Truffula

Meaning and Identity in Consumerism

sustainability

"If I am what I have and if what I have is lost, who then am I?" -Erich Fromm

As if there weren't already enough reasons for people to justify their consumption, we come to this: stuff as an extension of the self. In the context of loss of possessions, it really does make sense that people consider their possessions part of themselves, and that, even from a very young age, they feel violated at the loss of a possession, not to mention other people, pets, and other things related to their body and environment. Why is this so? What is the evolutionary advantage of this perception? Is it that people tend to defend that which is perceived to be part of themselves, and that those who maintain their "possesions" have a survival advantage? Or is it something more in the psychoanalytical vein, in which babies are learning to perceive their sense of "self" and "other" in relation to both things and people? Perhaps both.

As I look around at my various possessions, some treasured but many apparently incidental to my various past lives, I wonder, what does my stuff say about me? I didn't miss most of it when we packed up to travel for more than a year, and planned to give away much of it on our return, yet there is still an inherent resistance to letting go of things, as if they have some irreplacable property, such that I would forever miss them and regret their departure if they left my home and my life. It doesn't help that I hate to see waste, like some kind of child of the Great Depression, not to mention landfill. So not only does it take some physical effort to rid one's life of one's not-so-wanted things, it also requires some emotional decision, and investment perhaps, in the creation of a future self that is less burdoned by unwanted possessions. But hey, I'll do it anyway.

Yay for freecycle!

This post is a response to:

Russell Belk, 'Possessions and the Extended Self', The Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 2 (1988), pp.139-168).