The morality of clutter

[firecat]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/apr/09/spring-makeover-decluttering-burkeman

Subtitle: Does clutter indicate a spiritual burden—or a full life?

It's common in this culture to ascribe moral value to concepts such as "eating right" (you're immoral if you don't) and "health" (you're immoral if you're not). Personal clutter is also considered to have moral aspects (you're immoral if you have too much stuff or don't have your stuff put away).

I've rejected the idea that a person's worthiness are related to what they eat and how healthy they are. But I haven't worked as hard on questioning the moral judgement on having a lot of stuff. So I like this:

"clutter" is inherently subjective, denoting a certain kind of problematic relationship between you and your things, rather than things themselves. [...] A home full of things can signify a full life. Clutter exists only when those things exert a mental drag, or get in the way of living. [...]

By the same token, there's nothing morally superior about the severe lines or vast white spaces of ultra-minimalist apartments.

The article goes on to quote Thoreau:

"The cost of a thing is the amount of what I call 'life' that is required to be exchanged for it, immediately or in the long run," is how Henry David Thoreau, everyone's favourite 19th-century hut-dwelling minimalist, expressed the sense that owning things constitutes a spiritual burden.

I really like the quote. And that viewpoint also at the core of books such as Your Money or Your Life that encourage you to think about what your job really pays and what it really costs, not just about the number on your paycheck.

But is Thoreau's statement (out of context) necessarily about "spiritual burden"? There's a lot of relief in getting stuff done that was hanging over my head, and getting rid of stuff that was getting in the way, but relief isn't a spiritual feeling. There's also a feeling of relief when I am able to hold certain mental and behavior patterns more lightly. But that's not a spiritual feeling either.

What does approach a spiritual feeling, for me, is what I can do when the stuff isn't in my way. I can open up and appreciate so much more of what's out there. (Not everyone would call this a spiritual feeling, though.)

Comments

[snippy]

I suppose owning things can be a spiritual burden if one is a person who tends toward taking them on as spiritual burdens, but to me most my stuff represents either possibilities or memories. When I feel burdened by it, I get rid of it.

The outward expression of a thing is not dispositive of the nature of the thing. Some people's spiritual feelings are expressed or satisfied by minimalism, and others' are not. I vaguely remember something in Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land about experiencing religious ecstasy equally whether the outward expression was a snake-handling, singing and dancing congregation or a single nun, absolutely still, praying on her knees in her cell. As usual, self-knowledge and observation are useful.

I like a messy creative space (den) and a tidy relaxing space (living room). You don't have to be just one way.

[firecat]

Excellent thoughts!

[lilacsigil]

The morality of possessions is really interesting to me - I didn't have a TV for many years and this was always interpreted by others as a moral decision rather than a practical one (I don't tend to watch TV casually, and what I did watch I wanted to watch with my girlfriend at her house). Some people would get quite agitated and angry about it, as if my not owning a TV reflected badly on them. I think this was compounded by me being fat - if I wasn't sitting around all day watching TV and eating doughnuts, how did I get fat? Confusing and frightening!

[firecat]

Yeah, TV-owning has a lot of baggage.

if I wasn't sitting around all day watching TV and eating doughnuts, how did I get fat? Confusing and frightening!

LOL!

[snippy]

Yeah, TV-owning has a lot of baggage.

Is this class-based, or cultural (progressive/liberal)? Or something else?

[firecat]

I think both of those things play in. Although I think class judgements happen more around what kind of TV shows you watch than around whether you own one.

[maize]

I find that clutter is a practical burden on me, which I find it hard not to interpret as a personal moral failing, even when I don't interpret it that way for all others. The practical burden on me is that when things are quite cluttered (and my desk at work often is, so I experience this often), I experience it like a continuous noise -- the presence of all that stuff jars my nerves. When my area is tidy, I find it soothing and relaxing. I think it's an attention thing -- it's like all the different objects are clamoring for my attention. It tends to interrupt my focus. But there's no reason that that practical experience for me should extend to a moral judgment. There could be an argument that I'm not doing a good job of caring for myself if my spaces are cluttered, given that observation. However, for other people, if they don't experience clutter that way, the same argument doesn't apply.

I think another part of the moral picture, for me, though, comes from the idea of things being used. From an ecological and a privilege standpoint, I have difficulty owning lots of objects that I don't use. Now, I use a lot of things, so this doesn't mean that I need to live in an austere modernist wasteland to accomodate that. But if I buy something and wind up not using it, I feel that as a weight on me. Partly that's because it took resources to make that thing, and by not using it, I'm creating a need for additional resources to be spent to make more of that thing (or a substitute if it's not in production anymore), presuming that not everybody's need for that thing is met. The privilege aspect comes from the opportunity created. If I've bought a thing and found that I don't use it, I can give it away for free, or sell it for much less than what I paid for it, which enables somebody who might not have been able to afford one at full price to have access to it. So when I hang on to those things, I feel an opportunity cost for not making that happen.

I dunno if that makes sense? Anyway, those are the ways I tend to relate to clutter and having lots of objects.

The thing that causes me the most trouble grappling with making moral judgments both of myself and of others is when I see myself or others compulsively buying things for which I can't imagine there being either an immediate use or a long-term use. An example was when I went to eeyorerin's house and saw that her partner had bought a huge number of, to give one example, 802.11b network adapters for laptops, which were all sitting in the box and shrink-wrap, never opened. Not only did neither of them have a laptop that was compatible with them (although there were a number of old laptops in the house which were), but if they suddenly had a need for a network adapter, it's a commodity that you could go out and buy trivially, and the likelihood is, knowing both of them, that they would have rather bought a new one at a higher speed rather than using one of those old 802.11b one. That sort of thing does bother me, and I'm not sure if it should or not. I have an immediate reaction that I shouldn't be judging other people, but I'm not sure.

There's been some interesting discussion of hoarders vs. couponers in light of a recent television show about "extreme" coupon users.

[firecat]

I feel the same way about the "noise" of things that are in the way.

Also I feel more angry about clutter if I am stressed in other ways.

Noodling:

Why does whether a person is "caring for zirself" carry a moral charge? I mean, that's huge these days, but I think it's a somewhat recent notion of what morality consists of.

I think another part of the moral picture, for me, though, comes from the idea of things being used.

That makes sense. I find that a lot of my clutter that I stress about doesn't fall into the category of stuff I can give away to others, because it's out of date or flawed/broken.

The thing that causes me the most trouble grappling with making moral judgments both of myself and of others is when I see myself or others compulsively buying things for which I can't imagine there being either an immediate use or a long-term use.

I don't judge this as a moral issue because I don't know where the line is between "compulsive buying" and "the hobby of collecting." And because I know acquiring stuff is a way some people deal with emotional issues, maybe issues of having grown up in an unpredictable environment or having grown up poor. And it seems like a mostly non-harmful way to deal with issues.

(Seeing what eeyorerin had to deal with when her partner moved out and left her with all the junk, that makes me mad. But more because dumping your stuff on someone else is wrong, than because having stuff is wrong.)

[tangledaxon]

That is such an interesting thought. I'd never considered it, and I'm glad you posted about it. Thank you for that.

"Clutter" has always been something for me to avoid, but that's because it causes me great distress to be surrounded by Many Things. For mental peace, I need calmness of surroundings, and that includes visual, auditory, olfactory, etc. stimuli. It's related to my sensory processing disorder. So I actually can't visit houses that are full of things to the point of (what feels to me, subjectively, to be) chaos. I dislike feeling like I'm so high maintenance; because it's severely limiting and can be easily triggered by what others consider to be a perfectly normal home space. I wish it weren't the case. :(

But it certainly has nothing to do with morality, for me. Tidy, organized spaces are just part of my cope, with regard to my disabilities.

[wired]

I have a lot of things, but rather than finding them chaotic, for the most part I find them satisfying. I can lay my hand on the book we were just discussing. I can pull out the right bin of fabric in 20 seconds. I almost never have spare operating capital sufficient to make re-buying things trivial.

I do have things that I want clear and tidy. I like my bed made. It is much more inviting, and less emotionally-laden than it being unmade (my partner has a wfh job and a sleep disorder). I hate things cluttering the floor, especially exits. I call this fire-route claustrophobia. But on the whole, I am mystified by the urge to get rid of things that one presumably acquired on purpose.

I sort of want to write an essay on Judgemental Minimalism as an example of class enforcement. If you can afford to get rid of things and accept that you will need to rebuy some things that you have divested, it is easier to get rid of them. If you do not have sufficient capital to rebuy, divesting is much riskier.

[firecat]

I sort of want to write an essay on Judgemental Minimalism as an example of class enforcement.

I'd love to see that!

[graymalkin13.livejournal.com]

I've come to despise the word "clutter." It doesn't mean anything, and the "decluttering" craze strikes me as marketing hype. I don't have the energy to answer all the subtle points in your post, but I agree wholeheartedly that inherently negative words like "clutter" are not helpful. And that there is no inherent virtue in emptiness. What matters is the harmony of the whole.

I like a space filled with evocative objects and pictures, intriguing books, enticing art supplies, jewelry I never wear, and snoozing cats. Objects in my space can inspire quasi-spiritual meditations or bring up memories I might not otherwise recover.

Yes, my space is full of things, and it's dusty. But it's my mirror, my still-life, my treasurehouse, my messy unconscious, and that's what makes it home.

[firecat]

It doesn't mean anything

That is a really good point!

[mama-hogswatch.livejournal.com]

It think clutter is stuff you don't need and love. If you need it and love it, I don't think it's clutter at all.

I also think this is a subjective thing. My house isn't old-style Samurai spare (attractive enough, but not to my personal taste), nor is it at Victorian levels of nicknacks and visual patterns (again, attractive enough, but not to my taste).

I am happiest when things are mostly neat. I think for my own part it is because I associate piles of papers, boxes of things in corners and piles of laundry around with some of the worst times in my life, shouting, controlling behavior and emotional abuse. I am uneasy when spending long periods of time in such environments because of that association.

I associate things being put away with peace and considerateness. I could see (EASILY!) where my exact preferences might be associated with bad things if, for instance, a parent were abusive in the face of less orderliness.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

It think clutter is stuff you don't need and love.

I think it's stuff you don't need OR love. I don't "need" any of my collectibles, and I don't "love" stationery supplies, etc.

[e4q.livejournal.com]

i am a big fan of getting rid of things that are in any way unhappy, but i also own a lot of things that are perfectly happy things, and which i like. some of which would need replacing if i ditched them.

i have a mirror which i climbed into a skip around 1983 and unscrewed from a wardrobe which has moved house with me around 20 times. it's not super nice, and it certainly isn't valuable, but it's a full length mirror, and it also reminds me of a lightness of spirit and physicality that is a fond memory among less fond memories.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

Making things that have nothing to do with morality a moral issue is a real hot-button for me.

[auntysocial.livejournal.com]

Me too, and then some.

[auntysocial.livejournal.com]

Clutter is like fat. In olden times, only the rich had enough to eat to become fat. Now, anyone can get fat, and slenderness is a status symbol. In olden times, only wealthy people could buy a lot of stuff. Now, with thrift stores and junk left in the street, anyone can have a lot of stuff. Vast empty space is a great luxury now, and has more to do with economic status than virtue. Many years ago a friend of mine said she was happy to have more money because it meant she could get rid of things. She didn't have to worry about replacing the things she discarded, if she ever needed them again.

[firecat]

Many years ago a friend of mine said she was happy to have more money because it meant she could get rid of things. She didn't have to worry about replacing the things she discarded, if she ever needed them again.

YES, that's so true!

[micheinnz.livejournal.com]

I have heard fat referred to as "body clutter." Shudder.