Are We Really Materialists?

[emptym]

From the Te of Piglet:

[W]e live in what is commonly described as a Materialistic Society. But that description is in error. Ours is in reality an Abstract Value society—one in which things are not appreciated for what they are so much as what they represent. If Western industrial society appreciated the Material World, there would be no junkyards, no clearcut forests, no shoddily designed and manufactured products, no poisoned water sources, no obese, fuel-guzzling automobiles, nor any of the other horrors and eyesores that haunt us at every turn. If ours were a materialistic society, we would love the physical world—and we would know our limits within it.

I think there is a lot to this. What do others think?

 

[SpooPoker]

Materialism is defined as physical matter which is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter. Since we are talking about clothes, then sure, we are.

 

[GradSchooler]

There is a HUGE difference between being a materialist and being materialistic. The above confuses this distinction. Being a materialist requires only that one recognize the material (as opposed to metaphysical) origins of meaning and history. What this excerpt refers to as materialist/materialistic would be much closer to the notion of commodity fetishism, which is to say a confusion concerning the value of objects and a misdirected interest in accumulation for its own sake.

 

[SpooPoker]

So I purchase physical items that give me an emotional response. Whats that? Materialistic or no?

 

[superego]

Originally Posted by GradSchooler

There is a HUGE difference between being a materialist and being materialistic. The above confuses this distinction. Being a materialist requires only that one recognize the material (as opposed to metaphysical) origins of meaning and history. What this excerpt refers to as materialist/materialistic would be much closer to the notion of commodity fetishism, which is to say a confusion concerning the value of objects and a misdirected interest in accumulation for its own sake.

Elegantly phrased, but ultimately wrong. Materialistic as the quality of placing great interest or importance on material things and materialist as an individual who exhibits materialism.

And yes (we are materialists) but I don't think it's so black and white as to say materialism is bad (everyone is a materialist to some extent). That said, I'd say that SF is almost certainly comprised of people who are of a greater materialistic bent than the rest of the population.

 

[Archivist]

^^Amusing, but seriously, you have no idea what you are going on about.

 

[Lord-Barrington]

Originally Posted by superego

Elegantly phrased, but ultimately wrong. Materialistic as the quality of placing great interest or importance on material things and materialist as an individual who exhibits materialism.

And yes (we are materialists) but I don't think it's so black and white as to say materialism is bad (everyone is a materialist to some extent). That said, I'd say that SF is almost certainly comprised of people who are of a greater materialistic bent than the rest of the population.

I disagree. I just think the SF is filled with people who have a specific interest that happens to be defined as "luxury" items, to some extent. I think a suburb dwelling insurance broker who craves a new BMW, pool and a new annex to his 3,000 sf house but wears pleated Dockers is probably more cravenly materialistic than the average SF member who will gladly pay 200$ less in rent a month for a year if it means they can afford a new pair of Lobbs.

 

[superego]

Originally Posted by Archivist

^^Amusing, but seriously, you have no idea what you are going on about.

Detached yet snarky...how cute.

 

[Archivist]

It's fun to be cute. The alternatives are generally boring.

 

[Tck13]

[W]e live in what is commonly described as a Materialistic Society. But that description is in error. Ours is in reality an Abstract Value society"”one in which things are not appreciated for what they are so much as what they represent. If Western industrial society appreciated the Material World, there would be no junkyards, no clearcut forests, no shoddily designed and manufactured products, no poisoned water sources, no obese, fuel-guzzling automobiles, nor any of the other horrors and eyesores that haunt us at every turn. If ours were a materialistic society, we would love the physical world"”and we would know our limits within it.

I agree that we don't respect / appreciate what things are / are made of. There's an immense disrespect for the environment and what makes up much of what we use in our daily lives. I think about how Indians lived their lives with respect and awe of the environment and how they worked in tandem with it.

I guess there's materialism with regards to having more stuff and materialism which works in tandem with the earth and human / nature's right sized needs.

 

[noob in 89]

Wait, wasn't the Tao of Pooh sort of a jokey takedown of the empty postmodernist essay style? Or am I mixing it up with something more earnest? If the above quote is by the same author, we probably shouldn't take it all that seriously...

 

[GradSchooler]

Originally Posted by superego

Elegantly phrased, but ultimately wrong. Materialistic as the quality of placing great interest or importance on material things and materialist as an individual who exhibits materialism. And yes (we are materialists) but I don't think it's so black and white as to say materialism is bad (everyone is a materialist to some extent). That said, I'd say that SF is almost certainly comprised of people who are of a greater materialistic bent than the rest of the population.
I'm afraid not. To say one is a materialist is not to say that it is an "individual who exhibits materialism." That's a tautology. Akin to saying that a duck is a duck because it exhibits duck-ness. Materialism is a long-standing philosophical tradition beginning with Epicurus and continuing through Spinoza and Marx and ultimately finding it's apotheosis with the scientific tradition descending from Robert Boyle. It has nothing whatsoever to do with placing great importance on things in the sense in which you are using it. It's concern lies with recognizing that the explanations of both natural and social phenomena ultimately emerge from material (physical) reality and not from a metaphysical or spiritual causes. Certainly the members of Style Forum would count amongst them a high number of materialistic individuals; they are interested in accumulating material objects and for some this becomes and end in-and-of-itself. Such an attitude would fall under the concept of commodity fetishism. Whether or not they are materialists in the actual (not colloquial) sense of the word (i.e. that they believe in materialism as outlined above) I could not say. As to your question Spoo: It's entirely possible for physical/material objects to cause emotional responses. What commodity fetishism suggest is that in modern capitalist society, which is in many ways defined by the need for mass consumption of a great quantity of commodities, a confusion arises between the object in-and-of-itself and the feelings or relationships associated with that object because of social norms or prestige. As an example: I recently bought a new tie which made me quite happy. However, I recognize that the quality of happiness I'm experiencing is not, in fact, a quality which the tie possesses but rather the result of the relationship between myself and the tie. The joy I feel is an emergent reaction to the actual existing (i.e. material) elements of the tie I value (quality, colour, etc.) because of what they represent. Fetishism emerges when one confuses these emergent relational qualities which exist between objects (or, in this case, people and objects) for qualities of the object in-and-of-itself and believe that simply possessing the object will grant them this quality.

 

[tacobender]

Originally Posted by Lord-Barrington

I disagree. I just think the SF is filled with people who have a specific interest that happens to be defined as "luxury" items, to some extent. I think a suburb dwelling insurance broker who craves a new BMW, pool and a new annex to his 3,000 sf house but wears pleated Dockers is probably more cravenly materialistic than the average SF member who will gladly pay 200$ less in rent a month for a year if it means they can afford a new pair of Lobbs.

Bingo. I take an interest in clothing and watches, and some odd ball exotic cars. I get joy out of my clothing and watches. My condo is simply a place to sleep. I like the location, and have no desire to move into the suburbs into a 3000 sq foot house. My TV is a hand me down from a friend, couldn't tell you anything about it.

I have friends that have home theaters, SUV's, big homes, the latest computers, I could care less. If I had a job that paid me to have everything, sure why not. But seeing as how I don't, I spend my money on things that I take an interest in. Can't help it that it happens to be new Royal Oak or pair of Berlutti's.

 

[noob in 89]

Originally Posted by GradSchooler

I'm afraid not. To say one is a materialist is not to say that it is an "individual who exhibits materialism." That's tautology.

That's not tautology; that's grammar.

 

[GradSchooler]

Originally Posted by noobizor

That's not tautology; that's grammar.

In a different context I'd agree with you. But the poster offered that statement as a key premise in their argument AND simultaneously as the conclusion. That's tautology.