"Austerity," which says something about people, has also been degraded and has acquired a bitter taste, while for Aristotle or Aquinas it marked the foundation of friendship. In the Summa Theologica, II, II, in the 186th question, article 5, Thomas deals with disciplined and creative playfulness. In his third response he defines "austerity" as a virtue which does not exclude all enjoyments, but only those which are distracting from or destructive of personal relatedness. For Thomas "austerity" is a complementary part of a more embracing virtue, which he calls friendship or joyfulness. It is the fruit of an apprehension that things or tools could destroy rather than enhance eutrapelia (or graceful playfulness) in personal relations.
---Illich, in fine form.
Of course, 'austerity' has nothing to do with the 'austerity measures' which is really a code word for cutbacks on public spending, and for the poor being shafted at the expense of the rich who,to a large extent, caused the problem in the first place. Austerity here means a mode of being, a way of relating to other people and to one's environment.
What sustains austerity? Not just a personal inclination to frugality but, you think, a culture or set of institutions and stories (ethical outlooks). Maybe I'm just trying to justify my own 'Protestant' roots. Today I picked up a small packet of butter from my dustbin (okay, okay, just for my American readers: trash can). And why not? There was still a bit left. As I grow older I find myself becoming more and more like Ubo in his ways, switching off lights not being used, worrying about water that's being wasted, trying my best to hang on to things even if they're falling apart (clothes, etc.).
A reasonable frugality (Wiggins)...
2 comments:
and where is the line between austerity and stinginess? your examples make it hard to see :-)
that is the typical response of the capitalists and defenders of the bourgeoisie.
on a serious note, though, I think the first thing is to recognize the importance/validity of lines. the idea that we can have "unlimited" progress/use of resources is delusional (imo).
separate questions are:
1)what mechanism gets us to those lines (i.e who decides)? presumably through some sort of democratic consensus and public conversation.the process *itself* is a part of 'the good'.
2)the wider point is about education and conservation and attitudes as well as moral outlooks. Not about legislation and the drawing of lines. In a deeper sense we've got to draw the lines ourselves (I think) .
Saving water and electricity with simple steps has actually become mainstream in some countries. I know that in england there are always reminders, say, about not using 'standby' on your t.v. and in recent years there's been a move against the use of plastic bags (just keep on using the ones you have or, better, paper ones). some of my american friends are big on this. Collectively, it might make a difference. ultimately, it would take a change in one's whole lifestyle, I guess and a resistance against the idea that we 'need' more and more , newer and newer, commodities.
don't think that's stinginess. just common sense.
Post a Comment