Skip to main content

Stuff and Nonsense


While I tend not to read many books on the bestseller list, I was intrigued by a lot of what I was hearing about Marie Kondo's The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up. I read it in just a few short days, and in large part it lived up to the hype. Yet I had two criticisms of the book, the first of which was that the idea of speaking to your possessions, including thanking items you are about to part with for their role in your life, seems like a bit of nonsense. Kondo believes that one's possessions have energy, and sending positive energy their way will result in your belongings supporting you in turn. She even, she writes, greets her home verbally at the end of the day. If it works for her, and for her clients, I cannot object to it, but it would feel strange in my own life.

The larger criticism is that, while I appreciate her advocacy of decreasing clutter and being more mindful about your things, she barely touches on stemming the inflow of new possessions. Towards the end of the book, she indicates that if you truly tidy up, keeping only that which gives you joy (the core of her recommendation), you will be less inclined to add more. But earlier on, she glosses over the shame of having bought something you never used, writing that the joy of acquiring was what mattered. This seems a terribly wasteful sentiment, a carte blanche apology that will allow more of the same in the future. After all, if the pleasure of acquiring is what matters, surely the question of whether the new bauble will bring you joy is secondary, in Kondo's estimation?

While I certainly enjoyed and appreciated what Kondo had to say (and was inspired to clean out a number of desk drawers in the process), I'm just as much bothered by what the intense popularity of this work has to say about us. Have we really been so overwhelmed with stuff that a book on organizing sold over a half-million copies? Of course, in a society where we can never escape from the all-powerful presence of advertisements, where we live in an economy driven by consumption, the answer is yes. We've responded powerfully to both of these factors, combined with our own innate drive to possess things. The average size of our homes has more than doubled since 1983, and even that wasn't enough, as self-storage has grown to become a multi-billion dollar industry, to store all the things we think we need but can't fit in our homes. 

Every single holiday has become another opportunity for companies to try and sell us even more stuff, from Easter and Columbus Day, to special sales for Memorial and Presidents' Days, all the way up to the extravaganza of greed that the holiday season has turned into. When is it enough? 

Marie Kondo is right in asserting that holding on to things that we don't need makes us unhappy. But buying more stuff that we don't really need is bad for us too, personally and financially. Constantly buying and discarding things we never really needed is bad for the planet, representing a waste of resources that could have been put to better use. I support being more mindful about what we own--as long as it's paired with being more mindful about the inflow of things. If we don't do that, then all the paring down of possessions and discarding is for almost nothing, a task we'll be doomed to repeat forever, like Sisyphus on his hill. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

The Hovinds...Still Poking at Straw Men

Kent Hovind, the false "Dr. Dino", and his ilk are at it again. In a new article on his website, Hovind (or whoever authored the piece, perhaps his son) claims that while creationists have no problems using miracles to explain events (a habit that perpetually makes them unfit to do real science), evolutionists criticize them for it, even though, in Hovind's mind, they rely on miracles just as much to explain their "religion" of descent through natural selection. This is, at its core, demonstrably nonsense. He claims that a "miracle" is needed to make stars and planets form out of gas, a supposed violation of Boyle's Law because there was no "outside force" acting on the gas and dust. How about gravity, Dr. Dino? That would certainly explain it, no miracles needed here. This attack is a non-sequitur. The objection has everything to do with astronomy and cosmology and nothing to do with evolution, which is the development of new species o...