Great Question
As a resident of one of those parts of the USA in which rolling farmland is being gobbled at an amazing rate by two-and three-acre subdivisions upon which are erected gigantic architectural-vernacular-raping houses that demand comparison to Hummers, I have lately been forced to think about the notions of entitlement and consumption.
I’m agin it, natch.
So’s this individual, courtesy of the Washington Post:
The photo above is the culmination of a months-long piece of performance art in which the artist has denied herself increasingly fundamental pleasures and even necessities, attempting to strip away all external things until she is left with, precisely, Nothing.
The piece began in January when Ichiuji — a married third-year Corcoran student in her late thirties from Front Royal, Va. — started giving up things: coffee, television, soda and medication, followed in February by fast food and alcohol. As the seasons changed, she gave up cosmetics and chocolate, meat and magazines. Since the beginning of May, she’s had: no newspapers, no music, no mirrors, no cell phone, no e-mail, no driving, no sex, no books, no family or friends or running water. No appliances, no speech, no clocks, no shoes, no food, no shelter….
“How much would you have to lose to appreciate what you have?” ask the postcards in front of her display.
Wow, that’s a great question.
In part I’m moved by her piece because I remember an article in that same paper that celebrated the lifelong contributions of one John Foote, a county lawyer who has done more than anyone else to make the rape of Loudoun County possible. Said Foote in the profile, “I have not found an adequate, ethical justification for telling anybody they can’t be the next person in [to Loudoun County].”
Mr. Foote, meet Ms. Ichiuji.
The point being, that Loudoun County already has some very nice houses. There are quite a few of them. Many of them are for sale. Nobody would stop you from buying them.
The problem with them, of course, is that they were built for members of the American middle class in 1965, 1970, 1975 — when the ability to buy a home meant you had Enough. Not More Than Enough. You had Enough. Three bedroom rambler or colonial, one-and-a-half baths, maybe a den with a fireplace, kitchen. Human Scale. For a close-knit, loving family. Maybe we need to paint the living room, but we’ll get to that in the winter.
Enough is no longer Enough.
I don’t think a lot of us even remember what Enough feels like.
May 12th, 2005 at 6:15 am
Ouch! Way too often I resemble your remarks. I tend to resist consumption at the macro level and succumb to the siren call of marketing at the micro level.
Reminds me of a visiting African minister that came to preach at my white, conservative, Episcopal church at few years back.
He stunned the upper middle class congregation by asking your burning question in the context of his life experience in sub-Saharan Africa.
How much is enough? A lot less than most of us are indoctrinated to believe.
May 12th, 2005 at 11:58 am
As I have watched large hunks of our PA countryside hacked up into McMansions, I have often asked myself this question. I can’t say I’m an innocent here–although I would like to. I am baffled by our society’s unending need to consume. Simplify.
May 15th, 2005 at 3:46 pm
It’s the megalomania that fascinates me. Thanks for making the connection between SUVs and McMansions - it does suggest a trend, doesn’t it?
Personally, I have little enough interest in housework that I barely manage to keep our little 1,300 sq. ft. joint halfway clean - what the hell would I want with another 2,000 sq. ft.?
Plus, where I live in CA, it’s common to see huge subdivisions of these things built out past the so-called suburbs, in “bedroom communities” where you have a 2-4 hour/day commute.
Put that with high gas prices to drive the SUV long distances each day, and Adj. Rate Mortgages with interest rates creeping up, up, up - and then ask yourself why people are feeling more than a little bit overwhelmed…