Ladri di biciclette (the bicycle thief)

My friend Kat invited me to see Vittorio De Sica's post-WWII masterpiece Ladri Di Biciclette last week at the Working Centre. The more I think about this movie, the more I realize how relevant it is, and how timely for them to show it at the Working Centre in the midst of a recession.

Its depiction of a society recovering from war and in particular one family's struggle to make money and achieve some level of material well-being strikes me as kind of a knell for consumerism.  (Of course, anyone who knows me knows I see pretty much EVERYTHING as a death knell for consumerism, or at least for consumptionism.) But Ladri Di Biciclette is perhaps even more relevant today than it was during the post-war boom. The father character, Antonio, is motivated by fantasies of opulence, celebrating when he lands a well-paying "city job", and exclaiming to his wife "you will have money to throw away!"
Later, when unable to retrieve a stolen bicycle that is his only apparent link to employment, he treats his son to an expensive restaurant meal, teaching him the ethic of "working to consume" by giving him a taste of consumption-based hedonism, couched in family values. What a toxic mix!

OK, so I'm taking a pretty hard counter-cultural interpretation of what might otherwise be a pathos-inducing human story. I actually do have a great deal of empathy with Antonio and his desire to treat his family well, make a decent living wage, and live well, but... I think the movie also gets to the heart of my difficulties with the approach many advocates for social justice (of which I am one) currently practice. It's reasonable to assume that social justice is only possible in a society that values it. When social programs aim to equip lower-income people with the means to become consumers, there will continue to be hoarding, violence and unhappiness.
One time Kat pointed out over a cup of tea that there is a link between social equality and environmental protection, that is, both are impossible as long as people at all levels of society share the same consumerist aspirations.

Alternatively, we as a society could aspire to different goals, such as a deep understanding the nature of things around us, or something like that--something that everyone can strive for without necessarily depriving others of the opportunity to pursue the same dream. A goal like this gives us the same power and stability we instinctually seek through wealth accumulation, but again, it doesn't come at anyone else's expense. If anything, that knowledge can be shared to allow societies to understand their respective environments, leaving everyone better off.

The path towards peace requires a substitution of knowledge for consumption. There's little doubt in my mind about this.