The Role of Possessions in Our Lives:
Materialism or Meaning?

A sermon delivered at the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of the New River Valley, July 8,2001, by Ruth Ann Smith, Fellowship member.

I've often been curious about the ambivalence so many of us, including me, seem to experience regarding our material possessions. We recognize the vital importance of physical objects as a means to satisfy both lower and higher order needs in Maslow's hierarchy. For example, possessions contribute substantially to our attainment of such basic survival requirements as sustenance, shelter, and safety.

Objects can also facilitate the satisfaction of higher order needs, which may be personal or social. In my studies of collecting, for example, many collectors described situations in which they formed lasting and rewarding relationships with people who shared their passion for some object category. A more personal example reflects the role possessions can play in self-actualization, which is perhaps the highest order human need. Among my most precious possessions are the paintings I own. I interact with these objects in an intellectual and aesthetic fashion that has, I feel, enhanced my self-awareness and personal development.

At the same time that we recognize the value of objects in satisfying these needs, however, we nonetheless frequently experience a sense of discomfort about what and how much is really appropriate or necessary for us to own. It is this tension, which I refer to as our love-hate relationship with our possessions, that I would like to examine today.

The Hate Relationship: Moral and Spiritual Dilemma

The hate relationship with our possessions, manifested as our ambivalence about what and how much to own, is at least partially driven by our moral and spiritual values. Although I have no religious training and was not raised in any particular religion, I probably approach this topic from what might best be described as a Judeo-Christian ethic. Thus, the seven deadly sins spring immediately to my mind. In Biblical times, these digressions were considered so abhorrent that they were punishable by boiling in oil or being thrown into a snake pit. Thankfully, such extreme measures are no longer with us, but our disapproval of the acts motivating them persists.

Interestingly all the sins, which include sloth, avarice, pride, gluttony, lust, envy, and anger, can be linked to possessions. Sloth, for example, is manifested as the messy byproducts of consumption, including litter, landfills, air/noise/visual pollution, loss of natural habitat, and environmental non-sustainability. The sheer volume of possessions we own may be a reflection of both our gluttony and our greed, sins that are compounded by our pride of ownership. We lust after new possessions, and are envious of others who possess things we desire but cannot or do not own. And finally, the anger and frustration that can arise when we can't have what we want when we want it may be a factor in our heavy reliance on credit.

Given this value orientation, our concerns that our possessions may reflect a misaligned moral compass or a weak spiritual center are hardly surprising. The values are simply inconsistent with our love affairs with what we own, the topic to which I now turn.

The Love Relationship: Why Do We Own So Much?

Materialism: Some social critics like to point to materialism, and the role of mass media in promoting it, as the source of our love affair with possessions. The simplicity and intuitiveness of this explanation make it appealing, especially when applied to highly industrialized countries such as our own. Americans, the critics claim, are simply inherently materialistic and the media is to blame. Unfortunately, like many overly simplistic explanations, the data don't fit the theory.

A growing number of large-scale, cross-cultural studies by consumer behavior researchers and anthropologists provide strong evidence suggesting that materialism is found in pre-industrial non-western cultures (where no mass media exist) just as it is in industrialized western cultures. Moreover, materialism, like many other individual difference variables, appears to be normally distributed in those cultures where it exists. Thus, Americans may be differentiated by the amount of possessions they own, but not by the supposed motivational role of materialism. But if materialism doesn't explain our love affair with possessions, then what does?

While recognizing that unbridled materialism may indeed be a factor for certain individuals, I suggest there are two sets of factors offering a greater understanding of this conundrum, one of which is peculiar to Americans and the other of which is not. With respect to our own culture, the United States is blessed with abundant natural resources which, when combined with our democratic political system and capitalist economy, enable us to create huge assortments of consumption objects..

Unique American Factors: Despite the fact that we are now in imminent danger of exhausting many of our natural resources, our culture emerged in a physical environment containing abundant fresh water, vast forests, seemingly endless acres of arable land, and rich metal ore deposits and petroleum reserves beneath the Earth's surface. If we compare this natural wealth to the resources available, for example, in sub-Saharan Africa, it's hardly a surprise that we have grown accustomed to owning large constellations of goods.

In addition, we also embrace a democratic political system, at the core of which lies a firmly held belief that all people should have equal access to resources and equal opportunities to manipulate them for personal gain. Although we recognize that we have fallen far short of that ideal, each of us has witnessed, and many of us have actively participated in, social reform movements such as civil rights, feminism, and gay rights that move us closer.

The fertile combination of vast natural resources and a democratic ideal is further enriched by our capitalist economic system. A cornerstone of capitalism, of course, is an emphasis on enhancing individual, rather than, group welfare. What this means is that each of us is entitled to retain and control the rewards resulting from the investment of our labor, creativity, and intellect to transform the resources to which we have equal access. This belief is so centrally held that we extend control of these rewards even into death! This is reflected in the recent widespread support for repealing the "death tax." Even those of us who would never be affected by the tax are nonetheless committed to enabling everyone to control the distribution of their own rewards, as opposed to allowing the state to make these decisions after we die.

Despite the fact that the values reflected in our economic and political systems sometimes lead to outcomes inconsistent with our moral and spiritual orientation, these values are nonetheless so definitive of our culture that people have fought and died in wars to protect them! And the reason for this personal sacrifice is of course, that we individually and collectively recognize the enormous benefits created through these systems. They have allowed many of us to attain extremely comfortable lifestyles, and to enjoy security, health, long life, and unimagined levels of human development. And, despite our many failed attempts, we continue to seek ways to extend these benefits to everyone through education, employment, and government programs.

Object Attachments: In addition to these uniquely American characteristics, there is another factor that figures prominently in our love affair with possessions. Unlike those previously explored, however, this factor is not unique to the United States. Rather, it is a culturally universal and desirable function of consumption. Specifically, no matter how lavish or conservative our lifestyle and income, each of us forms extremely strong and enduring attachments to some of our possessions.

These attachments begin early in life and constitute a basis for our immortality. Parents and grandparents know very well the distress an infant experiences when separated from a favorite blanket or stuffed animal. The large majority of American babies appear to form such attachments by the age of six months, strongly suggesting that they are not a result of socialization but may rather reflect a normal and necessary element of humanity.

Regarding immortality I'm sure that like me, many of you have also given at least a casual thought to disposing of prized possessions, a topic that grows in importance as one approaches death. All of us would like our most valued things to go to someone who will appreciate and understand the special meanings they had for us during our lives. To the degree we are able to achieve this, we live on through the possessions, at least in the memories of the loving caretakers we select.

Meaning Making: Object attachments are emphatically not a reflection of materialism, which is motivated by acquisition for acquisition's sake. Instead, they are motivated by a need for tangible expression of the meaning of our lives. Like the sets, props, and costumes in a theatrical production, our physical possessions explain who and what we are and how we perceive our roles in society. They reveal our character, or what we value in our lives. How, for instance, might you interpret the values of a man wearing Birkenstocks compared to one sporting Bruno Magli loafers? Possessions also constitute a tangible basis for our self-concept and serve as a powerful means of non-verbal communication that allows others determine if they would like to have a conversation with us. And, of course, our prized possessions function as physical connections to others. They carry our cultural, ethnic, and national identities and convey our social status as exemplified, for example, by the symbolism of a wedding ring.

The vital importance of this meaning-making function of possessions is cast into painfully clear focus when we are involuntarily separated from them. Our hearts go out to disaster victims who lose everything because we understand how devastated we would be in their position. And, their tragic stories about the destruction of a carefully preserved wedding bouquet, the family photographs, or the wooden bread trencher hand-carved by an ancestor remind us that our attachments are often wholly independent of an object's economic value. There is not enough insurance money in the world to restore the life meaning embodied in these precious things once they are gone.

Irving Goffman captures the universal horror of being separated from our worldly goods in his description of the utterly dehumanizing stripping process experienced by people incarcerated in total institutions such as prisons, the armed forces, or even some extended health care facilities. One's sense of self simply disappears as one is stripped of self-defining personal possessions. And this loss of meaning is not exclusively an individual phenomenon. The meaning of entire cultures is undermined as its physical manifestations are destroyed, as in the case of Native Americans.

Other compelling examples of deculturalization through loss of possessions abound. Every year, for example, the Greek government requests the return of the Elgin marbles. These marble statues, which originally constituted the frieze of the Parthenon, were removed from Greece to Great Britain during the Turkish invasion, supposedly to protect them from potential harm. Although that danger has been over these many years, the British government refuses to return the marbles, effectively robbing the Greeks of an important physical manifestation of their classic culture.

A little closer to home is an April Fool's promotional hoax perpetrated a few years ago when Taco Bell announced to the major media that it had purchased the Liberty Bell, which would henceforth be called the Taco Liberty Bell. As people tumbled to the joke throughout the day, there were further startling announcements about the Ford-Lincoln Memorial and the Statue of Liberty Mutual Insurance! Even after the hoax was revealed, many Americans were not amused. The very idea that these sacred American cultural symbols could be defiled by commercial enterprises was simply intolerable. They just mean to much to be treated so disrespectfully.

Conclusion

In closing, I would like to make two conclusions. First, a desire for and an attachment to possessions are not inherently evil nor does owning and loving prized objects necessarily reflect any character flaw. Rather, our attachments to possessions are a healthy and desirable function of consumption that gives meaning and value to our lives. Moreover, it is hardly surprising that Americans acquire so many more possessions compared to people in other cultures in view of the fortunate circumstances of our natural wealth combined with the core cultural values defining our economic and political systems.

Second, environmental sustainability clearly demands that we curtail the quantity of possessions we own and substantially moderate the demands that producing these things make on our rapidly disappearing natural resources. The difficulty of this task, however, lies not only in resolving unbelievably complex problems related to global economics, international politics and individual morality. It also depends on adjusting some of our most deeply held cultural values and attaining balance between sustainability and the essential human need to express life's meaning through possessions. Achieving this is undeniably far more difficult that simply saying, "I can live with less." Our minds are willing but the meaning-making role of our possessions may, very understandably, occasionally render our spirits a little weak.

In developing these ideas, I relied heavily on work by Melanie Wallendorf and Eric Arnould. I would be pleased to provide complete citations to anyone who might be interested in further reading.

Copyright 2001, Ruth Ann Smith; Commercial Duplication Prohibited

UUC Home Page sermons, articles, etc.