“The things you own end up owning you.” -Tyler Durden
This quote from the movie, Fight Club, holds true for many people. Consumers all over America often measure their own worth based on the materials they own. Because of capitalism, it is in the mindset of Americans that a larger home or a fancier car will lead to a greater fulfillment. Even simpler goods such as a new game console or a new pair of summer shorts can hold high priority in one's list of desires. This has come to the point in which the “pursuit of happiness” might as well be called a trip to Wal-Mart. Even though consumerism has reached the point where people obsess over materialistic needs, there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting more.
Consumerism is indeed another way to express a freedom to pursue happiness. Our nation allows for us to express and follow our desires whatever they may be, as long as they do not conflict with other laws. A great majority of Americans are materialistic people who can only satisfy their desires through buying things. This is not to say that a poor man cannot be happy, nor is it to say that other values such as having a loving family cannot measure up to materialistic goods. Indeed, there are some desires that money can't satisfy. However, it is not correct to say that being a typical consumer cannot provide happiness as well. For example, many people find great fulfillment in building collections such as historical artworks or artifacts. These collections serve no practical purpose as they can just as easily be enjoyed in a museum. Even so, the possession of these items can bring a sense of satisfaction that cannot be found anywhere else.
One can make the argument of consumerism leading to greed and eventually a downfall of capitalism, and it would be a fair statement. However, the same can be said about someone who's ambition for love is too great, and ends up heartbroken. There are negative extremes to everything, consumerism and other abstract ideals included. Many people are aware of the dangers of over-consumption, and do put limits on their desires. In a sense, the things they own do end up owning them, but there's nothing wrong with that. Just as how people are controlled by their feelings of love or ambition, consumption is just another path to follow in our country.
Finals week...
14 years ago
3 comments:
I like how you explain that consumerism is a form of pursuing happiness. I agree that building collections is a great way to find fulfillment by consumerism. Your argument supports mine in that consumerism cannot be used to help distinguish our wants from our needs. Building a collection is not a necessity for an individual in order to live and therefore can be seen as only something wanted, or a luxury. But because an individual wants to build a collection and continue expanding it, certain objects become a necessity to the individual in order to "complete" his/her collection. Our pursuit of happiness by trying to fulfill our wants can easily be transformed into our pursuit of happiness through fulfilling necessities. This also further agrees with your statement of "the things we own end up owning you," in which case, our collection that we own causes us to feel like we must continue to expand and complete it.
I'm a little surprised that (both in the post and in Aaron’s comment) "pursuit of happiness" is not examined with more scrutiny. Why, in the first place, do we think that 'happiness' is something that requires 'pursuit'? In this schema, do we end up privileging the pursuit rather than the goal ('happiness')? It seems to me that this phrase is used in a rather glib manner, because I don't think it helps us think critically about the operations of political economy that the terms mobilize; rather, it simply posits a vague notion as a universal truth. Finally, is consumption simply "just another path to follow in our country"? Or is it THE path to follow? What alternatives—true alternatives—can we imagine? Even Tyler Durden's Project Mayhem gang ends up consumed by their anti-consumerism cause, right? Truman, I want to see you explore a keyword's ambivalence more carefully. At times you are too quick to map a framework of value ("there is absolutely nothing wrong...", etc.) on your object of analysis; instead of using claims such as this, try to zoom out of the right/wrong dichotomy in order to explain complexity that is not subject to a quick value judgment. As always, you have used linked images with humor and wit! And I like the way that you begin with the epigraph from Fight Club—that is an effective way to get your readers thinking, wondering where you are taking us.
"In a sense, the things they own do end up owning them, but there's nothing wrong with that." I have trouble with that statement. I think that "things" only own you if you've sold yourself to them. I think I could confidently say that if I walked away from all my "things" (my animals and my relationships with my family/friends excluded) I would be still be me, and I would not be all that traumatized. I don't mean that to sound superior than anyone else, but for me, love of my husband, my family, and even my pets is much more important, and that's what I have chosen to invest myself in. You do address love, but dismiss it as another way to try to pursue happiness. What if you find it?
I also am curious about this theme of happiness. Why can't we be satisfied with what we have? Why so we always desire more?? It kind of relates with our discussion of "over" and "super" today. Everything must be bigger, better, and more expensive. Why does this matter so much?
Post a Comment