Peer review
In an age of extreme and often unjust wealth disparities, disregard for environmental issues, and devotion to wealth accumulation and status establishment, minimalism is quickly becoming a deviant subculture in America. Minimalism entails the practice of owning only necessities, and the bare minimum pleasures or luxuries. Minimalists’ homes and work places appear simple and uncluttered, and they emphasize experience rather than consumption. Minimalism ignores trends in technology, fashion, cars, furniture, and other materialistic pursuits, and focuses instead on pursuing happiness via hobbies and personal relationships. Minimalism, therefore, is largely a mindset that manifests in possession of few items so as to minimize distraction from material goods, and gain freedom from a cycle of consumption.

In our capitalist society, we view materialism and wealth accumulation as some of the most – if not the most – important motivators and achievements. Minimalists deviate from these objectives, and are often cast as “kooks” or outsiders, or dismissed altogether as extremists. Minimalists challenge accepted modes of economic exchange and lifestyle expectations, yet materialism prevails because society has convinced itself that it’s necessary and desirable. Most Americans occupy themselves with fluency in trends; this is currency in acceptability and survival, and no alternative is portrayed in entertainment culture or mainstream media. Preoccupation with possessions and wealth, however, is not the default mindset for human beings – it must be carefully cultivated and encouraged through a variety of vectors and pervasive among diverse populations to gain dominance.

The reasons for cultivation and encouragement in American society reside in their efficacy in maintaining unequal power dynamics and preserving a classist society that promotes extreme disparities in wealth and access. Herbert Marcuse asserts that materialism, as it’s promoted in entertainment culture and mainstream media, presents a new form of social control. He argues that the upper echelons of society fabricate false needs among the populace, such as beauty, popularity, extreme wealth, and lavish possessions, and then presents means of fulfilling those needs with products and the proliferation of advertising. Consumers devour these false needs and believe them to be real, and embody what they perceive as lacking in themselves and in their lives. Marcuse contends that these fabricated needs “serve the preservation of the Establishment” (Marcuse 2016), because they widen the class divide by trapping the populace in an eternal cycle of need-satisfaction.

Marcuse asserts that one of the ways the dominant class perpetuates this cycle is by linking human emotions and identities with commodities. He argues that people connect with their cars, homes, and other possessions, that their possessions become extensions of themselves and define them as humans. This becomes a strong mechanism for creating need and establishing social control. Commodities and luxuries carry certain emotional and intellectual significations which prompt certain attitudes and reactions that shape identities and relations with others. Marcuse argues that “products indoctrinate and manipulate; they promote a false consciousness” (Marcuse 2016), that emotional connections to commodities and lifestyle images train their possessors to endlessly consume and project a sense of personhood onto the products rather than develop a true internal identity.

The external nature of materialism starkly contrasts with the internal nature of minimalism. Minimalism prioritizes deep emotional connections with the self and others by developing deep relationships that stem from a highly cultivated inner self. It seeks to redirect focus from external representations to internal manifestations. Materialism emphasizes the importance of image and communication via possessions; what proclamations cars, homes, hobbies, and clothing make about their owners. Consumerism claims that there can be no self without possessions, that commodities relate the most vital information about an individual. Materialism enslaves its followers through devotion to property; minimalism frees practitioners from this particular enslavement. Materialism serves the socioeconomic agenda of those in power; minimalism shirks this brand of social control. Materialism is embraced by many; minimalism by a minority.

Minimalism throws into question the needs Marcuse discusses. Minimalists thrive on the bare essentials to maintain health, and sometimes a few items that aid in happiness such as books or musical instruments. They lead lives free from the distraction of a commodity rat race and the burden of possession. Their minimalist practices fail to support contrived socioeconomic divides, because they simply refuse to participate in the competition. They ignore image and projections, and the constant push to buy more and earn more. Minimalism is subversive both in its subtle rebellion of established norms and in the negative reactions it elicits from the majority of the population. Its refusal to participate in the economy challenges values surrounding wealth disparity, and its refusal to define the self through possessions challenges conceptions of personal worth and identity. For these reasons minimalism is and will probably remain a deviant subculture.

A minimalist lifestyle is also, ironically, often unattainable for the average American. Americans who occupy the lower rungs of the economic ladder often collect and retain possessions to reduce risk, that is, to be prepared for anything. Additionally, often the involvement in more than one occupation, or the raising of several children, or a cultural obligation to extended family, or heavy involvement with the immediate community necessitate the possession of many and varied items. The overriding reason for materialism, though, remains a desire for inclusion in mainstream culture – despite the entirely fabricated nature of its utility and necessity – and a desire for self-identification and expression.

Consumerism promotes alienation while minimalism encourages integration. By imbuing possessions with character, statements, and definitions – essentially by giving commodities a soul – consumerism ensures that people form bonds with their products rather than with themselves or with others. People take a backseat in their self-development to the commodities they buy, allowing those commodities to act as a megaphone to the rest of the world in proclaiming who they are and their status among their peers. Those who participate in consumerism present a great paradox: materialists are often associated with shallowness, yet their possessions are meant to describe their depth of individuality, and their hollow lifestyles are often cast as envious and superior.

According to Marcuse, this paradox originates from the false narrative of materialism. Materialists are alienated from their own desires and needs, and from the desires and needs of others. They are “one-dimensional,” as soulless as their possessions. Those who participate in minimalism, on the other hand, rely on themselves, their ideas, and their interests to communicate with the world and participate in it fully, cultivating many dimensions of personhood and engaging with the world in unique and comprehensive ways. This integration remains subversive and meets disapproval, however, because society persists on a widening gap in wealth and opportunity that depends on alienation, or apathy, among its members.

References

Longhofer, W., & Winchester, D. (2016). Social theory re-wired: new connections to classical and contemporary perspectives (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

1