Thoughts on “Capitalist spirituality” – a term offered by J. Carrette and R. King
– a term offered in Selling Spirituality: The Silent Takeover of Religion by J. Carrette and R. King
In their book Selling Spirituality: The Silent Takeover of Religion Jeremy Carrette and Richard King argue that the replacement of tradition-specific religion with a more free-form search for personal meaning has resulted in a sort of a vacuum that called for a new search for meaning, which in turn has been filled by branding. They describe this tendency as consumerist spirituality that promises the quick fixes, easy achievable states without much commitment or work done.
The authors argue that the main problem with modern spiritualities is that they are not demanding enough, instead they promote accommodation to the lifestyles people are attached to. Without any challenge to the status quo of the spiritual consumer these spiritualities end up promoting self-centered approach, which is the opposite of the philosophies that have been used as initial prototypes for these new movements.
These “new” spiritualities serve the American self-reliance and individualism by recontextualizing some Eastern traditions into a new simplified style, at the same time failing to address the social issues, such as maintaining the common good. Through this prism it becomes primarily the responsibility of the individual, not that of society, to pursue happiness.
Based on the premise that (as shown in several examples from various religious traditions)spirituality within any of the great traditions does not occupy itself with self-realization, instead it has everything to do with self-giving, transcendence, and becoming one with the world, the authors propose that if spirituality, whatever forms it takes, does not ultimately lead us into deeper expressions of community, interdependence and surrender to God, then it can be considered a fraud.
Individualizing tendencies in contemporary spirituality, according to Carrette and King, have started with the rebranding of “religion” into “spirituality”, the privatization of old religious traditions and leaving questions of community and social justice off the agenda. The authors find proof of their point in part by the the analysis of the work of several contemporary spiritual leaders, such as Deepak Chopra’s bestsellers. They demonstrate that none of the steps offered by Chopra point toward collective action and stopping social injustice. Instead, the steps are fully engaged in the one individual self. This is an example of contemporary life which individualizes both risk and success.
According to the authors, this re-branding and individualizing served a perfect soil for neoliberal capitalism, which puts major emphasis on private individuals and least if not none on the collective dimension. As the authors explain: “The ‘spiritual’ becomes instrumental to the market rather than oriented towards a wider social and ethical framework, and its primary function becomes the consumerist status quo rather than a critical reflection upon it.” Spirituality gets linked to productivity, work-efficiency and the accumulation of profit presented as the new goals and virtues as replacement to replace the more traditional emphasis on self-sacrifice, the disciplining of desire and a recognition of community.
Thus, according to Carrette and King, what flourishes today is this “fraudulent” capitalist spirituality which is designed to serve the profit of corporations. They argue that we have been sedated by this spirituality to the extent that we are no longer able to identify its real motivations. While we think that we are moving in the direction of spiritual growth and spiritual development through taking yoga classes, redecorating our homes based on Feng Shui, or indulging in some other practices that are essentially portrayed as critical of capitalism and consumerism, we are pushed to buy products associated with these practices, including yoga matts, classes tuition, relevant books, etc.
In addition, the practices are stripped of their deeper meanings, the philosophies that stand behind, and are presented merely as means to achievement of immediate satisfaction. This, in the authors’ opinion proves these practices to be the perfect products of consumerist culture, as they present themselves as tools for personal transformation through a non-western paradigm of health and wellness at the same time being fully commodified.
While the arguments seem strong, especially supported by a somewhat emotional tone of presentation, each chapter leaves a sort of an aftertaste, as if something has been left out. Throughout the book the authors draw an opposition between traditional religions and spirituality, proposing that “religion” is valid more than “spirituality” and speaking of “new” spiritual movements in most dismissive manner. Through their arguments we can conclude that spirituality in general is deprived of the issues of social justice, thus denying the facts of existence of various humanitarian movements that sprung out of “new” spirituality.
While it is true that spirituality is personal, claiming that no modern spiritual approach is preoccupied with social justice is an extremely superficial view. Traditional communities, on the other hand, are presented as a sort of counter-force to spirituality and “the richest intellectual examples we have of humanity’s collective effort to make sense of life, community and ethics” and in that they are the best antidotes to neoliberal and individual spirituality.
The authors seem to neglect the fact that traditional religious communities in some contemporary societies are hierarchical, sexist, racist, homophobic and pro-capitalist, and may serve as valid examples of collective oppression and control. In fact, the thought-control and social manipulation of which the “capitalist spirituality” is being accused, has been the major task of most major religious traditions throughout history.
While capitalist spirituality might as well exist in such form as the sale of quick-fix solutions to the unhappiness of individuals, to me it does not seem to be a threat to the society as a whole. On the contrary, it makes “new” spiritual knowledge more accessible for the masses, and while some “consumers” of the spiritual products may remain where they are and seek only a temporary satisfaction from whatever practice they engage in, others may go further and discover something that might change them on a deeper level eventually.
Individualistic approach here may actually serve for the better changes in society as a whole through the growth of individual responsibility that is promoted in these practices. The responsibility is not merely for one’s own success in life, but, when taken deeper, is about society and social justice, contrary to the authors’ claims.
Finally, in my opinion, what is happening in the most recent decades is the development of wider choice of practices and traditions for people to follow, compared to strictly limited traditional religions in the past. We can be Christian, Muslim, or Jewish, practice (Indian) Yoga, (Buddhist) Loving Kindness meditation, decorate our home based on (Chinese) Feng Shui at the same time, and have it all fit very well within our spirituality. Whether we practice Yoga solely as a physical exercise or take it in together with the philosophy behind is a personal choice, which by no means characterizes us as self-oriented or community-serving, selfless or consumerists. To me there is no interdependence between these factors, as I have personally witnessed deeply religious people performing anti-social acts and those belonging to no religious tradition at all giving their last for the sake of others.
The issues of morality, as well as consumerism, are dealt with differently within each particular individual life, and the accusation of the new spiritualities for providing the ground for capitalist consumerism seems unethical in the context.