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
