The Phenomenon of Materialism - Essay Example

In “Two Cheers for Materialism”, James Twitchell posits that “We live through things, we create ourselves through thingsand we change ourselves by changing our things”. By this, he implies that human beings view, define and judge each other and then based on material possession, he attempts to explain the material culture of consumerism where people keep buying and collecting items even those that have no practical use. He suggests that our purchasing habits are a mirror for our desires to identify ourselves with material goods which is evidenced in the purchasing habits resulting in eating disorders, “affluenza” and other consequences of the consumerism such as stress related disorders (Harmon 8). To a great extent, this claim can be viewed as a logical one and there is evidence all around us that validates and supports it. The acquisition of property and goods is often used as a hallmark of success where the ones who have the “best”, “biggest” or “most” of something are considered most successful. To appreciate that, one only needs to observe the mass media, especially television, magazines as well as online polls. Every year Forbes comes out with a list of the richest in the world, there are surveys to show, for instance which footballer owns the biggest car and art enthusiasts and collectors often strive to have the most extensive collection of paintings, books and many other ostentation goods. For example Bill Gates is ranked as the richest man in the world, this ranking being based on our perception of money as an indirect endorsement for the man as the most successful businessman alive. These measurements do not take into account what he has achieved, how many people he has helped or even how happy he is, all that counts are the possessions he has accumulated. Thus the rest of America works tirelessly to acquire as much as they can and often forget to enjoy it since their primary goal is to be viewed as successful in their circles. The most direct route to that is to buy and flaunt, indeed most Americans according to research would pick money over happiness if they had a chance (Wolfe 32). Twitchell’s (p.285) claim is supported by his own reasoning in regard to poverty in the western world, albeit it applies universally; he states that the poor are labeled as such, owing to their lack of material things and property. Going by the original argument that we use these things to define and give meaning to ourselves, it would then appear that the poor lack meaning and inevitably face exclusion from society. A look at the social stratification will confirm that the more one owns the higher they are likely to go, for instance, I imagine the guards in an exclusive hotel are more likely to open the gate for an expensive looking top of the range car than they are for a homeless man or generally disheveled individual. This is because the consumerist society in which we exist sustains itself by excluding anyone who does not conform to the culture of endless buying and since human beings are social creatures, most of us try to keep up with the consumerist trends (Twitchell 286). The “cool” and successful individuals and groups at the top of the chain who are the subject of the collective admiration from the less successful are extremely dynamic. This must be so otherwise the materialist culture would come up even if they were to remain static for others to keep up with them. For instance when technology devices such as the new iPhone are unveiled, there are those who can afford to purchase them immediately notwithstanding the price. The rest will save until they can afford the device; however, some months down the line, when they are almost achieving this end, a new more expensive model is unveiled and quickly grabbed by the rich as the rest are left in second place as always. This cycle of changing trends and fashions is what ultimately drives consumerism and manipulates many Americans to keep buying items not for the items own sake but to enhance their identity. Nevertheless, despite the obvious logic in Twichells claims, the issue of using material things to create an identity is a two sided coin and there are circumstances where this reasoning would not apply. In addition, to take his claim to be fully logical, one must assume that indeed all acquisitions of property are driven by the desire to create an identity; this assumption would however be quite fallacious. When one buys a car for instance, they may consider it ostentatious value but the main reason they buy it is for the fictional vehicular role, this also applies to the purchase of big houses and extensive property. For some people, property and wealth are not by itself an end but a means. Сonsider the example given previously about Bill Gates. Рopular opinion is that he is most notable because of being the richest in the world. However it is quite possible that he did not set out to make money but to create computer products such as Windows which came to be greatly demanded globally and as such, for him to meet the needs of billion users of his product, he makes his billions as a by-product and a necessary part of his business. In addition, wealth is used to make distinctions in achievements and it is can be viewed as a scale through which human beings can distinguish achievements for effective competition. Thus the more successful one is, say in business the more money they make and this increases their potential to spend on things that may seem to others as luxuries but with more money one’s definition of necessities change. A tycoon may find it practically impossible to survive without his limousine and chauffer while a lower class blue collar worker may feel the same about his old second hand truck. However, if the former is a corporate director for instance, it make more sense for him to be driven around in a comfortable car since his time is more valuable not just to him but those who depend on him for design making. Thus one can posit that in this case the posh vehicle is not a symbol of identity but simply a necessity based on his position in life. Ultimately the statement “We live through things, we create ourselves through things” in a sense is incomplete by itself since there can be two opposing sides depending on the context. It would be impossible to reconcile both sides of the argument considering that each side provides logical argumens. As such one can conclude that the extent to which materialism defines or does not define individuals or society is dependent on the circumstances under which one acquires or fails to acquire wealth. Evidently some pursue consumerism in pursuit of material objects so they may use them to give their lives meaning, on the other hand others require these things simply so their lives may progress smoothly or they just acquire them as a means to a greater none-material end. Works Cited Harmon, Mark. Religious groups and "affluenza": Further exploration of the TV-materialism link. Journal of Religion and Popular Culture, 22(1), 2010. 1-26. Print. Twitchell, James. Two cheers for materialism. The Wilson Quarterly, 23(2),1999. 16-26. Print. Wolfe, Alan. Undialectical materialism. The New Republic, 223, 2010. 29-35. Print. Read More