The Contradictions Of Christmas

In the essay I posted a week or so ago, I argued that modernity generates its own contradictions (e.g. religion and secularism; globalization and nationalism; representative democracy and totalitarianism; neoliberal ideology and increasing centralization of capital). Christmas, in particular the ritual of gift exchange and the figure of Santa Claus, serves as a great point of entry for examining some of these simultaneously generated contradictions.

One of the most important phenomena which shaped the modern American version of Christmas was the construction, in the early 19th century, of the concept of "childhood." Quite a bit has been written on this topic, and many have argued that it arose from the necessities of capitalism (the creation of a new demographic market and products). One may note that the construction of the "teenager" also occured during similar a period of economic expansion in the post-WW2 era. Both of these events also opened up new domains for academic and popular psychology (the Queen of the human sciences associated with governmental power). Christmas reflects the psychologizing of childhood, which emphasizes children's need for love, affection, and fantasy. Gifts, in particular, satifisy the need for love and affection, while Santa Claus indulges children's imaginations.

Of course, there is more going on here. First, there are contradictory attitudes toward the demands of capitalism. The early images of Santa Claus as a craftsman with his own workshop (to eventually be replaced by the elven sweatshop) valorized pre-capitalist forms of production. The pampering of children itself was a reaction against child labor, which was heavily used in many industries. Today, many Christmas movies feature The Prodigal Son, returning from the Big City, where s/he lived a souless/loveless existence (often employed in banking or business), to resume life in the Small Town, rekindle family bonds, and finally find love.

On the other hand, Christmas has been heavily promoted and elaborated by commercial interests - especially department stores (who are responsible for many aspects of the Santa narrative, including the story of Rudloph the Red Nose Reindeer). American Christmas was overtly commercial from the very beginning and has been serving capitalist interests for over two centuries. It is important to note that the image of Santa Clause which eventually became dominant was, in the time of its origin, a portrait of a wealthy industrialist (a sort of "robber baron" philanthropist). In this way, practices/discourses associated with Christmas embody at the same time an acquiesance to - or even embrace of - consumerism and conspicuous wealth, as well as a skepticism toward industrial labor and urban living.

Christmas also serves as a medium for indirect commentary on secularism, science, and religion, most importantly through the figure of Santa Claus. Not only does Santa Claus fulfill a perceived need for fantasy in healthy child development, but from His inception He has been one instantiation of a broader Romantic critique of modernity. For example, in a famous 19th century editorial, belief in Santa Claus was held as an antedote to the excessive skepticism of the modern era and the concomitant loss of a sense of wonder. One can see that this concern is still salient in many contemporary Christmas movies, even when not driven by any specifically relgious concerns (and thus complicating the modern binary of secular/religious). In fact, many religious Christians are more ambivalent toward the figure of Santa Claus, as they view it as a "secularization" of a Christian saint. This is a great example of how reactions against scientism (the belief that science is the only pathway to "truth") need not always be religious. One could argue that the antipathetic stance toward scientism by default imbues this treatment of Santa Claus with something of a religious nature. But only if one is to alter the definition of "religion" to contain everything opposed to scientism (which, of course, is circular reasoning), and that would entail the lumping together of very disparate phenomena, which, on the whole, always tends to obscure more than it clarifies.

American Christmas is a creation of capitalism that also expresses disastisfaction with manifestations of capitalism. And "Santa Claus" entails the "secularization" of a religious narrative (the disentanglement of morality/charity from religion), which simultaneously challenges secular attitudes toward progress and truth.

Every creation of modernity entails the creation of an oppositional force.

Holidays and Capitalism Part 2

I reflected a little today on the way in which Thanksgiving parades are essentially a vehicle for corporate advertising (and I think that should be obvious given its history). More than that, they fashion corporations as constitutive elements of local and national "tradition," and manipulate public sentiment in a way that is very favorable to participating businesses. Perhaps this demonstrates that the use of emotion and pageantry is not confined to nationalism.

Thanksgiving: Politics, Religion, and Nationalism

I have kind of mentioned before that I am a big fan of the fall holidays, and that would include Thanksgiving. It is still interesting to note that this holiday marks an important anniversary in the wedding of American politics and religion. The idea that America is a "Christian nation" may, in certain respects, not be true. But the idea that the founding fathers were all deists who divorced political strategies from religious sentiment is false to a much greater degree. In fact, they used religious rhetoric for political purposes in much the same way that politicans do today. Things haven't changed all that much. In this way, the idea of America as a "Christian nation" may be true in a normative sense - in the role Christianity has actually played in the construction of narratives that constitute national identity. Yes, it is exclusive. But nationalism is always exclusive.

In the case of Thanksgiving, its first civil incarnation occurred when a national day of prayer was decreed by president Washington. This was during a time of increasing anti-federal sectarianism, and immediately following the Whiskey Rebellion. The national day of prayer was deployed in an effort to use clergy to promote nationalist/federalist messages, and indeed, the celebration mixed nationalism and Christianity quite harmoniously.

I will have to discuss religion in greater detail in the future, but for now I will make a few comments (as it relates to the above discussion) and allow that to suffice.

The concept of "religion" has not always and everywhere existed. The categories that we use to carve up the social order have a distinct history. The idea of "religion," as we currently understand it, was shaped through the reorganization of institutional domains that resulted in the modern world order. The way that we conceive of "religion" has everything to do with authority and the bases on which it is constructed. The idea that "religion" should be separated from other social institutions - politics, economics, education - is an ideology, and one that does not acknowledge either the socially constructed nature of these categories, or the complexity of their internal constitution and the blurriness of their boundaries. Case in point, the secular state itself was founded on principles of the "sacred man," and divinely bestowed human rights (all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."). In their very foundations, "politics" cannot be separated from "religion."

Often "religion" is defined as a set of beliefs. Of course, that definition is inadequate even to encompass all that is placed within the domain of religion. For example, sets of symbols, ritual practice, interpretive and moral frameworks, certain ethics for conducting human behavior (interestingly, all elements of nationalism as well). It is as much concerned with the "here and now" and all the materiality of life as it is with the beyond and unseen.

It stands to reason, then, that many of the above elements - particularly moral and ethical principles and modes of interpretation - associated with a particular religion can either overlap or conflict with the moral/ethical/interpretive frameworks employed by "secular society" and nationalism. Practices and material elements of certain religions may be proscribed or differently valorized by the state and its legal system. Conversely, symbols and practices associated with nationalism may easily be appropriated by religious institutions, while the state can just as easily make use of symbols and practices belonging to a particular religion.

It is because of this more-than-latent potential for overlap and conflict that religion and politics can never be entirely separate.

(A similar argument can be made for the case of economics, if one is willing to admit, unlike classical economists, that the economy is often understood and framed in moral/ethical terms, and that it involves, at its heart, human relationships.)

So... Happy Anniversary American politics and religion!

Holidays and Capitalism

From my limited study of the history of feast days and fetes, I can surmise that such occasions used to consist mainly of: going to church, dressing nicely, and eating a large meal. Perhaps some drinking and merrymaking, and maybe even some specific rituals. Holidays can serve a variety of purposes, and in the early history of the U.S. they primarily functioned as a vehicle for nationalist propoganda (and thus covertly supported the agenda of the federalists, who represented one of the two main political parties at the time). Accordingly, speeches and prayers pervaded with nationalist sentiments were one of the most salient characteristics of these events.

Now, in the U.S. major holidays have transformed into seasons and they serve capitalist, rather than political, ends (as if the two can really be distinguished). People talk about "Hallmark holidays" (holidays that were supposedly created by greeting card companies just so they could sell more cards), but this understates the reach of capitalism into our ritual life.

Each holiday comes with its own set of products that people are expected to buy: special decorations, food, and candy, for example. Halloween also necessitates costumes, pumpkins, and fun-size candybars; Easter: baskets, egg-decorating kits, stuffed bunnies; 4th of July: American flags, fireworks, sparklers, patriotic gear; Valentine's day: boxes of valentines, candy hearts, teddy bears. The list goes on. Companies create special holiday-season-themed products to increase sales, like pumpkin spice lattes and shamrock shakes.

Christmas, of course, is the biggest cash cow. It is a capitalist's best friend. First, a number of expensive decorations are required: at the very least, christmas trees, ornaments, lights, wreaths, garlands, stockings, candles, and, for the religiously inclined, advent calendars and nativity scenes. Then, there are all the traditional Christmas treats: candy canes, gingerbread, sugar cookies, egg nog, christmas-themed candybars, etc. And of course there are the movies, tv specials, and music (you can make some good money off a Christmas album!). Most importantly, though, is the tradition of buying gifts for friends and family. From what I can tell (especially talking to people of my parents' generation) both the variety of the decorations and holiday-themed goodies, as well as the expectations for gift-giving (from perhaps one or two toys per child to hundreds of dollars per child), has increased at an exponential pace. Add to this the fact that the Christmas season keeps extending itself further back into the fall (when I was young Christmas season did not start until after Thanksgiving - end of November; now it begins on November 1, the day after Halloween), and it is apparent the stark rate at which Christmas-related consumption has been increasing throughout the decades.

In fact, a lot of U.S.-based capitalist interests have come to absolutely depend on Christmas. It is a sort of crutch, to guarantee sales even in a sluggish economy.

This is yet another manifestation of the crisis of overproduction in which we now find ourselves. Capitalists struggle to get more from what they invest in labor, as well as (somewhat contradictorily) find ways to generate demand: from enormous investments in adevertising, coupons, and specials, to the cultivation of fads and obsolescence. The promotion of holiday-themed consumption is another way in which demand is manufactured against the general momentum of economic contraction.

I am a bit curious to what extent American holiday trends have been reproduced internationally. I realize that Americans tend to be more fanatical about holidays than, say, Europeans, but I have a feeling that the general forces of capitalism may be creating similar sorts of circumstances in other parts of the world.

I must end, however, with a confession. Capitalist ploy or not, I wholeheartedly buy into (literally) the holiday phenomenon. In some sense I find it grotesque, but I also love me some holiday-themed candy and decorations.