Over the course of my lifetime, it seems that consumer has become the most common word used to refer to individual members of our society. On television, in newspapers, and on the radio, we regularly hear stories about what consumers are doing and thinking. We are constantly being updated on how consumers are reacting to the market. Whether it’s that gasoline has gotten too expensive, or that the latest iProduct is in high demand, the habits and patterns of consumers are of great concern to the established media companies.
This morning at breakfast, I was reading an article in the newspaper about how the Affordable Care Act is negatively impacting some individuals – especially those who buy their own insurance, rather than receiving it through an employer. The content of the article was interesting, but what struck me the most was the way the problem was framed. Rather than approaching the story from a public policy angle, the article mainly focused on the reaction of consumers of health care goods and services. The crux of the article was whether some individuals should be required to buy a product they might not want or need so that other individuals could have affordable access to health care products they need desperately but might not be able to afford under the old regime.
This is the way they presented the dilemma: as a story of tension between healthier consumers and less healthy consumers, fighting to get the best deal for their health care dollars. But could there be another way of thinking about health care, and about our society as a whole? Is there a framework that would allow us to consider these questions in a way that assumed connection, caring and community between individuals, rather than the zero-sum competition of the market?
One framework that immediately occurred to me was that of citizenship. I have the impression (my older readers can tell me if I’m mistaken) that fifty years ago the word citizen was much more common in our public discourse, and that the word consumer much less common. How would our public conversation – not to mention public policy – be different if framed in terms of citizenship, rather than consumption?
The idea of citizenship could offer a positive antidote to the consumeristic worldview. While consumers have only unmet desires and (hopefully) means to pay for it, citizens have rights, responsibilities and a role within a larger community. What might change if we thought in terms of rights and responsibilities, rather than in terms of consumer desire and spending? In short, what would be the effect of a worldview that is primarily civic rather than hedonistic?
Such a renewed conception of citizenship could yield enormous benefits for our society. A nation that conceives of itself primarily as a union of citizens, rather than consumers, would be a much healthier, functional, and more prosperous one. Yet, there are definitely problems that this worldview based in citizenship would fail to address – in particular, our culture’s unbalanced focus on the individual. Even as a nation of citizens, it would still be easy for us to think in terms of my personal rights and my personal responsibilities. We would no longer be hedonists, perhaps, but we would still be individualists.
Rather than stumbling into single-serving citizenship, what if we learned to be a body together? In the New Testament, Paul talks about how those who live in God’s love are knit together as a single organism. No longer a mere collection of individuals, we discover that we are all deeply connected; that, in a certain sense, we are not separate at all. When one of us is happy, we rejoice together; when one of us is in pain, we feel it as a community. This experience of being a body together takes us far beyond the duties of citizenship. Deeper than individual rights and responsibilities, we are called to surrender our prerogatives and take on the burdens of others – not because we have to, but out of love.
What would it look like to consider the issues of our day with this mindset? How would we address one another in our conversations around affordable health care, military spending, gay marriage and genetic engineering? How would our whole way of living as members of the human family be changed by this awareness of ourselves as an interconnected society, a community of communities, whose health and prosperity depend deeply on one another?
I find it difficult when writers who are not part of (or not open about being part of) a minority community – like people with a health concern – try to discuss what words and labels should be used to discuss “those people”. I understand that everyone uses health care services at some point, but as a member of the radical mental health community – who has also experienced silencing stigma – I need to point out that I have to deal with the affects of these labels in ways that you will likely never experience. I am in danger as being seen only as that label, while you (if you are not part of my community) are not in that danger. You are coming from a place of privilege and defining my experience for me. (ouch, that feels icky to me!) If you are struggling to find the right words to describe someone who uses the health industry more than you, I ask you to not make suggestions, but to ask someone in that population and respect their answer. I would find it an act of inclusivity and solidarity if more Quakers asked me what words I use to describe myself and then respected those words in their ministry and work, rather than speculating on what to call me. Beyond my personal viewpoints, there are many interesting conversations going on in the radical mental health world (by people with lived experience) about this issue. Here is just one blog post on the subject: https://www.madinamerica.com/2013/01/false-arguments-a-three-part-story/ Thanks!
Micah, great post. I spent most of my senior year at Earlham enthralled by Rousseau’s “Social Contract”… but without the tools to write the actual thesis that I wanted to. He uses the term “General Will” as the term for the sense of the Meeting within the body politic (woah, we don’t talk about that much these days do we?). It’s an interesting intersection between the secular political concept and what I take to be the core understanding of the Church. But much like talking about the body of the church, our conception of citizenship itself is so diluted that it may be meaningless. We have to do some radical re-definition and reclaiming of the term if it’s going to be of use. We’re off to a great start with your post, though!
CITIZENSHIP….there is a concept that I havn’t thought of for a while and agree with you that it is something that needs to be talked about. What are the requirements of citizenship? What makes a good citizen? Do the citizenship requirements of USA supersede the or preclude the citizenship requirements of being a Quaker? Much to think about.