shame. Perhaps if we could dress them up and invite them to dinner parties and ask them awkward questions they might care more about thoughtful living.

    Or maybe we could require corporate representatives to appear on C-span and have debates about why we should use their products. So for example every quarter all telecoms players who want to do business in the US will have a live debate moderated by a journalist. Refusal to participate would be met with higher taxes.

    "So Samsung, where do you get your Coltan?"

    ReplyDelete