materialism in society essay

There’s no shame in being materialistic – it could benefit society

Lecturer in Marketing, Lancaster University

Contributors

Professor of International Management and Marketing, Vienna University of Economics and Business

Senior Lecturer, University of Manchester

Disclosure statement

Charles Cui does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Bodo B. Schlegelmilch and Sandra Awanis do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Lancaster University provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation UK.

View all partners

Materialism gets a bad press. There is an assumption that people who prioritise “things” are inherently selfish. The stereotype is that of highly materialistic people, living in a different world, where their priority is cash, possessions and status. But is the stereotype true? Our research reveals there are two sides to this story.

Highly materialistic people believe that owning and buying things are necessary means to achieve important life goals, such as happiness, success and desirability. However, in their quest to own more, they often sideline other important goals. Research shows that highly materialistic people tend to care less about the environment and other people than “non-materialists” do. These findings lead to the assumption that highly materialistic people are largely selfish and prefer to build meaningful relationships with “stuff”, as opposed to people.

But other research shows that materialism is a natural part of being human and that people develop materialistic tendencies as an adaptive response to cope with situations that make them feel anxious and insecure, such as a difficult family relationship or even our natural fear of death .

Underlying desires

Materialism is not only found in particularly materialistic people. Even referring to people as “consumers” , as opposed to using other generic terms such as citizens, can temporarily activate a materialistic mindset. As materialism researchers James Burroughs and Aric Rindfleisch said:

Telling people to be less materialistic is like telling people that they shouldn’t enjoy sex or eat fatty foods. People can learn to control their impulses, but this does not remove the underlying desires.

As such, efforts directed towards eliminating materialism (taxing or banning advertising activities ) are unlikely to be effective. These anti-materialism views also limit business activities and places considerable tension between business and policy.

The caring materialists

Our research examined how materialism is perceived across cultures and it revealed that there is more to materialism than just self-gratification. In Asia, materialism is an important part of the “collectivistic” culture (where the emphasis is on relationships with others, in particular the groups a person belongs to).

Buying aspirational brands of goods and services is a common approach in the gift-giving traditions in East Asia. Across collectivistic communities, purchasing things that mirror the identity and style of people you regard as important can also help you to conform to social expectations that in turn blanket you with a sense of belonging. These behaviours are not unique to Asian societies. It’s just that the idea of materialism in the West is more often seen in sharp contrast to community values, rather than a part of it.

We also found that materialists in general are “meaning-seekers” rather than status seekers. They believe in the symbolic and signalling powers of products, brands and price tags. Materialists who also believe in community values use these cues to shed positive light onto themselves and others they care about, to meet social expectations, demonstrate belonging and even to fulfil their perceived social responsibilities. For example, people often flaunt their green and eco-friendly purchases of Tom’s shoes and Tesla cars in public to signal desirable qualities of altruism and social concern.

Reconciling material and collective interests

So how do we get an increasingly materialistic society to care more about the greater good (such as buying more ethically-sourced products or making more charity donations) and be less conspicuous and wasteful in its consumption? The answer is to look to our culture and what sort of collectivistic values it tries to teach us.

We found that a simple reminder of the community value that resonates with who we are as a society can help reduce materialistic tendencies. That said, the Asian and Western cultures tend to teach slightly different ideals of community value. Asian communities tend to pass on values that centre around interpersonal relationships (such as family duties). Western societies tend to pass on values that are abstract and spiritual (such as kindness, equality and social justice).

Unsurprisingly, many businesses have been quick to jump onto this bandwagon. Tear-jerking commercials from Thailand reminding people to buy insurance to protect loved ones, Christmas adverts reminding viewers to be kind to one another are just two examples. But nice commercials alone won’t be enough to do the job.

Social marketers and public policymakers should tap into society’s materialistic tendencies to promote well-meaning social programmes, such as refugee settlement, financial literacy programmes and food bank donations. The key is to promote these programmes in ways that materialists can engage with – through a public display of consumption that communicates social identity.

A perfect example is the Choose Love charity pop-up store in central London, where people get to purchase real products (blankets, children’s clothing, sleeping bags, sanitary pads) in a beautifully designed retail space akin to the Apple store, which are then distributed to refugees in Greece, Iraq and Syria.

Materialism undoubtedly has an ugly face but it is here to stay. Rather than focusing efforts to diminish it, individual consumers, businesses and policymakers should focus on using it for promoting collective interests that benefit wider society.

• Consumerism
• materialism
• Black Friday

Scheduling Analyst

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

Sydney Horizon Educators (Identified)

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Materialism: a system that eats us from the inside out

T hat they are crass, brash and trashy goes without saying. But there is something in the pictures posted on Rich Kids of Instagram (and highlighted by the Guardian last week) that inspires more than the usual revulsion towards crude displays of opulence. There is a shadow in these photos – photos of a young man wearing all four of his Rolex watches , a youth posing in front of his helicopter , endless pictures of cars, yachts, shoes, mansions, swimming pools and spoilt white boys throwing gangster poses in private jets – of something worse: something that, after you have seen a few dozen, becomes disorienting, even distressing.

The pictures are, of course, intended to incite envy. They reek instead of desperation. The young men and women seem lost in their designer clothes, dwarfed and dehumanised by their possessions, as if ownership has gone into reverse. A girl's head barely emerges from the haul of Chanel, Dior and Hermes shopping bags she has piled on her vast bed. It's captioned "shoppy shoppy" and "#goldrush", but a photograph whose purpose is to illustrate plenty seems instead to depict a void. She's alone with her bags and her image in the mirror, in a scene that seems saturated with despair.

Perhaps I'm projecting my prejudices. But an impressive body of psychological research seems to support these feelings. It suggests that materialism, a trait that can afflict both rich and poor, and which the researchers define as " a value system that is preoccupied with possessions and the social image they project ", is both socially destructive and self-destructive. It smashes the happiness and peace of mind of those who succumb to it. It's associated with anxiety, depression and broken relationships.

There has long been a correlation observed between materialism, a lack of empathy and engagement with others, and unhappiness. But research conducted over the past few years seems to show causation. For example, a series of studies published in the journal Motivation and Emotion in July showed that as people become more materialistic, their wellbeing (good relationships, autonomy, sense of purpose and the rest) diminishes. As they become less materialistic, it rises.

In one study, the researchers tested a group of 18-year-olds, then re-tested them 12 years later. They were asked to rank the importance of different goals – jobs, money and status on one side, and self-acceptance, fellow feeling and belonging on the other. They were then given a standard diagnostic test to identify mental health problems. At the ages of both 18 and 30, materialistic people were more susceptible to disorders. But if in that period they became less materialistic, they became happier.

In another study, the psychologists followed Icelanders weathering their country's economic collapse. Some people became more focused on materialism, in the hope of regaining lost ground. Others responded by becoming less interested in money and turning their attention to family and community life. The first group reported lower levels of wellbeing, the second group higher levels.

These studies, while suggestive, demonstrate only correlation. But the researchers then put a group of adolescents through a church programme designed to steer children away from spending and towards sharing and saving. The self-esteem of materialistic children on the programme rose significantly, while that of materialistic children in the control group fell. Those who had little interest in materialism before the programme experienced no change in self-esteem.

Another paper, published in Psychological Science, found that people in a controlled experiment who were repeatedly exposed to images of luxury goods, to messages that cast them as consumers rather than citizens and to words associated with materialism (such as buy, status, asset and expensive), experienced immediate but temporary increases in material aspirations, anxiety and depression. They also became more competitive and more selfish, had a reduced sense of social responsibility and were less inclined to join in demanding social activities. The researchers point out that, as we are repeatedly bombarded with such images through advertisements, and constantly described by the media as consumers, these temporary effects could be triggered more or less continuously.

A third paper , published (paradoxically) in the Journal of Consumer Research, studied 2,500 people for six years. It found a two-way relationship between materialism and loneliness: materialism fosters social isolation; isolation fosters materialism. People who are cut off from others attach themselves to possessions. This attachment in turn crowds out social relationships.

The two varieties of materialism that have this effect – using possessions as a yardstick of success and seeking happiness through acquisition – are the varieties that seem to be on display on Rich Kids of Instagram. It was only after reading this paper that I understood why those photos distressed me: they look like a kind of social self-mutilation.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons an economic model based on perpetual growth continues on its own terms to succeed, though it may leave a trail of unpayable debts, mental illness and smashed relationships. Social atomisation may be the best sales strategy ever devised, and continuous marketing looks like an unbeatable programme for atomisation.

Materialism forces us into comparison with the possessions of others, a race both cruelly illustrated and crudely propelled by that toxic website. There is no end to it. If you have four Rolexes while another has five, you are a Rolex short of contentment. The material pursuit of self-esteem reduces your self-esteem.

I should emphasise that this is not about differences between rich and poor: the poor can be as susceptible to materialism as the rich. It is a general social affliction, visited upon us by government policy, corporate strategy, the collapse of communities and civic life, and our acquiescence in a system that is eating us from the inside out.

This is the dreadful mistake we are making: allowing ourselves to believe that having more money and more stuff enhances our wellbeing, a belief possessed not only by those poor deluded people in the pictures, but by almost every member of almost every government. Worldly ambition, material aspiration, perpetual growth: these are a formula for mass unhappiness.

Twitter: @georgemonbiot. A fully referenced version of this article can be found at Monbiot.com

• Social media
• Digital media

More on this story

David Simon: 'There are now two Americas. My country is a horror show'

Xbox Live among game services targeted by US and UK spy agencies

Let's admit it: Britain is now a developing country

Beyoncé wore fur to a vegan restaurant – and there's nothing contradictory about that

Most viewed.

• Newsletters

Site search

• Israel-Hamas war
• Home Planet
• 2024 election
• Supreme Court
• All explainers
• Future Perfect

Filed under:

• Neuroscience
• Science of Everyday Life

A psychologist explains why materialism is making you unhappy

Share this story.

• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on Twitter
• Share this on Reddit
• Share All sharing options

Share All sharing options for: A psychologist explains why materialism is making you unhappy

Materialists lead unhappier lives — and are worse to the people around them. And it seems that social media might be fueling materialistic attitudes, too. This is all according to a fascinating interview the American Psychological Association posted in 2014 with Knox College psychologist Tim Kasser , whose research focuses on materialism and well-being.

Here are the best bits.

Materialists are sad, terrible people:

We know from research that materialism tends to be associated with treating others in more competitive, manipulative and selfish ways, as well as with being less empathetic ... [M]aterialism is associated with lower levels of well-being, less pro-social interpersonal behavior, more ecologically destructive behavior, and worse academic outcomes. It also is associated with more spending problems and debt ... We found that the more highly people endorsed materialistic values, the more they experienced unpleasant emotions, depression and anxiety, the more they reported physical health problems, such as stomachaches and headaches, and the less they experienced pleasant emotions and felt satisfied with their lives.

People become more materialistic when they feel insecure:

Research shows two sets of factors that lead people to have materialistic values. First, people are more materialistic when they are exposed to messages that suggest such pursuits are important ... Second, and somewhat less obvious — people are more materialistic when they feel insecure or threatened, whether because of rejection, economic fears or thoughts of their own death.

Materialism is linked to media exposure and national-advertising expenditures:

The research shows that the more that people watch television, the more materialistic their values are ... A study I recently published with psychologist Jean Twenge ... found that the extent to which a given year’s class of high school seniors cared about materialistic pursuits was predictable on the basis of how much of the U.S. economy came from advertising and marketing expenditures — the more that advertising dominated the economy, the more materialistic youth were.

Materialism is linked to social media use, too:

One study of American and Arab youth found that materialism is higher as social media use increases ... That makes sense, since most social media messages also contain advertising, which is how the social media companies make a profit.

Many psychologists think that materialists are unhappy because these people neglect their real psychological needs:

[M]aterialistic values are associated with living one’s life in ways that do a relatively poor job of satisfying psychological needs to feel free, competent and connected to other people. When people do not have their needs well-satisfied, they report lower levels of well-being and happiness, as well as more distress.

Check out the whole interview at the APA's website.

Will you support Vox today?

We believe that everyone deserves to understand the world that they live in. That kind of knowledge helps create better citizens, neighbors, friends, parents, and stewards of this planet. Producing deeply researched, explanatory journalism takes resources. You can support this mission by making a financial gift to Vox today. Will you join us?

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via

Next Up In Life

Sign up for the newsletter today, explained.

Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.

Thanks for signing up!

Check your inbox for a welcome email.

Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again.

Some say AI will make war more humane. Israel’s war in Gaza shows the opposite.

How AI tells Israel who to bomb

Vox podcasts tackle the Israel-Hamas war 

Israel’s Rafah operation, explained

Eurovision is supposed to be fun and silly. This year is different.

The Drake vs. Kendrick Lamar feud, explained

Consumer Behavior

What causes materialism in america, individuals who live in affluent areas may be more likely to spend compulsively..

Posted March 23, 2014 | Reviewed by Abigail Fagan

The belief that material possessions improve individuals’ personal and social well-being permeates America. However, contrary to this belief, multiple studies show that materialists, compared to non-materialists, have lower social and personal well-being. Compulsive and impulsive spending, increased debt, decreased savings, depression , social anxiety , decreased subjective well-being, less psychological satisfaction, and other undesirable outcomes have all been linked with materialistic values and purchasing behaviors.

In light of these findings, many studies have tried to determine what causes such strong materialistic desires in America. In a recent paper, my colleagues and I examined the "geography of materialism ." We found a connection between one's neighborhood, socioeconomic status, and materialism.

Consistent with past research that has demonstrated negative influences of neighborhood characteristics on individual attitudes and behaviors, our results suggest that various local economic indicators of wealth (e.g., more financial development, higher median per-capita income) affect individuals’ materialistic values, impulsive buying tendency, and savings behavior.

These signals of wealth conveyed by the local economy appeared to impact self-evaluations in a manner similar to when one is exposed to idealized advertising images. That is, individuals who were young, poor, and lived around wealth were most vulnerable to engaging in social comparison with idealized, wealthier individuals, and using their scant resources to accumulate possessions to, presumably, convey wealth they did not have.

The reason for the link may have to do with "relative deprivation," or the feeling that people are less well-off than those around them. In this case, living in a strong local economy may change an individual’s comparison standards and encourage individuals to socially compare with respect to their material belongings, style, and consumption patterns. We suggest that people who live in more affluent areas are vulnerable to this implicit social comparison — if you see other people spending a lot of money, you feed a need to live up to that standard. Because of this, you end up buying a lot of material items, typically on impulse, even though they don't actually make you happier.

Think about it: If someone is bombarded with images or reminders of wealth, such an abundance of investment banks nearby or neighbors driving luxury cars, they are likely to feel a need to spend money they may not have to project an image of wealth they don't actually possess.

So, what is the next step? We want to explore whether there are ways to counter a neighborhood's effect on an individual's materialistic values. This could be done simply by making more people aware of the correlation or through interventions developed to make people feel more grateful for their status.

Beyond The Purchase is a website dedicated to understanding the psychology behind spending decisions and the relationship between money and happiness . We study how factors like your values and personality interact with spending decisions to affect your happiness . At Beyond The Purchase you can take quizzes that help you understand what motivates your spending decisions, and you’ll get personalized feedback and tips. For example:

• How do you score on the five fundamental dimensions of personality? Take our Big Five personality test and find out.
• How do you feel about your past, present, and future? Take the Time Attitudes Survey and learn about your relationship with time.
• How happy are your Facebook updates? We can analyze your last 25 Facebook status updates and determine how happy you have been.
• How happy is your subconscious ? Take our Happiness IAT and find out.

Finally, I am pretty excited about our gratitude intervention and some of the benefits you can experience if you take part. If you go to BeyondThePurchase.Org you can find our two-week gratitude intervention . Every night after you complete our brief gratitude journal, we will tell you how grateful you felt that day—we also have a graphic displaying how grateful you have felt each day of the intervention so you can see how grateful you are.

With these insights, you can better understand the ways in which your financial decisions affect your happiness. To read more about the connection between money and happiness, go to the Beyond the Purchase blog .

"Living in Wealthy Neighborhoods Increases Material Desires and Maladaptive Consumption" by Jia Wei Zhang, Ryan Howell, and Colleen Howell, published online on Feb. 7, Journal on Consumer Culture .

Ryan T. Howell, Ph.D. , is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at San Francisco State University.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

University of Notre Dame

Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews

• Home ›
• Reviews ›

The New Politics of Materialism: History, Philosophy, Science

Sarah Ellenzweig and John H. Zammito (eds.), The New Politics of Materialism: History, Philosophy, Science , Routledge, 2017, 328pp., $140 (hbk), ISBN 9781138240742.

Reviewed by John Protevi, Louisiana State University

Sarah Ellenzweig and John H. Zammito have edited a challenging set of essays that can serve as a critical companion to the “new materialist” (NM) movement, the main exemplars of which here are Diana Coole and Samantha Frost, Karen Barad, Jane Bennett, Elizabeth Grosz, Luciana Parisi, Jussi Parikka, and Rosi Braidotti. Many essays also mention Gilles Deleuze as an influence on NM, and a few concentrate on him as a NM thinker (Ansell-Pearson, Lowrie, Hayles).

The Introduction sets out three critical themes by means of which the essays interrogate NM: history, ontology, and politics. The extension of the term “materialism” is at stake in all these themes: is it purely a metaphysical stance, one opposed to dualism, or does it also cover any concept of matter as active or passive, etc., with no regard to metaphysics? On the former, restrictive sense, we can say that the physicalist Hobbes is a “materialist,” but not the dualist Descartes, no matter what we might say about his view of matter. Ontologically, we might ask if “materialism” points to any notion of matter as input to production process at any scale (e.g., recruits are the matter from which soldiers are produced) or is it only matter as endpoint of reduction (i.e., “small stuff treated by sub-atomic physics”) to which other regimes are reduced? Finally, intersecting these questions are the onto-political senses of “materialism” as the primacy of the economic, the rejection of a spiritualist notion of mind or soul, and a purely instrumental view of the effects of public religion.

The question about history: has NM staked its claim to novelty for its notions of active matter and widespread non-human agency by constructing a straw man out of the “old” materialism of Early Modern Europe, one supposedly dedicated to the thesis of inert, dead, or passive matter to be studied by mechanistic physics? About ontology: are NM thinkers too profligate in their ontology by attributing agency when mere causal efficacy would suffice? Do they properly account for “scale variance” or differences in power at different levels of emergence? And about politics: can the NM thinkers ground a politics in a new materialism of widespread agency, or do they lack the grappling with a naturalized normativity that would be needed for such political interventions?

Accompanying all these questions is another that appears from time to time (in the essays of Jess Keiser, Keith Ansell-Pearson, Angela Willey, and Christian J. Emden), and is the focus of Zammito’s contribution: wouldn’t it be better to analyze concepts of nature and naturalism than those of matter and materialism?

Ellenzweig starts off by claiming that Coole and Frost’s invocation of a “Cartesian-Newtonian” concept of matter as “inert” (in the popular sense of passivity, rather than the scientific sense of persistence in motion or rest without external influence) is not supportable when subjected to a fine-grained historical analysis. For Ellenzweig, such a notion derives more from one-sided readings by anxious theological critics rather than from the eponymous thinkers, whose works were more ambiguous when it came to the active / passive distinction. Descartes’s physics, with its plenum (refusal to separate space from matter), and the way in which matter maintained motion granted it originally by God was read by idealist contemporaries as granting too much activity to matter and hence threatening the spiritual impetus for motion that they believed necessary. For Ellenzweig it was thus critics of Descartes who insisted on the dichotomy between dead matter and activating spirit; Descartes’s own concept of matter was more ambiguous or even paradoxical in combining activity and passivity. Ellenzweig also claims that Newton’s notion in the first edition of the Principia of a vis insita or “innate force” that amounts to a vis inertiae or “force of inactivity,” amounts to a similar paradox or at least ambiguity between matter as active and passive; Newton will switch to a more passive notion of matter in the second edition of the Principia , after the enthusiastic John Toland had taken up the active matter interpretation and run with it. Anxious about a theological reaction similar to the one Descartes got, Newton then took pains to deaden his notion of matter. Ellenzweig then provides a nod to Spinoza’s conatus , which can now be seen as hearkening back to the active interpretation of matter in Descartes and Newton, before ending with a reading of Lucretius as advocating a limited notion of material dynamism, since too much attribution of activity or life to matter tempts one to animism and away from scientific naturalistic explanation.

Continuing the historical theme, Charles Wolfe explores the 18 th century tradition of vital materialism, focusing on La Mettrie and Diderot. He avoids a universal dynamic matter however, which he sees as the mere counterpart of Engels’s concept of “mechanistic materialism,” a concept he finds echoed in NM. For Wolfe, most 17 th century mechanists were substance dualists or agnostics rather than materialists. Wolfe will instead draw our attention to the 18 th century vital materialists’ concern with embodiment; what La Mettrie attempts is a soul-to-living-body reduction, not a mind-to-matter reduction. For Wolfe, this avoids a notion of body as dead matter animated by a vital principle, and a notion of living or vital matter below the organizational level of bodies. In other words, for his vital materialists, it’s organisms that are alive, and not simply “matter” as the “stuff of the universe.” Wolfe finds a fine statement of organic living emergence in one of his vital materialists: “For Venel, organic molecules and organized bodies are subject to laws that are different from that of matter in motion” (46). After his sketch of vital materialism, Wolfe turns to a criticism of the focus on subjectivity in the enactivist school exemplified by Evan Thompson, which strikes him as dualistic. He concludes with a look at Barad, whom he absolves of a subjectivity focus, but whose notion of materiality doesn’t connect with the biomedical analyses and reductionism of the vital materialists, hence preserving them as resources to be recommended to the current scene.

Wilson and Zammito, however, think Ellenzweig goes too far in purging Descartes of a concept of inert matter (Ellenzweig does admit it’s ambiguous). They emphasize that Hobbes at least was a straightforward mechanistic physicalist, as admitted by both Ellenzweig and Wolfe, so that for Wilson and Zammito “new materialism” is not forging its “old materialist” opponent out of whole cloth. Hence for Zammito, the 18 th Century vital materialists were reacting against 17 th century mechanists, which include Descartes and Newton. Also, he reminds us, let’s not forget late 18 th century Laplacean eliminativist, physicalist, determinism.

While allowing NM some historical accuracy with regard to its relation to “old” materialism (qua concept of matter, rather than metaphysical position), Wilson goes on to criticize the NM writers for a tendency to “declare, rather than to argue for, an intrinsic connection between the metaphysics of self-organization, indeterminate spontaneity, and progressive moral thinking on animal welfare, global inequality, gender, and climate change” (114). If we are to argue politics, Wilson says, we should recognize that Early Modern European materialists were seen as “the party of humanity,” and had the kind of theocratic enemies of which progressive thinkers should be proud. More mildly put, the is-ought distinction and its accompanying human exceptionalism has been the defensive position of contemporary critics of materialism; to illustrate this, Wilson examines the 1998 dialogue of Jean-Pierre Changeux and Paul Ricouer. Wilson admits that full-blown normativity, truth, and so on, are resistant to full naturalization, but she approves nonetheless of Changeux’s claim that the sciences can help us with new understandings of human nature. Consider, for example, Wilson asks us, psychological findings that “reveal an underlying disposition to sympathetic identification with others as a powerful human trait” (122). This enables us to question the Kantian move to a noumenal source of the moral will:

Rather than interpreting these conflicting results regarding altruism and selfishness in Kantian terms as the operations, now of a supernatural, now of a natural, element within us respectively, the scientific approach asks us to investigate the co-existence of these two sets of ‘natural’ motivation, as elicited by different cues in the context in which they are experienced (122).

Wilson then poses a very nice question: might it be that the counterpart to NM is not “old materialism” but science-resistant humanities (125)? But not just any science: at the end of the day, Wilson implies, it’s not in the vast sweep of materialist ontology that one should look for help in the battleground of politics, but in the materialist aspect of the biological and human sciences (which themselves are sites of contestation between, for instance, many Evolutionary Psychologists and many feminists).

In an essay with historical, ontological, and normative implications, Jess Keiser proposes a plastic conception of matter as escaping the binary of dead, passive matter and lively, active matter and allowing us to instead investigate the relation of " ‘first nature’ (understood as biophysical matter) and ‘second nature’ (understood as the ‘normative’ realm of discursive practices, social codes, and cultural rituals)" (68). Focusing on the neurophysiological, Keiser seeks to establish two early modern thinkers, Descartes and David Hartley, as possessing a plastic conception of brain matter, and thus resonating with William James and Donald Hebb’s theories. Shifting then to a contemporary, Keiser presents a brisk overview of the work of Adrian Johnston on first and second nature, that is, the way in which nature produces that which ruptures it, exceeds it, and conflicts with it. Johnston’s complex and challenging work resists short summary, but suffice it to say that for Keiser, Johnston enables us to grapple with the problem of how to “somehow reconcile a seeming dualism (between matter and mind, nature and culture) with the demands of monism” (70).

Keith Ansell-Pearson tackles the ontological and the normative aspects of NM in his Deleuze-centered essay. He begins by distinguishing naturalism (as denying human exceptionalism) and materialism (for him, physicalism). He insists that a strong strand of the early Deleuze is that of a “ethically minded naturalist” (92) echoing Lucretius, Spinoza, and Nietzsche in the fight against superstition and the search for human action as norm-generating. A turn to the work of Elizabeth Grosz allows Ansell-Pearson to distinguish a politics of subjective recognition and a politics grappling with the natural and social forces generating subjects with the power to affect and be affected. After a further treatment in detail of the Deleuze-Spinoza-Lucretius nexus, Ansell-Pearson concludes that Deleuze’s naturalism does not “deprive the human animal of its ethico-normative distinctiveness” (106). Hence for Ansell-Pearson, we should read Deleuze as a naturalist, and hence against human exceptionalism, but not as “anti-humanist” if that means denying the distinctiveness of the human; humans are part of nature, but an odd part, if you will.

Lenny Moss’s essay engages both the ontological and the normative. Against what he sees as a too loose notion of agency in new materialism, Moss distinguishes agency from activity by mobilizing a Hegelian insight: naturalized agency appears with taking a position in a normative field, one with values relative to and important for an agent. Moss brings together Aristotle’s flourishing and the Kantian/Hegelian notion of autonomy in his theory of natural “detachment”: “Detachment theory holds that ‘nature explores greater levels of detachment’ and that at increasingly higher levels of detachment this increasingly amounts to moving toward the capacity for normative self-determination” (237). Moss digs deeper than the usual attribution of value to single-celled organisms (“sense-making” in the enactive school) to discuss water, proteins, and enzymes; he finds there a “leap into a new space of self-organizing possibilities and thus a gateway into the possibility of normative causation” (239). Dipping below the biological like this is a bold move by Moss, especially in an essay that goes on to criticize Deleuze for “blurring life/non-life distinctions” (242) and Barad for a scale-free move of seeing quantum effects in the human register, but his insistence on a definite theory of normative agency arguably licenses his gesture.

Angela Willey is another of the contributors who foregrounds “nature” rather than simply “matter.” Feminist theories of the relation of nature and culture posed by Donna Haraway, Karen Barad, Sherry Ortner, Gayle Rubin, Catherine MacKinnon, and Judith Butler can help us escape a stale notion of NM as humanist appropriation of already-formed scientific findings about “vital matter.” Instead, we should be focusing on the way NM “insists upon the inseparability of ontology and epistemology, being and knowing, nature and culture” (149). By doing so we open ourselves to a “capacious call for creative and reflexive reimaging of the meaning of meaning making” so that we can “reconsider the stakes of knowledge politics to include the very materialization of bodies and worlds” (149). In this way, Willey sees one of the strongest potentials of NM to be its capacity to challenge disciplinary boundaries and allow us to marshal “proliferating narrative resources for knowing our worlds, and, in turn, making them anew” (150).

The questions of reduction and emergence come most clearly into focus in Derek Woods’ essay on “scale variance.” For Woods, this notion calls into question Barad’s position that quantum effects ramify in the macrophysical register. Referring to Mariam Thalos (2013), Woods calls into question the unity of science model of reductionism to physics. Alongside his critical remarks on Barad, Woods tackles DeLanda’s reading of Deleuze in Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy (DeLanda 2002). I think there are some problems with his presentation of DeLanda, in which Woods assimilates the fully differentiated virtual to relatively undifferentiated pre-individual ontogenetic fields of individuation such as the egg. Nonetheless, once we leave ontogenesis, Woods poses important questions to DeLanda about the flat ontology of formed individuals and their part-whole relations at different scales.

N. Katherine Hayles picks up on the scale theme in her essay on the “cognitive nonconscious,” which she defines in terms of sub-personal neural processes of synthesizing, filtering, inferring, and anticipating which underlie conscious experience. The “cognitive nonconscious” differentiates levels of natural agency and thus “bridge[s] the gap between quantum effects and cultural dynamics,” a bridge whose mechanisms Barad and other NM thinkers assume must exist but do not explicitly discuss (185). Hayles attributes some of the level-skipping to a Deleuzean influence on NM. However, while it may be true that some NM thinkers (Hayles discusses Parisi, Parikka, Grosz, and Braidotti) emphasize the decentering and centrifugal terms of Deleuze (“deterritorialization” and “destratification”), Hayles neglects the way in which, in A Thousand Plateaus at least, Deleuze and Guattari insist upon the way in which centripetal forces of organismic organization (aka, “reterritorialization” or “stratification”) are both necessary and in many cases salutary. “Staying stratified . . . is not the worst thing that can happen” they say (Deleuze and Guattari 1987, 161). Despite these quibbles, Hayles’s essay is a formidable challenge to her post-humanist NM interlocutors to fill in some of the mechanisms subtending the forms of cognition displayed in the natural continuum in which humans fit.

A third essay discussing scale is that of Christian J. Emden, who claims that NM is “self-defeating” (271) if it thinks it can forego an account of naturalizing normativity that, instead, can be found at the intersection of philosophical naturalism and political theory. For Emden, ethical and epistemic norms are not different in kind, but both inhere in the way in which humans cannot easily escape causal networks. Furthermore, Emden adds, we are owed an account of the emergence of normativity in material conditions, and because we “already live in a normative world,” that account should show how the political and ethical worlds engage with the material (273). Emden’s positive move is to naturalize humans by an account of the “emergence of normativity, linked to an uneven ontology of different scales of what we regard as reality” (273). After a treatment of Bennett, Braidotti, and Barad that accuses them of the naturalistic fallacy in one form or another, Emden shows that too oftrn philosophical naturalism and mainstream political theory avoid the naturalistic fallacy at the cost of an unacceptable divorce of the normative and the natural. Including nonhuman actants in the context of politics is acceptable to Emden, but only on the condition that we have an “uneven ontological field” with “complex forms of differentiation” (287). Emden thus closes with a sketch of three “scales of normativity” that impose constraints on different sets of agents: the biological and physical scale shared by all organisms; the affective scale relevant for “higher order animals, including humans”; and  “moral and epistemic norms” and their social institutions, which govern “responsibilities, duties, and obligations” which are “qualitatively unique to human animals” (288-289).

Ian Lowrie will try to make consistent three tenets of his theory of social reality: Durkheim’s notion that social phenomena are objective; Deleuze and Guattari’s notion that the systematic nature of social phenomena are amenable to “a logic of tracing and coding”; and the notion that social phenomena are ordered by the historical and material conditions of their development (155). Objecting to the tendency in some NM thinkers to treat society as yet another assemblage aside others, Lowrie pivots to a discussion of Durkheim’s realist ontology of social systems impinging on the psychic systems of individual inhabitants. Lowrie’s take on Durkheim however insists on keeping contact with a historical materialist perspective linking the social to material practices. This brings him to Deleuze and Guattari, whose thought on the socius or organizing system of material and semiotic “flows” is summarized quite nicely as well as usefully put into relation with contemporary anthropological studies of non-state societies. Lowrie finishes with a challenging reading of contemporary financial capital against that of Deleuze and Guattari in Anti-Oedipus , whom he thinks neglect the still operative coding operations of capital in favor of its schizophrenizing powers, such that desiring machines break free of the socius qua inert recording surface. While that’s plausible as a critique of Anti-Oedipus , I’m not convinced of Lowrie’s charge that A Thousand Plateaus falls prey to “nostalgia of the pure, for unorganized desire” (172). Despite my demurral here, Lowrie’s essay provides the framework of a re-reading of Deleuze and Guattari that will ultimately be fruitful in confirming or nuancing their work.

Mogens Lærke combines historical and political foci. Joining NM in not being satisfied with social constructivism, Lærke warns that materialism may not be the best way to avoid it, insofar as Hobbes, in his radical arbitrariness of signs and contractualist politics, is something of a social constructivist. Earlier in the volume, Wilson had shown that one can’t necessarily pin a regressive politics on “old” materialism, as it was seen at the time as the “party of humanity” against theocrats. Lærke, however, will claim that no politics can be grounded in materialism, though a Spinozist naturalization of politics, grounding it in the power relations of people and sovereign, can provide some hope, as long as we recognize the need to read Spinoza as “a genuine middle ground between materialism and idealism” (262).

We’ve treated some of Zammito’s historical interventions above; let me conclude by turning to his “Concluding (Irenic) Postscript,” where he asks for shift from the “new materialism” framework to that of “complex naturalism” allowing for the emergence of human subjectivity (308-309). Zammito’s call for attention to emergent order in nature brings to mind self-organizing systems (organismic, ecological, social) as the unit of study more than entities emerging from material configurations. The recommended shift from matter to nature works, I think, because we have such an atomic (in the literal and figurative senses) view of “matter” that reductionism and individualism go together. In this picture, the aggregation of individual capacities is always a threat to reduce emergence (that is, seeing emergence as merely epistemological and hence able to be reduced in a future with more exact measurement capacities). Of course, it’s in the question of measurement where quantum uncertainty comes in and why Barad is such an important figure in this collection. Beyond that, the move to a nature in which one can discern complex systems promises to be one that would allow the full fruit of Deleuze and Guattari’s work to be appreciated, as both a member of, and an inspiration to, the new materialist movement.

DeLanda, Manuel, 2002. Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy . Continuum.

Deleuze, Gilles and Félix Guattari, 1987. A Thousand Plateaus . Translated by Brian Massumi. University of Minnesota Press.

Thalos, Mariam, 2013. Without Hierarchy: The Scale Freedom of the Universe . Oxford University Press.

Materialism In Society And How We Can Overcome It

A common problem we all face is not having enough money. But when looked more closely. We can see that the real problem is not (only) our limited resources. The real problem we experience – or so I hope to convince you – is that we’ve unwittingly inherited a troubling understanding of how to use our limited resources. We use money not as a tool that can generate more money – e.g., invest. But as a way to obtain more possessions so we can prove to others our worthiness.

There’s no shame in being materialistic – wanting stuff. But it’s problematic when stuff is all you pursue.

No wonder why materialism in society is affecting how we operate.

These days. We can only be happy when we know for certainty that we have what others have.

Not because we need extra things. But because we crave extra attention.

After all, acquiring something new triggers a sequence of events:

• We get to share our shiny new possession.
• This invites eyeballs to our persona.
• Thus, the pleasant sensation of recognition goes through our veins.

Every time others are looking at us, this is feeding our appetite to feel accepted. We get a sense of belonging. We feel valued. And this aspect further enables a safe feeling of being part of a group.

But when you join a group that is purely driven by inciting envy in others – by unexhaustingly talking about what’s next on their shopping list so they can appear superior. How is this a good long-term relationship?

Your day-to-day life becomes an endless struggle to earn more so you can purchase more.

Collecting bread crumbs of joy.

But never being truly satisfied.

Not because the act of buying is not pleasantly stimulating the mind. But because there is always something new being produced and new to buy – a new line of clothes, new trendy boots, a new gadget that looks bizarrely unuseful but since others own it…

Outside might appear that we have it all. But inside we are saturated with despair.

If your goal with the money you earn is to get more stuff. I’d like to challenge your approach and hopefully lead you somewhere worthwhile.

In this post. I’m going to uncover the ugliness in our society. Our materialistic society.

What Is The Impact of Materialism On Our Society?

Apart from unstable finances and a cluttered home. The main impact materialism has on our society is the depressing feeling of never being good enough.

After all, every time you see others possessing things you don’t. A sensation of resentment grows inside of you both toward the individual for attaining this thing and toward yourself for not being capable of having it.

When this situation occurs. We usually respond by either purchasing what others have – which put us in greater debt. Or, we get eaten from our feelings until this thing is no longer fashionable.

But this is just part of the problem.

You also start to aim toward the wrong things – have wrong personal value s. 1

Instead of trying to build a stable home built upon honesty, generosity, and hard work. You knowingly or not transfer your urgers to obtain material possessions to your kids.

They become more interested in showcasing themselves as worthy citizens of the modern world – by sharing photos wearing luxurious clothes , standing beside pools, etc. But actually not being valuable – lack empathy, sense of purpose, autonomy.

When stuff is the guiding principle, a social image is projected where the person is supposedly unrealistically happy all the time while inside he’s fighting depression.

We focus not on what we have. But on what we could have.

This keeps us away from feeling joy from what’s currently in front of us. We are consumed by agony because we focus on imagining what can someday be in front of us.

And this is true not only for things. But for relationships also.

Eventually, with each year. Society becomes more focused on things rather than people.

Yes, you still need people. But not in a way you’d imagine.

People are not called community. People are not called friends.

We label them as an audience.

We talk about followers and subscribers. Words that exclude the human soul sitting behind the screen and only focus on the purchasing power of the mass.

No wonder we feel so alone in this crowded world.

And it’s not only me saying this as an observer of how humans tend to operate these days. There are numerous studies that confirm this statement – that materialistic goals are associated with decreased well-being. 2

It’s no longer about building relationships – “How can I help you?” But about the monetizing relationships – “What can you give me?”

What Causes of Materialism?

On the surface level. We can say that materialism is caused by our open world.

You can easily see what others have these days. Just open your favorite browser and your social media and you see what others are doing.

Internally though, the problem is much more subtle.

It’s not only because we have 24/7 access to what our fellow humans do. But because of internal issues – feeling insecure and not receiving enough attention from others.

As Eric Berne writes in his book Games People Play : “Recognition-hunger is far more important than food-hunger.”

Being alive is far down the list of desired features than others acknowledging your presence.

And to get people to recognize you. These days, it’s way easier to purchase something than to build something.

Not only can we show a new scarf, a new handbag much more easily, but we cannot adequately present learning a new language.

Also, in the first case, the purchase of a new item requires only pushing a couple of buttons and money – money you don’t even need to have. While in the second case, it requires grit, disciple, hard work, and showing up every day .

Since we are primarily focused on getting immediate results, we prefer the former.

The moment we feel inadequate. When the spotlight is no longer on us. When others don’t seem to care. We immediately jump into the vortex of shops to escape the vulnerable feeling that we’re not good enough.

Instead of doing something worthwhile. We choose to spend a good amount of our time and money on things to persuade others that we are worthwhile.

That’s one of the main reasons we endlessly shop.

Can Materialism Be Good for Society?

It doesn’t seem to make sense to suggest that there might be such a thing as good materialism. After all, isn’t being dependent upon physical possessions plain bad, always?

In truth, the act of acquiring things does come with certain “goodies”.

I’ve identified 3 good things in materialism that are important for the person to understand:

Materialism To Feel Good

As noted above. Gettings things is the fastest way to get a sense that you matter.

This can be a shallow and selfish drive. But it remains an important component of our personalities.

When you work hard. Save. And eventually have enough money to purchase a new car, for example. This is direct evidence that you’re a capable person. Yes, it’s kind of feels sad to compare an individual to his purchasing powers. But the sensations we get from getting stuff are too big to be neglected.

Every time you feel incapable. You can look around and see what you already have. Thus, you can feel better.

In other words, what you have is kind of like a safety net. When you feel like a loser. You can bounce back and feel better by reminding yourself of everything that’s already in your possession – “Oh, I’ve created a beautiful home. I’m not a complete disappointment.”

Materialism to Support Our Identity

Material objects that support our desired identity give us the power to continue our journey.

Say you want to become a writer. Your internal motivation is a good start to take on the long journey of improving the words you type on a page. But the initial setback can quickly discourage you.

As religion endorses the purchases of icons and medallions so you can keep believing. Physical possessions like a fancy pen or a new desk where you exercise writing can be things that support your desire to become the person you want to be.

To a visitor, your new desk is simply a place you sit to do work. But on a psychological level, this purchase supports your desire to become a writer. Every time you see it. You get reminded that this is a tool that allows you to be the person you decided – a writer.

The more you increase the set of items that are related to being a writer. The closer you feel to becoming one. This is an important part of our inner evolution. 3

Materialism Drives Innovation

From a practical perspective. It doesn’t make sense to start a website that publishes book summaries – as I do on this site. There are plenty of sites that synthesize the main topics of great books.

And yet, if there is only one place for book summaries, for clothes, only one brand of cars. This will mean that there are so few opportunities for creative work.

While shopping can be viewed as a prime evil. It can be viewed as a source that drives innovation.

The more we spent. The more we support the global economy. More goods are produced and more money is allocated for innovation.

Plus, if you happen to choose to support small businesses owners – not big monopolistic corporations. You will help more individuals do creative work.

Negative Effects of Materialism

Like everything else.

Balance is key.

Yes, as I just noted. There are good traits in materialism and consumption. But we are rarely in the middle ground.

Most commonly, we are throwing money around and sharing our new possession with the prime incentive to present ourselves are better than the rest.

Earning a decent salary may buy you some level of comfort. You will surely impress a certain group of people. And in the short term, you will certainly feel happy about yourself.

Materialism becomes problematic when we connect our happiness only to the act of purchasing.

When we buy something, our brain releases endorphins and dopamine. This improves our current state. But it quickly diminished with time. 4

When the new pair of shoes are no longer a source of joy. Or at least no longer can keep us away from our problems. We are back in the virtual or physical store wanting to get more stuff.

The core question is this: What internal switch triggers an uncontrollable shopping spree?

What makes us waste our hard-earned cash on stuff?

Primarily, it’s our inability to cope with our deep emotions.

When we are bored. When we feel sad, not good enough, depressed. Or when we have problems in the office or our relationship is in a bad state. Instead of trying to fix the situation by communicating. We turn to the local mall to soothe our feelings.

After all. Getting a new laptop, toaster, or whatever, comes with certain benefits:

• It’s fast.
• It’s an act that doesn’t require special powers.
• You can do it even if you don’t have the money.
• A new thing can’t hurt your feelings. It can only signal to others how well you’re doing in life.

This internally translates that you only need money to feel good.

Since money can buy you things. And when things make you feel good. Mathematically speaking, it means that the more you earn, the happier you will feel.

So, what do you think happens?

Oh yes, we value money more than anything else. Because money equals things. And things equals recognition.

Is this really the case?

Not exactly.

If we turn to goods every time we are in a bad state. We’ll never create a stable relationship with the person we said yes to a while back. We’ll change relationships like we change clothes.

The greatest negative effect of materialism is that it powers this fantasy world where there are no limitations. Which, in turn, will focus you not on fortifying the single relationship that matters but on trying to impress the mass that in the long term doesn’t matter.

Let me explain…

Eventually, the relationship with your partner (or a small group of friends) will start to feel uneventful. Boring even. You start to see all the ways your partner is inevitably finite. This feels deeply disappointing compared with the unlimited joys consummation can bring – and here the word consummation is not only used in a sense of getting stuff.

After all, why should you spend another evening where you’ll have the same discussion about how your days went by when you can browse the infinite online catalogs that offer new excitements?

The answer seems obvious. That’s why it’s concerning.

When we start to focus on possessions. When they are our measurement for success. Other more important things seem unimportant.

As long as there are others who are liking how we appear – even though we don’t personally know them, they are just online avatars. It doesn’t matter if the one person who happens to be our lifetime roommate is feeling lonely while being near us.

And yet, if you think about when you are actually happy. Not temporarily satisfied. But joyful for hours. How often the answer is: “When I bought a new pair of shoes!” Or, “When I received 100 likes on my new photo!”

Usually, you’ll respond with something like: “When I was hiking with my best friends.” Or, “When I was working on a painting and I lost track of time.”

The question – if we want to feel happier for longer and get a sense of meaning in this seemingly meaningless world – then becomes: How can I schedule more experiences that bring me lasting joy instead of buying things that only come with fleeting sensations and push me to get even more things?

How to Overcome Materialism?

When you identify with the things you own. You naturally become obsessed with owning more.

You see yourself as this walking billboard. The more expensive things you put. The more expensive you feel. You start to think that others should respect you more because you are increasing your value.

But say that things are to be removed. Say for a moment that you have none of the possessions you have right now. If this happens, how can you identify yourself? How can you label yourself when you have nothing?

As Erich Fromm writes in his book To Have or To Be , “If I am what I have and if what I have is lost, who then am I?”

The answer will reveal something you know but avoid.

It’s not what you own. But what you do that matters.

• Acquiring everything writing-related doesn’t make you a writer. Writing does.
• Spending hours online sharing photos where you’re supposedly happy with your kids doesn’t make you a good parent. Spending time with your kids does.
• Spending money on things and sharing these items with others doesn’t make you a valuable citizen. Doing valuable things without needing to tell others for others does.

With this in mind. Let’s see how we can overcome materialism:

Steps To Overcome Materialism:

First, prepare on a piece of paper a list of everything that you got to have.

Think about everything that you feel you need. All of the items that you think will supposedly make a difference in your life. Some of these things will probably be a new car, a new set of dining dishes, etc.

Second, think about how would you feel if you get these things.

What will happen if you got the new car? How your life will change?

Write these things down.

Your initial thought, probably, will be that you will feel like you’re really succeeding in life. But the thought that you’ll try to cover – the one that it’s really important for you. Is that the new purchase is primarily a tool to make others envy you. To make others like you more.

When you think about it though. Do you really want people to respect you for what you own? Not for who you are as a person?

When we demonstrate our worthiness through stuff, what we’re really doing is portraying emptiness.

We feel insecure and confused. We don’t know what we want to do with our lives and that’s why we adopt materialistic values.

Thirdly, moving beyond possessions. Do this: Write a list of things you enjoy doing.

Focus on experiences. On actions. On things you do with your hands. On conversations with people.

For example, building a chair from scratch. Writing an essay. Going for a walk with your kid and partner.

Fifth, think about how would you feel if you do more interesting things rather than purchase more physical possessions?

In other words, what do you think will feel better: Purchasing new writing equipment regularly? Or, writing a novel and discussing that novel with your partner?

I bet it’s the writing and the discussions that will count.

Finally, think about this: Can you keep doing what feels good without constantly trying to own more things?

When you choose what to devote your life to. When you are no longer looking for someone better – but choose to stay together with the person you said yes to “for better or worse”. You’re no longer trying to impress others.

The point is settling.

You settle for doing certain things. For being part of certain relationships.

This initially might seem unexciting. But eventually, will start to feel better.

You are no longer depressed because you don’t have it all. You feel liberated because you realize that you don’t need to have it all.

Spending every waking hour restlessly scouring the online shopping malls for the perfect item that will make you look superior in front of others is no longer part of your portfolio of actions.

In other words, you don’t dream about what type of joys alternative relationships or items can bring. You focus on nurturing the current relationships and using the items you already have that will support your desired calling.

Some Closing Thoughts

Will getting a new laptop make me feel good?

Absolutely.

Will this feeling going to last?

Absolutely not .

The growing materialism in society instills the wrong values in individuals. We become more resentful towards people. Towards creating useful and valuable creations. And only interested in owning more shiny stuff so we can signal to others that we are worth following.

But soon after you get something. Soon after you go somewhere. You are quickly reminded of how much more there is to possess. To visit.

So, instead of being satisfied with what you already own. Where you’ve been. You are further focusing on how less you own compared to everything available.

This is not only depressing. But it places you in a loop where you are constantly chasing things you will never have.

Thriving in our materialistic society requires being able to settle on a specific group of people, things, and activities. Not completely shut the outside world. But being able to function even when the outside world is constantly shouting “own more”.

Trouble Saying No to Temptations?

Join Farview: A newsletter fostering long-term thinking in a world driven by impatience. Trusted by over 4,300 thinkers, Farview is a concise, thoughtfully organized newsletter helping you handle the self-sabotaging thoughts trying to corrupt you.

• That’s why it’s so important to take a moment so you can define your values. See more in my piece on the importance of values .
• The original paper by Springer ( this one ) explains how changes in materialism relate to changes in well-being.
• But this doesn’t mean that you should have everything writing-related to be a writer.
• There is a whole concept of retail therapy . Shopping is commonly prescribed as a therapy to eliminate sadness. However, it’s only a short-term solution.

Related Entries

Why Being Careless Is a Good Thing & How To Let Go Like a Pro

What Happens When you Unfollow Everyone on Social Media?

Navigating Life With Purpose: Examples of Personal Values to Live By

Materials, materialism, and search for meaning-an essay

• The 1982 Distinguished Lectureship in Materials and Society
• Published: March 1983
• Volume 14 , pages 513–518, ( 1983 )

Cite this article

• Morris Cohen  

69 Accesses

2 Citations

Explore all metrics

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

M. Cohen: “Materials and Man’s Partnership with Nature,” Alpha Sigma Mu Lecture, ASM News , Metals Park, OH, July 1979.

The Global 2000 Report to the President: Entering the Twenty-First Century, Vol. One , Council on Environmental Quality and the Department of State, G. O. Barney, Study Director, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1980, p. 1.

Google Scholar  

S. Weinberg: The FirstThree Minutes , Basic Books, Inc., New York, NY, 1977.

A.A. Penzias and R.W. Wilson: Science , 1978, vol. 202, p. 960.

Article   Google Scholar  

C. Sagan: The Dragons of Eden , Ballantine Books, New York, NY, 1977.

C. S. Smith: Metall. Trans. A , 1975, vol. 6A, p. 603.

CAS   Google Scholar  

J. Huxley: Man and HisFuture , G. Wolstenholme, ed., Little, Brown and Co., Boston, MA, 1963, p. 1.

V.F. Weisskopf: Knowledge and Wonder , 2nd ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1980.

M. Olson: The Rise and Fall of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflagation, and Social Rigidities , Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 1982.

P. Davies: The Runaway Universe , Harper and Row, New York, NY, 1978, and Penguin Books, New York, NY, 1980.

J. D. Watson: The Double Helix , New American Library, New York, NY, 1969.

A.G. Guyton: Textbook of Medical Physiology , 6th ed., W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia, PA, 1981, p. 2.

W. F. Ganong: Review of Medical Physiology , 10th ed., Lange Medical Publishers, Los Altos, CA, 1981, pp. 29 and 62.

C. J. Lumsden and E. O. Wilson: Genes, Mind, and Culture — The Coevolutionary Process , Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1981. NOTE: The above references have been selected primarily for general background reading on the subjects concerned.

Download references

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Additional information

MORRIS COHEN received the degree of Bachelor of Science (1933) and Doctor of Science (1936) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He became Instructor of Metallurgy at M.I.T. in 1936, Assistant Professor in 1937, Associate Professor in 1941, Professor of Physical Metallurgy in 1946, Ford Professor of Materials Science and Engineering in 1962, and Institute Professor in 1975. In 1977 he received the honorary degree of Doctor of Technology from the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, and in 1979 the honorary degree of Doctor of Science in Technology from the Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa. In 1980 he was awarded Honorary Professorships at the Beijing University of Iron and Steel Technology and at the Beijing Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics in the People’s Republic of China.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cohen, M. Materials, materialism, and search for meaning-an essay. Metall Trans A 14 , 513–518 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02643768

Download citation

Issue Date : March 1983

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02643768

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

English Studies

This website is dedicated to English Literature, Literary Criticism, Literary Theory, English Language and its teaching and learning.

Materialism in Literature & Literary Theory

Materialism, as a theoretical term, is a philosophical stance asserting that the physical world, composed of material substances, constitutes the fundamental and sole reality, thereby rejecting the existence of immaterial or supernatural entities.

Etymology of Materialism

Table of Contents

The term “materialism” finds its origins in ancient Greece, with its etymology stemming from the Latin word “materialis,” signifying a connection to matter.

Materialism is a philosophical doctrine that upholds the primacy of physical matter, contending that all phenomena, including mental and spiritual aspects, could be comprehended through the lens of material substances and their interactions.

This concept gained currency during the Enlightenment period in the 17th and 18th centuries and has since undergone various philosophical and scientific adaptations.

And it still continues to shape discussions regarding the nature of reality, the consciousness, and the interplay between the physical and non-physical dimensions of existence.

Meanings of Materialism

Definition of materialism as a theoretical term.

Materialism, as a theoretical term , is a philosophical stance asserting that the physical world, composed of material substances, constitutes the fundamental and sole reality, thereby rejecting the existence of immaterial or supernatural entities.

It emphasizes the reduction of all phenomena, including consciousness and thought, to physical processes and interactions, underlining the importance of empirical observation and scientific inquiry in understanding the universe.

Materialism has historically played a significant role in shaping various philosophical, scientific, and sociopolitical discourses, often influencing interpretations of human existence and the natural world.

Materialism: Theorists, Works, and Arguments

• Karl Marx developed the concept of historical materialism , which analyzes how economic structures influence society and culture, with significant implications for literary analysis.
• Friedrich Engels , a collaborator with Marx, contributed to the development of historical materialism and its application to understanding society and literature.
• Georg Lukács applied historical materialism to literature in his work The Theory of the Novel, exploring how economic and social conditions influence the novel as a literary form.
• Raymond Williams introduced the concept of cultural materialism , which emphasizes the reciprocal relationship between culture and literature, highlighting their influence on each other.
• In The Communist Manifesto (Marx and Engels), the authors outline key principles of historical materialism and discuss its profound implications for restructuring society.
• Capital by Karl Marx provides a comprehensive economic analysis of capitalism, offering insights that have significantly influenced Marxist literary criticism.
• The Theory of the Novel by Georg Lukács applies historical materialism to the analysis of the novel as a literary form, demonstrating how economic and social factors shape its development.
• In Marxism and Literature by Raymond Williams, the author delves into the intricate relationship between Marxism and literature, introducing the concept of cultural materialism .
• Historical materialism argues that economic and social structures are fundamental drivers of historical change, profoundly influencing the themes and representations found in literature.
• Materialist perspectives frequently critique capitalist systems, as portrayed in “Capital,” for perpetuating materialistic values and exacerbating class disparities.
• Materialism asserts that the material conditions of society, such as class struggle and economic factors, significantly shape literary works and their underlying themes.
• Cultural materialism , as discussed in Marxism and Literature, posits that culture and literature are shaped by material conditions and social factors, offering a comprehensive approach to literary analysis that considers their interconnectedness.

Materialism and Literary Theories

Materialism in literary criticism.

• Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller: In this classic American drama, the character of Willy Loman epitomizes aspirations of the American Dream. Willy believes that success and happiness are directly tied to material wealth and professional success. However, his relentless pursuit of material success ultimately leads to his downfall, illustrating how a materialistic mindset can result in personal tragedy and disillusionment.
• Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert: Flaubert’s novel follows the life of Emma Bovary, a woman who is dissatisfied with her provincial life and becomes obsessed with the pursuit of materialistic pleasures and social status. Emma’s materialistic desires lead her into financial ruin and a tragic end, serving as a critique of the emptiness of a life centered around material consumption.
• American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis: Ellis’s novel delves into the extreme materialism and consumerism of the 1980s Wall Street culture. The protagonist, Patrick Bateman, is a wealthy investment banker who obsessively indulges in material possessions, but he is also a psychopathic murderer. The novel explores the moral bankruptcy that can result from a society overly focused on material gain.
• The Road by Cormac McCarthy : In this post-apocalyptic novel, materialism is juxtaposed with survival. The story follows a father and son as they navigate a harsh, desolate world where basic needs like food, shelter, and safety take precedence over material possessions. The novel underscores the fragility of materialism in the face of existential challenges.
• The House of Mirth by Edith Wharton: Wharton’s novel examines the materialistic society of early 20th-century New York. The protagonist, Lily Bart, is a socialite whose life revolves around her quest for wealth and social status. Her relentless pursuit of material success ultimately leads to her downfall, highlighting the superficiality and cruelty of a materialistic society.

In these works, materialism is portrayed as a complex and often destructive force that can lead to moral decay, personal tragedy, and the erosion of human values. Each author critiques the materialistic values of their respective societies, emphasizing the need for a more meaningful and balanced approach to life beyond the pursuit of material wealth and possessions.

Suggested Readings

• Eagleton, Terry. Marxism and Literary Criticism. Routledge, 2002.
• Foster, Hal. The Art-Architecture Complex. Verso, 2013.
• Jameson, Fredric. Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Duke University Press, 1991.
• Leavis, F.R. The Great Tradition. New York University Press, 1960.
• Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto . Penguin Classics, 2002.
• Moretti, Franco. Distant Reading. Verso, 2013.
• Orwell, George. 1984 . Signet Classics, 1961.
• Williams, Raymond. The Country and the City. Oxford University Press, 1975.
• Wood, Ellen Meiksins. The Origin of Capitalism: A Longer View. Verso, 2002.
• Zola, Émile. The Ladies’ Paradise (Au Bonheur des Dames). Penguin Classics, 2015.

Related posts:

• Agency in Literary Theory
• Differance in Literature & Literary Theory
• Logocentrism in Literature & Literary Theory
• Negritude in Literature & Literary Theory

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Home — Essay Samples — Literature — The Great Gatsby — The Theme of Materialism in The Great Gatsby, a Novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald

The Theme of Materialism in The Great Gatsby, a Novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald

• Categories: Scott Fitzgerald The Great Gatsby

About this sample

Words: 1350 |

Published: Oct 31, 2018

Words: 1350 | Pages: 3 | 7 min read

The essay analyzes F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel "The Great Gatsby" and its central theme of materialism. The essay delves into how materialism is portrayed as the main source of moral decline, distorted reality, and the society's obsession with wealth in the story.

Fitzgerald's disdain for materialism is evident through the characters of Tom and Daisy Buchanan, who are depicted as morally corrupt individuals driven by their selfish desires and wealth. Their marriage is shown as a marriage of convenience and status, devoid of moral values. Their actions and attitudes reflect the moral decay that materialism perpetuates.

The essay also explores the theme of distorted reality, where characters like Daisy live in a world where money defines their reality. The pursuit of wealth and external pleasures distorts their perception of the world, leading to shallow and ignorant lives. Fitzgerald highlights how society values ignorance and conformity over intelligence and realistic views.

Additionally, the essay discusses the plutomaniac nature of human beings, as seen through characters like Myrtle Wilson, who obsessively chase wealth and social status. Fitzgerald shows how money corrupts individuals and the society as a whole, leading to moral degradation.

Table of contents

Introduction, materialistic society in the great gatsby, moral decline, distorted reality.

• Rule-Maxwell, L. (2010). The New Emperor's Clothes: Keatsian Echoes and American Materialism in" The Great Gatsby". The F. Scott Fitzgerald Review, 8, 57-78. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/41583155)
• Rohaniyah, J. (2016). The Research of Literary Criticism (Materialism in The Great Gatsby Novel by Fitzgerald). Wacana Didaktika, 4(1), 16-25. (https://journal.uim.ac.id/index.php/wacanadidaktika/article/view/45)
• Kusumaningrum, I. (2007). MATERIALISTIC LIFESTYLE IN F. SCOTT FITZGERALD’S THE GREAT GATSBY: A SOCIOLOGICAL APPROACH (Doctoral dissertation, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta). (http://eprints.ums.ac.id/10662/)
• Daier, I. A. S., & Ibrahim, A. M. I. (2017). The American Dream Corruption in Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby. International Journal of Social Science and Humanities Research, 5(4), 344-348. (https://www.academia.edu/36488902/The_American_Dream_Corruption_in_Fitzgeralds_The_Great_Gatsby)
• Djohar, H. I. (2015). The Power of Money in FS. Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby. Journalism, 5(3), 151-157. (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286476856_The_Power_of_Money_in_FS_Fitzgerald's_The_Great_Gatsby)

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Literature

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 990 words

4 pages / 1923 words

2 pages / 1068 words

4 pages / 1725 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on The Great Gatsby

In The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald one of the main themes of the book and subject that is discussed immensely are dreams. From reading the novel we learn about the corruption of dreams and the effect it has. We learn [...]

When F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel, The Great Gatsby, was published in 1925, it provided a scathing critique of the American Dream and the societal structures of the Roaring Twenties. The novel explores the lives of characters [...]

F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel, The Great Gatsby, delves into the concept of the American Dream and its portrayal in 1920s America. The American Dream, a central theme in American literature, represents the ideal that every [...]

In the 1920s people were blind to see that life isn’t all about parting and spending money. By using wealth they seek to be seen. Sometimes people are so ignorant they ignore what’s right in front of them. The character’s [...]

The Great Gatsby is a classic book from American Literature, written by F. Scott Fitzgerald, one of the greatest writers of the 20th century. Fitzgerald is said to be known for his descriptive language and he brings the roaring [...]

The novel The Great Gatsby is written by F. Scott Fitzgerald in 1925. The story takes place in East Egg, West Egg and New York City. It is about a young man; Jay Gatsby catches a great opportunity and works hard to achieve his [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Will Shoppers Ever Care About the Destruction of the Planet?

Tactics to convince people to buy less aren’t working. A quirky new documentary by Patagonia takes a different approach.

By Elizabeth Paton

Here is an inconvenient truth. For all the noise made by activists, journalists, politicians and even celebrities about the clothing industry destroying the planet, shoppers aren’t listening.

The information is out there if they want it. Google can produce more than 88 million search results on why fashion is bad for the environment, but the world remains in a state of cognitive dissonance, fueled by its voracious appetite for disposable trends. Global apparel consumption, currently at 62 million tons per year, is by some estimates projected to reach 102 million tons annually by 2030.

One problem, say many industry observers, is that much of the messaging about fashion and sustainability can be too boring , too preachy and too easy to ignore. So is it possible to change the way we talk about it?

This week, the outdoor apparel brand Patagonia released a quirky new film that reflects the company’s efforts to reset the conversation. “ The Shitthropocene ,” a 45-minute documentary directed by David Garrett Byars, is a trippy mock anthropological view of humanity’s consumption habits from our cave-dwelling ancestors through the trendsetting aristocratic court of Louis XIV, creepy fairgrounds, fishing waders with leaky crotches, mindless digital advertising and pretty much everything in between. It will be shown in Patagonia stores across the United States in coming months.

The cheeky romp toggles between a marketing yarn for Patagonia and the way they make their products, information about the climate crisis, consumer psychology and relentless attempts at humor that range from outlandish satire to the knowingly juvenile. The title is a scatological wink at the word anthropocene, a term used to describe the time during which humans have had a substantial impact on our planet, a fitting clue to viewers of what lies in store.

“Many scientists and historians think we’re entering into a new epoch — one where things are simply … well, crappier,” declares the opening voice-over in a thick northern English accent (regularly used in Britain to indicate no-nonsense, tongue-in-cheek pragmatism). YouTube commenters on the trailer point to similarities — perhaps intentional, perhaps unintentional — to the fictional British television correspondent Philomena Cunk as she attempts to cover all of human history with sardonic humor and deadpan naïveté.

Vanilla corporate lingo this is not, though it’s on brand for Patagonia. After all, the company was behind the audacious “Don’t Buy This Jacket” advertising campaign released on Black Friday in 2011, encouraging people to purchase only what they need and reconsider their effect on the environment. In 2022, its billionaire founder, Yvon Chouinard, placed the company finances into a special trust that ensured its profits would be used to combat climate change.

Patagonia Films has previously produced straight-talking films targeting the salmon fishing industry and rising oceans, hydropower dams and America’s public lands. Other labels, including Puma and Diesel , have invested in documentaries about their supply chains that are generally intended to be promoted on social media platforms. But Patagonia likes to define itself by doing things differently.

Is it a gamble that pays off?

Not really. The sheer scope of information covered in 45 minutes is vast and ambitious, with a good array of talking heads eloquently dissecting why fashion keeps us hungry for more even when we know its damaging effect on the world around us. Mr. Byars is also rightly aware of the complications of having a brand that sells products sponsoring his movie. It is referred to frequently by the narrator, including in a sendup of corporate greenwashing in a fake ad praising Patagonia for “making fleeces from upcycled Subarus and, contrary to laws of physics, creating more water for planet.”

But the movie jumps around at a breakneck pace from one eye-popping scene and concept to the next. It may be imitating society’s dwindling ability to pay attention or linger on pressing matters , but it’s also the literal enactment of it.

Maybe I’m not down with the kids, but a lot of the gags about cave man “bits,” corporate muttonheads, being philoso-fecal and scientists from New Zealand who don’t wear pants felt rather half-baked. And though the movie ends on the positive note that humans are clever creatures who can and should reassess what makes us feel happy and fulfilled — spoiler alert, look to full hearts and lives of purpose rather than a heaving closet — I felt overloaded, overstimulated and needed to take a nap.

Genuine progress is hard to come by. Attempts at something to engage new audiences should also be applauded, especially when most current conversations about materialism in a time of climate breakdown appear limited in impact.

That said, maybe next time, Patagonia should cut the crap.

Elizabeth Paton reports on the global fashion industry for The Times, a topic she has covered for more than a decade. She is based in London. More about Elizabeth Paton

Explore Our Style Coverage

The latest in fashion, trends, love and more..

Meet This Year’s Met Gala Co-Chairs:  This year, Anna Wintour, Zendaya, Jennifer Lopez, Chris Hemsworth and Bad Bunny will head up the gala .

The Most ‘Unretired Retired Person’:  The stylist Law Roach on his role as an “image architect,” being a diva  and his master plan for what’s next.

Sofia Coppola’s Latest Release:  Her tinted balm was inspired  by products that the filmmaker confected as a girl to achieve the “berry-stained lips” of a character in a Roman Polanski movie.

The Man Who Drew New York : Jason Polan chronicled city life in thousands of sketches  before he died at 37 in 2020. What happens to his legacy now?

Beyoncé’s Last Fashion Frontier:  It’s now impossible to see a cowboy hat  or pair of cowboy boots and not think of her.

Meet the Men Who Eat Meat:  With the help of Joe Rogan,  a social media trend with staying power  emerged from a 2018 book, “The Carnivore Diet.”