The religion for atheism’s class problem

I like Alain De Botton’s energy and chutzpah, but I also think ideas are better when they’re challenged and thinkers are prodded to consider the possible holes in their thinking. So here is what I think is a serious hole which De Botton needs to consider in his ‘religion for atheists’. At the moment, it seems to me pretty much exclusively a religion for the haute bourgeosie.

I was particularly struck by the class-bound restrictions of his religion yesterday, when he tweeted suggesting that hotels need to learn lessons from religions, and be places of solace and consolation for the soul rather than superficial ‘holiday spots’. He wrote:

The tradition of religious retreats reveals a need for a new kind of establishment, a secular hotel for the soul, devoted to satisfying with intelligence and artistry the psychological as well as physical needs of its clientele. Such a hotel would humbly study the extraordinarily structured ways in which Buddhism approaches the topic of relaxation, as well as casting an eye across other faiths and psychological schools in order to arrive at programmes for the care of our troubled minds that would extend beyond the lamentable solutions currently on offer.

So we propose a solution in the form of a Hotel for the Soul. The needs of the mind, or to use an old-fashioned but evocative term, ‘the soul’ remain generally ignored by holsteries. While pampering our bodies, the typical hotel comes up with no more sophisticated response to the needs of the soul than minigolf, the Sunday newspapers and a DVD library. The new institution, positioned either on the slopes of a Swiss alp or to the side of a volcano in Tenerife, will skilfully attend to the needs of both body and soul – and will thereby mark the natural evolution from the luxury spa hotel to the hotel dedicated to the well-being of the whole person and humanity more broadly.

Now this is less radical than Alain might think. In fact, there have been ‘holistic hotels’ for a long time now, where earnest well-being entrepreneurs cater to our spiritual needs. In fact, an article I read recently told me that bookings for ‘holistic holidays‘ were up 250% last year. But it’s not the unoriginality of the idea that concerns me – it’s the exclusivity.

A religion worth its name caters for everyone: not just the rich suffering from affluenza and status anxiety, but the really poor, the sick, the destitute. Alain is comparing monasteries to hotels, but monasteries were alms-giving institutions which supported local communities. They weren’t holiday resorts in Tenerife.

If Alain is serious about starting a ‘religion for atheists’, using a blend of psychotherapy and philosophy, and using places like the School of Life as hubs, then he needs to face this class / wealth problem. The School of Life, based in Bloomsbury, offers life-classes costing £30 or so a pop. How socially diverse is the audience? Entirely middle class? That’s fine if the School of Life is a retail organisation, but not if it’s a religious organisation. A religion, in my opinion, needs to extend beyond Bloomsbury.

This is a problem philosophy has long faced. Epicureanism, Stoicism or Platonism were attractive to the wealthy elite, but what about less educated people, people who simply didn’t have the leisure to follow an extended course of philosophy? Where is the consolation for them? If philosophy only caters to the well-off, then it becomes the cultural equivalent of a gated community – withdrawing from society into private and exclusive communes like Epicurus’ Garden or De Botton’s Tenerife resort.

What Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism did so well is create systems of belief and practice for the intellectual and the masses, for the rich and the poor. That meant using some of the cultural practices that Alain has identified – paintings, hymns, architecture etc. But it also meant charitable activities, running hospitals, schools, homeless shelters. Above all, it means a commitment to try and help all of humanity, not just the well-off. It meant a willingness to get one’s hands dirty. The only philosophy that came anywhere close to that was Marxism.

People criticise Alain for inheriting a lot of money. So what? He could have not worked at all, but he spent his life working hard, producing books that millions have found helpful, setting up worthwhile institutions like the School of Life, all of which, ironically, have been very successful (ironic because unlike every other philosopher he doesn’t need the money). But that well-off background may have made him diffident about going beyond his own class and his possible reception in other parts of society.

But the practical philosophy movement needs to go beyond the affluent. That might be an awkward process, but it will also be fulfilling, rewarding and inspiring. We need to combine the intelligence of Alain De Botton with the spirit of Jamie Oliver, who has that sleeves-rolled-up willingness to go into rough schools or poor neighbourhoods and try to improve them. Otherwise, philosophy becomes a lifestyle column in the FT’s How To Spend It.

What could be a first step? Well, how about a pro bono initiative involving School of Life faculty and others, to go beyond Bloomsbury and run workshops in local London schools? Or in the NHS? Or in homes for the elderly?

By the by, another of his suggestions is to have high-street therapists as a new caste of priests. He admits there is an economic problem here too – therapy tends to be the preserve of the middle class – and acknowledges the efforts of Lord Layard to make CBT more available through the NHS, but he says ‘progress is slow and vulnerable’.

Really? Layard got half a billion in funding for 6,000 new cognitive therapists. That’s pretty amazing. I’d actually say that of all the real-world impacts by British intellectuals over the last decade, that is the most significant and laudable. It’s taken therapy beyond the middle class.

De Botton writes: ‘Therapists are hidden away. You don’t see them on the high street’. Well, you increasingly do see NHS Psychotherapy and Well-Being Clinics all over London now. But that’s not the main point. The main point is: what is the role of philosophy in all this?

The answer is that the Socratic philosophy that De Botton so often aludes to – Stoicism, Epicureanism, Scepticism and so on – is the source of the CBT now being mass-disseminated by Layard’s National Mental Health Service.

So that’s another way that philosophy can be taken beyond the middle class – by providing classes within the National Mental Health Service that re-contextualise CBT in its original philosophical context, giving people an ability not just to learn instrumental techniques for well-being, but also to consider broader questions of what it means to flourish and live a good life.

What I have made here are not flat-out criticisms but attempts to take the project forward. Oh, and another thing. Drop the name. Why restrict your project to atheists? That’s immediately going to put off people in poorer neighbourhoods, for whom God is a deeper consolation than any philosophy book. Socratic philosophy has room for both theists and atheists, and the same ideas and techniques can provide consolation for both sides. So why restrict your philosophy to 30% of the population – a 30% who are typically middle class? Does The School of Life only cater to atheists? Are believers not welcome?

Comments:

  • Hi Jules

    I'm broadly in sympathy with Alain de Botton's ideas on religion for atheists and have a similar reaction to the luxury (and so inaccessible/exclusive element) of the Swiss mountain hotel for the soul. I like the School of Life and its core message and style of teaching.

    In trying to come up with/create something similar locally – in a very small way – we keep bumping up against the narrowness or middle class aspect of the enterprise. How do you make it more inclusive? Who can you partner with if you don't have the skills to engage with marginalised or just plain different groups?

    Alain seems to be throwing out the challenge to the rest of us for picking up the baton. I hope many of us pick it up. Perhaps it's the beginning of a conversation that will turn into something bigger and more important.

    K

  • Jules Evans says:

    Hi Karen

    Yes – he's done a great deal more than most philosophers in terms of reaching out and making philosophy accessible.

    Its a challenge for all of philosophy, how to extend it beyond the middle class etc – and always has been.

    One of the reason stories have been so important, in terms of bringing ideas to a broader audience.

    All best

    Jules

  • Jules Evans says:

    I look forward to hearing about your Fulfilling Work organisation, by the way – and speaking there later this year.

    all best

    Jules

  • Nairn Marnie says:

    Totally agree with you about dropping the name. Not just the 'atheist' part, the word 'religion' may imply some sort of initial, ongoing demand of the recipient/participant.

    I was lucky enough to see Alain's talk last week in Melbourne (and looking around the town hall the vibe was very much middle class). Being from a small city in Scotland, I don't get the opportunity to attend such events on a regular basis – never mind pay for a session at his London School of Life.

    My point is, it is the citizens of the most deprived cities that often need the most help. Just last year there was a wave of teen suicides in my home town (see: http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/3060671/Tayside-Police-help-to-stop-5-suicides-in-Dundee-after-5-young-men-took-their-own-lives.html)

    It will be interesting to watch how Alain's School of Life and his new religion develops. Perhaps we'll see a chain of School of Life's across the UK (the notion of fast food style therapy is an interesting thought). Maybe he should take a leaf form the PIPs movement . . .

    Anyway, thanks another good post.

    PS I would be interested in hearing your name suggestions — I personally think the whole thing should have just be branded 'School of Life'.

  • Jules Evans says:

    Thanks Nairn

    Well, 'The School of Life' is a private company, so issue is whether a private company could also be the vehicle for a more grassroots movement. i think it will always be somewhat loose, non-hierarchical, with lots of different organisations.

    all best

    Jules

  • It is ironic that the people who might benefit most from therapy are the people who can least afford it, so it ends up as a pastime for middle-class neurotics. Can't blame the therapists – they have to make a living.

    Even if you can afford it it might be more beneficial to spend the money on a holiday or even save it for a house deposit, pension or to start a business. All those things could give more long-term satisfaction than the "talking cure".

    Over the years I have come to believe that it is better to work with what you have rather than reinventing the wheel and I have come to a new appreciation of Britain's Christian roots and also politics. Revitalising communities and relationships is more achievable and realistic.

  • I agree with you about the exclusivity problem.

    But Jamie Oliver seems way off as any kind of role model. He stirred up a lot of resentment from the, um, 'chip-eating' classes with what appeared a very patronising approach, and whatever his origins he seems thoroughly well assimilated into the slebby nouvelle bourgeoisie now.

    The whole exclusivity issue lies right at the heart of the critique of non-believers by the religious, namely that they rarely, if ever, rouse themselves to do anything for their fellow man or woman.

    And they have a good point. From the founding of hospitals and orphanages of the past, to caring for the homeless and in need today, it generally seems to be the pious doing the lion's share when it comes to compassion for those less fortunate than oneself.

    Or look at intentional communities. How many of them last without the motivation of a spiritual impulse? Very few.

  • Jules Evans says:

    Thanks Between the Lines.

    I think there are pitfalls to any do-gooder movement. Jamie Oliver certainly got people's backs up. The Salvation Army really turned off George Orwell when he was a tramp with their insistence that tramps pray for their dinner…

    Anyway, there are some Sceptic outreach / charitable programmes arent there? Eg the vaccination movement in the US?

    Techno-Mystic – I agree with you, as usual. Always enjoy your comments. I also think theres a great deal of value in the Christian tradition and find myself re-connecting with it.

    all best

    Jules

  • Anonymous says:

    Hi everyone,

    I love this blog, it is a great signpost to all the best ideas of the week!

    I have been enjoying both ‘Religion For Atheists’ and ‘The Library Book’ recently. ‘The Library Book’ is a collection of essays celebrating the library in the community by writers such as Alan Bennett, Hardeep Singh Kohli, Val McDermid and Caitlin Moran. In one hand I felt I was holding the questions and the vision and in the other – part of the solution.
    I do live in one of the poorest areas of the UK. Our library has an open door to the homeless; the computer-less; children waiting for their long-houred parents to come home; the unemployed; the ‘stuck in a strange place waiting for a bus’ and the retired looking for company, a free newspaper and guidance in a newly confusing world.
    Our librarians are like priests, gently coaxing the kids into spending their time productively and allowing them to chat if that’s what they clearly need. They listen with great patience to locals with grumbles and facilitate anyone wanting to set up their own support groups and reading groups.
    The library is a place of peace, not always quiet (perhaps never!) but it is a church-like haven nevertheless. I have heard one woman lie to her family over their phone, saying she is on the bus and nearly home, when in fact she is curled up with a book. She does this every week! The children there live in tiny flats and need somewhere safe to go that isn’t on the street. They visibly unwind there after their tense school day. I think many people are there simply to escape the noise of the modern home and have an hour to reflect. Few are taking out books, but all of them and engaging with their wider community as they would have done in church.
    I think we are really missing an opportunity if we start beating Alain de Botton up about this all being so middle-class. Okay, so I can’t afford ‘The School of Life’ classes. I can borrow books for free from the library and if those richer folks are motivated I would love to look up and see a billboard saying ‘Forgiveness’ instead of ‘Bigger, Fatter, Gypsier’. Thank you very much for improving my life!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *