In a previous post, I was reflecting on the movie City of Joy, and observing that the protagonist, Dr. Max, could not undo his privilege. For if he ever got in trouble, if he ever wanted to get out, help (i.e. his family and friends) would only be a phone call away.
I’ve heard of guys who became priests because money was not a concern (yet I'm not in their head, and I hope I'm wrong). They did not need to make a good salary because their family was independently wealthy. So if they were quite churchy and they liked theology and singing hymns, they could just go for it. They could afford to make little money because they were set to inherit a lot of it anyway. If that wasn’t disturbing enough, they would also go through life thinking that they have made an enormous, painful sacrifice by not pursuing a more lucrative career: all this great earning potential they’ve given up!
But at the end of the day I’m in the same boat, because I too have a very supportive family and I too will one day inherit their accumulated wealth. I would like to think that I won’t touch it with a bargepole but we’re not there yet. And meanwhile, I will probably never be truly vulnerable. I don’t need to build bigger barns; my family does it for me. But since I already benefit from the “security” they created, it would be hypocritical to affirm that I don’t put my trust in riches.
This moneyed piety is getting on my nerves. I need more words and more concepts for the things I observe and, stupidly, I rely on Google. Google didn’t find fuck about the “revolutionary ethos”, and it didn’t find anything about “moneyed piety” either. Apart from poserorprophet (where I got the concept from to begin with) and one loony whose prose doesn’t make sense. Rats. I’m going to have to do the conceptualising on my own.
I’ve heard of guys who became priests because money was not a concern (yet I'm not in their head, and I hope I'm wrong). They did not need to make a good salary because their family was independently wealthy. So if they were quite churchy and they liked theology and singing hymns, they could just go for it. They could afford to make little money because they were set to inherit a lot of it anyway. If that wasn’t disturbing enough, they would also go through life thinking that they have made an enormous, painful sacrifice by not pursuing a more lucrative career: all this great earning potential they’ve given up!
But at the end of the day I’m in the same boat, because I too have a very supportive family and I too will one day inherit their accumulated wealth. I would like to think that I won’t touch it with a bargepole but we’re not there yet. And meanwhile, I will probably never be truly vulnerable. I don’t need to build bigger barns; my family does it for me. But since I already benefit from the “security” they created, it would be hypocritical to affirm that I don’t put my trust in riches.
This moneyed piety is getting on my nerves. I need more words and more concepts for the things I observe and, stupidly, I rely on Google. Google didn’t find fuck about the “revolutionary ethos”, and it didn’t find anything about “moneyed piety” either. Apart from poserorprophet (where I got the concept from to begin with) and one loony whose prose doesn’t make sense. Rats. I’m going to have to do the conceptualising on my own.
No comments:
Post a Comment