This essay mostly picks up where the last one left off, specifically on the question of the things we own and whether there should be laws limiting what people should consume. Those types of laws—knowns as sumptuary laws—seem crazy in our consumerist era, but were common in Montaigne’s France.
He doesn’t argue in favor of lavish lifestyles or even the freedom to accumulate what possessions you’d like, rather Montaigne says that people need to reach the decision to live a less possession-focused life on their own, that working through the meaninglessness of those possessions is necessary to reach a stage of wisdom and virtue.
However, he believes that laws enforcing such behavior are counterproductive. As always, Montaigne believed custom should bring about social change, not law. He stays true to that principle here:
The way our laws make an assay at limiting insane and inane expenditure on table and clothing seems to run contrary to their end. The right way would be to engender in men a contempt for gold and silk as things vain and useless: we increase their honor and esteem, which is a most inappropriate way of putting people off them.
It is wonderful how quickly and easily custom plants her authoritative foothold in matters so indifferent…. Let our kings start giving up spending money on such things and it would be all over in a month, without edict or ordinance: we will all follow suit.
Today, no politician would think of passing laws to limit consumption—our economy depends on people spending more than they can afford. Like most people in our culture, I feel this occasional drive to own the shiny new thing—although certainly feel it less often as I age. But why is that so?
I’ve been rewatching “Mad Men” recently, enjoying the first hand struggle to create language to convince people how to define themselves by the things they buy. I enjoy the show on a philosophical level–it interests me to watch them explore how to understand their audience (both on the macro consumer level and the micro client level.) The Don Draper character in particular interests me, because he seems like a far more aware human being in his work persona than he is when he’s off on yet another affair that he’ll ultimately regret. The workplace Don understands the human pull towards emotion over drives. The leisure Don lacks all freedom, he follows his drives wontonly.
Today, it’s algorithms that tell us what to pursue–or even more dangerously, where to focus our attention. We no longer live in a consumer good economy so much as we live in a scarce attention economy. It’s incredible to me that tens of millions of people are ok with Spotify mining every piece of our personal data just to give us better song recommendations. They’ve destroyed ability of musicians to make money off their music all in the name of creating this massive consumer database that feels to me is ultimately designed to be sold off to others looking for another purpose for it.
The Supreme Court defines corporations as “people” and entitled to the same rights. I’ll refrain from a judgment here about whether that status is a good or bad thing. But I believe it tells us something important about contemporary American life. There are a multitude of voices speaking to us every day. Regardless of our religious beliefs, we elevate people, organizations and corporations—even fictional characters—to the level of gods. We are highly susceptible to their suggestions.
It makes sense that, from time to time, people and cultures need to have garage sales. We need to sell off the junk that we don’t need—and on an intellectual or metaphysical level, free ourselves of influences that weigh us down or have become destructive. So while Montaigne’s views about cutting back on consumption seem out of place in contemporary America, his ideas about learning to live with less are timely.
Montaigne, in fact, believed in using public shame and embarrassment to change public attitudes. I’ll let this quote close the essay out—and leave readers to consider whether this form of public persuasion actually leaves people the proper space to discover virtue, as Montaigne suggested was necessary in that last essay:
Zeleucus reformed the debauched customs of the Locrians as follows: ‘That no free-born woman be attended by more than one chambermaid, except when she be drunk; That no woman leave the city by night or wear any golden jewelry about her person nor any richly embroidered dress, unless she be a public prostitute; That except for such as live on immoral earnings, no man shall wear gold rings on his fingers nor any elegant robes such as those tailored from cloth woven in Miletus.’ Thus, with those shaming exceptions, he cleverly diverted the inhabitants of his city away from pernicious superfluities and luxuries. That was a most useful way to bring men to obedience by honor and ambition
Leave a Reply