I've recently been going through seminal works on contemporary US culture, like Fightclub, where the narrator overcomes the material system he perpetuates, and the nonfiction Evasion, a memoir of a vegetarian tramp who chose not to remove himself from society and steal only essentials so as to avoid supporting 'harmful' industries.
I'd like to hear AGs views on the subject. Of course materials like housing, air conditioning and showers make life easier and more comfortable, and it doesn't hurt to look respectable, but where do you draw the line? The western world is a cardinal sinner when it comes to materialism, with teens spending hundreds of dollars/pounds/euros for expensive clothes, with only a tiny fraction of that going to the families who make the clothes, just for people to fit in and feel some empty sense of satisfaction.
Where do you draw the line between essentials and non essentials? How and why do you control (or not) urges to improve your life? Do you invest your identity in items?
Despite the obvious links with capitalism, globalisation and sweat shps, please keep within the above parameters for discussion. We have too many of those threads already.
I could very easily write about how bad materialism is and how harmful it is; how much better some cultures are that avoid material vices are etc. but it would be hypocritical bs. I'm typing this message on a reasonably new high-end computer while listening to my expensive mp3 using brand new headphones I bought about 2 days ago. I'm texting my best friend on a new (actually quite cheap) phone. And for my birthday I'm getting a brand new laptop. If I'm honest the main aprt of materialism I'm against is all the brands; I can't stand wearing things that have a huge logo across the front of it. I don't pretend to be some warrior agasint branding I just think it looks repulsive normally. I know countless people who will by something becasue of the brand and I find it appaling; it looks ugly and over-priced.
I think its more associated with Hegelian and Marxist philosophy which holds "that the only thing that exists is matter; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
I think a better term for what your talking about is consumerism, which I believe is very cultural and inherent in a capitalist society.
i say let them do as they please, if a person rights are not infringed, ( includes global pollution), then let them spend, if you don't like the material value of our cluture then start a sub culture that is void of such things, in conclusion is the west materialist, yes but does that harm as much as other options? i say less, so live on capitalism,
Actually the slightly more abstract philosophical definition, although used ihere in a very different context is exactly the kind of behaviour I am talking about. Rather than consumerism which is to me simply an addiction, people really seem to tie their sense of identity and self worth to material things without thinking about the implications of that. Even people will a well developed sense of social justice. That's what I was trying to examine here.
I need to ease into this topic. So, I am going to start light.
Could it be said that we have all of these "things" because we are, in a sense, forced to own them? Let me define forced as more of social pressure, but sometimes by other means like convenience. Example:
I was tired of guessing at which foods were going to be contaminated this week, so I started a garden. For a while, I was so happy because I was basically say: "F U MAN! I am not playing into your market!" Then, I realized, I need fertilizer, pest control, etc.
You might say to me, Well, Ashlee, all of those things can be managed without having to buy something from the man. I say, yes you are probably right, but I had to hope on to my expensive, technologically advanced computer to find out how to do that.
Could it be said that we have all of these "things" because we are, in a sense, forced to own them?
It is true that in the cases of goods which require massive amounts of capital investment to produce, the market will likely be dominated with a few small firms with less than noble production practices. However, that would probably fall under the umbrella term of ''necessity''.
I think, with the new fashion for fairtrade (something which I endeavour to buy a lot of) and ''green'' products, it is becoming easier and easier to reconcile a comfortable lifetyle with a socially just one, depending on your moral compass that is.
Really though, I think products like clothing are a prime example of this. As Pixie rightly pointed out, people feel a mostly irrational desire to pay hundreds of extra dollars for t-shirts with brands on them, when they could get a just as durbale, if not more durable substitute for a fraction of the cost. Are we really such an irrational shallow species that we value arbitrary words on our clothing to be so important?
