138
PARTISAN REVIEW
said: "It's hard to judge cultural values on the basis of surveys that ask
people what they want. If someone asked me, I might say that I wanted
a high-definition TV in my home, but that doesn't mean I'm
materialistic." It's likely that many antimaterialist diatribes are animated
more by snobbery than by moral concern - a fastidious dislike for those
who work hard to better their condition (to use Adam Smith's famous
phrase about the natural inclination of most people).
Despite their passion to improve their standard of living, Americans
are not necessarily materialistic. As Santayana shrewdly put it: "The most
striking expression of this [American] materialism is usually supposed to
be his love of the almighty dollar; but that is a foreign and unintelligent
view. The American talks about money, because that is the symbol and
measure he has at hand for success, intelligence, and power; but as to
money itself he makes, loses, spends, and gives it away with a very light
heart. "
If most critics of American materialism have been on the left, some
have been on the right - seeing the average American's preoccupation
with getting and spending as a sign of decadence. In a speech made to
the British Parliament in 1976, Alexander Solzhenitsyn attacked all forms
of materialism. "We have become hopelessly enmeshed in our slavish
worship of all that is pleasant, all that is comfortable, all that is mate–
rial," he said. Solzhenitsyn argued that materialism has made us soft, un–
able to withstand the Soviet threat. "Europe today," he said in the same
speech, "is nothing more than a collection of cardboard stage sets, all
bargaining with each other to see how little can be spent on defense in
order to leave more for the comforts of life."
Solzhenitsyn - like Carlyle - regards both philosophical and ordi–
nary materialism as the source of many aspects of Western culture that he
deplores. Like Carlyle, he thinks the key to strengthening the West is
spiritual renewal. But the connection between spiritual renewal and a
strong defense of freedom is far from clear. Solzhenitsyn does not seem
to realize that many clerics in the West who have ardently attacked the
evils of Western materialism have also been ardent supporters of com–
munist regimes in the Third World. Solzhenitsyn's article constitutes an
immoderate attack on materialism, one that makes the notion of
materialism do too much diagnostic work.
To chronicle the often dark history of antimaterialism, however, is
not to apologize for the excesses of ordinary materialism. No one would
wish to defend the vile materialistic excesses of the Marcos family in the
Philippines. It goes without saying that the gross materialism of those in
power has often gone in hand with a lack of concern for the poor - or
even led to policies that bred misery. But we should also keep in mind
