Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I came across the word "sumptuary laws" from Friends Divided: John Adams and Thomas Jefferson by Gordon S. Wood. The word "sumptuary" means "relating to personal expenditures and especially to prevent extravagance and luxury" and sumptuary laws means laws "designed to regulate extravagant expenditures or habits especially on moral or religious grounds." (link to source).
Much has been written of late about the affluent society in which we live, and much fun poked at some of the irrational "status symbols" set out like golden snares to trap the unwary consumer at every turn. Until recently, little has been said about the most irrational and weirdest of the lot, lying in ambush for all of us at the end of the road- -the modern American funeral.
Going back to ancient Greek time, there was a philosopher named Epicuris, who believed (link to source) that was decidedly the opposite from Puritanism, and more in line with deism:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Epicurus
First published Mon Jan 10, 2005; substantive revision Fri Jul 8, 2022
The philosophy of Epicurus (341–270 B.C.E.) was a complete and interdependent system, involving a view of the goal of human life (happiness, resulting from absence of physical pain and mental disturbance), an empiricist theory of knowledge (sensations, together with the perception of pleasure and pain, are infallible criteria), a description of nature based on atomistic materialism, and a naturalistic account of evolution, from the formation of the world to the emergence of human societies.
The incoming Christian culture decidedly did not agree, as I read in The Swerve: How the World Became Modern by Stephen Greenblatt. I did not think of any modern connections in thought, Indeed, I had thought that this line of thinking was recent, a response to post-War prosperity. Since to history buffs like readers of this forum I would argue that "past is prologue and this reflects in modern environmental and public health measures.
Puritan rubrics date back at least to John Calvin in the 16th century. Starting in Switzerland and moving northwest, Puritanism gripped the early New England settlements, and really never let go. The environmentalism or counterculture of the 60s may on first blush align with Puritanical goals, such as self-denial, minimalism and enforced simplicity. But the origin is entirely different, and the history is much shorter.
Of particular danger is a modern union between far-right and far-left. Examples are curtailing of free speech, whether from compromising the glory of the national leadership, or ostensibly offending delicate elements of society. This maps directly onto far-right and far-left, respectively. More to our topic, another example is a make-do, simplify and do-without attitude, whether for reasons of not offending God (far right) or saving the earth (far left).
But there is an underlying discord, too. Puritanism in its American flavor was never anti-business. Instead, the drive to consume less and to live simply, was to accumulate wealth instead of squandering it on transient things, as an outward sign that one is living righteously and is part of God's Elect. On the left, however, the aim isn't frugality but a repudiation of activities that consume resources or cause pollution. Examples would be de-industrialization or de-growth.
Steinbeck didn't "rail against conspicuous consumption", but rather against garish and vulgar living, where people accumulate crap and then boast about it, having little else about which to boast. He'd have nothing against buying quality products outfitted for comfort or good use. His truck, for example, was one such product. It was customized and well-appointed.
Puritan rubrics date back at least to John Calvin in the 16th century. Starting in Switzerland and moving northwest, Puritanism gripped the early New England settlements, and really never let go. The environmentalism or counterculture of the 60s may on first blush align with Puritanical goals, such as self-denial, minimalism and enforced simplicity. But the origin is entirely different, and the history is much shorter.
As I explain my views below (there is no one answer here) I see no principled difference between the "environmentalism or counterculture of the 60s and "Puritanical goals." These two things are certainly not identical, nor are they totally separate. I will discuss both below, but I think the strains go back even further, to medieval times, when monks and nuns practiced some gruesome self-torture. Whether the motivation is to appease G-d, Jesus or "the earth" the impulse is the same; no pain no gain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
Of particular danger is a modern union between far-right and far-left. Examples are curtailing of free speech, whether from compromising the glory of the national leadership, or ostensibly offending delicate elements of society. This maps directly onto far-right and far-left, respectively. More to our topic, another example is a make-do, simplify and do-without attitude, whether for reasons of not offending God (far right) or saving the earth (far left).
The far left and far right have always had some areas of commonality; they believe in the virtue of control, but disagree basically about who should be controlling and how it should be done. Without such common beliefs the Ribbentrop-Molotov accords, see The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, would have been impossible. To some extent, the "earth" has become a substitute for G-d among some environmentalists. In some ways this harks back to pre-monotheistic beliefs, such as different G-ds for thunder, rain, the ocean, etc. This actually represents my beliefs about self-abnegation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
But there is an underlying discord, too. Puritanism in its American flavor was never anti-business. Instead, the drive to consume less and to live simply, was to accumulate wealth instead of squandering it on transient things, as an outward sign that one is living righteously and is part of God's Elect. On the left, however, the aim isn't frugality but a repudiation of activities that consume resources or cause pollution. Examples would be de-industrialization or de-growth.
I'm not so sure that Puritanism wasn't anti-business. In many ways the same people favored Puritanism as favored regulation, guilds, etc. The deism practiced by Ben Franklin and George Washington and others, as well as the Freemasons movement of the late 1700's was a definite, pro-business departure from Puritanism. While submerged, however, it never went away. It bubbles up on both the Left and Right side of the spectrum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
Steinbeck didn't "rail against conspicuous consumption", but rather against garish and vulgar living, where people accumulate crap and then boast about it, having little else about which to boast. He'd have nothing against buying quality products outfitted for comfort or good use. His truck, for example, was one such product. It was customized and well-appointed.
I hear you but don't agree. It's very hard to distinguish "conspicuous consumption" and "garish and vulgar living." Indeed, it is a fine distinction I don't quite get.
My point remains, that revulsion against consumption preceded and "post-ceded" the Sumptuary Laws, and show themselves in strange places. They do, as you correctly point out, make strange bedfellows.
It's very hard to distinguish "conspicuous consumption" and "garish and vulgar living." Indeed, it is a fine distinction I don't quite get.
Limiting my response just to this, let's consider one example.
Suppose that somebody assembles a fine personal library of classic books... maybe a couple of thousand volumes. The modern minimalist would say that this is an excessive footprint, an assault on the environment (kill trees) and an overuse of space. To have so many books would be ostentatious and wasteful, when we have libraries and Kindle. Steinbeck would say, no, this is itself a meritorious accomplishment because somebody bothered to consider what books are worth reading and collecting, never mind the physical space taken up. Meanwhile right-wing authoritarian would say, that most of those books are degenerate art anyway, whence a right-thinking person would never have bothered. Indeed, such a person doesn't need anything more than what the Party provides. And a Puritan would say, that the only pivotal book is the Bible. Maybe some commentaries on the Bible are OK, but all of that 19th century literature and what not - it's just sentimental claptrap, that dissuades us from the path of righteousness. Burn them!
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 1 day ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,163 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19459
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
I came across the word "sumptuary laws" from Friends Divided: John Adams and Thomas Jefferson by Gordon S. Wood. The word "sumptuary" means "relating to personal expenditures and especially to prevent extravagance and luxury" and sumptuary laws means laws "designed to regulate extravagant expenditures or habits especially on moral or religious grounds." (link to source).
Going back to ancient Greek time, there was a philosopher named Epicuris, who believed (link to source) that was decidedly the opposite from Puritanism, and more in line with deism:
The incoming Christian culture decidedly did not agree, as I read in The Swerve: How the World Became Modern by Stephen Greenblatt. I did not think of any modern connections in thought, Indeed, I had thought that this line of thinking was recent, a response to post-War prosperity. Since to history buffs like readers of this forum I would argue that "past is prologue and this reflects in modern environmental and public health measures.
Other thoughts?
The Sumptuary Laws in England mainly related to the middle ages, and whilst Britain dis fo through a period of protestant fundamentalism following Cromwell's victory in the English Civil War (1642 - 51), the first pilgrims who went to the US were actually of Dutch origin rather than English, and they left England because they were deemed to be Dissenters and Nonconformists. who were separate to the Church of England.
These various dissenters left England due to the fact they faced religious oppression, however they did play an important role in the formation of the very early US at the time, although they did not wish to introduce English laws in the US and were very much against state or political interference in religion, and this would have included sumptuary laws.
As for Sumptuary Laws it's worth noting that people such as the philosopher and economist Adam Smith, who wrote the Wealth of Nations was highly critical of sumptuary laws, and he was regarded as the Father of Modern Capitalism.
Whilst the US itself later rejected such laws and restrictions, and in doing so went on to embrace capitalism and as a result became one of the most successful capitalist and free trading countries in the world,.
Last edited by Brave New World; 02-01-2023 at 10:09 AM..
Whilst the US itself later rejected such laws and restrictions, and in doing so went on to embrace capitalism and as a result became one of the most successful capitalist and free trading countries in the world,.
I absolutely acknowledge that was the case. My debate point is that left over from the Sumptuary Laws is pangs of guilt from seemingly doing "too well." Whenever I hear someone, in any discussion relating to the environment or health say "we can't go on like this" or "we can't go on living like this" I hear the rumblings of Sumptuary Laws. Similarly, when I hear criticism of "let the good times roll", i.e. Epicurean echoes, I see the same exact thing.
I guess I'm saying that while officially America has not adopted Sumptuary Laws, it has adopted Sumptuary Law reasoning.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 1 day ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,163 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19459
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
I absolutely acknowledge that was the case. My debate point is that left over from the Sumptuary Laws is pangs of guilt from seemingly doing "too well." Whenever I hear someone, in any discussion relating to the environment or health say "we can't go on like this" or "we can't go on living like this" I hear the rumblings of Sumptuary Laws. Similarly, when I hear criticism of "let the good times roll", i.e. Epicurean echoes, I see the same exact thing.
I guess I'm saying that while officially America has not adopted Sumptuary Laws, it has adopted Sumptuary Law reasoning.
I think most of what you are talking about come from a minority on the left and the environmental lobby rather than the ordinary person on the street.
The masses still want their cars, their foreign holidays, there gas cooker hobs and a decent standard of living, rather than to be preached to by the celebrity elites or moronic politicians.
I can't see ordinary people standing for too much of that type of nonsense, and those who didn't think Trump could ever win, could be in for further shocks if a sumptary like reasoning is adopted by the elites.
Last edited by Brave New World; 02-01-2023 at 12:23 PM..
I think most of what you are talking about come from a minority on the left and the environmental lobby rather than the ordinary person on the street.
The masses still want their cars, their foreign holidays, there gas cooker hobs and a decent standard of living, rather than to be preached to by the celebrity elites or moronic politicians.
I can't see people standing for any of that type of nonsense.
At the risk of this being a little bit "POC" that's exactly my point. It's very easy for actors, actresses and politicians to preach self-abnegation. The day Xi Jinping self-abnegates is the day that I will. It is very easy for politicians to have visionary schemes that don't don't work very well. Their long gone from the scene when there's absolutely no gain from the sacrifices they are demanding.
That's one of the reasons why, after the Depression, conservative politics and policies were out of style because the ministrations of hard work and sacrifice accomplished little but "comforting the comfortable" and "afflicting the afflicted." The great nation-building projects of the 1950's and early 1960's were led by liberals or center-left Republicans, such as Dwight Eisenhower. It was generally a sunny, optimistic period. This period was not without its clouds, such as Sputnik, Vietnam, Cuba, and the Cold War. But there was no constant doomsday talk of New York City being under water. The problems were always "somewhere else."
Nowadays, the constant screeches of "doom", combined with shared car ownership, universal EV's and no gas ranges seem to promise a self-inflicted lowering of living standards.
Much has been written of late about the affluent society in which we live, and much fun poked at some of the irrational "status symbols" set out like golden snares to trap the unwary consumer at every turn. Until recently, little has been said about the most irrational and weirdest of the lot, lying in ambush for all of us at the end of the road- -the modern American funeral.
There was also the Club of Rome report, written over a period between 1968 and 1972, affiliated with MIT (link). Still, during the 1960's highways were constructed and widened. Speed limits were generally raised. It was mostly a "let the good times roll" era.
from the OP:
The word "sumptuary" means "relating to personal expenditures and especially to prevent extravagance and luxury" and sumptuary laws means laws "designed to regulate extravagant expenditures or habits especially on moral or religious grounds."
well, that is happening now with Federal regulations about deposits/withdrawals at FDIC banks.
"It all stems from U.S. law that requires forms to be submitted—both by financial institutions, as well as bank customers—each time a cash transaction in excess of $10,000 occurs."
I absolutely acknowledge that was the case. My debate point is that left over from the Sumptuary Laws is pangs of guilt from seemingly doing "too well." Whenever I hear someone, in any discussion relating to the environment or health say "we can't go on like this" or "we can't go on living like this" I hear the rumblings of Sumptuary Laws. Similarly, when I hear criticism of "let the good times roll", i.e. Epicurean echoes, I see the same exact thing.
I'd argue that the "guilt" phenomenon is a post-WW2 response by the then new generation of youth, who observed that they didn't fight in the war, they didn't suffer the privations of the Great Depression, and at least in the West, they were born into societies that were already relatively democratic and hence needed no revolution or great struggle of storming-the-barricades. The result was a longing for a momentous cause, a great venture, something to define that generation. We have perhaps been struggling with various such "great cause" spasms for some 60+ years, even as the youthful generations age and settle into a quiet acceptance, and new youth replace them.
In this interpretation, the pangs aren't that today's people are enjoying too much material sumptuousness, but that they lack the seriousness that stems from facing and overcoming a great crisis. They lack (in their own view) the character-building gravitas, and hence, search for a surrogate.
One piece of evidence, towards the conjecture that it's more about crisis-overcoming than ascetic renunciation of consumption, is that so many of the anti-materialist voices, are saying that OK, we should buy less stuff, but then we should spend our money on "experiences". The call isn't to live an impoverished lifestyle, but to go see the world, instead of buying its material goods.
Where this is all fundamentally different from Puritanism, is that Puritanism was all about living the sort of life here on earth, that is indicative of preparation for a supposed eternal life in heaven. In Christian Puritanism, as in any austere religious sect, human life in the here-and-now is constrained and devalued, in effort to somehow comport with a recipe or a doctrine, of preparing for the afterlife. In contrast, the environmental movement, the "de-growth" movement, the various socialist movements and so on, all aim to transform the earth as it is, to revise the world from its current state, into a putative better state. Puritans - of whatever stripe - would never have bothered.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
