What Are Your Most Important Possessions?

When talking about uncluttering or simple living, it's quite possible to be misinterpreted as a spoilsport, a killjoy who doesn't want anyone to have anything beyond a scrap of threadbare clothing, a dented coffee mug, and a tent to sleep in. Those who dare to have more than that are supposed to feel guilty or at least ashamed of being so decadent.

Of course, that's not really what uncluttering and simple living are about. But it can be a fine line that separates gratitude from guilt when we think about our own possessions. The never-ending questions we face are, "How much is enough? How much is too much?"

The images you'll see in the projects linked below are thought provoking, perhaps even shocking. They're not meant to engender guilt or shame; they're meant to offer perspective, which can be helpful when we're trying to answer those difficult questions.

________________________________

Photojournalist Brian Sokol created a project entitled The Most Important Thing. It features portraits of incomprehensibly impoverished refugees who have crossed the border between Sudan's Blue Nile state and South Sudan's Upper Nile state, with their most important personal possession.

________________________________

Italian photographer Gabriele Galimberti’s project entitled Toy Stories presents photos of children from around the world with their most important possessions: their toys. Galimberti explores the universality of childhood and concludes, “At their age, they are all pretty much the same; they just want to play.” But he discovered significant cultural differences, too. In wealthy countries, the children were inclined to be possessive; in poor countries, even when they had only a toy or two, the children were inclined to share.

________________________________

JeongMee Yoon's Pink and Blue project "explores the trends in cultural preferences and the differences in the tastes of children (and their parents) from diverse cultures [and] ethnic groups, as well as gender socialization and identity." The project began as a result of her five-year-old daughter's insistence on wearing only pink and playing only with pink toys.

I've posted about this project in the past, but it seems appropriate to reference it here again, not because it demonstrates the power of marketing, but because of the comparatively large quantity of toys that are displayed. Could a child with this many playthings identify only one most important possession? Does that matter? Do these pictures represent joyful abundance or thoughtless acquisition? How can we know? Are the gender issues more important than the issue of quantity?

________________________________

How much is enough? How much is too much? ~ It's easier to know how much is too little.

Musing About Minimalism

One of the misconceptions about minimalism is that it requires giving up "everything," suffering with only the most basic requirements for comfort met, and generally embracing a life of sacrifice. Not necessarily. I like the explanation offered by Ryan Nicodemus, co-author with Joshua Fields Millburn of the book Minimalism: Leading a Meaningful Life:

I had an interview this morning . . . where the guy asked what does a minimalist's life look like and I didn't know what to tell him because it's really not that different from anybody else's life. It's just more deliberate. If you were to walk into my home, you wouldn't think oh something's wrong with this guy. You'd just think he's tidy. . . . [Minimalism is] more about living deliberately and more about asking what adds value in your life and cutting out the superfluous stuff.

Defining "superfluous" is, of course, most challenging. Akiko Busch writes in "The Art of Shedding Possessions:"

There are many factors ruling our choices about what to surrender. A force equal and opposite to the impulse buy is the precipitous urge to give something up, which can spring from some combination of regret, disenchantment, a sense of failure, even fatigue.

But beyond such hasty and impetuous housecleaning are the simple facts that we outgrow things, our tastes change, and, maybe most of all, our desire for material belongings wanes. Parting with them may only be a matter of recognizing that we need to end certain relationships and understand how the physical objects around us have served as their emotional accomplices.

 

Sometimes simplified circumstances can be imposed on us by chance. John Stark wrote of discovering "The Zen of a Small Kitchen" when he moved to a new city:

For the first few weeks, I felt as if I were in one of those PBS reality shows where people are made to live in a house from a bygone era. . . . First, I had to acquire the right mindset. 'The original owners of the house had four children,' my landlord told me. If that kitchen was good enough for a family of six, surely I, one person with a Doberman, could make do.

 

And that, of course, is the answer to all uncluttering challenges: the right mindset. If one commits to simplifying, to mindfully letting go of unnecessary possessions and thoughtfully dealing with the mundane, life will begin to feel ordered, to flow instead of bump along.

 

Peter Lawrence, author of The Happy Minimalist, demonstrates the extreme minimalist point-of-view in this post from Treehugger. In the 14-minute video at that link, Peter explains that minimalism requires "constantly examining what resources are needed to achieve your objective."

 

Most of us will feel that we need more than Peter Lawrence does, but how much more? Well, that's always the question, isn't it?

 

 

Photo Credit: "Tranquility 4" by Ove Tøpfer, stock.xchng

Artfully Organized

I've mentioned before that our brains are hardwired to create order out of whatever we encounter, so it would be reasonable to assume that the less work our brains have to do to figure it out, the faster we'll get to a mental state we find comfortable. If we constantly assault our brains with chaos, we'll become stressed, exhausted, perhaps numb. We won't be able to function at our peak, nor will will we be able to fully enjoy ourselves because our poor old brains will be preoccupied trying to make sense of things. This is why empty beaches at sunset are relaxing -- and why uncluttered homes are less stressful.

We can use this information to help us get inspired to organize our possessions. What if we tried looking at beautiful images in which "stuff" is organized and displayed in such an appealing way that it becomes art? Once you've pared down your clutter to a manageable amount, it's helpful to change the way you look at what you're keeping. If you think of it as art and think of yourself as the curator of your own personal museum, you'll approach organizing it in a different way.

Check out "A Collection A Day, 2010," a blog by artist/illustrator Lisa Congdon in which she uses photographs to beautifully document her many collections.

Then go to Things Organized Neatly, a blog featuring photographs submitted by its readers, with each photo representing things that are well-organized. [Hat tip to Dina at Discardia for this link.]

So, how many things should you keep and organize? That's up to you. But you might want to take a look at one of my favorite books to get some perspective about how many possessions people have in other parts of the world. Material World by Peter Menzel, Charles C. Mann, and Paul Kennedy features photographs of families from all over the globe, standing outside their homes, surrounded by their possessions -- many or very few. It will help you decide that maybe your personal museum doesn't have to be quite as large as the Met!

© 2011 Cynthia Friedlob

Image credit: Gavin Mills at stock.xchng

Simple Living: Predicted Twenty Years Ago. Again.

I have just a few items in print that I can't seem to let go: the 20th anniversary issue of Rolling Stone, Abbie Hoffman's obituary, and a story (and cover) from the 1991 issue of Time magazine entitled, "The Simple Life." Setting aside discussion of the first two for some other day -- more likely, never -- let's examine the third. I'm simultaneously disheartened and heartened to read it again, almost twenty years after its publication. And, at the time it was printed, I recall feeling simultaneously disheartened and heartened to read it some twenty years after those of us who came of age in the late '60s and early '70s had professed the identical ideals: "a simpler life with deeper meaning."

Here are quotes from the article, which was written by Janice Castro, with reporting by Ann Blackman/Washington, Melissa Ludtke/Boston, and William McWhirter/Chicago, with other bureaus:

These are the humble makings of a revolution in progress: Macaroni and cheese. Timex watches. . . . Bicycles. . .

See the pattern? It's as genuine as Grandma's quilt. After a 10-year bender of gaudy dreams and godless consumerism, Americans are starting to trade down. They want to reduce their attachments to status symbols, fast-track careers and great expectations of Having It All.

In place of materialism . . . having time for family and friends, rest and recreation, good deeds and spirituality.

In a Time/CNN poll of 500 adults, 69% of the people surveyed said they would like to "slow down and live a more relaxed life" . . .

In scaling down their tastes, most Americans are making a virtue out of necessity. Contrary to perceptions, the past decade was an era of downward mobility for the majority of U.S. families, who kept up their spending by borrowing and relying on two incomes. Only the wealthiest 20% of Americans significantly increased their real income during the Reagan era, and the poor slipped further behind. . .

Not everyone believes America has changed its stripes, however. "If the present generation has learned anything, it is that talk is cheap. But are they really doing anything different?" asks Stanford economist Victor Fuchs. "The baby boomers are just growing up and playing out a predictable life-cycle change." . . . John Kenneth Galbraith, the eminent liberal economist, dismisses the trend as a bicoastal fad among fast-trackers. . .

The beginnings of the new mind-set probably go back as far as the stock-market crash of 1987, which had little immediate effect on the overall economy but gave many people an uneasy feeling about the Roaring Eighties." . . . Many people were awakened by individual experience: the plight of a homeless neighbor, the collapse of a bank, a friend's job loss. . .

The article continues with talk of "cocooning" (remember that buzzword?), the importance of spending more time with family, and:

. . . another reason for rejecting rampant materialism: its impact on the environment. . . Recycling has taken hold as a voguish and satisfying pursuit . . . Gilded '80s [TV] shows such as Dynasty and Falcon Crest are gone, swept away by . . . Roseanne, The Simpsons and Married...with Children . . .

In their search for more enduring gratification in life, many people are seeking spirituality, if not a born-again commitment to organized religion . . .

And the article concludes with:

Is the simple life just a passing fancy, a stylish flashback of the 1960s? Not so, say people who have studied both eras. Contends Berkeley sociologist Robert Bellah: "It's no longer messianic, the way it was in the '60s, but relatively pragmatic. That may give the present mood a greater staying power." That's good, because the American generation now reaching middle age has a lot of promises to keep -- not to mention mortgages to carry, tuition to pay and lawns to mow. No wonder they want to keep it simple.

Sound familiar? Yes, indeed. But it's different this time around.

In the '60s, the counter-culture revolution was bolstered by children of some privilege. It's easier to rebel if you know you can always go home and do laundry. I know; I was there. I was in school, then worked for a non-profit.

And after the '70s, what happened? The "Roaring Eighties," as the Times article called it. The era of "real gold," "L'Oreal...because I'm worth it," and, most famously, "Greed is good." The stock market was the place to be and if you weren't in it, you were missing out on a "sure thing." At least until 1987.

Then, in the '90s, the urge to simplify and cocoon was championed by people who were exhausted by their demanding jobs that had allowed them to spend enormous amounts of money on luxuries. And it's easier to simplify if you've got money in the bank. I know; I was there. I was in show biz, then became an artist.

What happened in the '00s? Financial lunacy. This time it was real estate. If you didn't own property, you were missing out on a "sure thing." And this time, even the big boys, the banks and brokerages, were so caught up in the madness that when the market collapsed, it brought them down right along with the individual investors. I know; I was there, but on the sidelines. I was fortunate not to have overextended in real estate and not to have trusted the stock market with everything else. I'm enormously thankful for that because you never know when life will throw a curve ball in some other way.

So where are we all now, with yet another decade behind us? There's still some talk about the benefits of simple living and lots of talk about protecting the environment, but today, for so many, simplification isn't by choice; it's being imposed on a lot of people who have been caught by surprise. When simplicity is a result of a lack of other options, it's doesn't feel so virtuous. It just feels like you're poor.

Bad financial decisions are at the root of the problem for many people, but for some -- many who were in the vanguard in the '60s and '70s -- age discrimination is now part of enforced simple living, too. Limited jobs mean limited opportunities. Scaled back expectations are the new reality for almost everyone, but especially for those who are too young to retire and too old to be considered employable, even if they have impeccable credentials. We live in a society that too often devalues experience and has never particularly valued maturity. There's an example of a curve ball thrown by life and it's clear that not everyone was prepared for it.

The obviously disheartening aspect of reading that Time article is reflecting on the fact that today's mess is just another example of the rather painful economic cycle that our society seems to repeat so predictably. What's heartening about it? It reminds us that we do manage to get through the hard times eventually. Society survived the Great Depression; why not the Great Recession?

So, with the blessing/curse of optimism, let's consider what's the best bet for getting through today's challenging time. Other than the obvious financial reality check that's required for most people, there's an attitude change that would be helpful and at least part of it relates directly to being a thoughtful, uncluttered consumer.

First, believe that less really is more, just as Ludwig Mies van der Rohe said over fifty years ago. I'm not advocating embracing the concept of "less" because it's frugal, or sensible, or necessary; instead I'm advocating embracing it because it offers us not only beauty, but also flexibility. Beauty gives us joy in the moment and flexibility is a highly valuable commodity during a period of change.

What if you made buying choices that would simplify your life by resulting in fewer possessions, but more appealing possessions? What if you chose to keep only those things you already own that are beautiful or useful, just as William Morris advised over a hundred years ago? (Beautiful doesn't necessarily mean expensive; it means pleasing to the eye, your eye.) What if you kept only the sentimental items that had true sentiment, not just history attached?

What if you emptied your home of all of your unnecessary stuff, not because you were panic stricken and felt obligated to have a garage sale, but because you wanted to make space to actually live in your home? Or because you wanted the flexibility to move if you needed to or chose to do so?

Then, what if you embraced the concept of change? What if you were bold rather than timid during these difficult times? What if you had faith in yourself and your ability to do whatever is necessary to stay afloat? What if you took this opportunity to remake your life the way you'd like it to be? I doubt that you'd be lugging around all of the stuff you currently own because you'd see much of it as a burden. I doubt that you'd be clinging to everything you've ever owned because you'd see that now is what matters and planning for the future makes more sense than seeking (false) security in the possessions of the past.

What if you embraced the goal of "a simpler life with deeper meaning?" I doubt that you'd be who you are at this moment, but I bet you'd become who you are in this life.

What if you did that?

© 2010 Cynthia Friedlob

Selling Everything

It's a sweltering 100+ degrees in Los Angeles today so I spent the whole day indoors, slogging through papers and other accumulations of annoying stuff. I'm always stunned at the amount of things I find that are disposable, even though we try our best to cycle things out more quickly than they come in.

Some of the disposable stuff is still leftover from the distant past. It's hung around for the usual reasons that most of us keep things longer than we should: the inability to make a decision about what to do with them. Today I flipped open the Rolodex and spotted a card with the address and phone number of someone who's dead. You'd think that would be easy enough to toss, but what if the person was famous? Shouldn't I keep the phone number as a memento to show that I knew him? I'm not sure who I'd be showing it to and I can't imagine that this proof would be necessary or significant to anyone. It is just an address and phone number.

I told you it was over 100 degrees here today, so I can only suggest that the heat affected my brain. Yes, I must shyly confess that I let the card stay there. I have fond memories of the guy and a funny story or two to go with them. Ah, but this just shows how devious our minds can be when we're in purge mode.

Of course, all the tiny decisions that hold us back could be avoided if we unloaded all our possessions in one fell swoop. In our household, when we're feeling overwhelmed by stuff we often say that we're going to "sell everything," but what, exactly does that mean? It doesn't seem a very practical idea if taken literally and there certainly are some sentimental items that would give me pause if I were forced to part with them.

In a previous post called Designing Your Life, I asked you to ponder what you'd try to save if all your possessions were about to be lost in a fire or other natural disaster, a far less than desirable way to have decisions made for you about what you get to keep. In that post, I also mentioned last year's "sell everything" auction by Lisa Perry and John Freyer's "sell almost everything" art project auctions in 2002. Lisa used her money to move to another state; John used the proceeds from his many auctions to go visit his things in their new homes and create a book about the experience called All My Life For Sale.

And now, coming up this Sunday, is the closing of the "A Life 4 Sale" eBay auction by Australian Ian Usher. This 44-year-old man is selling his house, jet ski, car, clothes, a try-out for his job offered by his employer at a rug store, and even his friends who say they'll welcome the newcomer. The break-up of his relationship and, apparently, the resulting genuine desire for a radical change of life led to his decision to let everything go at once. "As long as the auction is a success I will leave Perth with my passport and wallet and I'm off," said Usher.

Could you do it? Sell everything? Is it a scary proposition or an enticing one?

I'm still rather fond of my youthful idea of being able to fit all I own in the back of my car and hit the open road. Very Jack Kerouac or Hunter S. Thompson (minus the substance abuse). Of course, gas prices would have to come down quite a lot. But I do drive a hatchback with plenty of room . . . and it is a Honda so it gets great mileage . . .

Nah. Must be the heat.

© 2008 Cynthia Friedlob

Guerrilla Gardeners

There was a time far back in our country's history when gardening was an integral part of the lives of the majority of our citizens. Even city dwellers, at least those with access to a plot of land, grew their own vegetables and often had a pot or two of geraniums that received loving care.

During WWI and WWII, Liberty Gardens and Victory Gardens were both practical and patriotic. Wikipedia explains:

"Victory gardens were planted in backyards and on apartment-building rooftops, with the occasional vacant lot 'commandeered for the war effort' and put to use as a cornfield or a squash patch. During World War II, sections of lawn were publicly plowed for plots in Hyde Park, London, to publicize the movement. In New York City, the lawns around vacant Riverside were devoted to victory gardens, as were portions of San Francisco's Golden Gate Park."

Although avid vegetable gardeners remain among us, somewhere along the way the ease of purchasing food at the local supermarket changed the way the majority of the population thought about home vegetable gardens (even though homegrown food tastes a million times better than supermarket produce and you can actually harvest it when it's ripe). Eventually gardening in general gave way to landscaping, with appearance playing a more important role than function. For many people, it often became just another chore, eagerly handed off to hired help by those who could afford it.

Coming from a gardening family, I was delighted to read an LA Times article by Joe Robinson about the rise of guerrilla gardeners, brave souls who take on street medians, traffic islands and vacant lots, planting them with everything from greenery to flowers to food. Robinson reports:

"Part beautification, part eco-activism, part social outlet, the activity has been fueled by Internet gardening blogs and sites such as GuerrillaGardening.org, where before-and-after photos of the latest 'troop digs' inspire 45,000 visitors a month to make derelict soil bloom."

I was even more delighted to read that this is an international phenomenon: the Guerrilla Gardening website founder is Richard Reynolds, who lives in London and refers to his plantings as "weapons of mass beautification." His site has links to groups in Canada, Germany, France, Italy and the U.S.

With both the rising cost of food and increased awareness of the fragility of our environment, this is a perfect time to rethink our relationship to the land in urban areas. Using the land as a source of food or a source of beauty is a crucial part of humanizing our cityscapes.

In another post I wrote about green roofs which are environmentally sensitive as well as a wonderful way to beautify our cities. Here, in addition to the Guerrilla Gardening website, are some links to get us all thinking about creating green public land that is otherwise ignored or forgotten:

Homegrown Evolution - Los Angeles urban homesteaders planted a vegetable garden in the parkway across from their home.

Green Guerrillas - a New York group that mixes advocacy, education and the involvement of youth to cultivate community gardens on public land.

Public Space - a Canadian group based in Toronto that has as its slogan: "Graffiti with nature."

Disclaimer: Guerrilla gardening is illegal. You are commandeering land that you don't personally own for the purpose of planting veggies or flowers or other greenery. This action, depending on where you live, will either be appreciated or prosecuted. Although I confess that the political statement made by citizens turning derelict public land into a lovely garden appeals to my sixties sensibilities, if you have concerns about the legality of guerrilla gardening, check out The American Community Gardening Association for ideas about getting your civic leaders to cooperate with your efforts.

Although I'm no longer a gardener, I have fond memories of the small vegetable garden in the backyard of my childhood home. I was thrilled every time I pulled up a carrot I had planted myself. The neighbors shared raspberries from their bushes across the alley, a grape vine draped along another neighboring fence, and we had a small peach tree that, as I recall, gave us very few peaches over the years but still looked lovely. My parents continued to garden after moving to another town, filling their yard with flowers, vegetables (including a few rows of cornstalks!) and strawberry rings. My father chased away crows regularly. Even when they moved to an apartment, Mom kept planters of onions and chives on the balcony.

Today, my mother finds it quite annoying that her current apartment managers won't allow her to keep a small container garden on her front porch. But, unstoppable at almost age 86, she and a few of her neighbors are successfully guerilla gardening the building's courtyard with flowers. Come next summer, I wouldn't be surprised to find an onion or two hidden amongst the marigolds!

© 2008 Cynthia Friedlob

Global Water Crisis

Late last Friday afternoon, the water main that serves our row of townhouses broke. An unlucky owner a few doors down had his garage flooded. The water was shut off until late Saturday afternoon. Twenty-two hours with no running water at all.

Because we live in Earthquake Central, I try to be reasonably prepared to function for a few days without municipal services, so there was plenty of water stashed away in those big five-gallon jugs we all complain about because they're plastic. Friday, I loved those plastic jugs. They allowed us to have water for basic hygienic needs and water to drink. The phones worked, cable tv was fine, internet functioned, heat and a/c were unaffected. We went out to dinner. The lack of running water was a temporary inconvenience, not a disaster.

Not so elsewhere.

We take for granted the access we have to clean running water, but, even in our country, there are areas in which our citizens suffer without that fundamental benefit of civilization. I've written previously about the Navajo Water Haulers; here's further information from an article in The Arizona Republic.

Water problems in Africa are legendary. You can read about one Seattle woman's experience in Ethiopia in her January blog post for The Common Language Project. She explains, "I’m here to research and write on water scarcity issues. In the past three days I’ve interviewed a woman whose son died of typhoid and a man who held four of his children as diarrhea from waterborne dysentery drained the life from their small bodies. I watched an old woman fall to her knees and kiss the ground in thanks of water."

CNN Money offers an article about the problems of farmers in India as they attempt to cope with a water shortage that prevents them from growing their crops. Inefficient government subsidies, the overuse of tube wells and a maxed-out electrical grid have resulted in a dramatic lowering of the water table. According to the article, Shreekant Gupta, professor of economics at Delhi University, say, "It's a classic example of bad economic policies having serious environmental consequences."

Colin Beavan at the No Impact Man blog speculates about when what's happening to gas happens to drinking water. His post offers a chilling scenario about supply and demand in which companies like Nestle, Coca-Cola and Pepsi buy up water rights the same way that only a few now infamous companies bought oil drilling rights.

Back here at home, the LA Times reports that we're facing the worst water shortage in decades.

Fortunately, there are organizations working to make clean water available to everyone. Living Water International is a fine example.

But the problem isn't just one of infrastructure (although that's certainly a key element); it's one of attitude: the attitude of entitlement that those of us with easy access to clean running water have. It's that same attitude of entitlement that makes us feel like we "need" so much more -- of everything -- than we have. It's definitely not an attitude that will allow us to thrive as stewards of our small planet. It's an attitude that may not even allow us to survive.

I turned on the tap this morning and clean water poured out. For a brief moment, I barely remembered not being able to enjoy the wonder of that privilege just days ago. Then I smiled with appreciation for all the things we take for granted that make our lives comfortable.

Focusing on the basics always makes it easier to keep all the other "stuff" in perspective.

© 2008 Cynthia Friedlob

Discardia: Better Than Festivus

If you've checked your calendar recently, you're probably aware of some rapidly approaching traditional holidays: St. Patrick's Day, Easter, April Fool's Day, Passover, even Earth Day. But are you aware of Discardia?

I first heard about this wonderful holiday through a post last December on pro organizer Jerri Dansky's delightful blog. Discardia is the brainchild of Metagrrrl, aka self-described web geek Dinah Sanders, who, in true Seinfeld spirit, states that the holiday is about nothing. However, she created it on December 25, 2002, which gives us a clue about her motivation. Here's a quote further explaining its purpose:

"Discardia is celebrated by getting rid of stuff and ideas you no longer need. It's about letting go, abdicating from obligation and guilt, being true to the self you are now. Discardia is the time to get rid of things that no longer add value to your life, shed bad habits, let go of emotional baggage and generally lighten your load."

Discardia holidays (yes, plural) are based on lunar cycles. To be precise, sort of:

"The exact days vary. It takes place in the time between the Solstices & Equinoxes and their following new moons. Sometimes it's short and sometimes it's long."

A calendar can be found here. As you can see, there are four opportunities during 2008 to celebrate. This coming Wednesday, March 19th is the beginning of the next Discardia holiday.

What to do to celebrate? Dinah offers this suggestion:

"[B]ear in mind that obligation is anti-discardian, so you can do whatever suits you - including celebrating Discardia when it isn't Discardia. However, one thing you might like to consider is the idea of culminating the Discardian season with a particular act of letting go. For example, on the Discardian new moon you might decide that you won't buy anything or bring anything into your home and that you will instead just enjoy the fact that you have enough. Or you might make that your night to be completely selfish, avoid all social commitments and do something you really enjoy, regardless of what anyone else thinks or expects of you."

The Discardia posts offer a wealth of information about parting with excess baggage, whether it's literal or psychological, including Dinah's own unburdening of her stuff and her gradual creation of a more satisfying life.

I love the idea of an ongoing, seasonal celebration of letting go. Getting rid of clutter this way doesn't seem like such a chore or a sacrifice, but instead is simply a preparation for a holiday. And if that holiday is celebrated regularly, more and more stuff will get out of our homes and more and more joy will be brought in.

I hope that on April 5th, the last day of this coming Discardia, you, too, will be able to celebrate by saying, "I have enough!"

© 2008 Cynthia Friedlob

Faith Popcorn Says It's Cooler Not to Spend

If anything indicates that we've probably reached a cultural "tipping point," as Malcolm Gladwell would put it, it's when a topic hits Oprah's TV show at the same time that "trend oracle" Faith Popcorn makes a pronouncement about it. In this case, Oprah did a show featuring a segment by Lisa Ling about the Freegans and Faith Popcorn was just quoted in a USA Today article saying that it's cooler not to spend money.

The USA Today article also quotes futurist and business trend adviser Watts Wacker: "The new status isn't how much you've got, but your ability to show what you don't spend. This is a seminal moment. It's not a fad that will die out when the economy picks up." [italics mine]

Could this possibly be true? Have that many people finally realized that buying more and more stuff isn't the path to personal fulfillment?

Maybe. Or maybe people are just being pushed in that direction by economic considerations. USA Today continues:

"There's a sense that prices are rising — and will continue to rise — but wages will not," says Ken Goldstein, economist at The Conference Board. "This is squeezing household budgets whether they're $200 per week or $200,000 per year. Folks are looking closely at anything they don't have to purchase now."

Whatever the motivation, I'm pleased to hear that it's now "officially" cool to be living with less.

I don't have any plans to go dumpster diving with the Freegans, but I have absolutely no problem being cool.

© 2008 Cynthia Friedlob

Designing Your Life: A Blank Slate

Let's begin with a brief meditation on disaster:

What if, Heaven forbid, your house burned down? What if you lived in earthquake-prone California when "the big one" hit and your house was at the epicenter? What if your city suffered a flood, a tornado, or a hurricane and all those inevitable, interminable news reports focused their cameras on your now non-existent home?

Okay, these are dramatic scenarios that, thankfully, are unlikely to affect the majority of us, but they're not impossible. So let's use our imaginations. How would you feel if you had to start over again? We'll say you were insured and have a reasonable chunk of money to complement the only possessions you now own: the clothes on your back and perhaps one or two mementos you managed to grab before disaster struck.

First of all, let's consider what those one or two mementos might be. Imagine that you must make a split-second decision to grab something and run. What would you grab and run with?

Of course, you'd make sure that your family members were safe, and your pets, but what stuff would you grab? I think many of us would immediately head for a favorite photograph or an entire photo album if we could. Photographs are precious memories that document our lives, so this makes perfect sense.

There might be a special piece of artwork or a small memento that had such significance that you felt compelled to save it. These are also logical choices.

So, now let's imagine that you're standing outside, away from danger, family and pets safely huddled together and your one or two mementos clutched to your heart. As you survey the scene and reflect on whatever has just put you in this dramatic situation, what would you be thinking?

I believe that you'd be grateful to be alive and feel lucky to have had the opportunity to save whatever small token of your life you chose to rescue. And, while certainly feeling a bit melancholy about your loss, I can just about guarantee that you'd say everything that really mattered was right there with you. All that had been lost was only stuff. Your priorities would be clear in a way that they may never have been in the past.

Ideally it doesn't take a disaster for us to get those priorities straight. In fact, some people make choices that are dramatically life-altering and reflect those priorities. Now let's imagine you're one of those people. What if you decided to sell everything?

What if you decided to auction all of your possessions so that you could move to the west coast, as Minnesota resident Lisa Perry did last year? Ms. Perry listed one lot of three hundred or so items on eBay and had this to say: "I've been schlepping this stuff across the country for more than 20 years. I'm tired of thinking: 'Oh my God, what if it breaks in the next move?' Who cares? I think it will almost be scary how liberating it will be." Ms. Perry was unable to sell the entire lot in the auction, but she was undaunted and decided to list individual items again as well as offer some on Craigslist. According to her blog, anything left over would be donated. And, yes, she did make it to California.

Artist and Iowa grad school student John Freyer was preparing to move back to New York when he created the "allmylifeforsale" project in which he "explored our relationship to the objects around us, their role in the concept of identity, as well as the emerging commercial systems of the Internet."

According to Freyer, "This was an online project that started October 2000 when I invited about 50 people to my house for an 'Inventory Party.' They sorted through my things and helped me decide which items best represented my life in Iowa City, Iowa. I have gone through the process of listing every thing that they tagged and more. I listed the Allmylifeforsale.com domain name on August 1st, 2001 as the final item of the project. A main component of this project is following where all of my stuff is going. I am asking all of the highest bidders to provide the readers of allmylifeforsale with an update on the piece of my life that they acquired. I am also keeping track of where all my stuff is going on a huge wall map. I am planing on visiting some of my life wherever it ends up, maybe at your house? You can keep track of where I am and where I'm going by visiting me at Temporama."

In the fall of 2002, Bloomsbury Press published a book about his project which they promoted with a significant question: "What do you do when your material possessions start to weigh on your sense of freedom?"

Have your material possessions started to weigh you down? Would it take a disaster to get you to part from them? Would you consider voluntarily selling everything? Most importantly, what would you do if, for whatever reason, you had a blank slate and were designing your life right now, exactly the way you want it to be?

I think you'd do exactly what I would do: create a life with less stuff and more freedom.

Am I right?

© 2008 Cynthia Friedlob

Juxtapositions: Simple Living and Cell Phones

I'm pleased that so many interesting blogs and well-researched books have been devoted to the concepts that living with fewer possessions can be comfortable and rewarding, that not using shopping as a recreational activity saves money and resources, and that the choices we make as consumers have an impact not only on us but on others and our remarkably bounteous planet.

It's also great that there are entertaining and informative films and videos on the general topic of "stuff" that are readily available to view online. For example, take a look at The Story of Stuff, a popular film that's captured the attention of the personal organizing blogger community.

And if Oprah is talking about clutter and devoting show time to the serious problem of hoarding, it surely seems like we must have hit critical mass when it comes to stuff awareness.

Yes, I feel hopeful that we're building a stronger movement in the direction away from the often quoted 1980s pronouncement that "greed is good" (Michael Douglas as Gordon Gekko in the film Wall Street, written by Stanley Weiser and Oliver Stone -- must credit the writers!).

However, just when it seems that a corner has been turned and that people are finally getting a little perspective on the difference between want and need, I can count on the LA Times to slap me with a dose of reality. Of course, that's "reality," LA style.

In today's business section (the business section!) there was an article by Kimi Yoshino called, "It's How, Not Whom, You Call," explaining that in Los Angeles, "the cellphone is the ultimate status symbol." Turns out you can make your multi-picture deal (well, not until after the writers' strike is settled) while negotiating on a $1,200 Bang & Olufsen Serene or you can power your way to the top of movie moguldom on a diamond-laden, 18-karat gold GoldVish Illusion for anywhere from $28,000 to $171,550. (In many parts of the country, couldn't $171,550 still buy a condo?)

But in this same business section of the Times, there are reports that Washington Mutual Bank was "hurt by mortgage write-downs," weak holiday sales forced the closure of several retailers, "rising fuel costs and a slumping economy will create conditions ripe for consolidation" among airline companies, the Dow dropped 306 points, and (referring to an article that hit page one of the newspaper) a $100 billion "stimulus package" is being suggested to boost the country's economy, "provided the money was funneled to people who would spend it quickly, according to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke."

Well, if Mr. Bernanke wants to slip me a large enough chunk of that package, I know where I can get a fast deal on a really fine looking cell phone. I just wonder if it will still drop my calls.


© 2008 Cynthia Friedlob

Fire and Perspective in California

It's fire season in southern California. Take a look at this CNN News report:

"Wildfires engulfing huge swaths of Southern California have killed at least 14 people and sent tens of thousands seeking refuge. The state's deadliest blazes in more than a decade raged through areas as far north as Simi Valley in Ventura County, east to San Bernardino County and south to San Diego County -- scorching more than 300,000 acres. Weather forecasts indicate more hot and dry conditions that will mix with the Santa Ana winds and could fan the flames that have reached 100 feet tall in places. President Bush declared Los Angeles, San Bernardino, San Diego and Ventura counties major disaster areas Monday, opening the way for federal dollars for governments, businesses and people affected by the fires."

You will probably be interested to note that this report is from October 27, 2003. Yes, sad to say, fires are all too common in this area. It's possible that, once again, this year's disaster may have hit a new record for devastation, but the statistics are not yet in -- many fires are still burning. The most up-to-date information is available at CalFire.

Lives lost, homes and buildings in ashes, acres of land blackened. Here in the city, some twenty-five or thirty miles away from the nearest blaze, the sky has been overcast gray from smoke all week long. A thin layer of ashes settles on cars that are left outside overnight. On at least one day, the sun was red; the moon was red that evening.

There have been numerous interviews with people displaced by the fires, some who hope their homes will be saved, some who already know that hope is futile. As they fled, a few managed to grab special possessions, usually photos or small personal mementos.

There may be an occasional comment about the sad loss of property, but in every case, these people come to the same conclusion. They are grateful to be alive and, without fail, say that everything truly important they have with them: their family members and sometimes a cherished pet.

If you were faced with losing your home because of a natural disaster, you'd undoubtedly feel the same way. But why wait for a disaster? Why not re-evaluate your relationship with your possessions right now? Why not be grateful today for what's truly important in your life.


© 2007 Cynthia Friedlob

Happy 108th Birthday, Olive!

By sheer good fortune, I happened to discover "The Life of Riley" blog soon after it launched last February with "Olive's First Post:"

"Good Morning everyone. My name is Olive Riley. I live in Australia near Sydney. I was born in Broken Hill on Oct. 20th 1899. Broken Hill is a mining town, far away in the centre of Australia. My Friend, Mike, has arranged this blog for me. He is doing the typing and I am telling the stories. . . .”

Olive’s friend is award-winning Australian filmmaker Mike Rubbo, who decided to document Olive's personal stories on a truly fascinating blog, or "blob," as she calls it.

There are three reasons I'm bringing Olive's blog to your attention (in addition to a well-deserved acknowledgment of her birthday):

1. There's nothing like hearing the stories of a 108-year-old woman to get some perspective on how life has changed over the course of a century and how our consumer expectations have become so ridiculously inflated.

2. By her second post, Olive was already making a point about the joys of buying local produce and the hazards of a political process gone wrong.

3. Mike's reasons for helping Olive share her history -- and attain the status of the World's Oldest Blogger -- have a larger purpose, too. In his words:

"Olive's blog is dedicated to taking the fear of the Internet away for older folks . . . We believe that the Internet is actually the natural friend of the older person. As personal mobility lessens, it can be replaced by the freedom to roam with this amazing new technology. The Internet lets the older user travel around the world and have friends across the globe, all with the click of a mouse. All that stands in the way for the older person is the fear of technology they don't understand. While Olive does not see well enough to type her own blog, or load the photos or the movie clips, you can see from the blog that she's fully involved with what she's achieving through the aid of others."

Blogging is a fabulous way for all of us who have similar concerns to connect across national borders, cultural divides, and barriers of age so that we can achieve our common goals: a sustainable way of life; mutual respect even in the face of challenging differences; and, most significantly, a peaceful world. Surely a 108-year-old woman can benefit, and benefit us, by participating in our dialogue.

Please take a moment to stop by Olive's entertaining blog and wish her a very happy birthday!

Death and Rebirth of Hippie

This year marked the 40th anniversary of the Summer of Love, an event which actually began in January of 1967 with a "gathering of the tribes" known as the Human Be-In at Golden Gate Park; then continued to build with the June release of the Beatles' "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" and the incredible Monterey Pop festival. That summer, thousands of young people literally invaded the Haight-Ashbury district in San Francisco on a quest for unforgettable music, a communal lifestyle of total freedom and, of course, psychedelic drugs. Heady times -- no pun intended.

But, as Jim Newsom wrote:

"The Summer of Love deteriorated rather quickly out in the Haight. As too many people arrived, the upbeat spirit of optimism and community gave way to despair and disenchantment, the drugs got harder and heavier, free love gave way to STDs. By mid-summer the glow was fading. On October 6, a group of hippies staged a mock funeral on the streets of San Francisco called 'The Death of Hippie.'"

The beautiful summer of the flower child may have turned into a terribly harsh winter, but the cultural impact of those times is undeniable, prompting many celebratory events this year. In New York, there was a 40th anniversary psychedelic art exhibit at the Whitney Museum and "Hair" was re-staged by the Public Theater; on the west coast, an anniversary tribute Monterey Pop concert was headlined by a reunited Big Brother and the Holding Company along with Jefferson Starship.

The hippies were the antithesis of today's consumers, united in a sub-culture of free food, free stores, free love (and the resulting free clinics), second-hand clothing, shared housing, and a bias against large corporations.

Fortunately, it appears that "Hippie" has been reincarnated in this era in a slightly different version, perhaps just as the Eastern religions that took root in the West back then might have predicted. This time around, there seems to be a broader appeal and a more durable foundation than the Haight could offer. Take a look at just a few examples of what's going on -- or still going on:

The Freegans, The Simple Living Network, Buy Nothing Day, The Rainbow Family, The Farm, No Impact Man, The Global EcoVillage Network, The World Business Council for Sustainable Development, The Fair Trade Federation, Living Water International -- there are literally thousands of individuals, groups and organizations representing the spirit of the counter-culture movement of the Sixties, a movement that was not just about sex, drugs and rock and roll as detractors like to opine, but was also highly politically motivated and aware.

It's encouraging that there is increasing awareness now about protecting the environment from dangerous exploitation, ensuring decent working conditions for those who make the products we use, and celebrating the inherent goodness of the simple life. We know that we can't sustain, or justify, our society's over-consumption when so much of the world's population is suffering without even such basic necessities as safe water to drink.

I like to think that many of the current worthwhile efforts for social change are a direct result of the Sixties -- and proof that Hippie really is back.

Good morning, Starshine.

Real Estate Fantasyland Questions

There are standard eight-inch white ceramic tiles on the floors of the bathrooms, the kitchen and the foyer of our townhouse. A little basic math easily demonstrates that a set of four of those tiles is a bit larger than one square foot, but it's just about the right size for the average person to stand on comfortably. Would you be willing to pay more than $12,760.00 for a space the size of those four tiles? How about if you had a fabulous, unobstructed view of the ocean? Any takers?

The LA Times "Home of the Week" this past Sunday featured a house in South Laguna with a 270-degree "breath-stealing" ocean view and an asking price of $31.9 million. The house has 2,500 square feet of living space with the bare minimum of amenities one might reasonably expect in a home even in a much lower price range: "cathedral-vaulted ceilings, hardwood and marble floors, skylights, a bay window and a double-door entry. There are hand-painted tiles in the kitchen and a hand-painted mural on a wall in a private courtyard . . . a wet bar, air conditioning and two-car garage."

But there's that view. A spectacular experience, undoubtedly. And yet, is it worth $12,760.00 per square foot? The listing agent suggests that "it obviously makes most sense as a turnkey, fully furnished vacation home for two or three, if you prefer."

So at that price it's not even expected to sell as a primary residence? It's just a little "get-away" spot at the beach?

Is anyone else noticing a dramatic disparity between this listing and all the latest news about the rapidly-increasing number of foreclosures homeowners are currently facing? How many of those homeowners simply took on mortgages that they couldn't afford in order to maximize the size, or perhaps the location, of the home they purchased? I suspect that they thought they were maximizing their "lifestyles" as well. Instead, they made bad financial decisions in order to get "more" and now many of them are going to end up not with "less," but with nothing.

I also suspect that what those homeowners really wanted was more quality in their lives, not in their lifestyles. With a little thought, they might have figured out that in order to achieve the quality they were seeking, they didn't need a fancier house, or better views, or marble countertops and restaurant-quality appliances in the kitchen; what they needed was more time, more enjoyment, more peace of mind.

Maybe the buyers of this pricey beach home will end up with more of what they want. But I wonder . . . .

© 2007 Cynthia Friedlob

It's Not Stuff, It's Art

Unless you're a survivalist or a Freegan, with little more than a backpack full of basics, or unless you're a person who shops exclusively at thrift and antique stores or Freecycle, eventually you're going to have to buy something new.

Being a thoughtful consumer, you'll want to maximize the value of your purchase, whether it's household furnishings or clothing or even something decorative or artistic -- yes, thoughtful consumers are not required to sacrifice to the point that they never buy anything simply because it's beautiful or it lifts their spirits. Having beautiful objects in a beautiful environment is a worthy goal for those of us fortunate enough not to worry about meeting our daily living needs.

But have you ever given thought to the fact that someone, or a team of someones, must design whatever it is that you buy? By focusing our attention on this part of the process of creating "stuff," we can become more aware and more sensitive when choosing what objects we want to have around us. If we choose wisely, we'll be content with what we have and not be tempted to buy simply for the sake of buying.

When shopping for anything, whether it's new or "new to you," there are only two criteria to consider: the design of the item must be both attractive and functional, otherwise it's of little use. ("Functional" includes those items that are spirit-lifting.) There are many clever ways to reuse and recycle older items, but I also find it interesting to learn more about designers who have made names for themselves by coming up with new items that fit those criteria.

Karim Rashid has designed products that I think are innovative and interesting, although many are pricey and rely on manufacturing from non-renewable resources. But I do find his overall design philosophy appealing:

"Every business should be completely concerned with beauty - it is after all a collective human need. I believe that we could be living in an entirely different world - one that is full of real contemporary inspiring objects, spaces, places, worlds, spirits and experiences. . . Design is about the betterment of our lives poetically, aesthetically, experientially, sensorially, and emotionally. My real desire is to see people live in the modus of our time, to participate in the contemporary world, and to release themselves from nostalgia, antiquated traditions, old rituals, kitsch and the meaningless. We should be conscious and attune with this world in this moment. If human nature is to live in the past - to change the world is to change human nature."

These are not the statements of someone who's just designing "stuff" -- and they're not the words of someone who mindlessly clings to things out of sentiment. Rashid wants us to live in the moment, with things surrounding us that enhance that moment.

Michael Graves, already well-known as an architect, became quite famous as a result of his designs of many household objects for Target. In an article in MetropolisMag.com, writer John Hockenberry states, "[Graves] has been an evangelist for beauty and humor in product design, as in his famous silver conical Alessi teapot as well as his buildings all over the world." By designing for Target, he's also demonstrated that good design should be affordable, too.

Just a few years ago, Graves suffered an illness that left him paralyzed from the waist down. He was so appalled by the ugliness and lack of functionality in his hospital environment, as well as in the designs of most products offered to people with disabilities, that now, Hockenberry reports, "Graves and his team are hard at work on a line of products that fuse one-dimensional medical utility with style, multifunctional elegance, and beauty. . . He says it all comes back to the choice of whether to make something beautiful or to tolerate something ugly. Allowing something to be simply ugly leads to permitting something that's not functional, that doesn't work right, that can be unsafe. . . 'Look around you: people can tolerate a lot of bad design,' he says with a twinkling smile to his staff, who have heard it all before. 'I can't tolerate any of it, of course. And I won't.'"

Graves' personal tragedy will result in wonderful improvements in design for medical devices and for people with disabilities. Perhaps he'll tackle the larger design issues of hospitals, which are usually some of the most ill-conceived, depressing environments one can encounter.

What happens when a fine artist designs? Andrea Zittel is one fascinating example. She creates everything from clothing to modular living units, "trying to combine design, craft and art." I became interested in her when I learned of her A-Z Uniform project which she worked on from 1991 to 2002. In her own words:

"Most of us own a favorite garment that always makes us look and feel good, but social etiquette dictates that we wear a different change of clothes every day. Sometimes this multitude of options can actually feel more restrictive than a self-imposed constant. Because I was tired of the tyranny of constant variety, I began a six-month uniform project. Starting in 1991 I would design and make one perfect dress for each season, and would then wear that dress every day for six months. Although utilitarian in principle, I often found that there was a strong element of fantasy or emotional need invested in each season's design. The experiment as a whole worked quite well, especially since dreaming up the next season's design helped relieve any monotony that might have occurred from wearing the same dress every day."

Because Zittel's an artist, her process moved on to creating uniforms from fabric torn from the bolt, then to making clothing by crocheting a single strand, and finally to using felt. Just thinking about her work can help us reconceptualize our relationship to our clothes: how many we need, how they're made, what purposes they serve when we wear them.

Performance artist Alex Martin also tackled the issue of fashion in her Brown Dress project. She made a brown dress which she wore each day for an entire year, from July 2005 to July 2006. Her reasoning:

"I made one small, personal attempt to confront consumerism by refusing to change my dress for 365 days. In this performance, I challenged myself to reject the economic system that pushes over-consumption, and the bill of goods that has been sold, especially to women, about what makes a person good, attractive and interesting. Clothes are a big part of this image, and the expectation in time, effort, and financial investment is immense."

Martin's current project:

". . . a wardrobe of my own devising -- recycled, re-mixed, re-fabbed . . . only things I made myself (clothes, jewelry, shoes, underwear, bags, everything) and my source materials were clothing items already in my possession - a completely closed loop, 100% recycled from my own closet."

Through this project, Martin offers another commentary on consumer culture, self-reliance, and creating things that are aesthetically pleasing as well as functional.

If we stop looking at our stuff as "stuff" and begin to look at each of our objects as the result of artistic expression, we'll have more appreciation for them. Then living with our carefully chosen possessions rather than just a bunch of stuff will mean paying attention to their beauty. Living in an environment that's not cluttered will be necessary to allow us to see the objects we've chosen and enjoy them. It's a shift in thinking that I believe would affect the way we look at everything in the world: seeking beauty and function, then being grateful when we find it.

Stuff is not just "stuff." Each thing has been designed, each thing is art, each thing is an opportunity to enhance our lives. Is your stuff good art or not so good art? Is it enhancing your life or detracting from it? Is your home an artistic expression of who you are or are you living in a Museum of Mess?

(c) 2007 Cynthia Friedlob

Freecycle to Freedom

Would you be surprised if I told you that right this minute there are 3,672,475 individuals or families who would give you, no strings attached, an item that you need if they owned that item and were done using it? A sofa, refrigerator, desk, clothing, computer, children's toys, just about anything you can think of that's legal and family-friendly could be yours for the asking. How? Freecycle.

The description from the website explains the way this on-line community works: "The Freecycle Network™ is made up of many individual groups across the globe. It's a grassroots and entirely nonprofit movement of people who are giving (& getting) stuff for free in their own towns. Each local group is moderated by a local volunteer (them's good people). Membership is free. . . . The Freecycle Network was started in May 2003 to promote waste reduction in Tucson's downtown and help save desert landscape from being taken over by landfills. The Network provides individuals and non-profits an electronic forum to 'recycle' unwanted items. One person's trash can truly be another's treasure!"

What a great way to get stuff for free, but, more importantly for many of us, what a great way to give stuff away. Let's say that you've tossed out the obviously useless things, you've handed off all that you can to family members and friends, you've done your eBay selling, you've consigned some antiques at a local shop, and maybe you've even put yourself through the torture of a garage sale. Well, first of all, congratulations on such an incredible achievement and please contact me immediately so that I can interview you because you are a rare soul indeed.

But now, what to do with what's left of the excess stuff? (I can guarantee that there still will be excess stuff, even after you've made all those other valiant efforts.) You don't just want to trash it because it's still useful. Sure, you could haul it over to your favorite local charity, or perhaps have them come by and pick it up, and I highly advocate that you consider doing so. But what do you do if you have items that aren't accepted by charities but are still in good condition? You may be surprised to learn that many charities don't take such things as mattresses and box springs or older appliances. Or what if you're moving, you absolutely must get that old dining table and chairs out of your apartment and you don't have the means to transport it all yourself? Or what if you just like the idea of giving away some of your stuff on a more personal level? Freecycle could be the perfect solution. You join your local group on-line (or consider starting a group if your area doesn't have one yet), post the item you want to give away on the website, and wait for responses. It's completely your choice how and to whom you give it away. (Freecycle offers suggestions regarding your personal safety, regrettably an issue that must be considered when dealing with others.)

Freecycle's goal is not to help alleviate the needs of the many impoverished citizens of our society; there are charitable organizations and government assistance programs that are supposed to be devoted to that mission. Freecycle's goal is to help keep things out of the landfill. It's a great example of the convergence of local environmental activism, on-line social networking, and recycling at its best.

Do we really need a program like Freecycle? Oh, yes. According to a Lubbock Online article by Marlena Hartz about their local Freecycle group, that Texas county has two landfills. Some 2,000 to 2,400 tons of waste are added to those landfills daily. The population of Lubbock County in 2006 was only 254,862. Extrapolate that to the population of our entire country, currently estimated at 302,438,836 people, and the amount of trash we're piling into our landfills is staggering.

We need all the help we can get and Freecycle is one of many programs that offer hope. In a CNNMoney.com article by Marc Gunther, Daniel Ben-Horin, the founder of the nonprofit Web site, TechSoup, says, "What is really interesting about Freecycle is that unlike a lot of virtual communities, something very concrete happens."

Making something concrete happen to cut the amount of waste we generate is crucial on a national level, but it's also important for us individually. If we've wised up enough to realize that we own more than we need and we're ready to let go of the excess, Freecycle offers us a unique way to part with it.

Got something you could Freecycle? Of course you do. We all do.

(c) 2007 Cynthia Friedlob

Self Storage Units Overflow Our Borders

Because I've been reflecting recently on the circumstances that led to writing my book, Sorting It Out: One Disorganized Woman Solves the Problem of Too Much Stuff , I decided to revisit an issue that plagued our household for several years but ultimately provided a great incentive to unload excess stuff: renting a storage unit (or, for awhile, more than one, I'm embarrassed to say).

Renting storage space is generally one of the most useless expenses anyone can add to the household budget. I'm hard-pressed to come up with a legitimate reason for it, except for those rare instances when the rental facility is truly a temporary or seasonal solution to a storage problem. Temporary does not mean forever; that would be permanent. So, if you have stored something for longer than a year (a very generous length of time), it is probably no longer a temporary arrangement. If you haven't accessed what you have in storage during that year, unless you were off having a fine old time touring the continent (or facing the challenge of serving our country abroad), it's pretty safe to conclude that you don't need what you've stored. That means it's time to unload the burdens of the storage unit and all of its unnecessary contents.

Please don't think you're excused from taking action because rental storage has allowed you to keep your home nice and neat (really?) and "absolutely everyone" is storing their stuff in rental units. Well, you are correct about the popularity of self storage. Take a look at the following information and see if you agree that your personal storage situation reflects a general pattern of excess consumption of useless stuff.

Last year I obtained some statistics from the Self Storage Association that showed that their industry has grown about 9 percent every year for the past 20 years. In 2005, more than 2,800 new self-storage facilities were constructed across the land.

I went back to the Self Storage Association website today where I learned that they are celebrating their 32nd anniversary. They were founded in 1975, after a long period of growth and prosperity in our country that encouraged accumulation of consumer goods. The Association now serves owners and operators of . . .

". . . some 20,000 facilities in the United States. SSA is affiliated with 22 U.S. state and regional associations and 13 international self storage associations that represent another 15,000 facilities worldwide . . . . International members that utilize the services of the SSA come from 19 nations, including Canada, twelve European nations, Australia and Japan."

Yes, the self storage phenomenon and the excess stuff accumulation problem are international in scope. In addition to the state links, the site provides a link to the affiliated Federation of European Self Storage, founded in 2004:

"Its current membership includes the national associations of Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, The Netherlands, Czech Republic and the United Kingdom. It is hoped that associations from Austria, Ireland and Norway will join in the foreseeable future."

There is a link to Self Storage of Australasia:

"The Self Storage Association of Australasia represents over 800 facilities across Australia and New Zealand, representing approximately 90% of the storage space in the region . . . . [self storage] is one of the fastest growing industries in Australasia, with around 20% growth in the last three years."

And the Canadian Self Storage Association link indicates that there are 2800 facilities served.

If it's true that "as America goes, so goes the world," our stuff-accumulating habits already seem to have had quite an influence on the majority of industrialized societies. We've encouraged tremendous growth, not only in the consumption of goods, but in a business devoted to building nothing but empty rooms to hold all of the things that we can’t cram into our homes.

I have no doubt that there are occasions when the hard-working members of the Self Storage Association provide a valuable service, but the fact that a phenomenon that most often simply reflects acquisitiveness is spearheaded by the example of our country doesn't exactly fill me with patriotic pride.

I'd much prefer to have our country demonstrating to the rest of the world that it's not necessary for our citizens to own so much stuff that we can't even live with all of it. It would be more appealing to me if we presented ourselves as a society capable of providing basic needs to all of our citizens, not a society that calmly accepts the grotesque extremes of wealth and poverty that currently coexist throughout the nation.

Readers, we know we don't need most of the things we have stored, and there are so many others who do. Let's open up those storage units and let go of all that stuff! Otherwise, maybe we should just start identifying most instances self storage as exactly what they are: "selfish storage." Ouch.

(c) 2007 Cynthia Friedlob

Subscribers: Recently, I was as surprised as you were to receive several old posts from "The Thoughtful Consumer's" archives. Once again, we have proof that technology is not perfect. I accidentally triggered the re-sending of some old posts in the past, but I plead "not guilty" this time. Also, my last post about my interview on BlogHer.com did not go out to all subscribers. Feedburner, my distributor, notified me that the problem has been corrected, but I apologize if any of you were inconvenienced. If you are a new subscriber and hadn't seen the older posts, I hope you enjoyed them. If you missed the post about the interview, please take a look at it. Thanks.

Thank You, Readers

Before this month of June slips away, I'd happily like to acknowledge that it marks the one-year anniversary of the publication of my book, Sorting It Out: One Disorganized Woman Solves the Problem of Too Much Stuff. Thank you, readers, for your support over the past year. I've enjoyed hearing from many of you and I hope you've found that this blog offers you further inspiration to continue your efforts to unclutter and simplify your lives.

I wrote Sorting It Out because I realized that I finally needed to confront my attachment to my stuff and pare down my possessions. Writing helped clarify the process I was going through and, as I've often joked, it was cheaper than therapy. It also allowed me an opportunity to offer solutions to my readers from a uniquely sympathetic point of view. I've had to face the boxes of ancient tax receipts, the crowded clothes closet, the sentimental family heirlooms, and I've learned how to let go of most (no, not all) of the unnecessary things. When I say that I know it can be difficult, but it's worth the effort, I speak from personal experience -- ongoing personal experience, because the influx of stuff doesn't stop once you've "caught up." It's a constant challenge, but it can become a manageable one.

"The Thoughtful Consumer" blog often tackles larger issues than the uncluttering specifics covered in my book, but I think it's important for all of us to remember the big picture. Our society is so stuff-oriented that it's easy to forget that our overcrowded homes and the problems they present us don't exist in a vacuum. And because we're constantly bombarded by advertising that says we need more, we should have more, we'd be much happier if only we would get more, it can be a challenge to support a position that is the exact opposite of that prevailing "wisdom."

Understanding that our individual choices have ramifications that affect other inhabitants of our planet and the planet itself can help keep us motivated to make the changes we need to make, not only for our own peace of mind, but because we want to do something positive for the world. Those choices are not always the same for everyone, but awareness is the first step that can take all of us down a more sensible, sustainable path.

Thanks, book and blog readers, for walking the path with me.

(c) 2007 Cynthia Friedlob

Small House, Big Benefits?

Most of us who are fortunate to have enough to be considered at least "middle class" are aware of the fact that we can live with less than we own. In fact, many of us did just that prior to reaching our current level of comfort. Usually we got where we are by working hard, working long hours, sometimes working two jobs (or our parents or grandparents did so on our behalf).

But we believed that we needed "more" and we were willing to do whatever was necessary to achieve "more." A bigger place to live was often at the top of the list. We wanted more space so that we could . . . what? Fill it up with more stuff? That's the way it's worked out for many of us, and it hasn't been a particularly satisfying experience. Often, it's backfired big time and now we're trapped by our possessions, figuratively and sometimes even literally, in homes that function as emotional and financial prisons rather than the havens they are meant to be.

What if we decided instead that we wanted more free time and more cash in the bank? Would we be willing to give up more house? Obviously, not everyone can scrunch down comfortably into a minuscule living space, but for some intrepid avant garde members of the small house revolution, a tiny living space is their ticket to freedom.

The Small House Society is not kidding when they say "small." Jay Shafer, one of the co-founders, is featured in AmericanProfile.com, chatting about how happy he is in his one hundred square foot home in Sebastopol, California. One hundred square feet is the equivalent of a ten-by-ten bedroom in a typical bungalow. That's definitely not a whole lot of space. Jay is a designer, writer and professor specializing in sustainable housing and urban architecture. He runs Tumbleweed Tiny House Company, the source of general information, building plans and books about his "compact" houses.

John Edmunds lives in a six hundred square foot house in Cloudcroft, New Mexico, a result of quitting his corporate job and deciding to live a more economical life. His website, DreamSmall, shares interesting stories and comments from contented owners of small living spaces.

An NPR "All Things Considered" story by Cheryl Corley features not only Greg Johnson, President of the Small House Society, but also Mississippian Julie Martin. Ms. Martin's home was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina and the housing situation throughout the entire gulf area is still abysmal. But Ms. Martin worked with Schafer to develop and license a Gulf Coast Model small house especially designed to withstand hurricanes. She calls it an "anti-FEMA trailer." It's a unique and practical solution to an incredibly difficult situation. (Check out this related article by Craig Le Moult for Columbia News Service not only for its small house information but also for a great photograph of the tiny houses built in San Francisco after the disastrous 1906 earthquake.)

The NY Times has an article by Bethany Lyttle which also touts the merits of a small house as a second home. The use of pre-fabricated or even completely pre-built models makes "choosing a house start to resemble buying a car." Well, let's hope it's not as traumatic as that can be!

The Small House Society website makes clear that small is relative: "The Small House Society is a voice for the Small House Movement. That movement includes movie stars who have proudly downsized into 3000 square feet, families of five happy in an arts and crafts bungalow, multifamily housing in a variety of forms, and more extreme examples, such as people on houseboats and in trailers with just a few hundred square feet around them. Size is relative, and mainly we promote discussion about the ecological, economic and psychological toll that excessive housing takes on our lives, and what some of us are doing to live better. It's not a movement about people claiming to be 'tinier than thou' but rather people making their own choices toward simpler and smaller living however they feel best fits their life."

So, even if you are quite certain that there's no way you would choose to live in truly diminutive housing, it's an interesting exercise to try to figure out just how small your home could be and still contain everything of importance to you. Is it possible that a relatively pint-sized house could pay off in enormous benefits to you and your family? Would you feel confined or liberated? One thing is certain: you'd have absolutely no room to accumulate excess stuff, but you'd definitely accumulate plenty of interesting memories.

(c) 2007 Cynthia Friedlob