Not Interested

I usually try to get this out by Sunday evening but as I worked on another post about the political theology of the church mission trip I realized it might work better as a bit of a longer essay.

In the four years I’ve worked in ministry, countless congregants and colleagues have complimented me as “passionate about ministry to those living poverty.” It’s usually Very Serious People that offer this compliment. It also happens to be Very Comfortable People. It also tends to be Slightly Older People. Reading generously, I take this to mean that I care about people that don’t have enough money to live on. I don’t think I’ve ever had an actual poor person compliment me on my passion about poverty and actually imagining them do that strikes me as deeply odd though I’m not sure why.

I’ve tried to think about why this particular compliment drives me crazy, why I hate to be called “passionate” especially when it comes to poverty and injustice or why it feels so demeaning to see people and politicians complimented for their “passion.” I’ve also tried to figure out what people mean by it.

I’m “passionate about people in poverty” as opposed to what? Being passionate about making and keeping a lot of money? I don’t think this is what people have in mind when they compliment me or other young people on being “passionate” particularly when it comes to poverty, injustice etc. It usually just means “I’m aware that you’re angry but it’s time for grownups to talk.”

In his book The Passions and the Interests, (h/t to David Kaib, a must follow on Twitter for the rec) economist Albert Hirschman gives a history of the transformation of passions and desires into “self-interest.” According to Hirschmann, as the passions were conceived of by philosophers like Plato or theologians like Augustine as desires and pursuits. For Augustine, some passions could keep others in check. A passion for appearing honorable could keep the passion of greed at bay. For most of these philosophers and theologians, there’s a sense that we never rid ourselves of our passions, we just get them in order. We should be properly passionate about the right things in the right way. I’m not really interested in arguing about what the right order actually is right now. What’s important is that Hirschmann notes the streamlining and subduing of the passions into a single concept: the interest.

Beginning in the 18th century, he picks up that a combination of political theory, philosophy, and scientific writing coalesce around the concept of the “interest.” The underlying philosophy is that everyone wants to better themselves and that we live in a kind of naked competition with one another for the things that will better ourselves. Interests name “what do I need +1.” Modern science provides the hope that people can know their interests and precisely and then the market becomes the competitive. “Greed” names the passionate pursuit of wealth, money, and stuff to the exclusion of all other pursuits. “Interest” names the ability to pursue just enough wealth, money. Someone can be overwhelmed and blinded by greed. The same can’t be said for interest though I can imagine someone accusing another of being a little too self-interested.

All of this accords with capitalism quite well. If we pursue our interests, our own well-being, the invisible hand brings all of these interests into alignment. We need just enough humility to keep our interest from tipping over into outright greed (“what do I need”), but we also need to pursue our own interest (+1). This then changes how institutions constitute themselves. They become ways of realizing interests and bringing them into a calculable alignment. We all want the same thing, we’re all self-interested, and it’s possible that everyone fulfills those interests they need only to pursue them. It’s this calculability that makes interests interesting and that works with a market system where everything has a price and everyone makes a wage. Under this rubric, institutions (churches included) are not a combination of people of passion whose various desires require nourishment, discipline, knowledge and enjoyment.

Those things might be good, but ultimately we’re all self-interested. The question for institutions then becomes how to harness the power of self-interest for the good of the institution.

Passion and “being passionate” are good but only so long as they contribute in the right way to further people’s interests (“what I need +1”). People’s interests can’t be furthered if the institution goes under and the institution will go under without taking on money. All of this becomes a way of aligning every individual and institution towards a profit motive through their interests. As long as passion serves this end, it’s great.

Gordon Gecko was wrong. Greed isn’t good. Interest is.

There’s far more to Hirschmann’s fantastic little book and I fear I’ve not done him justice in my summary. I’m also not very good at reading philosophy or the Church Fathers when it comes to theology so excuse any misrepresentation of their thought. That said, I think he’s got some insight about why this accusation of “being passionate” is so maddening.

For a while I thought the compliment was just about acting emotionally. The people offering it give a compliment because my emotions show how much I care. But we don’t have to equate emotion with caring. People perform a myriad of the most caring acts with no emotions at all or in spite of their emotions. I wouldn’t describe most parents of young kids as “passionate about crap filled diapers.” I doubt they derive much pleasure from the experience. They probably feel just the opposite, but they do it anyways because they love their kids or because a kid running around with a full diaper smells bad.

In the same way, I can simply, plainly, and with little to no emotion describe the horrors of living in poverty in America and what I believe Christian convictions ought to lead someone to do about it. It does just so happen that I think poverty in America is maddening and an angry response is not only good, but perfectly rational and reasonable It’s actually quite weird that more people aren’t mad, and that it’s the job of the minister that’s passionate about poverty to be emotional about it (just not too emotional).

When those Very Serious, Very Comfortable people compliment young people on our passion for righting injustice, they’re not always naming the presence of emotion, but rather the absence of calculation. They’re describing people that haven’t calculated the financial viability of the institution or their ability to survive the market, their self-interest, into what they say or do.

They’re also saying something about how they view poverty and injustice. For them, the best way to lead people to fight injustice by showing how it aligns with their interest. Alleviating poverty becomes one interest amongst many. Some people are passionate about poverty while others are passionate about basket weaving. The key for ministers is to find ways to align those interests like a ministry that weaves baskets for homeless people.

Ultimately if capitalism is fine and good then this is all fine and good. This is how things are, and we will only change and grow as the market allows us to pursue our interests, and churches and institutions can help us do so passionately. Church leadership isn’t about guiding people in ways in which they cultivate humility instead of greed. It’s about aligning their interests and ensuring that the end remain calculable to the bottom-line. The problem is not that self-interest completely cuts off our ability to change either ourselves or our institutions. The problem is that without passion, without the incalculable, we know (or think we know) exactly what we’ll become.

And as far as I can tell, when it comes to poverty, indebtedness, financial risk and devastation, the returns look pretty grim. Just don’t say that too loudly or with too much passion.

things I read this week:

• Aaron Bady’s tribute to his mother which I’d been putting off reading for far too long because I knew it would devastate me (it did) but would also be quite beautiful (it is)