Have you ever followed a trend? Are you a materialistic person? Do you use materials and objects, such as money, phones, car, and luxurious items to receive happiness? Everyone at one point in their lives would have desired to want something or wanted to be like the people around them. For example, to feel better, to look better, to convey a status symbol whether it may be TikTok, AirPods, or property. Materialism is when a person is so assigned to owning material belongings, and the obsession with that makes them fulfill life. Our desires become so infinite that we start to forget and recognize what truly is important to us. Materialism has been around for many years. In fact, it’s always been in everyone… everyone has always wanted something from life specifically objects. For example, Hawkins from ‘Guest of the Nation’ believes that “materialism is essentially religious in nature”. This story shows us that the attachment of materials isn’t just a new development, but has always been there.
Materialism has become a trend in our society. Our current society has a constantly growing fascination for earning more money and owning more material goods, which is currently in trend. We are now materially better off than how we were before. For instance, looking over the past few years the high consumption of phones, TikTok, laptops, and property. In association with that, everyone would think we should be happier today than ever. But studies have shown that there is no direct correlation between income and happiness. We are not recognizing the value of our loved ones in comparison to our desires. Baylor University confirms that smartphones can actually damage relationships. Relationships with your loved ones your families, who care for you and are always there no matter what. Our desires are becoming more part of our lives than people, which can lead to a bland life because how would life be without your roots, your parents, and your family? The desires that come from others, or to want something so badly that you forget about your true happiness ‘family’. At the end of the day, I can guarantee you that materials aren’t going to be there forever.
For example, here’s, where I would like to share my own story, I was once in the supermarket getting all the groceries, and a mother asked his little boy: “How was your day today what did you do today?”. And the boy replied: “Nothing mum, I watched videos on TikTok, and my friends did too”. Keeping in the mind at this point in time the little boy isn’t talking to his mother, but on his phone, currently watching videos on TikTok, with his AirPods on. This made me realize how I sometimes ignore my own parents for objects when they’re simply just asking about ours. Destroy, destruction, defeat… these three words describe what his future might be like. At the moment the little boy has most of his attention on his phone an object that can be destroyed anytime. Destruction of a mother and son’s relationship. Defeat the loss of his own life, because when he grows older, he’ll definitely do anything to accomplish his materialistic desires.
People’s materialistic desires are becoming so huge that sometimes our whole life becomes dependent on them. We are spending most of our time earning more money or trying to figure out a way to accomplish our desire. Take, for instance, buying a luxurious house or a lavishing car. No one’s going to wish for it, and they’ll get it. In order to accomplish it, we have to earn money or win the lotto. At this time, we forget that most of our happiness doesn’t revolve around materials, but around relationships. Many studies have shown that personal relationships have one of the largest impacts on overall happiness, as well as longevity. The only way to live life to the fullest is with loved ones, not with materials. Our loved ones are the only way to complete everyone’s lives through creating memories, and Macquarie University confirms this. Living every moment in happiness rather than concentrating on your phone or running after wealth. Just think, have you gained anything from materialistic desires? Do they have feelings? Do they bring happiness or sadness? Are they there in every step of your life to support and love you? The answer might be ‘no’ because objects can’t speak, support, love, or even have feelings. They are only in our lives for a very short time – it’s not going to be there forever. Family is the one that gives everyone a reason to live and gives us purpose in life. Materials can never ever be comparable to people because family and friends are worth so much more than objects and money. We should always know the value of people in our lives and treat them accordingly because they are an important piece in everyone’s lives.
Life is short… So, we should make the most of it while we’re here. Spending most of our time with our loved ones can ensure our happiness. Life will be better and lived to the fullest when we spend most of our time with them rather than going after money and wealth. A positive environment that will alleviate all stresses and empower us to do more in life. We need to understand the differences between our materialistic desires and people. We need to appreciate people and recognize what truly is important in our lives. We should cherish every person in our lives and prioritize our life accordingly. We all as a society need to change the way we display ourselves and don’t perform or desire things to feel better, to look better, or to convey a status symbol.
This essay will be looking at the relationship between the aspects of materialism and religion and the ways they affect the global consumption cultures. It will be looking at the roles materiality and region play in the development of consumption. The ways it hinders and fuels the spread of global consumer culture will also be looked at. Consumers are becoming more and more sophisticated, complex and demanding. This is mainly attributed to easier access to available information and knowledge these days (Wong and Ahuvia, 1998, p. 12). This, coupled with a rising awareness of consumer rights, has placed additional demands on decision-makers to identify the relationship between religion and materialistic consumption in modern society. This is especially true when different ethnic and religious groups co-exist within the same geographical area (Anderson, 1998, p. 34).
Definition of Materialism and Religion
Materialism is the human belief that their welfare and wellbeing are important, this can be achieved by consuming the best and material goods while religion can be said to be the fundamental bond between mankind and the creators. Consumer behavior varies from individual to individual as well as from group to group of people. Although it has been known that income level is an important variable in determining the consumers’ behaviors, other factors such as cultures, religions and geographical locations have a strong impact on spending patterns (Schiffman, Bednall, Paladino, Ward and Kanuik, 2008, p. 44).
Relationship between Materialism, Religion and Consumption
The impact of a person’s level of materialism on their consumption behavior has often been examined at the cultural level. This essay suggests that the materialism defining one’s culture determines one’s behavior in purchasing products on the basis of their materialistic associations as reflected in brand names, prices and exclusivity. Materialism affects consumption, with materialists being motivated by social visibility, quality and prestige (Ger and Belk, 1996, 101). Little research, however, has taken into account the potential variation in individual materialism within these cultures and how such characteristics ultimately affect preferences for particular aspects of the product. Using a framework embedded in random utility theory, we decompose the evaluation of products in terms of a brand’s materialistic associations, and conspicuous attributes, both of which may be more pertinent for consumers to communicate and reflect their own individual level of materialism. We test this framework in two product categories, luxury cars and sunglasses. We find support for our hypotheses that materialistic individuals prefer brand names with materialistic associations. There is some confirmation that individual materialism influences the importance and preference for conspicuous attributes of the product, such as whether a materialistic brand name is printed on the frame of one’s sunglasses. Pertinent to these insights is the attention and inclusion of individual materialism beyond that of cultural dimensions in explaining consumption behavior (Clarke and Micken, 2002, p. 55).
Role of Materialism and Religion in the Spread of Global Consumption or Brands
Materialism and religion impose a significant impact on consumers’ behavior since it has considerable control on individual’s values, habits and attitudes and consequently the lifestyles. Materialism is closely linked to the culture of people and therefore their purchasing decisions. Religion is one of the most important factors in shaping the culture of a person or a group of people, which in turn would have an influence on consumers’ decision-making. Religion permeates not only the individual’s psyche but his or her social and cultural spheres of life. This shows product utility in consumption is a function of the importance consumers assign to product attributes with materialistic associations (Hofstede, 1991, p. 76). The higher an individual’s level of materialism, the more likely they are to choose a product option with materialistic attributes because they reflect material values. An individual’s level of materialism better explains their consumption of brands in materialistic purchasing situations. That is, a consumer’s level of materialism determines the importance they assign to various materialistic attributes and ultimately the way in which they consume. People in masculine cultures are more concerned with brand names and expensive products; whereas those in feminine cultures tend to shun expensive consumption and status symbols.
Many major religions in the world are against excessive consumption and prohibit greed, wastefulness as well as indulgence in hedonism. However, consumption has transcended spiritual values in many spheres of our lives especially in the age of growing affluence and increasing commodities (Jacobs, 1995, p. 28). This can be seen in the wide availability of religious souvenirs. Religious souvenirs, home decorations, clothing, devotional objects and music have been pervasive lately. One tenable explanation could be that there is an attraction to consumption as an extension of self, notwithstanding the constraints imposed by religion. Religion is inherent in the life of a person and is very often the values and principles which deeply affect the behavior of the person. Thus, in aggregate, religion is one of the basic elements of culture. All religions, either directly or indirectly, dictate the consumption behavior and purchasing decision of their believers through the ethical framework of the religions which govern their ways of life (Mooij, 2003, p. 62). For example, the Muslims will never under any normal circumstances purchase pork or liquor for consumption; similarly, a Hindu will not consume beef as this is against his/her religion.
It is noteworthy to observe that in modern society, the culture of consumption with its abundant commodities in the marketplace has immense attractions for the young consumers where the pursuit of material goods for personal gratification has replaced the pursuit of religious goals (Anderson, 1998, p. 33). Although much works and researches have been done to address the issues posed by religions on consumer acquisitiveness and possessiveness, the results have not been conclusive, since religion, to a large extent, really depends on individual perceptions and commitment.
Ways in which materialism and religion help the spread of global consumption culture
Materialism and religion have an upper hand in fuelling the consumption culture. Culture is a potent force in any social group whether it is an ethnic group, religious group or special interest group. A particular value in one culture market can be very different from another country’s culture mainly because of the differences in the cultural belief and practices. Consequently, the consumer values affect the consumption patterns and product attitudes of people in a given culture which differ from one culture to another (Richens and Dowson, 1992, p. 91).
Globalization of cultures and values has fostered the emergence and diffusion of materialism internationally. As previously communist countries turn to capitalism and as former third world economies become more affluent, demand for luxury and conspicuously consumed products is increasing (Wallandort and Arnold, 1988, p. 213). While materialism is associated with particular national cultures, other factors, such as personal values, self-concept and exposure to economic and social change, influence an individual’s level of materialism. Notwithstanding the debate on the interplay of national culture and materialism, very little integrative research focuses on whether culture influences the relationship between materialism and consumption behavior. Related literature is also often characterized by methodological limitations. For instance, past results have generally failed to control for potentially confounding distributional differences between samples, attributing variances observed to differences between national cultures rather than differences in the sample. In many studies, aggregate measures of culture are used failing to account for individual differences within culturally diverse samples (Hofstede, 1991, p. 77).
The mass migration of people in the last decade or more has been a crucial social event where people travel freely either for leisure, education, business or for work relocation and as well as for political reasons. The consequences of this migration can either lead to the acculturation of groups or individuals. In each of the above cases, the individuals or groups within the society need to work out how to live together in order to maintain stability, peace and harmony to avoid conflicts. Consequently, this phenomenon would have a strong impact on societies being transformed to adjust to the arrival of newcomers. Inevitably, the consumption patterns of the people would also be affected (Vigneron and Johnson, 1999, p. 45).
The mobility of people moving from one culture to another in the last two decades has long been the interest of social science researchers researching cultural adaptation and acculturation, as well as being the focal point in consumer research. Many researchers have devoted considerable efforts to the understanding of acculturation and the process of alterations in attitudes and adaptations to new environments. Therefore, the growth in cross-border trade and competition, due to the rapid rise in globalization in businesses as well as the frequent traveling of people marketing managers of the need to re-define their marketing approach, with special attention to a more dynamic consumer behavior studies and be more culturally specific.
Marketers have often relied on complicated general models and an abundance of marketing principles and constructs which are more in general terms rather than meeting the specific needs of any particular culture or ethnic group. Even if they do exist, many of these models and principles do not attempt to offer an explanation as to how cultural factors can influence the way a consumer makes a decision.
The era of globalization has opened up whole new opportunities for modern-day consumers such as in the mobility of traveling either for work or for leisure, the ease of relocating and short-term staying for various purposes. These have brought about a new breed of consumers who are multi-cultural with unique behaviors. Certainly, it will also affect the behavior of the consumers of the host country. A good understanding of the acculturation of migrants in any social group is necessary for approaching cross-cultural consumption behavior and understanding their importance and implications when formulating a marketing strategy.
A consumer’s outward behavior is controlled by his/her cultural value systems. As such, the outward behavior of an individual, in part, is the manifestation of that individual’s cultural values, which are invisible. The value system of the group is thus common only to themselves with their own set of unique idiosyncrasies. These dynamic cultural value systems are constantly being affected by the social and cultural groups in which the consumer is engaged. However, the social group to which the consumer belongs is not shielded or protected from other external environmental factors, such as the value systems of other social groups, the evolution of education, the impact of science and technologies, etc. These factors will slowly but surely influence the culture and value systems over time. As a result, the outward behavior of the consumer will be shifted and the paradigm of beliefs and practices may be changed without compromising on the core value. Consequently, this outward behavior may further exert its pressure on the rudiments of the unique culture of the group. Based on this assumption, the cultural background of the consumer is mutant and is constantly evolving to adapt to external environments. Regularly and periodically, the marketing media attempts to moderate the behavior of the group and its culture, using various forms of intermediaries to transfer meanings or values from in-group culture to consumer goods. By this approach, it aims to achieve positive action or response in the actual purchasing of the products (Clarke and Micken, 2002, p. 57).
Culture is so pervasive that it bonds a particular group of people within a society and it is through this that the people in that group earn their distinctive values and identity. These shared values in turn regulate the manner and behavior of the group that eventually influence the choice of consumption. The cultural heritage of a particular ethnic group usually refers to the thinking, the ways of doing things and the belief systems passed on from generation to generation. It is such a potent force that it can instill such fear among the people within the group that any deviation from it may result in a member being ostracized by the group or facing imminent disastrous consequences. Such boundaries usually bind and mold the group until eventually, a set of attitudes and behavior are formed which is uniquely different from other ethnic groups.
Ways in which materialism and religion hinder the spread of global consumption culture
Other than fuelling consumption materialism and religion can be seen as a hindrance to consumption in the underlying principles in which they are based. There has been increasing recognition of the power of ethnic groups in determining the behavior of consumers among marketers.high culture orientations tended to emphasize more on price and quality while those with low culture orientation were more inclined towards image and prestige. The importance of understanding culture in the consumer behavior cannot be denied especially in the international business environments, where consumer behavior and values are recognized as a powerful force in shaping consumers’ motivation, lifestyles, and product choices (Hofstede, 1991, p. 79).
These religious aspects in the society basically influence negatively the consumption behavior of some commodities e.g. pork is prohibited in the Islamic world while in the rest of the places it’s accepted; clothing styles in some societies are also prohibited by religious beliefs. Religion touches the core heart of the consumers’ consumption behaviors and the consumption trends prohibited by their religious affiliations and beliefs. The higher an individual’s level of materialism, the more likely they are to choose a product option with materialistic attributes because they reflect material values and thus influence their decisions e.g. there are some products that can be said to be immaterial and thus materialistic consumers cannot consume them. This can be seen as a hindrance to consumption. An individual’s level of materialism better explains their consumption of brands in materialistic purchasing situations. That is, a consumer’s level of materialism determines the importance they assign to various materialistic attributes and ultimately the way in which they consume.
Materialistic consumers consume the best and the expensive commodities and thus their lives are luxurious in nature. These attitudes hinder them to consume the commodities considered normal and can be said to hinder them from living a normal life.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the essay proves materialism affects consumption, with materialists being motivated by social visibility, quality and prestige. Consumer behavior varies from individual to individual as well as from group to group of people. They look beyond functional product attributes to characteristics such as appearance and brand name. Hence an individual’s level of materialism influences the attributes they seek and consequently their consumption behaviors. Consumers are becoming more and more sophisticated, complex and demanding. This is mainly attributed to easier access to available information and knowledge these days. This, coupled with rising awareness of consumer rights, has placed additional demands on marketers to demarcate the different market segments more accurately. This is especially true when different ethnic and religious groups co-exist within the same geographical area.
Culture is a set of acquired or learned values, beliefs, customs and attitudes that mold an individual and a homogenous group of people within a society. These variables create a behavioral norm unique only to the group and perpetuate to the next generation. Similarly, religion, being an aspect of culture, also influences the behavior of consumers and this subsequently determines the way consumers make decisions in their purchases.
References
Anderson, P., & He, X., (1998). Price influence and Age Segments of Beijing’s Consumers. Journal of Consumer Marketing.15 (2), pp. 152-169.
Clarke III, I., & Micken, K., (2002). An Exploratory Cross-Cultural Analysis of the values of Materialism. Journal of International Consumer Marketing.14 (4), pp. 65- 89
Ger, G., & Belk, R., (1996). Cross-Cultural Differences in Materialism. Journal of Economic Psychology.17, pp. 55-77
Hofstede, G., (1991) Cultures and Organizations, Software of the Mind: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Jacobs, S., (1995). The guru wore Armani on the path to enlightenment: A new generation of the cult mantra of materialism. The Boston Globe. p. A1
Mooij, K., (2003). Consumer behavior and culture: Consequences for global marketing and advertising. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Prendergast, G., & Wong, C., (2003) Parental influence on the purchase of luxury brands of infant apparel: an exploratory study in Hong Kong. Journal of Consumer Marketing. 20(2), pp. 157-169
Richens, M., & Dawson, S., (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and its measurement: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research.19, pp. 303-316
Schiffman, L., Bednall, D., O’Cass, A., Paladino, A., Ward, S., & Kanuk, L., (2008). Consumer Behaviour. 4th ed. Pearson Education Australian
Vigneron, F., & Johnson, L., (1999). A Review and a Conceptual Framework of Prestige Seeking Consumer Behavior. Academy of Marketing Science Review. (1)
Wallandort, M., & Arnould, E., (1988). My favorite things: A cross-cultural inquiry into object attachment, possessiveness, and social linkage. Journal of Consumer Research. 1494), pp. 531-547
Wong, N., & Ahuvia, A., (1998). Personal taste and family face: Luxury consumption in Confucian and Western societies. Psychology and Marketing. 15(5), pp. 423
In, the article Two Cheers for Materialism, from the book Acting out Culture, The author James Twitchel defines materialism early on as the production and consumption of stuff, and defends it with several well thought out and forceful arguments. This article delivers several references of materialism, being coupled with capitalism.
The article also expounds how materialism has contributed to the general well-being of people. Although I agree with the aforementioned points, my view of materialism is in other respects, in opposition to the views James Twitchel delineated in this article.
In contrast to Twitchel’s argument that we should not try to curb capitalism’s mad consumptive ways,” instances where individuals or firms are shielded from the consequences of their actions the potential for abuse exists1.
Indeed, people in general are more likely to act irresponsibly when the negative consequences are not likely to affect them directly. Materialism can result in negative external costs that can be minimized and this optimizes the materialistic system.
At many points in the article, James Twitchel stressed the fact that materialism has made life easier for many people. James also points out that in American society, it can be seen at its best. I consider this point to be conflicting because when a society consumes more it also produces more waste2.
In some instances, small electronics for example, the price to dispose of electronic devices can exceed the initial cost of the item. Typically this results in the devices not being properly disposed of.
The resulting externalities can lead to health issues within a population of people, wildlife, and ecosystems that are exposed to the resulting hazardous waste. Essentially, when a firm produces more harm than benefit it ceases to be an overall benefit and becomes a liability.
The obliviousness of Twitchel’s arguments to externalities such as environmental damage, the merger of the military industrial complex with materialistic culture, the destruction of families due to excessively low wages (a la Wal-Mart), and negative health and mortality effects from calorie and fat-laden foods, and mortality from tobacco products, has contributed to our current situation environmentally and socially. These costs have been borne elsewhere than the manufacturer.
Twitchel states that “most of the world, most of the time spends most of its energy, consuming more and more stuff.” The idea being that this brings more consumers and thus more producers into the market. Subsequently increasing production and acting as an overall boon to the economy. Thereby increasing in overall well-being within a population and reducing the level of suffering. However, in addition to the positive this increasing consumption raises serious concerns3
Producers have a species of immortality, because firms, God and the economy willing, will survive long after all of us are dead and dust. This imposes on us, and corporations, as moral agents, the responsibility to make our way in the world considering the needs and survival of those with whom we deal regularly, the earth we inhabit, and future generations.
Although many human environmental misdeeds bite us in our human back, the main damage of pollution or destruction is experienced by our global co-residents4.We should seriously consider such impact, both to single organisms and to whole species, and whether we have the right to limit the bases of our decisions exclusively to items that affect us directly.
This makes sense in a larger context as well. One of several failings of economics in earlier decades was its inability to address constructively this “free rider” problem. In other words, if we all pollute, but no one cleans it up, because we are not compelled to, legally, and we don’t notice the effects in our lifetime, we can effectively, and indefinitely, shirk our responsibility for the damage we incur.
The final main part of this argument occurs when the firms selling a product know more about the product than the consumer. And so, in order to resolve the issue many are saying that advertising must be allowed to continue only with one condition and it is for the producers to make truthful claims about their products.
There are even those who said that this must be regulated – that no one should be allowed to create an ad that will make consumers use products or services that will harm them5
We, starting here and now, should accept the challenge to prevent, or find creative ways to absorb, these external costs. If we can engineer our manufacturing processes to reduce energy use and emissions and effluents, we avoid the costs of clean-up later. One way to do this is to aid the creative destruction of products that are not ecologically friendly.
We can price the costs of the environmental damage associated with the item right in. This will lower demand for products that fall into this category this will provoke suppliers to manufacture products that are less harmful to the environment.
We can increase the publics rights to the profit made on resources’ extracted from public land. If businesses can engineer their products cleverly and creatively such that their customer wants, desires, and feels that they then they can build quality and/or sustainability right in.
Bibliography
Twitchel, J. “Two Cheers to Materialism.” In Acting out Culture, by James Miller, 28-36. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2011.
Footnotes
1 Twitchel, J. “Two Cheers to Materialism.” In Acting out Culture, by James Miller, 28-36. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2011. P.30
Materialism is generally referred to as the association people have with material possessions. Materialism should not be confused with consumerism although the two are closely related. Materialism is mostly studied in the context of how people possess and associate themselves with items. However, it is possible to examine the concept of materialism from a political standpoint. Exploring materialism from a social-political point of view involves focusing on ‘materialistic individuals’. Several sociologists and other theorists express differing views about how materialism is reflected in the social environment. Some of the pertinent voices on materialism include Carl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and Max Weber. This paper is a critical reflection on the issues surrounding materialism.
Carl Marx is arguably the most prominent voice on the issues of politics and materialism. According to Marx, material resources play an important role when it comes to negotiation of powers. Marx’s views and ideologies have been varyingly accepted and rejected by several governments and administrations around the world. The administrations of the government of the United States and the People’s Republic of China are examples of differing views on materialism. While China seems to embrace Carl Marx’s views on materialism, the United States stands firmly against them. These readings are able to explore how this philosophy has changed over time using examples such as industrialization and feudal periods. It should be noted that fundamental principles of materialism have remained the same over time. Materialism affects people’s social life today the same way it did in the feudal period. The example of Canada’s materialism trends applies to most capitalistic countries around the world. The most contentious issue when exploring materialism is its relation to feminism and inequality. It is likely that the class system applies more to feminism and inequality than materialism does.
Several sociologists and other theorists dispute the fact that materialism is the only ‘true’ measure of the proximity to power. Moreover, these opponents of this stand have forwarded other theories concerning materialism and acquisition of power. Markers of social status are said to be other factors that are used to seek and retain power among individuals. According to sociologists, these markers are more relevant when explaining power issues in a modern society. While this argument could be considered simplistic and shallow, it can be easily contextualized using the lives of many people today. Markers of social status are encountered everyday by all individuals. For example, different people use these markers to consolidate power in the school, work, political, and even religious environments. As Carl Marx’s main critic, Weber put forward a solid argument against Marx’s views on materialism. Of the two sociologists, Weber’s views are more solid and practical even after preliminary criticisms.
The relationship between power, inequality, materialism, and conflict is well explored in these readings. The main sociologists behind the analysis of this relationship are Marx and Weber. According to Marx, the inequality that comes from materialism is responsible for the rising instances of class conflicts that are witnessed during struggles for power. However, Weber focuses on a broader look at class issues even though power is the central consideration. The fundamental differences within the arguments of the two sociologists are important when it comes to understanding capitalism and power institutions.
The importance of Marx’s arguments is in the fact that power and materialism cannot be ignored. However, his arguments seem to have been overcome by those of the sociologists that came after him. The study of materialism and how it affects other social issues such as capitalism, employer-employee relations, government institutions, among other issues is important to sociology. Moreover, it is still an ongoing process.
When speaking on the topic of life, and the importance of vital values for oneself, one cannot avoid mentioning the era of enlightenment and the legendary German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. In an essay in which he gave the definition of the term “enlightenment,” he scrutinized the problem and provided his reasonable opinion on how the issue of ignorance can be resolved. According to Fleischacker, “Kant tells us in the opening line of the essay that enlightenment is the exit of human beings from their self-incurred immaturity” (13).
First, it is important to understand that the opposite of enlightenment is not a state of ignorance, but an emotive dimness, a state of irresponsibility. In order to cure this immaturity, one has to take responsibility for his or her own knowledge and not by simply acquiring information. Second, human immaturity is self-inflicted, and the way to overcome it is an act that must be performed by an individual himself. Other people cannot enlighten you – therefore, you must enlighten yourself. An entire society can move toward enlightenment, if only it allows freedom of expression. One can see that enlightenment is a moral act, for Kant – indeed a moral obligation (Fleischacker 16).
Analysis
The act of enlightenment is closely connected with the phenomenon of a meaningful life. What does it mean to live a meaningful life? There are a number of values that allow an individual to live a meaningful life: health, relationships, passions, growth, and contribution. Happiness also plays an important part in living a meaningful life. Happiness is achieved internally, through living a life that is filled with passion and freedom, a life in which one can grow and contribute to others in meaningful ways. It is of the essence to remember that only happiness gives an individual the feeling of living meaningfully, not just material things (Millburn and Nicodemus 48).
A meaningful life can also be defined as an individual’s signature strengths and virtues being used in the service of something much larger than that individual. What is important to understand is that meaning in life is described as a flexible point that delivers the circumstances from which contentment ascends, and may subsidize the basis of overall pleasure, which in turn is individual well-being. The meaning in life is continuously, positively associated with life satisfaction – a component/part of subjective well-being (Santos et al. 34).
There are numerous other opinions on what might be the essential ingredients to a meaningful life. Johnson, for example, claims that “love and work are the two essential ingredients” (147). His explanation relies on the fact that, for many people, work takes up the largest proportion of their day-to-day lives. Consequently, if it is not satisfying and meaningful, then they are spending the greatest part of their time involved in an activity that is not making them happy.
By contrast, when people’s work and leisure activities are meaningful and congruent with their inner values, they tend to feel alive and purposeful. According to Blanc, “the sense of dignity, importance, and belonging are essential ingredients to a meaningful life and can help prevent the onset of depression” (25). There is also an idea that meaning is the key component for maximizing one’s potential. The question of well-being is one of the classical questions in philosophy. Søraker and Brey, in their research on well-being in society, stated that “for a meaningful life, engaging in meaningful activities is central as it leads to the experience of ample subjective well-being” (63).
Conclusion
The author of the essay believes that most of the nonmaterialistic values make up the pillars of a meaningful life. This means that, overall, an individual does not need money, cars, or expensive clothes to live a meaningful life. On the contrary, people may become upset when they reach their goal and start dealing with stresses they were not originally expecting. The majority of people break down when their dream becomes reality because consciously, they were ready for the failure, but unconsciously, they were not ready for success.
The number of life changes puts additional pressure on the individual and generates an undesirable crushing effect, instead of providing motivation to move further and celebrate achievement. In today’s race for accomplishments, the idea is that it is vital for an individual not to lose common sense, and to remember the everyday values that bring happiness, and not materialistic objects.
The author also claims that the values described above in detail are the key elements driving the act of enlightenment, which is only going to happen when an individual’s mind is free. Freedom gives the ability to be happy and understand and appreciate values and exposes an individual’s feelings of delight and satisfaction. It is also imperative to understand that an individual’s dissatisfaction with his or her life may be the result of immaturity and, as stated in Kant’s philosophical postulate, one can only escape it by applying individual effort and hard work.
Works Cited
Blanc, Margaret M. Returning to the Source: Using Mindfulness and Depth Psychology to Transform Symptoms of Depression. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest, Umi Dissertatio, 2012. Print.
Fleischacker, Samuel. What Is Enlightenment? London: Routledge, 2013. Print.
Johnson, Rick. Spirituality in Counseling and Psychotherapy: An Integrative Approach that Empowers Clients. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2013. Print.
Millburn, Joshua, and Ryan Nicodemus. Minimalism: Live a Meaningful Life. Columbia, MO: Asymmetrical, 2011. Print.
Santos, Maria Cristina J., Cipriano Magramo, Jr., Faustino Oguan, Jr., Junnile Paat, and El Anelio Barnachea. “Meaning in Life and Subjective Well-being: Is a Satisfying Life Meaningful?” Researchers World 3.4 (2012): 32-40. Web.
Søraker, Johnny H., and Philip Brey. Well-being in Contemporary Society. Berlin: Springer, 2014. Print.
Hobbes philosophical principles were of materialist nature. In the company of many other thinkers of his age, Hobbes thought he perceived in mathematics a certitude which the flux of human opinion could not alter. This is so because he believed that universe is composed of solid bodies and everything is geometrical in nature. Every matter has mathematical dimensions which must be true if verified on a scientific basis.
Main body
Since Hobbes was materialist, he considered ‘truth’ to be a function of reasoning, its discovery an analytical process in which definitions are placed in their proper order (Leviathan, p. 21). The language of geometry, moreover, is lucid, free of verbal confusions, a perfect analogue of the kind of style which Hobbes hoped to achieve in his non-mathematical writings. And finally, geometry harmonized most easily with the cosmology that Hobbes was soon to develop: a universe that consists only of extended body is best described in geometrical terms (Matthew, 1885, p. 113).
One of the best examples of putting his philosophy in a scientific paradigm is that he used time to measure and compare motions in general, so in Elements of Law he applies the temporal dimension to distinguish between people and to explain the different attractions to pleasures like sensualities, riches, and knowledge (Slomp, 2000, p. 21).
Hobbes confronted to the great philosophical problem of seventeenth-century science which was to find a way of working out its mechanical principles without abandoning spirit and God (Descartes’ Cartesianism). Unlike Descartes who believed that a rigorously mechanical view of the material world is always accompanied by the certainty that the spirit world also exists, Hobbes mechanical universe was devoid of spirit and only distantly related to a material God (Mintz, 1970, p. 11).
For Hobbes all substance must have dimensions that is, it must have spatial location, magnitude, and extension. In this way Hobbes have proved every material bodily substance on scientific grounds, and so does his moral and philosophical notions are proved that no two bodies can occupy the same space in the universe. All substance or bodies is impenetrable therefore Hobbes scorned the doctrine that defines a spiritual existence.
Hobbes ridiculed the scholastic notion expressed in the proposition totum in toto ac totum in qualibet parte. Hobbes refutes other scholars’ opinions about spirits and souls and denies the notion that a man has a soul. In Leviathan Hobbes has mentioned that how could a soul be a part of a man or a part of any of the man’s bodily features? (Leviathan, p. 443)
Hobbes played only a negative role in developments that according to him were not physical. His doctrine of space had no effect on the progress of English science, nor did it serve to release the English poetic imagination in the way that More’s had. In fact, unlike More, Hobbes did not make his doctrine a central feature of his metaphysics. He treated the question almost casually, whereas for More it was a subject of life-long interest (Mintz, 1970, p. 92).
Selden wrote as a lawyer, that Hobbes as a philosopher was less than humane in declaring for the punishment of witches, but this way Hobbes at least was consistent to his philosophical principles. He believed that the security of the state depends on civil obedience, and civil obedience is relaxed when ‘crafty ambitious persons abuse the simple people’ by playing on their ‘superstitious fear of spirits’ (Seldon, 1689, p. 131)
Hobbes’s denial of the power of witches was a direct consequence of his materialism. In chapter xlvii of Leviathan, on demonology, Hobbes reviewed his mechanicomaterialist theory of sensation in order to show that a man may have hallucinations from purely natural and material causes, which may be called demons by unsophisticated minds (Mintz, 1970, p. 104).
In Leviathan, Hobbes has focused the byproduct of these unsophisticated minds which appears in the form of witchcraft. Thus witches, spirituality or witchcraft is nothing but the product of hallucinations of such minds which should be punished. If such men are left unattended in the universe, they use such language in an unreliable way to express their own desires. Therefore, Hobbes offers a reliable, systematic use of it in the form of ‘Laws of Nature’ with which they must all agree.
These laws of nature are the theorems proposed by Hobbes in order to defend themselves against external injustice. Hobbes have based these theorems on some unique notions like if a man has been given the opportunity to do anything he wish, he would desire to do x, y, and z. On achieving his aims he will then desire to do beyond z and so on.
Hobbes proposed laws of nature suggest a set of actions to be taken for peace and harmony. That means in order to bring up a better living environment; condition for ‘self-preservation’ should be there. However the breaking of laws brings injustice to the society when there are occasions when obeying such laws endangers a man’s life rather than preserve it. For example the consequences of violence or murder create circumstances in which the need for self-preservation dictates breaking the laws of nature and responding with violence in self-defence. Such actions in which a man is bound to go beyond the laws of nature in order to seek protection are called as ‘right’ of nature. Hobbes in chapter 14 of Leviathan proves that both laws and right flow from the same source, which he calls the ‘rule’ of nature.
Establishing civic peace and disposing mankind toward fulfillment of their civic duties
In Leviathan, Hobbes has proposed that in order to build up civil peace and unity among mankind, it is necessary to create a concept of commonwealth. Such ‘commonwealth’ can be run under some sovereign state or power. Hobbes has already described the term ‘commonwealth’ in context with some third person or artificial power. Hobbes has imitated the term ‘commonwealth’ with ‘Leviathan’ which means a huge sea monster as mentioned in Bible.
This is the ideal condition which Hobbes has defined for creating a safe and secure society. Hobbes view of the state of nature as defined in Leviathan is: “State of nature is the man’s need to secure himself from violent death which when combines with his greed creates condition of maximum insecurity. Men are powerless to escape from this predicament so long as they live without law and according to the dictates of their own passions” (Leviathan, p. 82)
The insecurity and threat of injustice has brought forward the laws and a determinate set of actions to which the right covers from the range of possible actions contrary to natural law. Therefore Hobbes’s intention that right, consists in liberty to do or to forbear whereas law, determine and bind to one of them is no less necessary than obedience to the laws normally is when they can safely be obeyed. Calling the right a ‘liberty’ does not mean that at critical moments of self-defense it is a matter of indifference whether the right be used or not. It connotes rather the right’s nature as an ‘entitlement’ to act against the usual requirements of natural law.
Malcolm (2002) has called this account an internal valuation of men’s actions where each man has to consider and concern about his own need for preservation and this need generates a particular set of laws and a general right (Malcolm, 2002, p. 23). In the state of nature, when conditions generally justify the actions, some actions are not justified in accordance with the laws of nature for they do not meet the internal standard of conduciveness to self-preservation. Hobbes has given an example of ‘drunkenness’ in such case (Malcolm, 2002, p. 23).
Conclusion
In his daily frequentation of the aristocracy, Hobbes must have realized that their superiority was merely a human artifact. Indeed in his three main political works, Hobbes repeats almost verbatim the claim that equality is natural and that the inequality that now is has been introduced by the Law Civil (Leviathan, 107). Hobbes’s main claim on natural equality is that despite the differences in intelligence and strength, even the feeble man has the strength to fight the strongest.
In the Hobbesian state of nature, a person’s identity is endangered in two ways i.e., in a crude and drastic sense in which physical life is threatened. Secondly in a more sophisticated sense in which the mind possesses the distinctive ability to detach itself from the present and therefore plans the future. In both cases a man’s identity is wasted. For Hobbes the state of nature is a state of uncertainty, where one cannot trust anybody and least of all one’s experience of the past.
According to Hobbes, in the state of nature, out of the full range of passions one can experience only those related to the present, namely, sudden passions such as terror, weeping, anger, sensual pleasures, etc. The best pleasures of the mind, such as curiosity and knowledge, are denied. The only cathartic passion under these conditions is fear, which is described by Hobbes as been beneficial in so far as it is concerned with the future. In other words, in the state of nature people are victim of the present; the time of the mind is forced to coincide with the time of nature, which for Hobbes is the present.
According to Hobbes the sovereign power is created to guarantee the minimal condition necessary to be a person, namely, physical continuity. But in order to guarantee physical integrity, each individual’s mental self-continuity has to be acknowledged in full so that rules can be enforced and punishment administered. For the rule enforcement it is necessary to analyze each individual on the principle of ‘self sameness’. In the eyes of the State, Socrates acting today is responsible for what he did yesterday, for underneath both past and present Socrates there is the same self.
John Selden, (1953) Table Talk (London, 1689), vide ‘Witches’. Selden’s opinion is quoted with comment by Aldous Huxley, The Devils of London ( New York, 1953).
Matthew Arnold, (1885) Literature and Science, Discourses in America. London.
Malcolm Noel, (2002) Aspects of Hobbes: Clarendon: Oxford, England.
Mintz I, Samuel, (1970) The Hunting of Leviathan: Seventeenth-Century Reactions to the Materialism and Moral Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes: Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England.
Slomp Gabriella, (2000) Thomas Hobbes and the Political Philosophy of Glory: Macmillan: Houndmills, England.
George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne, is identified to be one of the great philosophers in the early modern period (Berman 1). Berkeley’s works mainly focused on defending idealism against materialism (Fogelin 6). Berkeley specifically disagreed with Locke’s concept that asserted that objects had both primary and secondary qualities (Fogelin 13). Berkeley argued that perceiving an object to as possessing both primary and secondary qualities was not enough to ascertain that the object really exists.
According to him, Locke and others who held the same point of view were instrumental in aiding the flourishing atheism and scepticism by doubting sense perception. In his argument, Berkeley seemed to defend the belief and knowledge on God. Thus he indicated that experiences were in the person who perceived and sensations could not arise from the objects being perceived Bettcher 43).
By this he implied that there was no reason for objects to posses any power that will cause an effect on the senses, primarily because the object was a creation of our senses and did not exist in the absence of perception. Berkeley used this view to discredit the sceptical argument that we do not see objects as they really are (Roberts 107).
Berkeley put forward some arguments defending idealism against materialism. The arguments were mainly based on the idea that the perception for an object was in the perceiver and not the object (Bettcher 44). First, he used the following points to discredit the notion that an object can possess secondary qualities: On sensation Berkeley argued that when a hand is placed in cold water, the temperature felt will be different depending on the temperature of the hand (Roberts 108).
If one’s hand has a higher temperature then the water will be felt to be colder and if the hand is colder than the water then the water will be felt to be warmer. According to him the water could not be hot and cold at the same time (Berman 7).
On taste, Berkeley stated that a pleasurable taste like that of sugar did not exist in the sugar but in the perceiver. T o attack concept of primary and secondary qualities, Berkeley tried to indicate that some perceptions varied from one to perceiver to another. He explained that if different people see an object from different perspectives then one may see it of having a different colour from the other (Roberts 108).
The two colours could not exist in the same object at the same time and thus the colour perception must have its origins in the perceiver (Fogelin 10). He also argued that an observer looking at a moving train will perceive it as moving but whoever is sited in the train will perceive it as being at rest. He used this to advance his position that quality exists in the perceiver.
Berkeley used the master argument to show that no difference exists between qualities that are taken to be apparent and the real qualities. The master argument asserted that it not possible for something to exist without being perceived (Bettcher 60).
This implied that if one cannot imagine how a certain object’s perception is like then he/she cannot be able to say that the object exists. Using this idea, Berkeley discredited the notion “that substance or matter, for if all the qualities we ascribe to it are either primary or secondary qualities” (Berman 23).
Works Cited
Berman, David. George Berkeley: Idealism and the man. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.Print.
bettcher, Talia. Berkeley’s Philosophy of Spirit: Conciousness, ontology and the Elusive Subject. London: continuum, 2007.Print.
Fogelin, Jose. George Berkeley: Critical Assessments. London: Routledge, 1991.Print.
Roberts, John. A metaphysics for the Mob. Oxford: Oxford University press, 2007. Print.
According anti-materialists, our ordinary, common-sense comprehension of the mind is deeply flawed and that it is possible that all or some of the mental states posited by common-sense are non-existent. Consequently, mental states do not have a role to play in a mind that has matured. In other words, these philosophers believe that our mental states may not necessarily correspond to physical states. However, Rorty disagrees with this assertion, terming it an ontological gap between the events of consciousness and those of the central nervous system. Rorty argues that “the proper reaction to the Antipodean story is to adopt…..materialism” (Rosenthal, 1991, p. 283). This paper examines Rorty’s argument that in accepting the material reality of the universe, we can also accept that the physical universe shapes our beliefs and interpretations, and that our understanding of the universe is valid within our personal experience.
Rorty contends that the correct way to respond to the Antipodean tale is to adopt materialism, which places a strong emphasis on the significance of the physical environment and how humans interact with it (Rosenthal, 1991). If individuals are willing to acknowledge this response, they will be able to develop a greater appreciation for the physical environment and become more aware of their relationships with it (Rosenthal, 1991). Rorty believes that an appreciation of the physical can help people live with greater significance because it enables them to recognize the splendor and intricacy of their physical environment.
By acknowledging the material reality of the universe, people can accept that the physical universe shapes their beliefs and interpretations (Rosenthal, 1991). The materialist worldview allows people to acknowledge the veracity of the Antipodean narrative without requiring us to rely on our interpretations of that narrative. Through interaction with other people, specific identifying characteristics of a person become more stable over time, while others become less noticeable or are replaced by new characteristics.
Rorty also posits that the norm of guiding human behavior is derived from something nonhuman (such as a divine will), and individuals must be responsible for handling such standards (Rosenthal, 1991). This argument is based on the materialist belief that norms influence human behavior. In this regard, people need to communicate with one another in a way that helps them understand the kinds of people they aspire to be. They should also be willing to follow the moral compass to enable them uphold the standards that pave the way for responsibility.
Furthermore, Rorty advances the argument that a Supreme Being does not drive the object of reality in which people identify their physical environment. On the contrary, people find themselves as they identify with the physical environment. This is putative nonhuman authority in which people find themselves is an objective reality that delivers them to problematic situations and determines the nature and practices that bind people in their physical environment (Rosenthal, 1991). Consequently, people have the right to decide what actions to take to establish their reputation as self-determining creatures.
Moreover, Rorty posits that people do not have a Cartesian mind; instead, the decisions that people make depend entirely on the ontological facts and social practices that establish the norms and beliefs of a society (Rosenthal, 1991). Rorty’s argument may be found in his book The Cartesian Mind (Rosenthal, 1991). The material and the world influence how individuals live behave and believe about supernatural beings.
Moreover, according Rorty normalcy sensitivity, which defines the sense of authority established by social activities, is the most crucial notion (Rosenthal, 1991). Therefore, people’s choices are wholly governed by the events that occur in their minds, which are produced from their mental idea of mind nature. The statements and conventions established over time, each of which possesses a unique personality, characterize the authoritative quality of something. Rorty contends that it is acceptable to alter those rules to address some of the existing problematic difficulties.
Norms define human life in societies and the normalcy of discourse, particularly about matters of economic nature, is maintained under joint supervision that addresses critical challenges believed to impact people’s lives in the physical world. According to Rorty, the nature of human life is decided by cultural and religious norms (Rosenthal, 1991). Culture can be determined by the existence of supernatural beings that only exist for natural reasons. Consequently, such beings can determine religion.
In conclusion, Rorty argues that the best way to react to the Antipodean story is to adopt materialism. When humans accept the reality of the universe, they also accept the physical universe which shapes their interpretations and belief. Consequently, their personal experience validates their understanding of the mental states. It is possible, therefore, to agree with the assertion that our consciousness is tied to the physical materials around us. In other words, the mental states that people experience in their minds have corresponding physical states, which enhance the concept of reality. Rorty’s arguments are vital in bridging the ontological gap between the events of consciousness and those of the central nervous system.
The concept of self-identity and individual identification has troubled many people over the years. Locke and Hume crafted Locke’s theory and the Bundle Theory, respectively, to explain these ideas. Locke and Hume agree that memory is essential to defining personal identity (Perry, 2002). According to Locke, memory and consciousness are essential in defining personal identity. This paper discusses the fundamental arguments of Locke, Reid, and Hume, exploring their similarities and differences.
According to Hume’s Bundle Theory, personal identity is, essentially, perceptions (Perry, 2002). According to his ideas, personal identity is not the feeling of existence as many thinkers believe. He proposes that every notion is a product of one impression. Self is not a single impression but a combination of all our impressions which could be joy, grief, pain, or pleasure. These impressions may not necessarily happen at the same time, but they follow each other. Furthermore, Hume contends that the human mind is the stage where perceptions appear. The perceptions are comparable to actors walking across the stage, subjected to diverse environments and situations. Different actors walk across the stage at different times with different perceptions in order to tell the same story, human perceptions also appear in the mind at different times to tell the same story.
The Bundle Theory is comparable to the newer version of Locke’s theory. While Hume thinks that the concept of self is a fiction, Locke holds that there is need for a memory continuum for a person to maintain their identity (self) (Perry, 2002). In this regard, the only things that would be at stake would be whether a person believes that what they think of themselves is fictitious or not, and if they are the same person of not. It is predictable that for many people, the thought of thinking of themselves as being creations of fiction would be very disappointing. Personal identity supersedes memory continuum. Even though Locke’s assertion, that one requires a memory continuum to be the same person, is necessary for the concept of existence, it fails to define personal identify.
Locke argues that the sameness of man or substance is unnecessary and insufficient for personal identity but that consciousness is equal (Perry, 2002). Hume agrees with Locke that it is memory’s role to shape people’s senses. Hume disagrees with Locke’s assertion that the sense of self is not limited to memories (Perry, 2002). Surprisingly, Hume does not even admit Locke’s contention that “person” is a forensic term, neither does he content with Locke’s distinction between the terms “person,” “man,” and “material” (Rosenthal, 1984). Locke created this distinction to discuss moral responsibility issues, which he considered crucial.
At first glance, it seems even more surprising that Hume’s treatment of the self leaves less room for separating persons from human beings than his treatment. The experience is perplexing because Locke first articulated the difference to address concerns about moral accountability, and Hume’s treatment of self in arguments forms the basis of his moral theory (Kim, 1984). There must be a solution to this mystery, which leaves a dilemma of whether Hume made a sloppy mistake or has philosophical objections to Locke’s distinction. Hume does not share Locke’s particular moral and theological convictions that have no allure in Locke’s distinction between individuals and human beings.
It is helpful to establish in what sense if any, Locke and Hume distinguish individuals and human beings to explain how their moral, religious, and philosophical background assumptions influence their unique explanations of persons and personal identity. First, Locke defines the difference between “person,” “man,” and “stuff” conceptually (Rosenthal, 1991). Locke distinguishes between the identity of people and substances and contends that individual identity is grounded in a shared mental state (Kim, 1984). It is a claim about the nature of reality itself. The idea of the nature of reality has been modernized into the contention that humans, other humans, and inorganic substances have unique persistence requirements.
On the other hand, in contrast to Locke’s theory, Hume’s does not provide any opportunity for a theistic foundation for his philosophical principles. According to Hume’s description, math, science, religion, ethics, and politics are all tied to human nature and other scientific endeavors (Kim, 1984). According to Hume, it is necessary to investigate the principles and mechanisms governing human nature before attempting to build morality separate from such a study. This is because human nature is the foundation upon which morality is built (Kim, 1984).
Locke’s theory was developed to draw attention to the limitations of human comprehension and reduce the breadth of knowledge to only that which can be understood with absolute certainty. Locke makes the critical point that the fact that contemporary scientific expertise cannot provide an answer to a question does not indicate that the question is without value. Locke argues that a person can still build plausible hypotheses or have self-confidence in such topics (Perry, 2008). The most important thing is distinguishing between having a reasonable opinion and blind faith. Locke says that it is beyond people’s ken to establish whether or not these thoughts are anchored in something substantial or immaterial, even though it is common knowledge that persons have thoughts.
In his article “Of the Immortality of the Soul,” David Hume articulates his skepticism regarding various religious beliefs. By outlining several philosophical, ethical, and scientific arguments, Hume can cast doubt on the reality of an afterlife and the soul’s immortality (Kim, 1984). Although Locke and Hume agree that the soul’s immortality cannot be demonstrated a priori and share a certain metaphysical agnosticism, several subtle distinctions become apparent when we turn to Hume’s physical arguments. Locke and Hume share a certain metaphysical agnosticism (Perry, 2008). Although Locke acknowledges that it is impossible to know for certain whether thought occurs in a material or immaterial substance. He argues that immaterial substances are more likely to be the locus of thought than material substances. On the other hand, Hume states that it is more likely that humans are mortal material things because we are similar to nonhuman animals, and the great analogy lends support to the notion that this is the case.
Locke’s religious perspectives partly shaped his understanding of the concept of individuality. Locke was a devout Christian, he was adamant that the Bible be accorded the utmost respect. Despite the fact that faith is based on revelation is not entirely certain, he maintains that faith cannot be correctly denied and is almost as certain as knowledge (Rosenthal, 1991). When one considers Locke’s religious beliefs, it becomes clear how important it was for him to present a theory of personal identity that could accept the possibility of life after the death of the physical body, just as the Bible teaches that there will be the hereafter. Locke’s theory had to account for the possibility of the afterlife.
Reid differs with Locke’s theory in a number of ways. Firstly, he does not believe in Locke’s insistence that there are different identity conditions for different things so that the conditions of identity for a rock, an animal, a tree, or a person are not the same. According to Reid identity is limited only to substances whose existence is continued and uninterrupted, and do not exist in parts. In simple terms, according to Reid, personal identity is the only real identity. Another major criticism of Reid on Locke’s theory is that the latter confounds consciousness with memory yet the two are distinct phenomena. He explains that while memory is directed towards past events, consciousness deals with present mental acts and operations.
In conclusion, in their attempt to explain the concept of self-identity, Hume and Locke agree that the sense of self is not limited to memories and that memory shapes people’s senses. However, while Locke believes that self is limited to memories, Hume thinks that a person requires more than a memory continuum to be the same person. While Locke’s ideas were shaped by his religious perspectives, Hume does not provide any chance for a theistic foundation for his philosophical principles. Reid on the other hand believes that the only real identity is personal identity and consciousness and memory are distinct phenomena.
It is the main purpose of international relations theory is to provide a framework to analyze events in history through a narrowed lens in order to make sense of what happened, why it happened, and what may happen in the future. By analyzing the past, assumptions can be drawn and patterns can be recognized to show what may happen under similar circumstances in the future, and help policy makers better understand the situation and tailor their policies for the best outcome. In recent scholarship, two main theoretical perspectives have emerged and dominated the international relations stage: Realism and Liberalism. However, a third perspective, which predates both, that is worth exploring combines all aspects of humanity: economics, sociology, politics, and anthropology together to form a further reaching, inclusive strategy for analyzing international relations. This overarching framework is Marxism, and from it a few different theoretical perspectives have arisen. Marxism evaluates the human condition at the most fundamental level and concludes that human interaction is defined by the division of labour. Economic power struggles are at the heart of all conflict and reinforce the current world order from both the outside-in and the inside-out. Two separate, yet similar international relations approaches that operate within the Marxist framework are Historical Materialism and World-Systems Theory. This essay will first seek to provide a synopsis of how each theory operates within the international realm. Then, through the application of the 1999 Kosovo war, highlight the strengths and weaknesses of each theory in explaining historical state interaction. And finally, it will analyse the similarities and differences of the two approaches to international relations and examine their relevance to today’s international system.
Historical Materialism
Historical materialism stems directly from the political philosophy of Karl Marx, and therefore perhaps is the international relations theory that identifies closest to the Marxist ideology. By all accounts the theory is best described by a passage in the Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859). In it Marx proposes that “economic phenomena are the leading factors, in the long run, in all important social changes” (Miller, 1975). It is this concept that defines how men interact in their relationship with nature:
In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness (Marx, 1904).
The key distinction from this method of thought is not just the means with which men secure resources to meet their needs, but that “the general process of social, political and intellectual life” is conditioned on the mode of production (Marx, 1904). Thus, the conceptualization of the mode of production offers two distinct aspects; first, it incorporates the relationship between the owner of the means of production with the worker class. Second, it establishes a social value that was created and is tied to the object. Historical materialism therefore creates a framework of evaluation wherein all social and cultural aspects of a community are driven by the forces of production.
The difficulty comes when trying to apply the theory advanced by Marx to the international arena. Marx himself never used the label historical materialism and, in fact did little to extend an application of his argument to the field of international relations. The study of international relations is itself a more modern subject, and no scholar focused explicitly on the area prior to 1919. (MacLean, 1988). Nevertheless, Marx did remark in a letter to Annenkov “Is the whole internal organisation of nations, are their international relations, anything but the expression of a given division of labour? And must they not change as the division of labour changes?” (1975). However, given the economic environment in which the theory first developed—that of an ascending bourgeois class faced with “a hostile regime, an omnipotent police, and press censorship” in a capitalist Germany resulting in the revolution of 1848 (Pannekoek, 1942)—an international application requires more contemporary help.
Realism and liberalism have gained popularity in the international relations field because they offer a cohesive theory for how states interact. They operate under a framework of an anarchic international system where states compete for their own interests. Marxist theory however posits that state action is only defined internally by mode of production. By definition this discounts a state’s behaviour in response to another state’s actions. As Kubálková and Cruickshank put it, Marxism only counts the vertical interaction (the mode of production) and not the horizontal interaction (the actions of other states) (1985). Thus the failure of the Marxist framework and the root of the problem is that “the domestic political system acts as the theoretical boundary for the conception of the whole” (Maclean, 1988). Ultimately, “the concepts with which Marx criticized capitalist society can be profitably utilized in a criticism of an international society consisting of separate units, whatever their ‘internal structure’” (Berki, 1971).
The answer to this apparent lapse is through the lens of property rights. The clearest means of circumventing the issue of state interaction is to dismiss the idea of borders. Teschke, in a way, does this by pulling through one of the critical arguments of the Marxist philosophy: that objects gain value in their interaction with the production system. According to Marx, commodities are “nothing but the definite social relation between men themselves which assumes here, for them, the fantastic form of a relation between things…inseparable from the production of commodities” (1904). The crux of historical materialism, which itself is not self-evident to men, is that the value of commodities stems not from the object itself, but rather the value is social and therefore is not natural. Thus, the answer lies in the “study [of] commodity fetishism as a societal condition in which men systematically treat objects as having value ‘in themselves’ rather than being aware of the socially necessary labour time embodied in the commodity” (Wilhelm, 2010).
The property rights approach stems from analysis of pre-capitalist societies, wherein a natural desire of the ruling elite was to acquire more land for their personal reproduction. It stemmed from the monarch at the top of the ruling class and “was not only domestically rapacious, it also produced a structurally aggressive, predatory and expansive foreign policy” (Teschke, 2002). Moreover, this type of behaviour gives historical materialists a means of explaining the prominence of wars in pre-capitalist societies. But the analysis can be taken further yet: “property relations explain not only variations in political regimes and geopolitical systems, they generate historically bounded and antagonistic strategies of action within and between political actors that govern international relations” (Teschke, 2002). Thus while upholding an international system that is anarchic, it does not necessitate a balance of powers approach, but instead an “equilibrium through elimination.”
Teschke’s analysis is directly in line with traditional Marxist thinking, however it still fails to account for the horizontal interaction of states, that is states experiencing external influences, even at the most fundamental level. Historical materialists maintain that at the fundamental level all motivations are economic in nature. However, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was forced to take International Monetary Fund loans due to “a decade long struggle to resolve a foreign debt crisis and restore liquidity and growth to its import-dependent economy” (Woodward, 2000). The IMF gave the loan when it was evident that the crisis was due largely to external shocks to the economy.
Thus, though the historical materialist framework can only provide a limited explanation for a major factor of instability in Yugoslavia prior to the war, poor economic performance resulted in igniting the class struggles that Marxist philosophy would have predicted as unemployment rose and consumption decreased. On the other hand both the root of the problem and the ‘solution’ came from a more sophisticated economic system than the framework could account for. Moreover, Slovenia strongly opposed the reform, owing to the fact that they were “the wealthiest and largest earner of foreign exchange.” (Woodward, 2000).
At the macro level, historical materialists can claim some solvency for their theory, nonetheless. Accepting the IMF loan required that each of the states relinquish control over monetary policy and foreign exchange to the National Bank in Belgrade. In the Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy Marx states
At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense super-structure. (1904)
Though perhaps unable to account for all aspects of the international economy, Marxists theory does prove accurate for the social effects of economic downturn.
The most compelling evidence for the historical materialist analysis of international relations comes from a secondary cause of the economic downturn, and perhaps the most significant one leading up to the war in Kosovo. Ethnic tensions in SFR Yugoslavia ran highest just before (and many argue after as well) (Chomsky, 2001) NATO forces intervened in Kosovo. In fact, the main, or most politicized, reason for NATO intervention was the ethnic cleansing, or genocide reportedly perpetrated by the Kosovo Albanians. Leading up to the outbreak of violence were signals of what would otherwise be described as a class struggle. With tough economic conditions in Kosovo, and unemployment high, finding work was extremely difficult. Ethnic divides grew as Albanian employers gave preference to Albanians when hiring and Serbs gave preference to other Serbs. With an 80% majority however, Serbs found it nearly impossible to get work. Considering that Kosovo was already the poorest states in Yugoslavia emigration from Kosovo by Serbs increased dramatically.
Despite being primarily an economic problem—triple-digit inflation and an out of control trade deficit—ethnic tensions were exacerbated. Again turning to the foundation of historical materialism, Marx argued
In studying such transformations it is always necessary to distinguish between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophic – in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness, but, on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production (1904).
The evidence seems fairly solid for the historical materialist school on this question. As Wilhelm stated, that the value of the object is social and not natural is not apparent to men. Thus while the underlying cause of conflict is economic, the appearance put on by the capitalist mode of production is legal, political or religious.
World-System Theory
Owing the majority of the scholarship to Immanuel Wallerstein, the world-system theory of international relations follows in the paths of several other theories of power relations, including the Annales school, Marx, and dependence theory. Wallerstein, however, set out to create a “clear conceptual break with the theories of ‘modernization’ and thus provide a new theoretical paradigm to guide our investigations of the emergence and development of capitalism, industrialism, and national states” (Skocpol, 1977). In doing so the theory of world-systems has provided a theoretical framework for the evaluation of the capitalist world economy. Wallerstein defines a world-system as
a social system, one that has boundaries, structures, member groups, rules of legitimation, and coherence. Its life is made up of the conflicting forces which hold it together by tension and tear it apart as each group seeks eternally to remold it to its advantage. It has the characteristics of an organism, in that it has a life-span over which its characteristics change in some respects and remain stable in others. One can define its structures as being at different times strong or weak in terms of the internal logic of its functioning (2004).
This creates a framework for evaluation that is extremely dynamic and versatile where world systems are the unit of analysis, rather than individual nation-states.
The definition of a ‘world-system’ does not seem, in itself, a wholly remarkable discovery. Most international relations theories support, at least implicitly, the idea that there is some form of order operating on the international scene that governs how states interact. The innovation of the world-system theory however, is to develop a system perspective that “posits the existence of a much more integrated and interdetermined entity with a logic and structure it own” as opposed to a “set of relationships among relatively separate entities (hence the term international)” (Chase-Dunn, 1979).
The main structures of the world-system is “a power hierarchy between core and periphery in which powerful and wealthy ‘core’ societies dominate and exploit weak and poor peripheral societies” (Martinez-Vela, 2010). The core is composed of the most advanced and developed countries. They are able to use their status to subordinate other countries, whose resources they require for manufacturing goods. They also have a trade advantage, as they can force other peripheral societies into trade agreements that are most favorable to the core country. The peripheral countries are those that have resources, but lack the means of production to utilize them. They typically employ coercive labor practices and have ineffective or corrupt governments. As a result the core countries is able to take advantage of the peripheral, creating an unequal exchange. This system tends to lock the countries into their given positions in the world-system. The semi-peripheral countries are those that both dominate and are dominated. They represent either former core countries in decline, or former periphery states on the rise.
While the interaction of these regions constitutes a “power hierarchy,” the definition of these regions is bounded by the Marxist division of labor. The boundaries are based in the exchange of fundamental commodities: “High-wage goods are produced in the core of the system and low-wage goods are produced on its periphery” (Chase-Dunn, 1979). This basic form is then reproduced throughout the different levels of the system, in order to create a system that is highly flexible.
One of the most attractive aspects of the world-system theory is a means of combining the Marxist theory of class-struggle with the more modern realist theories of international relations. Wallerstein does this by articulating a global capitalist system framework in which there is a global class struggle between the core regions and the periphery. By enlarging the scale, the theory uses nation-states as the variables in the system, which means the theory can account for interactions on the international level. Thus, imperialism is “the domination of weak peripheral regions by strong core states. Hegemony refers to the existence of one core state temporarily outstripping the rest” (Martinez-Vela, 2010).
In order to make the world-system theory holistic, Wallerstein defines two different forms of world-systems. World empires define stages in history when a single state entity has governed the world and in which that state defines the territorial division of labor. Such was the case for the Roman and the Chinese empires. The second world-system is a world-economy. A world-economy defines the current state of international affairs and is marked by a division of labor which is politically organized into a multipolar international system where states are unequal and compete between each other. The key point for world-system theorists is that, while the capitalist world-economy resembles the international system that is theorized by international relations scholars, the world-system approach presupposes that relations themselves are the result of “capital accumulation and class formation in the context of the hierarchical core-periphery division of labor” (Chase-Dunn, 1979).
One strength of the world-systems theory is its ability to explain power relations. In defining the nation-state as the actor, the theory is able to account for interactions with international organizations. Historical materialism has a much more difficult time doing this because there are typically fewer actors involved in such interactions. Decisions made by states working with international bodies are usually made by a few top political leaders. In the instance of Kosovo, unilateral action by the United States resulting in numerous political benefits. First, it set the stage for the U.S. to be the key driver of NATO. While already the world superpower with the most advanced military in the world, strong-arming NATO troops into Kosovo would set a precedent that would make it more difficult for other allies to disregard in the future.
Second, not only were NATO members pulled into Kosovo, but they were done so for the defence of a non-NATO member. The NATO treaty was established explicitly for the purpose and cooperative protection of the allies, however the NATO intervention in Kosovo constituted the first humanitarian war. Moreover, intervention in Kosovo just served to verify what had already been established: that NATO could serve as a moderator of conflicts in western Europe. The intervention in Bosnia in 1992 set the precedent for the intervention in 1999.
Third, NATO forces entered Kosovo without the approval of the United Nations Security Counsel. Permanent members with ties to Yugoslavia, namely Russia, signalled that they would oppose any resolution that came before the Security Counsel. The U.N. security counsel is charged with ensuring and maintaining international peace and security. By entering into a ‘humanitarian’ war without their approval the U.S. was again setting a precedent for future foreign involvement regardless of U.N. approval.
The world-system theory can be viewed as a ladder, with each region or country trying to get as high on the ladder as possible. Near the top of the ladder are the core countries, the highest core country can be defined as the world hegemon. States will naturally attempt to reach this position in order to have the most favourable relations with other countries, i.e. the greatest trade advantages. The world-system theory gives the best explanation of U.S. action toward international bodies during the Kosovo war, essentially reinvesting in its dominance.
Wallerstein’s theory specifically articulates causality for this kind of behaviour given the extent to which direct economic intervention by states is a matter of normal means within the capitalist mode of production. Because the world market is anarchic and not governed by any one entity, nations use this as an arena of class struggle between the core and periphery regions. As a result core states can take on the role of “liberal caretaker states” because their significant “competitive advantage in efficient and profitable production of high-wage good” (Chase-Dunn, 1979) allows them to extend power less directly and less expensively.
Even if taken on face value, a humanitarian war can provide the U.S. with significant benefits. As a core country and the world hegemon, the U.S. will garner influence through imperialist actions. By dominating weaker periphery nations it instils its position in a couple of ways. First, a humanitarian war can earn soft power. There is a distinction between hard as soft power. Soft power is the ability to persuade or coerce another nation or entity to act according to its will. In acting to stop genocide, the United States appears morally superior on the international scene and thus gains political capital with other nations that purport to share similar values. Additionally, it gives the nation credibility when trying to influence other nations that would commit equally morally unacceptable actions. For instance, the U.S. criticising China for violations of human rights.
Soft power can also allow nations to influence public support when government or ruling officials are unwilling to compromise. When U.S. entered Kosovo they were met with Albanian civilians lining the streets waving flowers. This can be especially powerful in democratic nations where government officials are extremely susceptible to public opinion.
Second, dominating weaker periphery nations also demonstrates hard power, or military might. In order to continue to be a force to be reckoned with on the international stage the U.S. will repeatedly demonstrate its military strength to warn other nations of its willingness to use force. This resolve contributed to Slobodan Milosevic’s decision to accept the conditions offered by a Finnish-Russian negotiating team attempting to end the conflict after NATO presence intensified in Kosovo.
Finally, we must look at economic gains that the U.S. stood to grow from the invasion of Kosovo. While historical materialist have held a monopoly on the idea that men act in accordance with their economic interests in relation to the division of labour relationships, Wallerstein has taken this specific application one step further. Specifically, Wallerstein’s perspective “suggests that states most often directly promote the economic interests of the class or classes which control them, that they even sometimes act as firms engaging in commodity production for the world market” (Chase-Dunn, 1979). This is specifically applicable in the case of state-run industries and for democratic state, lobbies.
There have been speculations that the United States was uniquely interested in seeing the break up of the Yugoslav states. Many argue that several major powers in the world were interested in the collapse: Germany for Slovenia and Croatia, the two wealthiest countries in the form Yugoslav states. Allies in World War II, rekindling a relationship with the two semi-peripherals would allow Germany a greater trade advantage and improve its trade deficit.
On the other hand, the U.S. could increase relations with Bosnia, Serbia and the former Socialist Republic of Macedonia. The three, in addition to the Middle East where the U.S. had already been engaged, contained one of the only means routes from east to west and through the Balkan Mountains north to south. This means that the preferred route for the transportation of oil from the Caspian Sea would be under U.S. influence. While the theory is substantially unsupported by hard evidence, the nature of the accusation would presume that this would be the case. Additionally, this would be far from the first time that the U.S. was accused of militarily entering another nation to secure oil rights.
Comparison
Wallerstein’s world-system theory is most specifically an international relations theory. Because Marx’s theory of historical materialism was not specifically a theory of international relations until the world of contemporary scholars expanded the work to fit a more dynamic and sophisticated system of state interaction, its applications can seem more strained that a theory designed specifically for capturing those same qualities. Nonetheless, the application of Marx’s theory of division of labour to the international arena by authors like Teschke have proven that it is still an explanatory theory. Moreover, the fact that the world-system theory also relies on the division of labour indicates that the theory is still viable at the community level, and can be extended to the international level.
Aside from the difficulties that historical materialism has accounting for some of the more complex means of external systems—namely sophisticated financial regimes and relations with international organizations or bodies—it is still a very accurate predictor of the outcomes of ‘transformations,’ as evidenced by its application to the Kosovo War.
Likewise, the world-system theory does have some weaknesses as well. However, because when conceptualizing the theory Wallerstein was envisioning a theory that would explain international relations better, the world-system theory has a much easier time fitting state action into the framework it sets up. Nevertheless, while it is more comprehensive, it suffers from the hindsight problem even more than historical materialism does. That is to say, that when looking at history through the lens of the world-systems theory it is very clear how international relations get played out. However, when you turn the world-systems theory on the international scene today, it offers very few tools and mechanisms for predicting future action. It suffers from the problem that it is too generalized about the interactions between nations, but requires extremely specific information in order to make assessments at the micro level.
The explanatory power of the theory is evident from its application to the Kosovo war, and therefore will continue to be a useful framework for thinking about international relations. Moreover, with future scholarship working to refine both of the theories even more and create a more specific formulation for international actors, improvements in both of the theories should only be a matter of time.
Conclusion
Because the focus of international relations theory is to be able to analyse state actions within a specified framework in order to define how and why certain event occurred, both of the theories studied here can be said to have intrinsic value to the study of international relations. By providing a predictive framework where state action can be examined and it’s the origins of its motivation found, policymakers are better able to focus their policy to repeat mistakes made in the future.
However, as shown by the analysis in this paper, specifically in relation to Kosovo, no theory of international relation provides with 100% certainty a predictive framework of human action. And often, even if a clear map of decisions that lead to a certain point can be seen when studying the past, that same path will be lost in a tangle of other possibilities when looking forward at it. Moreover, theories of international relations only provide a framework within which a state will be said to act. While this can make it easier for policymakers to base their decisions on a perceived course of action, it can also mean the opposite: greater uncertainty.
A recently declassified report indicated the U.S. intelligence analysts predicted the fall of Yugoslavia. The report, written in 1990, stated that the Balkan country “will cease to function as a federal state within one year. It will probably dissolve in two” (Associated Press, 2006). Ethnic clashes in Yugoslavia started the next year, the U.S. intervened in Bosnia in 1992 and by the end of the decade Yugoslavia had broken into six independent states. Even with this predictive analysis, tens of thousands of people lost their lives in the conflict leading up to and during the Kosovo War.
Reference List
Associated Press. (2006). U.S. Declassifies Report on Yugoslavia’s Breakup. Ocnus. Web.
Berki, R. (1971). On Marxian Thought and the Problem of International Relations. World Politics, 24, 80-105.
Chase-Dunn, C. (1979) Comparative Research on World System Characteristics. International Studies Quarterly, 23, 4, 600-623.
Chomsky, N. (2001). “A Review of NATO’s War over Kosovo.” Z Magazine. Web.
Kubálková, V. & Cruickshank, A. (1985). Marxism and International Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Marx, K. (1904). A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Chicago: Charles H. Kerr & Company.
Marx, K. (1975) Marx Engels Collected Works. Trans. Peter Ross and Betty Ross. Paris: International Publishers.
Maclean, J. (1988). Marxism and International Relations: A Strange Case of Mutual Neglect. Millennium – Journal of International Studies, 17, 295-319.
Skocpol, T. (1977). Wallerstein’s World Capitalist System: A Theoretical and Historical Critique. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 1075-90.
Teschke, B. (2002). Theorizing the Westphalian System of States: International Relations from Absolutism to Capitalism. European Journal of International Relations, 8, 1, 5-48.
Wallerstein, I. (1974). The Modern World-System. New York: Academic Press.
Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-Systems Analysis in World System History. Oxford: Eolss Publishers.
Woodward, S. (2000) Costly Disinterest: Missed Opportunities for Preventive Diplomacy in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1985–1991. Ed. Bruce Jentleson. Opportunities Missed, Opportunities Seized. NewYork: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.