• Home
  • Blog
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Shop
  • Donate
  • Subscribe
  • Contests
  • About
    • Contact
    • Submit
    • Media Kit
    • Resources
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

DappledThings.org

A quarterly journal of ideas, art, and faith

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter

Minimalism gets it wrong

Michael Rennier

Minimalism: A Documentary About the Important Things is currently a trending documentary on Netflix, and it’s interesting enough despite the fact that the conceit and execution of the film isn’t unique and covers well-worn ground in terms of critiquing consumerism. The viewer is presented with a series of interviews from various experts and authors combined with an over-arching narrative of two men touring the country to talk to audiences about minimalism and, ironically enough, sell a book they co-authored on the subject (to be fair, they do address it and they do seem to have a decent outlook on the whole lifestyle). Some of the experts make arguments that are more convincing than others, and some, it appears, aren’t truly minimalists in the sense most of us would choose to use the word. The tiny-house dwelling folk, sure. The intentionally homeless guy, absolutely. But some of the figures in favor of “Minimalism” are simply trying to throw away excess stuff and avoid clutter. More accurately, this is called “Xtreme Organizing,” and being “Hella Thrifty,” and isn’t a Minimalist philosophy as such, which I take to be the paring down of any or all material possessions in order to free the soul. The actual definition of Minimalism is a bit unclear, and I suspect that if we were to go more in depth with all of the contributors to the documentary, some differences of opinion will emerge. All this said, somewhere in there among the parade of anti-consumerist pied-pipers is one that really stands out.

Following after some truly depressing footage of a screaming match between two customers at a Black Friday sale, Sociologist Juliet Schor is interviewed and she says something that made me go back and listen again. She says, “We are too materialistic in the everyday sense of the word, and we are not at all materialistic enough in the true sense of the word.”

Amen. We absolutely need to become more materialistic.

We’re all fairly disgusted by the shopping-obsessed accumulation machines that we have become, and the self-loathing as we hit the purchase button on yet another pair of Tom Brady bioceramic particle athlete recovery pajamas at Amazon.com is palpable, but we seem powerless to stop it. The reason why is that we’re thinking about the problem all wrong. As that wise sage Eddie Veder puts it in the soundtrack to Into the Wild,

There’s those thinking more or less, less is more
but if less is more how you’re keeping score?
Means for every point you make
your level drops
kinda like its starting from the top
you can’t do that…

I take this as a direct critique of minimalism. As Christopher McCandless discovered – it might kill you. It simply doesn’t work to approach material goods as objects to be harshly extracted from our lives by sheer force of willpower. If we do so, every purchase unmade is felt as an absence. Further, such an outlook is dangerous because it evaluates the physical world as an impediment to the spiritual world, placing the two at odds. When one wins, the other loses. A Minimalist, or anti-materialist, in this sense, is purposely depriving himself of material goods and hoping to find spiritual freedom by doing so.

Pictured: The end of the Minimalist road

Minimalism is merely the flip side of the consumerist coin. For instance, if pushed to think about it, a consumer would agree that material goods in and of themselves are unimportant. They are disposable, temporary, and easily moved on from with the advent of the next trend or the recently released, updated version of the product. New is good, old is worthless. This is why there seems to currently be no sense at all of the value of the materiality of goods. Visual art is relegated to whitewashed museums, dressing well is scorned, architecture is utilitarian, liturgy is a pale shadow of the God it worships, and even the human body itself is used only for pleasure and is understood to have no intrinsic value or connection to the healthiness of the “true self”. The body is quickly and easily modified by tattoo, plastic surgery, gender modification, you name it. We seek objects not for their beauty and value, not even for their usefulness or practicality, but rather for their symbolic meaning. They are mere totems of an immaterial goal such as display of wealth, social status, or wokeness to hipster insider culture. They’re easily moved on from once they no longer serve their purpose. If you don’t believe me, there’s a pile of old iphones a mile high somewhere that can prove the point (interestingly enough, all of the minimalists still managed to retain their Apple laptops).

This is the key to the baffling ascendancy of advertising. Marketing itself has become more important than the object – The particular celebrity attached to it, the story behind it, the narrative of what sort of person purchases it. Advertising overwhelms the actual, intrinsic quality of an object (This has even happened with modern art! The placard explaining the art is more important than the art. Tom Wolfe warned us about this!). This is all because consumerism is not actually about material objects and we don’t seek to acquire objects for their own, intrinsic value. Thus we have fashion fads with a 52-season cycle that no longer seek to be beautiful, the constant interior redecoration of homes, late-model cars, and on and on. Everything is disposable because value is linked not to an artifact as such but rather to a nebulous subjective goal. Juliet Schor says it is, “horrifying.” I agree.

Consumerists and Minimalists are working from the same playbook. Both are opposed to ascribing any value to a physical object. The former seeks it as a totem of subjective attainments and the latter seeks to avoid it. Either way, the material object is overlooked.

This is why I am not a Minimalist. The answer to materialism is actually to become more materialistic in the true sense of the word, not to seek possession of objects for a spiritual deliverable, but to value an object for its own inherent beauty and goodness. The physical qualities of an artifact are tied up with its spiritual qualities in a way that is appropriate to the object, meaning that it has a sign value proper to itself. It may be dependent, in some way, on the mind and intentions of its maker, but it also has objective beauty all its own. An object is valuable for what it is, and to see it as such requires the recovery of a healthy love of the material world.

Jacque Maritain has done a lot of work in aesthetics and discusses the value of a made thing (art), writing,

In any case, the activity of art is not of itself an activity of knowledge, but of creation; what it aspires to is the making of an object according to the inward demands and the proper good of that object.

In other words, the object matters. It matters that it be well made, according to a purpose, and it will be good and beautiful not by conveying social status on its owner, but all on its own as an artifact. This doesn’t mean objects cannot communicate in any subjective manner at all. Quite the opposite, only when we respect the object are we able to truly apprehend its sign value, or its spiritual meaningfulness. Maritain writes, “This work is an object and must always keep its consistency and its inherent value of an object, and at the same time is a sign.”

Is this a fitting place to worship God?

There are no shortcuts. Advertising that creates a false sense of desirability only leaves the consumer disillusioned and ready to quickly move on when advertising offers a newer, fancier model. On the other hand, getting rid of everything is a rejection of the goodness of the created world, which leaves us not more spiritually free but bereft and blinded. Maritain goes on to write, “The poet’s [or artist’s, or craftsman’s] work is an object which is at the same time a sign, and which abounds and overflows with signs and meanings.” This is to say that an object is not merely a sign, it is actually far more interesting. As Maritain notes, objects aren’t merely allegories; they are much, much more. Think Gerard Manley Hopkins staring at a freshly plowed field for hours and working to unlock the “Christed Inscape” of the man-made scene in front of him, how the gashes of gold-vermilion reveal the beauty of the earth just a plow-scratch away from shining forth. Objects are actually analogies by which the mysterious truth of the whole is communicated. Artifacts are, in this sense, sacred. The more we value them, the more of their sign value we perceive, and the more we approach the poetic value of the created and sub-created world.

Or this is more fitting?

The answer isn’t Minimalism. The answer is moderation and love. Moderation in consumption and love of the objects we encounter. The two work together, for we only bestow love on that which is worthy. A person who loves objects for their intrinsic goodness will not be surrounded by consumerist baubles, will not throw out old items, will not indulge in the purchase of shoddily made, cheap objects. But such a person will be surrounded by beautiful things, and will be inspired by these beautiful things, and even seek to find additional beautiful things. These parameters do not a Minimalist make. Rather they are the creed of a person with a healthy love of made objects, not as a consumer would as a quick and easy stand-in for salvation, but as icons of a more permanent, lovely world beyond this one.

The synopsis of Minimalism begins, “How might your life be better with less?” To which I answer with a question of my own – It might be, but also… it might not be?


Like what you read? Our beautiful print and e-reader editions are even better. Subscribe today (starting at only $14.99 a year).

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
DT Subscribe

Filed Under: Deep Down Things

Michael Rennier

About Michael Rennier

The Rev. Michael Rennier lives in St. Louis with his wife and children. He has an MDiv from Yale Divinity School and is a Catholic priest in the Archdiocese of St. Louis. He is also a regular contributor at Aleteia.

Comments

  1. AvatarNick says

    January 9, 2017 at 2:09 pm

    There is no perfect definition of a minimalist, it can mean different things to different people. The life of an 18 year old hippie minimalist will never be the same as a family with three children and their minimalist lifestyle. Minimalism has no boundaries. If it’s not for you, then read something else. The minimalists are just trying to let people know that if you own things that you don’t find value in, get rid of it and spend time and energy on things that do add value to your life. I still have a few collections even though I am a minimalist, but they add value and do not detract from healthy relationships like some items do. I do not have to spend time organizing and cleaning the dust off of things that I no longer use. I have since given them to those in need of them. Minimalism is making room for things that you love. Minimalism is not throwing all of your beloved items in the garbage. If an iPhone adds value to your life, keep it. If someone else feels their iPhone doesn’t, I hope they move on from it. Everyone is different and so is their version is minimalism.

  2. AvatarVanessa says

    January 18, 2017 at 6:18 pm

    I agree with Nick! There are different approaches to minimalism; I consider myself a minimalist, but I don’t subscribe to the “minimalist” aesthetic or fashion style you see in blogs. Minimalism helps me distinguish what things I really treasure and what doesn’t add to my life. I have become more selective about what things I bring into my life. I appreciate the idea of a capsule wardrobe, a closet of pieces that I love and not just random clothes on sale at Target that I never wear. While I value my things, I appreciate gifts that focus more on experiences than things so I’ll buy a gift card for a date at a nice coffee shop or tickets to a baseball game. I appreciate the same instead of receiving generic gifts that I often return. Minimalism isn’t all tiny houses and empty spaces.

    • Michael RennierMichael Rennier says

      January 19, 2017 at 8:33 am

      I agree with everything in your response, so we may just be disagreeing about labels and what I call “moderation” you call “minimalism”. What I’m really objecting to is the notion that physical objects are inherently bad and we need to eliminate them from our lives in order to find happiness. It’s not that simple.

  3. AvatarChristina says

    January 20, 2017 at 12:42 pm

    This is an interesting article. Lately I feel like God has been encouraging me to buy things and it threw me at first. Why would he want me to be more materialistic? I’ve always thought of myself as a bit of a minimalist since I abhorred spending money on stuff just to have the latest fad. I also made every item last as long as possible – the end result being that I had a lot of trash in my life – ugly, soul-sucking trash.

    Lately, I’ve been replacing this trash with nice items that have that intrinsic aesthetic value. It’s not so much buying things just to have, but buying things to make my environment, and my life, more beautiful. More uplifting. In an odd way, becoming more materialistic has helped me spiritually – making me want to be fully present. Before, the environment made me want to escape, to hide in fantasy so I didn’t have to deal with the ugly reality. But when reality is beautiful, it’s a bit more enticing to be in.

    However, I think the phrase “love of the objects we encounter” is wrong – for we should only love persons, not objects. But I know what you are trying to say, something along the lines of a deep appreciation and respect for the mystery inherent in created objects. That they are a visible sign of an invisible reality.

Mary, Queen of Angels 2020

Purchase Featuring nonfiction from Joshua Hren, fiction from Jennifer Marie Donahue and Rob Davidson and the winners and honorees of the Bakhita Prize in Visual Arts.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)

Newsletter

Sign up to receive the latest news from Dappled Things.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Have you enjoyed our content online or in print during the past year?

Dappled Things needs the support of its readers over and above the cost of subscriptions in order to continue its work.

Help us share the riches of Catholic art and literature with our impoverished culture by donating to Dappled Things.

Archives

Home
Blog
Current
Shop
Subscribe
About

Copyright © 2021 Dappled Things · Staff Forum · Log in

Graphics by Dominic Heisdorf · Website by Up to Speed

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.