Or, does a paradoxical relationship between minimalism and abundance really exist?
In life, simple explanations are often preferred to complex theories. In philosophy, we have Occam’s razor, a principle that indicates if we have multiple conclusions our best bet is to stick with the simplest. However, some argue that devotion to simplicity and minimalism can reduce the depth and richness of our understanding (Nowak, 2004). You might remember my conversation with Dr. Howard Jacobson about reductionist research — simple models (with fewer properties) are more frequently the norm in science, but they often leave us with skewed opinions about the bigger picture. As the trend of minimalism continues to grow, how can this mindset be in equilibrium with personal growth?
Minimalism Has Cluttered the Internet
Many popular self-help blogs are now touting minimalism. Colin Wright describes minimalism as a “reassessment of your priorities so that you can strip away the excess stuff—the possessions and ideas and relationships and activities—that don’t bring value to your life.” Two bloggers that have really put this movement on the map are Joshua Millburn and Ryan Nicodemus, also known as “The Minimalists.” These two define minimalism in similar terms, “a tool to rid yourself of life’s excess in favor of focusing on what’s important—so you can find happiness, fulfillment, and freedom.” Their popular website and successful documentary have inspired many to contemplate shedding their excess and join the tribe of minimalists.
Although minimalists usually strive to maintain less “stuff,” they argue that by doing so they are inviting abundance. This might sound like a bit of a paradox, but when minimalists make this claim, they are not indicating the tangible. They are talking about having more time, more freedom, accumulating new experiences and fostering personal growth. In their opinion, by shedding what they believe to be superfluous, they create the space to invite new things into their life.
Those claiming to be minimalists seemingly have different definitions of minimalism; yet, what many of them appear to share (when reading their stories) is some prior affliction of materialism. In fact, materialism is frequently juxtaposed to minimalism in the anecdotes of minimalists. Consumer researchers Belk (1984) and Richins and Dawson (1992) define materialism as “the importance a consumer attaches to worldly possessions” and “the importance a person places on possessions and their acquisition as a necessary or desirable form of conduct to reach desired end states, including happiness.”
When comparing standard definitions of minimalism and materialism, what they share is the mention of happiness — albeit minimalism through reduction and materialism through abundant consumption. As a result, the first group usually acquires more time, while the second spends time acquiring goods (and presumably working more to pay for those goods).
There is anecdotal evidence provided by minimalists (e.g., blogs, documentaries, books) that people who pursue a minimalist lifestyle end up becoming more satisfied, happier and more open to different opportunities (presumably by not being tied down by material possessions). These reports certainly suggest there might be a relationship between minimalism and non-material abundance.
Minimalists claim that because you want less material “stuff,” you can do and experience more. Scientific research, too, supports the notion that happiness is not about how much money we have, but how we spend it (Dunn, Aknin, & Norton, 2008). Few social scientists would argue with the idea that people who invest in experience (in contrast to material possessions) appear to be happier.
In an article titled “To Do or To Have?”, Leaf Van Boven of the University of Colorado at Boulder and Thomas Gilovich of Cornell University (2003) report their experiments show happiness has a stronger connection with doing things (and not so much with buying things). According to Van Boven and Gilovich, life experience connects us with the more meaningful parts of our identities and supports our social relationships (purportedly another predictor of happiness).
Minimalism and the Growth Mindset
Carol Dweck, a professor of psychology at Stanford University, is recognized for her work on mindsets. In her work, she distinguishes between a fixed mindset and a growth mindset. According to Dweck, people with a fixed mindset believe that their abilities and/or personal qualities (e.g., intelligence) cannot be changed, while those with a growth mindset believe that abilities and/or personal qualities can be nurtured and grown (Haimovitz & Dweck, 2017).
Studies show that those with fixed mindsets usually aim to achieve validation from others and are, therefore, more vulnerable to personal setbacks and criticism for others. Any personal failure lowers their self-esteem. People with a growth mindset, on the other hand, are more concerned with learning, achieving mastery and competence; for those with a growth mindset, validation from others is generally not necessary for personal growth. While people with fixed mindsets want to prove their abilities, those with growth mindsets want to improve their abilities. Accordingly, people with a growth mindset focus more on gaining skills than others.
Carol Dweck and her colleagues argue that a growth mindset makes us more open to difficult tasks (because we do not avoid them) and improves our self-insight (Ehrlinger, Mitchum & Dweck, 2016). Also, a growth mindset makes us more successful in some areas (e.g. academics). However, there are often times a need for “things” to experience growth, in some cases lot of things. For instance, one study on academic performance that spanned 42 countries shows the hoarding of books correlates positively with aptitude (even when factoring out the respective nation’s political history, ideology and level of development). This suggests that aspects of minimalism could potentially put you at a disadvantage for growth.
I am sure some readers will want to argue that minimalists are more likely to have a growth mindset since they do not aim to be externally validated through their material goods, instead believing they are “making more room” to experience life. In fairness, there is science to support this assertion. Studies among children, adolescents and adults consistently show that there is a strong link between low self-esteem and materialism, as well as between feelings of insecurity and materialism (for a list of studies see Chaplin & John, 2007). Often, people with materialistic tendencies acquire material goods to compensate for their insecurities, doubts and fears. In contrast, people with higher self-esteem tend to be less materialistic as they derive their sense of self-worth from other sources (e.g. internal). In this way, minimalism might be an appropriate intervention for those who inherently suffer from low self-esteem.
In recent years, the “self-esteem movement” often recommended praise as an intrinsic tool to boost children’s self-confidence. However, Dweck and other psychologists point out that it is not just about praise, but also about the type of praise. Praise that gives the message that a child’s abilities are finite (for example, praising your child for poor results without offering strategies for improvement) is more likely to produce individuals who are afraid to experiment and try new things as they mature (Haimovitz & Dweck, 2017). So, if nothing else, minimalists should be commended for their intention to course correct their materialism by trying out a novel way of improving the way they live.
That said, it is important to note that self-compassion is now seen by many psychologists as a (healthier) alternative to self-esteem (Neff & Vonk, 2009; Neff, 2011). An unfortunate part of the human condition is that our self-esteem often depends on wanting to “feel” special (e.g., “Hi World, I’m now a minimalist!”). In contrast, self-compassion promotes the notion that we are all only human and things that we experience can be celebrated as part of our shared humanity (in my interview with Chip Conley, he described a version of this as collective effervescence). The practice encourages kindness (towards self-thought) and mindfulness of the things that you feel and do.
So, Is Minimalism Basically Self-Help’s Latest Snake Oil?
Do we really need to reject (almost) all our worldly possessions to start valuing the non-material experience more? Doesn’t minimalism suggest yet another form of obsession with the material: that you need to give your stuff up because it controls you? Instead, what if minimalism is nothing more than a fascinating validation of illusion of control theory? What if you were simply strong enough to assign objective meaning to your accumulated goods and stop ascribing subjective meaning to “stuff.” In this way, you are not a slave to your locus of control. Many philosophers, psychologists and other thinkers (like me) argue that our happiness is not dictated by our external world and our tangible possessions. We have significant (but often unknowing) control about the way we think about our circumstances and the way we interpret the world around us. Two people can objectively live in the same reality, yet they might experience and interpret their subjective reality differently. Imagine trying to elicit excitement about your move towards minimalism from someone living in poverty.
Jen Dziura recently explicitly made a compelling case that “life hacks” are a demonstration of privilege. I think I have just done the same for “minimalism,” albeit in a less powerful manner and more implicit. I suspect that the fact that minimalism is now a “thing” is an interesting artifact of how our current generation feels a lack of control (although this is a nuance of feeling out of control, there is an important distinction).
William Glasser, the founder of choice theory, suggests that when we are psychologically healthy we have direct control over our thoughts and actions, which have an indirect effect on the control of our feelings and physiology. The only behavior we can control is our own, Glasser (1998) points out. In reality, it is not our stuff that controls us (unless we let it and/or have let ourselves get out of control).
A Better Way to Take Back Control and Feel Satisfied
If current science suggests our one true source of control is our patterns of thinking, as well as our motivations (which science suggests we can alter with effort), how do we improve? I assure you that you can set worthwhile priorities and work towards your chosen path of mastery while still hanging on to your old concert T-shirts. In fact, these type artifacts (reminders if you will) help us partake in relishing, which is an important construct in human flourishing.
When we prescribe to extremes, it is often because life has gotten so out of control we need radical change as a diversion from the personal pain we are feeling in the moment. I actually think there is a place for radical change when things are dire, just like there is a need for pain medication after a surgery. However, I find it alarming that these days “ordinary” experiences are regarded as not only boring but also as meaningless (an observation made popular by Brené Brown, 2010). Nowadays, we are constantly looking for external validation, comparing ourselves to others and seeking experiences that can make us stand out and look exceptional. (I have a blog and I want people to read it; I make no claims to be among the innocent here.)
Instead of worrying about our “stuff” and our “self” consistently, it might be more about tapping into our capacity to be comfortable with who we are. If we let them, ordinary activities can be rich in integrity, compassion, kindness and gratification. The liberating truth might be that stuff is as important as the meaning we choose to give it — and by prescribing to minimalism, we are giving our stuff way too much credit. If we pause in our constant pursuit of efficiency, success and exceptionality, we might be able to observe that we (already) have the power to architect the reality we desire for ourselves. If we can find the right mindset, we get to write and control our own prescription for happiness.
Final Thoughts
So, if we agree that fixed mindsets usually rely on self-esteem as a method of validation, and we agree that growth mindsets are more likely to be nurtured by self-compassion, we can make a case that paradigms like minimalism are actually limiting. Instead, by focusing on self-compassion we might be better orientated towards growth. Kristin Neff, one of the pioneers of research on self-compassion, points out that self-compassionate people will do things simply because they enjoy doing them and not because they need to bolster their self-esteem and/or need the safe boundaries of a prescribed “system.” The added benefit of self-compassion is it aligns well with healthy motivation(s) and over time can lead to better psychological functioning (Neff, Rude & Kirkpatrick, 2007), and if you find that eliminating your stuff is fun you still get to do it. If you don’t, well that is fine too.
Sources & further reading:
Belk, R. W. (1984). Three scales to measure constructs related to materialism: Reliability, validity, and relationships to measures of happiness. Advances in Consumer Research, 11(1), 291-297.
Brown, B. (2010). The gifts of imperfection. Center City: Hazelden.
Chaplin, L. N., & John, D. R. (2007). Growing up in a Material World: Age Differences in Materialism in Children and Adolescents. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 480-493.
Dunn, E., Aknin, L., & Norton, M. (2008). Spending money on others promotes happiness. Science, 319(5870), 1687-1688. doi:10.1126/science.1150952
Ehrlinger, J., Mitchum, A. L., & Dweck, C. S. (2016). Understanding overconfidence: Theories of intelligence, preferential attention, and distorted self-assessment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 6394-100. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2015.11.001
Glasser, W. (1998). Choice theory: A new psychology of personal freedom. New York: Harper Collins.
Haimovitz, K., & Dweck, C. S. (2017). The origins of children’s growth and fixed mindsets: New research and a new proposal. Child Development, 88(6), 1849-1859. doi:10.1111/cdev.12955
Neff, K. D. (2011). Self-compassion, self-esteem, and well-being. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 5(1), 1-12. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00330.x
Neff, K. D., Rude, S. S., & Kirkpatrick, K. L. (2007). An examination of self-compassion in relation to positive psychological functioning and personality traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(4), 908-916. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.08.002
Neff, K. D., & Vonk, R. (2009). Self-compassion versus global self-esteem: Two different ways of relating to oneself. Journal of Personality, 77(1), 23-50. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00537.x
Nowak, A. (2004). Dynamical minimalism: Why less is more in psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(2), 183-192.
Richins, M. L. & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and its measurement: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (3), 303–16.
Van Boven, L., & Gilovich, T. (2003). To do or to have? That is the question. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(6), 1193-1202.
