NationStates Jolt Archive

Is materialism a mental disease, is it mentally unhealthy? I have posted on this before, but not in this sense. Materialism (perhaps in this sense more accurately conspicuous consumption) pervade our entire society (at least here in the United States). In these discussions people often like to split hairs (well everyone consumes food and water) but this is obviously not what this is. This mindset is about the objects we possess outside of normal survival. Often times when it really comes down to it you are your car, house, clothes, etc. Most are more likely to associate with those of similar income levels than downward, social clubs and even churches are often along economic lines (wealthy neighborhoods versus poor). The generic standard for success in our society is no doubt wealth, except in smaller segments of society like academia, literature, and science. Even then it is still to an extent wealth. Perhaps not on this forum, but many will not deny is that they first notice a person's car and clothing.

Many got caught in mortgages that are over 20% of their income, cars that with insurance cost over $300 a month. Women spend $500+ on handbags, and people often buy shoes that cost over $60 for their children.

The economic crisis is waking some people up, but is there something deeper in all this?

Materialism isn´t a mental disease. It´s a disease of the spirit. Mankind is ill in that respect.

Good question.

No the want to have things is quite normal human behaviour as I see it. But then I'm just some random bloke on the interweb and by no means an expert, others may disagree with me.

A little about my self though. I come from alarge poor family, and so when growing up, I just did not have theose trainers that all the other kids had, I wore hand me down cloths, got called names, bullied and beat up for this. This of course has effected the kind of person that I grew up to be(how could it not?).

Because I never had these things, I find myself in the situation of just not careing overly much about material things, and now of course I'm maried with kids and I earn a very good wage, but I still don't have many things. And I'm happy!

Perhaps then I have the mental disease huh.

Materialism is human nature nothing wrong with it. The mental disease is expecting humanity at large to not be materialistic.

Materialism (perhaps in this sense more accurately conspicuous consumption)

Call it conspicuous consumption or compulsive consumerism, materialism is something totally different.


This mindset is about the objects we possess outside of normal survival.

Define "normal survival". If your "normal survival" standards don't include a lot of music, a lot of books, and an occasional trip through Europe, well, I'm all for abnormality.

The generic standard for success in our society is no doubt wealth,
See: bourgoise society, cultural hegemony.
In other news, water is more wet than cast iron.

Many got caught in mortgages that are over 20% of their income, cars that with insurance cost over $300 a month.

You know, these examples don't strike me a lot as hardcore consumerism. Here in Italy, the average mortgage takes about 50% to 70% of the average wage, and renting a small home costs about the same.

depends entirely upon what one means by the term. and it is one of those people use for several extremely unrelated things. if by materialism is being ment putting trying to impress each other ahead of the kind of world we all have to live in, then absolutely it is a mental disorder on the basis of real self interest alone. if on the other hand, it is being used to mean preferring the company of inanimate objects to the coerciveness of human society, that is another matter utterly and entirely.

The book Affulenza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluenza) by psychologist Oliver James deals with this. The short answer to to your question is "yes" with an "if", the long answer is "no" with a "but".

I do not see a problem with the choice of these people. I do see extreme ascetism as a mental disease. I mean, what is bad about having needs and meeting them, as long as you are financially able to? I do see a problem with how people are treated if they do not meet the standards or expectations of others. This does not have to be the clothing, also, the behavior or affliation can trigger this. However material possession is easier to change than behavior and affiliation.

what is bad, is putting the lie that is economics, ahead of the kind of world real people, places and things, actually have to live in.

there is no morality of sovereignty. there is, on the other hand, an absolute universal self interest in not screwing up the same world all of us have to live in. economics (of ANY flavor) is a way of lying about both.

it isn't that i trust political sovereignty to behave responsibly. its that i have even LESS confidence in the likelihood of economic sovereignty doing so.

Hah!

I'll agree with you because I know it'll make you guys happy. Then I'll go buying things that I enjoy, and to not being interested whatsoever in validation from others.

Arguably wealth and money are secondary reinforcers - they are important to us because they give us food, shelter and aide in mate selection. At the extreme end then excessive consumerism can be seen as a form of addiction and so yes. But consumerism/materialism isn't in itself a mental disorder and occurs for very good evolutionary reasons (wealth/power means you are more likley to be able to provide for children, thus increased mate attraction on the male side, similar but different principles also apply for female mate attraction).

Arguably here the issue may be with the emphasis our social norms place on these things - although throughout history displays of wealth/power (for men) and beauty (for women) have been considered disirable - the form they take changes dramatically and so do the standards. Current social norms, at least in the anglo-sphere, places the emphasis on overt displays of mateiral wealth and consumerism, this does not necessarily have to be the case and I suspect during the economic downturn may move more towards understated wealth and possibly evidence of fiscal planning being more desirable.

throwing away freedom to pursue wealth is a sucker game that looses both.
raising hell isn't freedom and impressing anyone isn't wealth.

if anyone is moved to understand wealth, they will come to understand that money isn't what it represents, that it is only a symbol that represents it. and of course the same goes even more so for trying to impress anyone.

creating and exploring are what gratify. what money represents is only a secondary reinforcer at all because it can be used to attain tools and materials with which to express oneself creatively.

but creating a situation that impels people to rely more on it then ingenuity, that if anything belittles the real sources of gratification, well that creates a society with a great deal of mental disease and frustration.

i'm not trying to say that forcing people to give up anything wouldn't either, but there is such a thing as not forcing self deception down everyone's throat.

In my opinion it's only a disease if you don't know your limits. For the most part only buy what you can pay for. I've taken out a loan for my tuition fees and to help pay with rent. However when I'm low on funds I don't consider buying any luxury goods focusing instead on food and rent.

The biggest problem I see are credit cards, something I will never get for myself. They give the illusion you can buy a lot of stuff, thing is you can't afford that stuff. Simple lesson, don't buy what you can't afford.

This just in - People like having nice things!

*checks DSM IV*

No, not at all.

I'd have to respond with a "no" on this one.

Humans have wanted nice stuff since we developed culture a good 500,000 years ago, so it's no more a mental illness than anything else.

Is it more materialistic to spend $300 on footwear that will last me many years, or get rid of $40 shoes every season when they wear out and are of quality that they aren't repairable?

I agree that wanting things for the sake of having more stuff is ridiculous, but at the same time, I do now try to purchase things that aren't disposable and wasteful, either.

Is it more materialistic to spend $300 on footwear that will last me many years, or get rid of $40 shoes every season when they wear out and are of quality that they aren't repairable?

I agree that wanting things for the sake of having more stuff is ridiculous, but at the same time, I do now try to purchase things that aren't disposable and wasteful, either.

40~80 dollars for a pair of shoes are normally good build.
the once a seasons hoes are the 10~20 dollar shoes at walmart.

Unless your talking work boots. then a good pair is 80~120 dollars
and a cheap pair is 40 bucks.

40~80 dollars for a pair of shoes are normally good build.
the once a seasons hoes are the 10~20 dollar shoes at walmart.

Unless your talking work boots. then a good pair is 80~120 dollars
and a cheap pair is 40 bucks.

I have a really nice pair of leather boots that I've had for years now that were probably $300. The little $49 ankle boots looked like hell after one winter.

I'd rather have fewer things that are nice and last than disposable stuff. 'Course, I drive a 14 year old Honda, too.

I have a really nice pair of leather boots that I've had for years now that were probably $300. The little $49 ankle boots looked like hell after one winter.

I'd rather have fewer things that are nice and last than disposable stuff. 'Course, I drive a 14 year old Honda, too.

All the army boots I have are coming up on a decade old.
Most of them cost me 75 to 100 dollars. had a few resoled.
Had a custom made pair for 20 dollars but that was made in Korea when I was there. So not really a fair comparison.

Others have stated more or less my opinion (no, just a natural human emotion). I will say this: the price of getting what we want is getting is getting what we once wanted. Also: there are two tragedies in life: not getting what you want and getting what you want. Pretty much routine human self-destruction. I figure the wise thing is to want to die; after dying, there's nothing else to want.