January 25, 2007
The Myth of More
My brother Sean gave me Thoreau's Walden this Christmas—a fine book that perfectly captured my state of mind this winter. I'm a little troubled by the excess I see in my community; and even more troubled by the excesses that are seeping into my life.
For example, this Christmas we dragged piles of presents to New Jersey and dutifully doled them out to friends and family. In return, we drove back to Vermont with a reciprocal carload of gifts. Here's a question: Did any of us need more stuff?
This is not an indictment of the sentiment of giving, nor the items themselves—which were lovely and much appreciated—but the tradition of stuff-giving in today's world.
Take a look at this Verizon commercial showing how we get sucked into holiday gift one-upmanship:
Dad: Okay, let's review. Sarah, you got the new Cherry Chocolate phone.
Sarah: Thanks, Daddy.
Dad: Keith, you got the new Envy. And you both got the network. What'd dad get?
Sarah: Aftershave.
Dad: No, Dad got hosed.
Besides the fact that Verizon named their phone for a mortal sin, which is a sign of the impending apocalypse by itself, the "stuffism" in this commerical has run amok. No doubt the commercial works if you accept a few premises:
-- Exchanged gifts should be equal in value
-- Children need and deserve expensive gifts
-- Children should have the means to get their parents expensive gifts as well
-- Aftershave is an unacceptable gift
In the words of Adam Savage, "I reject your reality and substitute my own." I'm no aftershave expert, but if the kids bought Dad's favorite brand, which he'll use, what's the problem? The problem is that Dad bought the phones with the expectation of getting something equal in return. And just how do you calculate what's equal to a gift? Weight? Volume? Price?
I saw a preschooler with an iPod today and it epitomized excess. Our kids get more and appreciate less. I'm inclined to believe that a doll meant more to a girl 200 years ago when she might get two in her lifetime. It's telling that Trevor received v.2 of a certain toy in December and was asking for v.3 by January.
We're all being sucked in by the Myth of More. More is better. More has better features. More equals satisfaction. More is cool. More gets us closer to happiness. We need more.
People are being suffocated by their possessions. Family life is being crushed under the weight of their houses, cars, and plasma televisions. We lament the demise of the single-income family, while spending that second income on HDTV and trips to Applebees. It's hard to escape the orbit of More.
More is not a recent problem. Thoreau talks about the habit he noticed in his contemporaries of discarding torn clothes instead of patching them:
"No man ever stood the lower in my estimation for having a patch in his clothes; yet I am sure that there is greater anxiety, commonly, to have fashionable, or at least clean and unpatched clothes, than to have a sound conscience....It would be easier for them to hobble to town with a broken leg than with a broken pantaloon."
Would anyone today bother to patch a pair of torn jeans? Would you attend an office party with a patch on the elbow of your suit jacket? Of course not. Our communities place value on extravagance over thrift and excess over simplicity. The word coined for this phenomenon is "Affluenza," as if it's a disease that needs to be cured. Problem is, no one drops dead from affluenza so there's no incentive to change our unhealthy ways.
Comments
You will be happy to know that i patched up one of my pants last week after it got this huge hole in the back from sitting on an expossed couch coil. lol