The primacy of materialism

The misplaced desire to accumulate endless material possessions is as old as sin itself, but during most of the Christian era it was acknowledged to be a bad thing, even if people often gave into it.  That was all changed on a large scale during the course of the French Revolution. A French Catholic Priest called Emmanuel Joseph Sièyes, more commonly known as Abbé Sièyes, was one of the leaders and great mediocre thinkers during the Revolution and, along with Bernard Mandeville, lays claim to the title of "Father of Modern Materialism".  Unlike Mandeville, however, who caused great scandal among his peers, Sièyes' opinion was highly influential because he didn't come out and say "materialism is good".  He was much more subtle in his presentation, presenting his position as part of a greater political struggle and indirectly allowing it to influence society around him.  It is questionable, in fact, if he was intentionally materialistic in his outlook, or simply that he just didn't consider the consequences.  In any case, the impact of his pamphlet Qu'est-ce que le tiers-état? (What is the Third Estate?) was felt quickly.
In Qu'est-ce que le tiers-état?, Sièyes puts forth a political vision in which the social contribution of the Third Estate, that is, material wealth, is the only contribution that matters to a nation.  (For an explanation of the three estates, please see my previous post).  The Third Estate, he argues, is an nation complete in itself, and the First and Second Estates are just parasites that prevent this nation from reaching greatness.
Now it's important, when reading any political thinker, to properly regard them as products of their time and, certainly, in Sièyes time, there was a lot of good reason to be angry with both Church and aristocracy.  But the difference between an ordinary political thinker and a great one is that the former attempts reform of the political institution simply as it appears in the here and now, and strives for the benefit of their own constituents; whereas the latter sees political institutions as they've changed through history, not for the sake of mere tradition, but in order to understand the good and the bad of those institutions properly, and the great thinker is not just concerned about the immediate welfare of his constituents but looks to how the good of all social sectors can flourish to the benefit of all.
Sièyes was very much a product of his time and very much an ordinary thinker.  He had no great vision of a national flourishing, but was just able to dress up his ideas to look good.  He didn't really think through the consequences of what he was proposing.
It is certainly true that, at the time, the First and Second Estates were not contributing to society according to their respective charters, and in that sense they were parasitic, but Sièyes, instead of seeing the other estates as they ought to be and as they had been in the past, and challenging them to return to their original charters, he only saw them as they directly manifested in the now and, subsequently, considered them to be redundant.
The saddest thing about his vision for society was its utter lack of imagination.  All he was able to see was what was before his eyes and this led him to conclude that the material wealth of the Third Estate was useful, so the Third Estate was the entirety of the nation, while the others made no direct contribution and, therefore, needed to be abolished.  As a result, the society that emerged from the Revolution was one in which the spiritual nourishment of the Church was not a consideration, and the broad justice and tradition of the old aristocracy were replaced by a more expedient form of justice.  Because of the shortcomings of the First and Second Estates, an entire generation was living in a world where the goodness of a spiritual and broadly just society were not experienced, and, not being experienced, were not given consideration in the new society the Revolution was building.
Sièyes' betrayal of the faith he had promised to preserve, and his wild attack on the status quo of his day, challenges us today to consider political reform with a greater sense of prudence.  We often see injustice in the society in which we live, and our knee-jerk reaction is to try to fix it without consideration of the wider consequences.  Rather than just settling on the first solution we can think of, we need to ask: how did we get to this position in the first place?  What are the original goods that were intended by the existing institutions?  Is there a way of fixing the problem without forfeiting the intended good?
The social reforms Sièyes introduced are a key factor in the materialistic nature of contemporary secular society.  Why is it that we take for granted that secular society must necessarily be materialistic and expedient, while spiritual and moral concerns are relegated to the private sphere? This is a question I'll explore further in future posts, but if you've got an answer you'd like to share in the comments I'd love to hear from you.