In Hot Air Gods, a short essay by Curtis White in Harper’s (December 2007), White discusses how the isolation common to people practicing Western spiritualities latently support the invisible hand of capitalism: the Market God. White works hard to show the consequences of individuated beliefs, which seldom participate in dialogue with other beliefs or believers. One consequence of isolation is the inability to create change and participate in movements (such as the environmental movement). The key point that I take from White is that personal isolation makes impossible ethical living. This idea challenges me because isolation, rather than connection, comes easy for me.
I wanted to call attention to White’s article because it is beautifully written, clear, and brief. If you can, pick up the latest edition of Harper’s Magaine (Dec. 2007) or read Hot Air Gods in pdf. It is worth your time.
Related posts:
beautifully written, clear and brief!?? Are you kidding…..it was painfully convoluted and murky to wade through. He had been in the English dept. too long…..Perhaps a class in Journalism 1A would be in order. (As an Eng. major graduate of the U of W, I find it sad that it took up so much room in Harpers.)
Hi Sharon,
Thanks for the comment and welcome.
Looks like we disagree over White’s article. I felt like he does a great job covering a lot of ground in a small amount of space. I agree that the article wouldn’t be appropriate for Journalism 1A, but I wouldn’t suggest that White requires education in that field. Hot Air Gods works to weave American spirituality and capitalism together by investigating the outcome of rampant individualism (and the “tolerance” associated with that individualism). This project certainly would be beyond the scope of any introductory journalism course and would fit better into a Critical Theory 101 class. Could it be that your frustration with the article stems from approaching the article as something more akin to journalism, instead of akin to theory?
As I reread my post, I realize that “clear” might connote simplicity, which the article is not. Perhaps “lucid” would have been more appropriate.
Also, from where do you herald (I mean, which “U of W”)? University of Washington? Waterloo? Winnipeg?
All the best,
Leif
I really appreciated the article. While I agree that the article is not journalistic, anything overtly journalistic would almost seem out of place in Harper’s. The tendency of Harper’s to examine the underpinnings of many of our cultural assumptions and practices is one project I don’t expect to see modeled by national or local newspapers. For that reason, I am happy to see articles such as this in Harpers. Perhaps White could have been a little more direct, but I feel the article is sufficiently nuanced.
One point that stood out to me was White’s assertion that capitalism must be understood and interpreted as an ethical system. There is far too little discussion about the ethics of capitalism. Communities concerned with faith and ethics are too divided and busy attacking one another to engage in dialog about the very system that seems all too capable of both practically and ideologically pervading all aspects of social life. By no means are allegations of faith’s complicity in capitalism new. This being said, it would seem that such allegations have not been appropriately considered.
As far as the comment that White has been in the English department too long, as an English major myself I am grateful that we have departments willing to grapple with such issues. I realize that the debate over the role of critical theory and cultural studies in English departments is a fierce one; however, I feel that someone needs to be discussing such issues as the ethics of Capitalism.
I like the point you emphasized from White’s article. I think most people tie democracy and capitalism together (perhaps also with rule of law) and assume the ethical portion of the nation comes from the system of governance and the way of governance, but not the economic system in place. I think part of the apt title of White’s piece is that he is trying to talk about what is invisible yet immanent.