MovieChat Forums > American Beauty (1999) Discussion > Dissolution of America, Morality, and Vi...

Dissolution of America, Morality, and Virtuous Ideals

posted 5 years ago by Fandango (534)
22 replies | jump to latest

It's important to note that the America that is idealized is one that was built on Protestant ideals, which placed genuine religiosity (juxtaposed with the privatization of contemporary religion) and personal merit in one's work as the highest goals in life. It combined both spiritual (religious) and material (consumerism) ideals to create what was once, arguably, the greatest nation to have existed.

The American Dream, in essence, is an extension of the Protestant maxim where success is, by and large, a function of one's efforts. It bore the Western internal locus of control, where an individual becomes the master of his destiny, devoid of external forces.

It wasn't until the post-war boom, where America realized its 'civilizational' peak, when the American Dream no longer became an abstract concept, but a tangible ideal that was available to those who adhered to the principles of hard work and diligence.

As capitalism flourished unabated, America began to see the decline in religiosity. Religion, which puts the soul at the forefront of life, eschews overindulgence in consumerism, as materialism facilitates hedonism, which in turn degrades the soul.

Capitalism, which promulgates consumerism, places material prosperity as the highest goal in life, at the expense of everything else. Religion, therefore, cannot have a symbiotic relationship with capitalism, because of their opposing beliefs (one towards the spiritual, one towards the material).

Today, capitalism is not only an economic and political system, but a replacement for religion; where before one would worship at the alter, today one flogs himself at the corporation, showing his virtue through working ~50+ hours a week.

Fight Club depicted the polar extreme of minimalism as an objection to the extremes of modern-day consumerism, showcasing the material aspect.

American Beauty, on the other hand, depicted the spiritual degradation caused by modern-day capitalism through sexual decadence, homosexuality, hedonism, disregard for family, etc.

[–] yvesyves (686) 5 years ago

Animals, including humans, basically need three things to survive, food, shelter and security, once an animal or human has all three he doesnt have to worry about his survival, as a human then the whole rest becomes how to make life less boring and entertaining, some people take it to more extremes than others.

[–] Fandango (534) 5 years ago

Culture creates civilization and civilization destroys culture.

[–] TheArgentinian (7109) 5 years ago

"American Beauty, on the other hand, depicted the spiritual degradation caused by modern-day capitalism through sexual decadence, homosexuality, hedonism, disregard for family, etc. "

You sound like one of those charlatan pastors.

[–] Fandango (534) 5 years ago

I always realize that some of these thoughts may be off-putting, especially in today's zeitgeist, but I feel as though they're interesting and worth sharing nevertheless.

The effort to promote homosexuality, transsexualism, etc. as a healthy alternative to heterosexuality is interesting.

On one end, you have advocates or those who are impartial stating it's a human right and people should be free to decide what sort of acts they engage in; after all, no one is perfect, and it's not like they're hurting anyone. On the other end, you have religious types who believe it's a sin against God.

In the context of America's dissolution, homosexuality is an appeal to the destruction of the family unit. Family, the continuation of life, is important for any government structure because its citizens carry on its ideals and give it viability. Homosexuality, by its nature, is anti-life, as it doesn't facilitate child-rearing. Without the notion of a strong family in place, individual concentration shifts towards the physical (pleasure, money, opulence, well-being).

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

isnt it crazy that this is so true?

[–] exithereplease (3553) 5 years ago

I'm just glad nobody really talks about this this film anymore...

It kind of plays off as a sorta TV Movie now.

1999 should have gone to "Saving Private Ryan".

[–] Zinger (2367) 5 years ago

But religiosity and capitalism have co-existed successfully for centuries in countless cultures.

Liberalism was the thing that fetishised the material.

[–] Fandango (534) 5 years ago

That is an interesting insight.

The issue is that their successes were always short-lived. The final conclusion to all ideologies always led to either an overthrowal, revolution, or fascism. We saw this with Rome and its capitulation to Germanic tribes, the French revolution in the late 18th century, Nazi Germany, the USSR, and now America, which has lost its identity.

Post-war America elevated materialism and self-actualization as the highest goals of life. The final remnants of moral responsibility were when companies would provide pensions for its employees. When the unabated drive toward the idol of money flourished, the pension became an obstacle to this goal, which was the acquisition of money.

Religion co-existed with capitalism as another form of commerce. It was a means to line the coffers of the monarchs under the pretense of divinity (Roman Catholicism emphasized adornments and decadent Churches as bringing one closer with God), another form of appealing to the physical. God is merely a source of well-being through prayer (we pray for health, prosperity, well-being). Catholics speak of Heaven as a place of endless pleasure, absence of suffering, and joy, yet another appeal to the physical. Religion, if it ever existed, never served its initial purpose, which was for the spiritual development and subsequent moral bolstering of humanity.

Ultimately, the issue is not with any sort of belief system, but with humans and their impropriety. They will always act in accordance to the self, because solipsism, since the beginning of mankind, is all that has ever existed, and likely will ever exist.

[–] Zinger (2367) 5 years ago

Now you're shifting the goalposts. Capitalism didn't even exist until recent centuries. The civilisations you're referencing are therefore unable to be categorised as having come to ruin due to those reasons.

Those civilisations fell because of decadence and immorality. Capitalism didn't cause that. Prosperity leading to liberalism did.

[–] Fandango (534) 5 years ago

Capitalism as a nominal structure may not have existed until the 17th century, but Rome certainly had elements of it in its Republic in the "form of private ownership and the transaction of social relations" (W.G. Runciman).

18th century France, while considered a monarchy, had elements of socialism, where the religious and wealthy elites laid claim to private ownership.

Citizens are a function of their government. If the role of the government is predicated on the overabundance of money and material goods, then its citizens will mirror those goals. When a government eschews morality in face of the image of capitalism, which believes that infringing on the rights of a corporation or individual to profit goes against its principles, then citizens will act in accordance with this belief.

If it wasn't the culture that created liberalism, then what is the culprit?

[–] Zinger (2367) 5 years ago

All that does is confirm that capitalism is not the qualifying factor. You could just as easily blame 'being alive' for the cause.

Except for one factor: each civilisation that collapses is preceded by decadence and debauchery. Two things that are historically kept in check by a more conservative culture. Wealth certainly encourages people to demand more freedom to indulge their physical urges but the wealth (or the means with which it was generated) should not be blamed.

It would be akin to blaming the man who sold the knife for the actions of the man who bought the knife then chose to stab someone.

[–] Fandango (534) 5 years ago

It would seem then that the common denominator in civilizational decline is man and his tainted nature.

Thank you for the perspective.

Be safe out there.

[–] stickman38 (3358) 5 years ago

Fandango, are you writing a book or something?

Personally, I think we live in a self-indulgent time. With the likes of social media, cell phones, reality TV. People are doing anything to get attention. Recently I saw a tik-tok video of J-Lo and Alex Rodriguez and A-Rod actually cross dresses in this video. I mean, why?? other than for attention....

I doubt he's gay or whatever...

[–] Fandango (534) 5 years ago

What we see is a reflection of the egotistic mentality that permeates the world. Social media is a source of intravenous narcissistic supply which the world appears to runs on, as attention is poised to become a second form of dominating currency (e.g., BAT--Basic Attention Token).

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I always thought that the only groundbreaking thing about this movie was that it had a bad message. That message was primarily that it's socially acceptable to just give up on your obligations and be dysfunctional (go after the neighbor's daughter, do recreational drugs).

There is definitely something cancerous and immature about atheist nihilism, but I dunno about capitalism itself necessarily being a greater evil than any other economic system. I think it has brought more wealth to more people than any other system.

[–] Fandango (534) 5 years ago

It is perhaps not that capitalism is intrinsically evil, but more so that any economic or ideological system that places materialism at the epicenter of its existence tends to eventually destroy itself through its decaying morality.

Capitalism is the opposing force to socialism, where the former is the triumph of the individual, the latter is the triumph of the collective. They're two extremes and, as history has shown us, are both dead ends. Extremes give rise to fascism. We saw this with Germany ~80 years ago and we're seeing it in the west again today.

People cling onto socialism or capitalism the same way religious adherents clung onto their religion hundreds of years ago. The difference, perhaps, is that one attempted to develop morality, whereas the other merely serves to bring about civilizational progress at the expense of the culture that bore it.

Everything has failed, be it religion or ideology, and this touches to your point. The pervasive variable here is human nature and its fallibility and imperfection.

It would seem we truly are doomed.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

It is perhaps not that capitalism is intrinsically evil, but more so that any economic or ideological system that places materialism at the epicenter of its existence tends to eventually destroy itself through its decaying morality.

When? What capitalist empires have fallen due to their "decaying morality?"

Capitalism as we know it emerged from the ashes of feudalism around 1500 and it has evolved over the years, for the better I think, but I don't think it has ever destroyed itself.

You're right that human frailties and vices are to blame for most suffering, but that's why people invented social institutions in the first place, to work with and get around these frailties for the good of all. It's why marriage exists everywhere. Because it works. Capitalism isn't perfect but it has coincided with a time in our history that has seen a dramatic rise of people's standards of living.

Socialism doesn't seem to work in history. It's endlessly fascinating to a lot of people, but whenever it's put into practice it seems to fall on its face real quick because no one can agree on how it should be run. Where has it been a success? Why would it be a success more than what we have now?

[–] Fandango (534) 5 years ago

Ancient Rome had many of the main elements of capitalism in the form of banking, free-trade, and private-ownership. A main part of its decline can be attributed to over-taxation, eventually resulting in its own people revolting and attempting to overthrow the government for food (bread dole). If the leaders of Ancient Rome had a strong moral foundation, would they sacrifice their own citizens for more material gain? If the Soviet Union truly cared about its citizens, would it have frozen its citizen's bank assets circa 1991?

Even contemporary capitalism has been subverted into a form of social capitalism, where losses are subsidized and gains are privatized under the guise of saving pension funds. There is very little, if any, opportunity for conscientious individuals (e.g., people who save money to purchase equity or build net-worth) to improve their lot in a meaningful way, because institutions like the Federal Reserve can just artificially inflate prices and render good portions of someone's efforts meaningless.

We can praise capitalism for its virtues (e.g., innovation, freedom, improvements in living standards), but we also need to understand its faults, and how perhaps we can improve on them to keep the wheel of progress spinning.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Ancient Rome had many of the main elements of capitalism in the form of banking, free-trade, and private-ownership. A main part of its decline can be attributed to over-taxation, eventually resulting in its own people revolting and attempting to overthrow the government for food (bread dole).

I'll take your word for it about the elements of capitalism in Rome, but I think you're grasping at straws here. The fall of Rome was a centuries-long, nuanced process that appears to me to have begun with the Emperor and the aristocracy deciding that they were Gods instead of civil servants around 200 BC, followed generally by a loss of military rigour among the aristocracy, followed by a few centuries of barbarian invasions and infighting and slow collapse for lots of other reasons.

You could make a compelling argument that "capitalism" was the reason for the aristocracy abandoning their duty to the citizens, but it goes deeper than that, it's just plain greed and power-lust which could have (and has) taken root in any economic system. The fat cats at the top got complacent and one day just said "fuck it, I got mine" and spent all day screwing slave girls instead of training soldiers and studying Greek philosophy. And it all went south from there.

If the Soviet Union truly cared about its citizens, would it have frozen its citizen's bank assets circa 1991?

I thought the Soviet Union was Communist? Even if it wasn't, how does it logically follow that a country's economic system necessarily corrupts the morality of its citizens? Can you offer a historical precedent for this? Do communist regimes have good humanitarian track records?

There is very little, if any, opportunity for conscientious individuals (e.g., people who save money to purchase equity or build net-worth) to improve their lot

I disagree. I'm not rich or exceptionally smart but opportunities tend to open if you really bring your A-game to work.

[–] Fandango (534) 5 years ago

My argument is that the worship of the physical degrades spiritual amelioration, which is intimately tied with morality. Max Weber, in his book, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, wrote that it was the Protestant work ethic that ultimately contributed to the rise of Capitalism, citing the Protestant work ethic as the main catalyst. Protestantism, the cultural aspect, containing the norms of society, eventually gave rise to a particular way of life, or civilization (Capitalism, America). America is considered the perfect distillation of the Capitalist model.

During its nascent period, Capitalism was backed by Protestant morality, which espoused hard work as a tool for proximity with God (spiritual improvement), along with frugality (temperance and eschewing excess). As time went on and civilization under Capitalism began to sprout, the moral component began to degrade, as the focus went onto the physical (think the 60s and elevation of materialism, as well as the 80s and elimination of private-sector pensions, one aspect of an economic model and its moral decay).

What I am arguing is that morality degrades when the focal point is placed on the physical, which we see today (consumerism, status, image, etc.). As Christ said, “you can’t worship God and mammon.” Quoting Christ here is apt, I believe, considering Capitalism’s foundation. In this context, Christ is the model for morality, and mammon is a model for earthly pursuits. What happens to some people when they save money to buy something nice? They grow attached to that thing, they form a subconscious aggression, viewing other people as potential threats to their acquisition. Anger, enabling hate, stands in opposition to love, the moral component.

Economic systems are products of the physical, for they serve to establish means of production and resource distribution. You say that "it's just plain greed and power-lust which could have (and has) taken root in any economic system," but aren’t greed and the hunger for power lacking virtue? Greed is the worship of mammon; power is the feeling of superiority over others. They hardly translate well to anything considered moral.

Communism is an attempt at civilization without a moral framework, as Communism was anti-religion. It died because of decaying morality, eventually decaying to the point where the leaders decided to jut sell the entire civilization, the one millions of its citizens died for.

It is hard to distinguish anecdotal experience from overarching trends. The proletariat and bourgeois classes in America are the debtors and creditors, and to the creditors, the debtors are merely a tool for money relations. With increasing technology, the IQ threshold required to achieve the former middle-class lifestyle is increasing. If before you had a human in certain roles (e.g., McDonald’s in Japan), then today humans are slowly being replaced to maximize efficiency (e.g., Robot now replacing the human in McDonald’s). Opportunities are dwindling for the average person, between job outsourcing, diversity quotas, affirmative action, and feminism, depending on where you stand on the spectrum, you may or may not be able to carve a middle-class lifestyle for yourself.

As an aside, consider how under socialism prayer is directed at the collective loaf of bread; under capitalism, the individual one. Prayer for material acquisition runs counter to any sort of moral development. We pray for the material because even religious institutions exist in the temporal plane, and serve as a means of prosperity and well-being, as opposed to a means of spiritual development.

Everything we see today in contemporary society is the product of a lacking tenable moral foundation.

[–] Drooch (5333) 4 years ago

I agree. Capitalism has been a roaring success and lifted much of humanity out of poverty. Does it solve all problems? No, it doesn’t claim to, but it creates societies where people have what they need and often what they want.

The individual then has the option of adopting spirituality or some other non-material sustenance to fulfil their inner being, and if you’ve used the capitalist system to become rich you can then share your wealth to help others, if you so choose.

[–] davodikum (6198) 5 years ago

Well put. Makes you think.