The Role of Possessions in Our Lives:
Materialismor Meaning?

A sermon delivered at the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship ofthe New River Valley, July 8,2001,by RuthAnn 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 thevital importance of physical objects as a means to satisfy both lower andhigher order needs in Maslow's hierarchy. For example, possessionscontribute substantially to our attainment of such basic survivalrequirements as sustenance, shelter, and safety.

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

At the same time that we recognize the value of objects in satisfying theseneeds, however, we nonetheless frequently experience a sense of discomfortabout 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 ourpossessions, that I would like to examine today.

The Hate Relationship: Moral and Spiritual Dilemma

The hate relationship with our possessions, manifested as our ambivalenceabout what and how much to own, is at least partially driven by our moraland spiritual values. Although I have no religious training and was notraised in any particular religion, I probably approach this topic from whatmight best be described as a Judeo-Christian ethic. Thus, the seven deadlysins spring immediately to my mind. In Biblical times, these digressionswere considered so abhorrent that they were punishable by boiling in oil orbeing thrown into a snake pit. Thankfully, such extreme measures are nolonger 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, andenvironmental non-sustainability. The sheer volume of possessions we ownmay be a reflection of both our gluttony and our greed, sins that arecompounded by our pride of ownership. We lust after new possessions, andare envious of others who possess things we desire but cannot or do notown. And finally, the anger and frustration that can arise when we can'thave what we want when we want it may be a factor in our heavy reliance oncredit.

Given this value orientation, our concerns that our possessions may reflecta misaligned moral compass or a weak spiritual center are hardlysurprising. The values are simply inconsistent with our love affairs withwhat 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 roleof mass media in promoting it, as the source of our love affair withpossessions. The simplicity and intuitiveness of this explanation make itappealing, especially when applied to highly industrialized countries suchas our own. Americans, the critics claim, are simply inherentlymaterialistic and the media is to blame. Unfortunately, like many overlysimplistic explanations, the data don't fit the theory.

A growing number of large-scale, cross-cultural studies by consumerbehavior researchers and anthropologists provide strong evidence suggestingthat materialism is found in pre-industrial non-western cultures (where nomass 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 theyown, but not by the supposed motivational role of materialism. But ifmaterialism doesn't explain our love affair with possessions, then whatdoes?

While recognizing that unbridled materialism may indeed be a factor forcertain individuals, I suggest there are two sets of factors offering agreater understanding of this conundrum, one of which is peculiar toAmericans and the other of which is not. With respect to our own culture,the United States is blessed with abundant natural resources which, whencombined 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 imminentdanger of exhausting many of our natural resources, our culture emerged ina physical environment containing abundant fresh water, vast forests,seemingly endless acres of arable land, and rich metal ore deposits andpetroleum reserves beneath the Earth's surface. If we compare this naturalwealth to the resources available, for example, in sub-Saharan Africa, it'shardly a surprise that we have grown accustomed to owning largeconstellations of goods.

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

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

Despite the fact that the values reflected in our economic and politicalsystems sometimes lead to outcomes inconsistent with our moral andspiritual orientation, these values are nonetheless so definitive of ourculture that people have fought and died in wars to protect them! And thereason for this personal sacrifice is of course, that we individually andcollectively 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 humandevelopment. And, despite our many failed attempts, we continue to seekways 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 withpossessions. Unlike those previously explored, however, this factor is notunique to the United States. Rather, it is a culturally universal anddesirable function of consumption. Specifically, no matter how lavish orconservative our lifestyle and income, each of us forms extremely strongand enduring attachments to some of our possessions.

These attachments begin early in life and constitute a basis for ourimmortality. Parents and grandparents know very well the distress aninfant experiences when separated from a favorite blanket or stuffedanimal. The large majority of American babies appear to form suchattachments by the age of six months, strongly suggesting that they are nota result of socialization but may rather reflect a normal and necessaryelement of humanity.

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

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

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

Irving Goffman captures the universal horror of being separated from ourworldly goods in his description of the utterly dehumanizing strippingprocess experienced by people incarcerated in total institutions such asprisons, the armed forces, or even some extended health care facilities.One's sense of self simply disappears as one is stripped of self-definingpersonal possessions. And this loss of meaning is not exclusively anindividual phenomenon. The meaning of entire cultures is undermined as itsphysical manifestations are destroyed, as in the case of Native Americans.

Other compelling examples of deculturalization through loss of possessionsabound. Every year, for example, the Greek government requests the returnof the Elgin marbles. These marble statues, which originally constitutedthe frieze of the Parthenon, were removed from Greece to Great Britainduring the Turkish invasion, supposedly to protect them from potentialharm. Although that danger has been over these many years, the Britishgovernment refuses to return the marbles, effectively robbing the Greeks ofan important physical manifestation of their classic culture.

A little closer to home is an April Fool's promotional hoax perpetrated afew years ago when Taco Bell announced to the major media that it hadpurchased the Liberty Bell, which would henceforth be called the TacoLiberty Bell. As people tumbled to the joke throughout the day, there werefurther startling announcements about the Ford-Lincoln Memorial and theStatue of Liberty Mutual Insurance! Even after the hoax was revealed, manyAmericans were not amused. The very idea that these sacred Americancultural symbols could be defiled by commercial enterprises was simplyintolerable. They just mean to much to be treated so disrespectfully.

Conclusion

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

Second, environmental sustainability clearly demands that we curtail thequantity of possessions we own and substantially moderate the demands thatproducing these things make on our rapidly disappearing natural resources.The difficulty of this task, however, lies not only in resolvingunbelievably complex problems related to global economics, internationalpolitics and individual morality. It also depends on adjusting some of ourmost deeply held cultural values and attaining balance betweensustainability and the essential human need to express life's meaningthrough possessions. Achieving this is undeniably far more difficult thatsimply saying, "I can live with less." Our minds are willing but themeaning-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 MelanieWallendorf and Eric Arnould. I would be pleased to provide completecitations to anyone who might be interested in further reading.

Copyright 2001, Ruth Ann Smith; Commercial Duplication Prohibited

UUC Home Pagesermons, articles, etc.