Catholic Modesty Fetishism

Last updated on: August 8, 2017 at 10:17 pm by Chase Padusniak

Catholic Modesty Fetishism 2017-08-08T22:17:30-04:00 Chase Padusniak

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

To clarify, here is how Marx defines commodity fetishism:

There is a physical relation between physical things. But it is different with commodities. There, the existence of the things qua commodities, and the value relation between the products of labour which stamps them as commodities, have absolutely no connection with their physical properties and with the material relations arising therefrom. There it is a definite social relation between men, that assumes, in their eyes, the fantastic form of a relation between things. In order, therefore, to find an analogy, we must have recourse to the mist-enveloped regions of the religious world. In that world the productions of the human brain appear as independent beings endowed with life, and entering into relation both with one another and the human race. So it is in the world of commodities with the products of men’s hands. This I call the Fetishism which attaches itself to the products of labour, so soon as they are produced as commodities, and which is therefore inseparable from the production of commodities.

Marx has a rather complicated definition of a commodity, but the simple point is that under capitalism most everything ends up becoming one (arguably memes are not really commodities, but that doesn’t much detract from the point; we’ve certainly reached the point where intellectual property has been commodified). These commodities develop auras all their own. A famous example of such an effect is Coca-Cola. Coke doesn’t really quench thirst; its utility is more-or-less unrelated to why we drink it. It’s simply developed a significance that cannot be reduced to utility. The same can be said for modesty memes and modesty discourse. “Hot” pictures of veiled women, memes comparing “ugly” feminists to “attractive” traditional women—these are modes of fetishization that excite a response within the reader or viewer. The idea is to make modesty “hot,” when per Aquinas and the Catholic Encyclopedia modesty (especially outside marriage) is the opposite of a fetish; it exists to rein in any possibility of excitement.

This is why, though the medievals do speak of modesty in approving terms, when they wanted to call a woman attractive, they just did it. Here is Chaucer in the high style of romance (forgive the prose translation; it breaks my heart to use one, but it gets the point across):

This passed on by day and by year until it happened, once upon a May morning before daybreak, that Emily, who was fairer to see than the lily upon its green stalk, and fresher than May with its new flowers (Her cheeks competed with the rose–I know not which was the fairer.) Emily, I say, as was her custom, had arisen and was already dressed, for May will have no sluggishness at night. The season pricks every gentle heart and arouses it out of sleep and says, “Arise, and make your observance.” Thus Emily remembered to rise and do honor to May. She was freshly clothed and her yellow hair was braided in a tress behind her back, a yard long, I believe; and in the garden at sunrise she walked up and down gathering the red and white flowers at will, to make a delicate garland for her head; and she sang heavenly, like an angel.

The troubadours often just sound dumbstruck and terrified as they begin to approximate the beauty of things like lips and glances:

All joys are humbled, all must dance
To her law, and all lords obey
My lady, with her lovely way
Of greeting, her sweet pleasant glance,
A hundred years of life I’d grant
To him who has her love in play.

Her joy can make the sick man well,
And through her anger too he dies,
And fools she fashions of the wise,
And handsome men age at her spell,
And status, wealth she can dispel
And raise the beggar to the skies.

Since man can find no better here,
That lips can tell of, eyes can see,
I wish to keep her close by me.
To render my heart fresh and clear,
Renew the flesh too, so the sere
Winds of age blow invisibly.

My point here is not to say the medievals had it right (though they do have a charm). Rather, it’s to show that Traditionalists, in certain circumstances, may have perverted the very thing they’ve sought to recuperate, that the “bringing back” of modesty may, in fact, be mere lust in another form. If the goal is not to objectify women, the plan seems to have failed. In using the means of our society, the society seems to have taken them, and, in doing so, they may have validated one of my constant points here on the blog: that Marx is worth taking seriously, even as, and sometimes especially as, an orthodox Catholic.

Previous Post

August 7, 2017

Distracted Prayer

Next Post

August 9, 2017 Subsidarity Is Not Libertarianism

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Academia Culture Politics Reviews Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 July 2021 December 2020 November 2020 July 2020 May 2020 April 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 August 2019 July 2019 April 2019 March 2019 December 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who killed Goliath the giant?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Joseph Adam David Moses