Beaudoin, Tom. Lanham, MD: Sheed and Ward, 2003. 137 pp. $19.95
(USD). ISBN: 1580511384.
[1] In Consuming Faith: Integrating Who We Are with What We Buy,
Tom Beaudoin tackles the problem of the power of corporate branding
on American society, a problem that has largely been neglected by
theologians. In response to an increasing power of brands
to forge identities of consumers, especially younger consumers,
he offers an idea of economic spirituality in the light of some
New Testament exegesis, Ignatian discipline, and a contemporary
interpretation of Docetism. The upshot is a realistic analysis
of the role of brands in identity formation as well as a practical
critique of the logo’s ability to veil the material underside
of the production of commodities that bear the seeming innocuous
brand. Beaudoin calls Christians to an economic spirituality
or “consuming faith” that can awaken individuals to
the way in which our choices at the mall are akin to “deeper” religious
decisions.
[2] Beaudoin frames his analysis of branding with a description
of its double function in consumer society. The brand, in
order to achieve the desired effects of the corporation offering
it, must “instantaneously conjure up a ‘personality’ with
which consumers can identify” while simultaneously “draw[ing]
our attention away from how it was produced” (11). These
functions are interrelated in that when the personal identification
with a brand is complete (and satisfying), questions as to the commodity’s
material origin rarely arise.
[3] As to the first function, Beaudoin is wary of unbridled
criticism. “Moralizing” about the pervasive power
of a brand over our lives—a common tactic among liberal social
critics—is really a subtle way of redirecting the guilt felt
because of our complicity in the system and the envy experienced
towards those who are seemingly not troubled by this complicity
(41). After exposing the hidden motives of moralizing, citing
the sheer impracticality of it, and finally placing the identity
forged by branding along a continuum with other “spiritual” means
of building personal identity, Beaudoin moves to the second function.
[4] The brand’s power to numb our senses to conditions
of the commodity’s material production is the more disturbing
function. After describing the exploitation of Third World
workers that makes possible the cheap production of products we
cherish, Beaudoin begins to analyze some of the deep-seated reasons
that many Christians do not find the working conditions of sweatshop
laborers on their radar when they buy a pair of Nikes.
[5] Here, in the most interesting section of the book, Beaudoin
argues that the residues of early Christian Docetism are emerging
in modern form. The subordination of the body or flesh to
the ethereal or spiritual component of Jesus operates in a way that
now encourages the abstraction of the commodity from its material
substance to its effects, namely that of the brand on identity formation. Christians,
then, may be able to uncouple the physical nature of their Nikes
and all that went into their production from the feeling that the
shoes give when they wear them. As Beaudoin points out, Docetism
(as a heresy) has deleterious effects on a Christology that could
dismiss material suffering, not only of Jesus, but of humans en
masse. Using the work of Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Drew
Leder, he argues for the necessity of a holistic integration between
mind and body not only of the individual but also between separate
bodies. Only through this kind of reconceptualization can
Christians possess the theological tools to relate compassionately
to those producing their products. Then an economic spirituality
can open up that consciously uses brands as an opportunity at once
to check the hold that they have over our lives and to participate
in local activities that can reverberate globally.
[6] Beaudoin’s book is a valuable tool for illuminating the
connection between brands and a proper theological response. However,
the short-shrift that he gives to the first function of brands,
that of identity formation, renders his critique of Christian responses
to exploitation incomplete. Moralizing that merely replaces
capitalistic ideology with another is foolhardy indeed. But
leaving it at that confuses a certain kind of moralizing with a
tempered critique. By placing the identity formation work
effected by brands on a continuum with the kind performed by certain
spiritual disciplines is to fail to get at significant differences
between the two. Identity gained through brands is, in part,
the result of manipulation wielded by those who do not have the
consumers’ well-being in mind. If Beaudoin is correct
(and I think he is) in his assertion that brands have the power
to form identities, then he should be as critical of the means by
which these identities are formed as he is with the destructive
effects of a brand’s power. Nonetheless, Beaudoin calls
our attention to the subtle influence of brands in consumer culture
which reveals implications for theology and religious studies that
scholars can ill-afford to ignore.
Jeffrey Scholes
University of Denver / Iliff School
of Theology
jeffscholes1@yahoo.com
