What do you think?
Rate this book
Stuffocation
In this brilliant and original book, James Wallman explains and analyses why Stuffocation is the most pressing problem of our time � and then goes in search of its solution. On the way, he goes down the halls of the Elysée Palace with Nicolas Sarkozy, up in a helicopter above Barbra Streisand's house on the California coast, and into the world of the original Mad Men.
Through fascinating characters and brilliantly told stories, Wallman introduces the innovators whose lifestyles provide clues to how we will all be living tomorrow, and he makes some of the world's most counterintuitive, radical, and worldchanging ideas feel inspiring � and possible for us all.
Through fascinating characters and brilliantly told stories, Wallman introduces the innovators whose lifestyles provide clues to how we will all be living tomorrow, and he makes some of the world's most counterintuitive, radical, and worldchanging ideas feel inspiring � and possible for us all.
350 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 2013
347 people are currently reading
4,135 people want to read
About the author
James Wallman
9books56followersJames Wallman is a journalist and trend forecaster. He has forecast the future and written for clients and publications such as Absolut, BMW, Nike, the Guardian, The New York Times, Esquire and GQ. In the line of duty, he has interviewed terrorists, the victims of serious crime, Noam Chomsky, and a woman who wanted to marry her alarm clock.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 473 reviews
March 16, 2015
Hmm. Good effort. This is a nice synthesis of some current trends and a stab at predicting the future. My only big complaint is that this is predominantly a white, middle class, First World, affluent, future. Like another similar thesis I read in the book "Happy Money" I found myself grinding my teeth over the relentless Guardian and Sunday Times supplement depiction of our "experientialist" dreams and ambitions. You too can sit on a beach in Ghana and run your London Michelin starred restaurant on the Internet from there. Throw your Hermes bags in the cupboard (in case you change your mind later) or lend your favourite eight artworks to friends for safe keeping - you do have at least eight favourite artworks at home, don’t you? - and become a globe-trotting life coach solving other people's First World problems. Guess what, doing this will make you happier in life!
To be fair, the book is a bit deeper than this and the author does try to dig under and into the shallow dreams of wannabe rat-race escapees, pointing out that The Good Life might not be the answer either. His book is really about the rejection of materialism and if it will, or even should, happen as we progress into the future. Is there a different model? And is replacing your Maserati by posting on Facebook as you write poetry from your beach hut in Sri Lanka, living with the gains from everything you've saved and sold, a different dream? Both are just essentially boasting about what you've got, although the latter might be a more interesting tale to tell on a daily basis. Tomorrow the Maserati is still only a Maserati and you're getting used to having it, like you once did with your Ford Mondeo. In Sri Lanka, however, tomorrow your beach hut might be hit by a tsunami, or at least that's what all your rat race living friends will be hoping. That'll give them something to talk about if you don't survive and you something to casually boast about if you do.
Stuffication is an interesting read, but I would think relevant only to a small section of the population who are in, or are close to, a position in life where they can think of jettisoning some of what they have already got. And, fundamentally, that means having a stash of cash to be able to do it and not worry about the consequences.
To be fair, the book is a bit deeper than this and the author does try to dig under and into the shallow dreams of wannabe rat-race escapees, pointing out that The Good Life might not be the answer either. His book is really about the rejection of materialism and if it will, or even should, happen as we progress into the future. Is there a different model? And is replacing your Maserati by posting on Facebook as you write poetry from your beach hut in Sri Lanka, living with the gains from everything you've saved and sold, a different dream? Both are just essentially boasting about what you've got, although the latter might be a more interesting tale to tell on a daily basis. Tomorrow the Maserati is still only a Maserati and you're getting used to having it, like you once did with your Ford Mondeo. In Sri Lanka, however, tomorrow your beach hut might be hit by a tsunami, or at least that's what all your rat race living friends will be hoping. That'll give them something to talk about if you don't survive and you something to casually boast about if you do.
Stuffication is an interesting read, but I would think relevant only to a small section of the population who are in, or are close to, a position in life where they can think of jettisoning some of what they have already got. And, fundamentally, that means having a stash of cash to be able to do it and not worry about the consequences.
Read
September 2, 2018...yeah...
A Christmas present. Takes an awful long time to say not very much, amusingly for a book concerned with the social and spiritual obesity resulting from the over production and overconsumption of material goods required by our economic system, the whole book could be radically slimmed down .
I feel this is an insecure book with the author sheltering behind the skirts of voluminous cases studies or tangentially relevant concepts and I have a sense that all these swishing skirts are meant only to distract the readers attention from the Imperial central argument waddling down the road wearing so fine a new set of clothes that only really very intelligent people can appreciate them.
For me, as with , by trying to remain 'realistic' and operate within the current socio-economic framework of our lives it evades what seems to me the obvious point that the problems described can only be overcome in a radically different society .
The central concept of the book is the problem of GDP: or as I say, what isn't measured isn't managed. In more words, he says material goods are good and a measurable increase in production of material goods is therefore good, however eventually having too many material goods with evermore available leaves us feeling bad, however if there were no production then the economy as we know it wouldn't exist and this would be too frightening, therefore the answer is to consume extremely high quality things which we will truly appreciate and which will be marketed to us through theatrical experiences . Since we can't adequately measure or reduce to a single easy number the value and nature of our happiness it tends to be ignored.
The author mentions air-conditioning as an example of progress which I felt fairly amusing since a/c is a grossly inefficient attempt to emulate the effect of living in a traditional built thermally dense dwelling, equally here he is discussing how unsatisfactory material goods are - didn't the Buddha and the Epicureans tells us that over two thousand years ago- once he addresses that then maybe we can discuss ' progress' sensibly. He misses a trick with Veblen by dismissing him as a satirist - the point is that conspicuous consumption, Veblen tells us, is socially meaningful to us, therefore if conspicuous consumption is inherently unsatisfactory then we'll have to overthrow and construct anew on different lines society in order to get away from it.
I felt that in the background and completely ignored was Maslow's hierarchy of needs, the economy produces goods and experiences which meet our basic needs, but once they are satisfied the individual still wants self-actualisation for which no quantity or combination of material goods is an adequate substitute for. Wallman looks at minimalism and experiencalism which he says are trends, particularly the latter which will offset or replace traditional consumption. Minimalism he say is too difficult and thus will never catch on. Bigger and more experiences involving a cast of thousands he reckons are the shape of things to come, while he allows that putting your toes into the sea is an experience, this is in the context of being trumped on Facebook by your 'friends' dipping their toes into a more exotic sea. While he acknowledges the angst of the individual looking at their 'friends' pictures on facebook with their bigger and better technicolor lives he thinks it is the coming trend and that we'll feel on the whole better for it .
This is all proven by case studies of traditionally rich people who tend to look like famous actors and actresses but who get tired of the hassle involved in owning a house and telling their factor to furnish it etcetera, and having changed their lifestyle their health problems - which no mere mortal doctor can treat - melt away. On the plus side it is vaguely zeitgeisty and has the good news for the rich that you'll remain so and your lives will be more colourful than ever though they may involve more dead wasps or being forced by Nazis to drink whisky at special screenings of "Casablanca".
He never addresses the question of distribution of goods, ie that some are sick of them while others sicken for the want of them, nor the "Silent Spring" issue - ie if you think you're unhappy now how cheerful do you think you might be once the environment is even more trashed.
Interestingly the big example of experiencialism that he doesn't discuss is the Alpha course, possibly because I believe you don't pay for it and maybe because it is not manufactured by Apple , but it seems to me to be precisely the kind of thing he is discussing - you have a group experience that is meant to culminate in something transcendental and produce a definite outcome at least in terms of your spirituality .
Toward the end of the book he mentions a dog sharing service so the 'hassle' of looking after a dog doesn't interfere with the enjoyment, which is exactly his problem, he does not grasp the essence of experience, which is openness to it as an end in itself - plucking dog hairs from the soles of your feet and living with their curious behaviour, cleaning up after them is life - messy and inconvenient, not a pre-packaged planned parade of delights to distract you from how much you are not enjoying yourself.
I don't disagree that overconsumption is a consequence of our industrialised economy or that there are limits to the degree of satisfaction that manufactured goods and services can provide for us, nor do I disagree that currently developing countries will reach a similar position to more developed economies in the nearish future, I dislike however being rather slowly led round these topics and being told that better 'smarter' consumption is the cure for over consumption as though overeating were the cure for obesity. - If you shout with the "I am a man, not a number", then the message of this book is - accept defeat puny human, your government values you only as a fragment of GDP, go forth and spend, or we'll be forced to liberalise consumer credit further...
The problem is that he rejects as snakeoil the pure clean water (pp68-69) of the solutions. Admittedly the solutions like input needing to be less than output to reduce obesity are simple but not easy, however that doesn't make them snakeoil. Thoroughly avoidable book, although in fairness his interest is in spotting the most likely future trends not in appreciating the pitfalls of the contemporary economy and society.
A Christmas present. Takes an awful long time to say not very much, amusingly for a book concerned with the social and spiritual obesity resulting from the over production and overconsumption of material goods required by our economic system, the whole book could be radically slimmed down .
I feel this is an insecure book with the author sheltering behind the skirts of voluminous cases studies or tangentially relevant concepts and I have a sense that all these swishing skirts are meant only to distract the readers attention from the Imperial central argument waddling down the road wearing so fine a new set of clothes that only really very intelligent people can appreciate them.
For me, as with , by trying to remain 'realistic' and operate within the current socio-economic framework of our lives it evades what seems to me the obvious point that the problems described can only be overcome in a radically different society .
The central concept of the book is the problem of GDP: or as I say, what isn't measured isn't managed. In more words, he says material goods are good and a measurable increase in production of material goods is therefore good, however eventually having too many material goods with evermore available leaves us feeling bad, however if there were no production then the economy as we know it wouldn't exist and this would be too frightening, therefore the answer is to consume extremely high quality things which we will truly appreciate and which will be marketed to us through theatrical experiences . Since we can't adequately measure or reduce to a single easy number the value and nature of our happiness it tends to be ignored.
The author mentions air-conditioning as an example of progress which I felt fairly amusing since a/c is a grossly inefficient attempt to emulate the effect of living in a traditional built thermally dense dwelling, equally here he is discussing how unsatisfactory material goods are - didn't the Buddha and the Epicureans tells us that over two thousand years ago- once he addresses that then maybe we can discuss ' progress' sensibly. He misses a trick with Veblen by dismissing him as a satirist - the point is that conspicuous consumption, Veblen tells us, is socially meaningful to us, therefore if conspicuous consumption is inherently unsatisfactory then we'll have to overthrow and construct anew on different lines society in order to get away from it.
I felt that in the background and completely ignored was Maslow's hierarchy of needs, the economy produces goods and experiences which meet our basic needs, but once they are satisfied the individual still wants self-actualisation for which no quantity or combination of material goods is an adequate substitute for. Wallman looks at minimalism and experiencalism which he says are trends, particularly the latter which will offset or replace traditional consumption. Minimalism he say is too difficult and thus will never catch on. Bigger and more experiences involving a cast of thousands he reckons are the shape of things to come, while he allows that putting your toes into the sea is an experience, this is in the context of being trumped on Facebook by your 'friends' dipping their toes into a more exotic sea. While he acknowledges the angst of the individual looking at their 'friends' pictures on facebook with their bigger and better technicolor lives he thinks it is the coming trend and that we'll feel on the whole better for it .
This is all proven by case studies of traditionally rich people who tend to look like famous actors and actresses but who get tired of the hassle involved in owning a house and telling their factor to furnish it etcetera, and having changed their lifestyle their health problems - which no mere mortal doctor can treat - melt away. On the plus side it is vaguely zeitgeisty and has the good news for the rich that you'll remain so and your lives will be more colourful than ever though they may involve more dead wasps or being forced by Nazis to drink whisky at special screenings of "Casablanca".
He never addresses the question of distribution of goods, ie that some are sick of them while others sicken for the want of them, nor the "Silent Spring" issue - ie if you think you're unhappy now how cheerful do you think you might be once the environment is even more trashed.
Interestingly the big example of experiencialism that he doesn't discuss is the Alpha course, possibly because I believe you don't pay for it and maybe because it is not manufactured by Apple , but it seems to me to be precisely the kind of thing he is discussing - you have a group experience that is meant to culminate in something transcendental and produce a definite outcome at least in terms of your spirituality .
Toward the end of the book he mentions a dog sharing service so the 'hassle' of looking after a dog doesn't interfere with the enjoyment, which is exactly his problem, he does not grasp the essence of experience, which is openness to it as an end in itself - plucking dog hairs from the soles of your feet and living with their curious behaviour, cleaning up after them is life - messy and inconvenient, not a pre-packaged planned parade of delights to distract you from how much you are not enjoying yourself.
I don't disagree that overconsumption is a consequence of our industrialised economy or that there are limits to the degree of satisfaction that manufactured goods and services can provide for us, nor do I disagree that currently developing countries will reach a similar position to more developed economies in the nearish future, I dislike however being rather slowly led round these topics and being told that better 'smarter' consumption is the cure for over consumption as though overeating were the cure for obesity. - If you shout with the "I am a man, not a number", then the message of this book is - accept defeat puny human, your government values you only as a fragment of GDP, go forth and spend, or we'll be forced to liberalise consumer credit further...
The problem is that he rejects as snakeoil the pure clean water (pp68-69) of the solutions. Admittedly the solutions like input needing to be less than output to reduce obesity are simple but not easy, however that doesn't make them snakeoil. Thoroughly avoidable book, although in fairness his interest is in spotting the most likely future trends not in appreciating the pitfalls of the contemporary economy and society.
August 4, 2019
It's interesting how STUFF has a negative impact on my life & mood.
Really enjoyed this but did expect better when i heard about it initially.
Really enjoyed this but did expect better when i heard about it initially.
August 24, 2014
uuummmm.....I would have liked to give this book more stars. The premise is great, the title very clever, and the amount of work that has gone into it staggering. However, reading it is like pulling yourself through a vat of peanut butter, it just drags on and on and never really seems to get to the point.
Sooooo many case studies, I wasn't really interested after the first 5 or 6, ...yeah a bit too much history, and didn't get down to the nitty gritty of the psycho analytical reasons why one, or one's community, or one's planet, might be stuffocating. Too hard. Gave up. I got the gist - think it could have been half the length.
Sooooo many case studies, I wasn't really interested after the first 5 or 6, ...yeah a bit too much history, and didn't get down to the nitty gritty of the psycho analytical reasons why one, or one's community, or one's planet, might be stuffocating. Too hard. Gave up. I got the gist - think it could have been half the length.
January 27, 2014
As a 30-something New Yorker, I’ve been experiencing a shift in my attitude toward consumption these past few years. A sustained delight in returning the cable box to Time Warner; in preferring e-books that do not take up space; resoling a pair of boots instead of buying a new pair; in saving for a trip by eschewing taxis and new clothes for a year. I haven’t had a word � much less a movement � to which I could attribute this sense of wanting my life to involve less stuff and more experience. Turns out there is a word and a movement: Stuffocation.
With a conversational approach to the capitalist system and social values, the author explains how we—specifically, gulp, Americans—came to embrace and spread the gospel of materialism. He introduces us to people who have become minimalists, medium chillers, consumer-minimalists, and finally, experientialists. He weaves studies and statistics into the narrative, raising the same questions that readers are asking.
The takeaway? What constitutes a satisfying consumer transaction is indeed shifting. The future will be an experience-based economy with goods that are more environmentally considerate; less bulky; more customized; easily updated and designed for sharing; and most importantly: they will promote activities that bring us closer to others and provide us with a shareable conversational currency.
My takeaway? Wanting fewer things and more experiences has set a domino-line of change into motion. It has the potential to transform mindsets, habits, lives, societies. And it starts with you, me, us.
With a conversational approach to the capitalist system and social values, the author explains how we—specifically, gulp, Americans—came to embrace and spread the gospel of materialism. He introduces us to people who have become minimalists, medium chillers, consumer-minimalists, and finally, experientialists. He weaves studies and statistics into the narrative, raising the same questions that readers are asking.
The takeaway? What constitutes a satisfying consumer transaction is indeed shifting. The future will be an experience-based economy with goods that are more environmentally considerate; less bulky; more customized; easily updated and designed for sharing; and most importantly: they will promote activities that bring us closer to others and provide us with a shareable conversational currency.
My takeaway? Wanting fewer things and more experiences has set a domino-line of change into motion. It has the potential to transform mindsets, habits, lives, societies. And it starts with you, me, us.
February 22, 2014
Trained to cope with scarcity, we have struggled with abundance.
James Wallman
In 1991, the average American bought 34 items of clothing each year. By 2007, they were buying 67 items every year. It means Americans buy a new piece of clothing every four to five days.
James Wallman
Minimalism is not defined by what is not there but by the rightness of what is and the richness of what is experienced.
I often think that there are two macro-trends that have shaped the contours of my life: globalization and the rise of the Internet. Without those two sweeping trends I wouldn't have the same job, friends, fiancee, lifestyle, intellectual interests. The life I live today simply wasn't possible 20 years ago. Of course, that is true for us all. But in my case I think the difference is amplified.
James Wallman's book, , has convinced me that there is a third macro trend that has also defined much of my life, but with more subtlety than globalization or the Internet � and that is .
Like most of my generation, I grew up surrounded by shit. As my family climbed the household income ladder from lower-middle class to middle class to upper-middle class, we collected more and more material objects that no one wanted and no one used. There were bags of clothes from discount stores like TJ Maxx, cheap electronics that were thrown out after a couple months, dollar books from Barnes and Noble that nobody read.
It led to a personal rebellion against stuff that, for me, is encapsulated in a single memory from college when I was working in a San Diego coffee shop. It was early 2003, I was just about to graduate from college, and I have a vivid memory of a twentysomething sitting at a table with his 12-inch PowerBook G4, a Canon EOS digital camera, and his latte. The laptop, camera and lens cost more than $3,500 � about three months of work for me at the time. There was no way I could afford it, but I vividly remember thinking that I wouldn't spend my money on anything else until I was able to purchase a good laptop and digital camera. I didn't want any other objects in my life. I only wanted to live as many experiences as possible and then document them through my writing and photography.
Indeed, that is more or less what I did from 2003 until around 2010. All of my belongings fit into a single suitcase. Two pairs of pants, four or five shirts, one pair of shoes and one pair of running shoes. I had achieved the ideal of post-materialism. My life was based on experiences and social connections, not material objects.
Wallman's book is part prophecy and part preaching. Not only does he think we will increasingly trade in 20th century materialism for 21st century "experiatialism;" he argues (with admittedly scant evidence) that we'll be happier as a result. The book introduced me to an online community and genre of blogs I had never heard of: the new minimalists. Just as active as other niche corners of the internet, like the , you can find these new minimalists on blogs like , , , , and, sure enough, . Once I started to dig deeper I also found, inevitably, a New York Times Sunday Review by Treehugger.com founder Graham Hill on minimalism. Of course, there was also a Slate.com calling Hill's essay elitist.
There is perhaps irony that there is so much online noise about minimalism, but for Wallman, it's also evidence of a sea change in social norms. Instead of showing off their latest shiny gadgets, these new minimalists are .
Wallman is sympathetic to the biological and structural obstacles that stand in the way of our aspiration toward minimalism. "The idea that we are making decisions in an age of abundance using mental tools honed in an age of scarcity might seem obvious," he admits, but it is our greatest psychological hurdle to resisting the temptation to consume and hoard. Even if we are able to transcend our inherent biological impulses, our capitalist system depends on consumerism. For Wallman:
Materialism, and the consumer culture and capitalist system it underpinned, was the right idea for the right time. It meant that the masses, for the first time in human history, lived in abundance rather than scarcity. It gave us washing machines, TVs, and indoor toilets. It delivered clean water, the welfare state, and health care that has improved the length and quality of our lives.
Indeed, the consumerist society is one of Niall Ferguson's six factors to explain "the rise of the West." Notes Wallman: "In the sixty years since the Civil War’s end, the population had increased by a factor of three, from 35 to 114 million. Over the same period, output had risen between twelve and fourteen times."
The culmination of 150 years of mass-manufacturing is portrayed in the 2007 viral online video, :
Even more poignant is the , a 2001 - 2005 by UCLA's Center on the Everyday Lives of Families to understand how 32 middle-class families handle "material culture." Clutter led to spikes in stress hormones, lower productivity, conflicts between spouses and their children. Yet, despite the clear connection between stuff and stress, the families continued their weekend trips to bulk stores to buy more than they could ever consume.
Wallman finds some evidence that finally we have reached peak consumption in rich countries:
We may have reached the apex of our (over)consumption on clothes as well. After decades of going up, perhaps we have reached “peak clothes�. In 2007, the average American bought almost twice as many items of clothing each year compared to 1991. But by 2012, the number they were buying had stopped rising, and had even fallen slightly, from 67 to 64 items.
With the rise of the "sharing economy" today's youth are growing up subscribed to Netflix, Spotify, and Zipcar rather than purchasing DVDs, CDs and a new car. Social media incentivize us to show off our experiences much more than our latest shopping spree.
For Wallman, this all points to a new, burgeoning "experience economy" epitomized by projects like and .
I came away from Stuffocation a convert. I've made various changes in my own life to aspire to greater minimalism, and to prioritize experiences over material objects. But I was left with a couple questions that were also raised at Wallman's at the Royal Society of Arts. Stuffocation points to community events and performance art as examples of the "new experience economy," but it seems like a more realistic scenario is comprised of video games and virtual reality. One member of the RSA audience mentioned that he invited his son on a rafting trip down the Zambezi River. "That's OK dad; I can just watch videos on YouTube," was his son's response. My other doubt is whether the experience economy can replace all those jobs being left behind by the decline of the manufacturing economy. Wallman addresses this concern by citing similar alarmist concerns by the at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Sure, the textile artisans lost their jobs. But the Industrial Revolution ended up creating more middle class jobs than could ever be imagined at the time.
Surely the future will also reward , but it takes a leap of faith to imagine an experience economy job market as vibrant as that of the manufacturing economy.
April 8, 2014
although the first half of the book was quite compelling, Wallman is either oblivious to or is unconcerned with the lives of the majority of the population....seems he works from the assumption that everyone is upper middle class. His treatment of religion was dismissive and deeply flawed. The book was regrettably a waste of both time and money..
September 16, 2015
This book in a nutshell tells you to stop craving material things and instead crave "experiences" (e.g. going on a holiday, boating, trekking, engaging in a hobby, etc).
As the book progresses, the author examines alternative lifestyles to the "materialist" one, like for instance minimalism, self-sustainability, making "just enough" to get by, etc. Many of these chapters feature case studies of people actually living those lifestyles (e.g. one of the women gave up her city life to move to the country with her family and start growing crops to sustain themselves, while another couple both declined job promotions - despite a higher salary - just so they could have more time, etc). And the "science" part (or I should say "pseudoscience") is mainly backed by psychologists' research, all of which I found to be bunkum, having been a psychology major myself in university.
One of the psychological studies cited in this book I particularly remember because it was so laughable, was of a team of researchers following several families around for a certain period of time and recording their behaviour. You can immediately see the problems with this: people behave differently when they know they're being studied and analysed, and so on.
Other things to be found in this book are quizzes to help you determine if you are more of someone who craves material things, as opposed to someone who craves experiences. I found these to be superbly moronic (though amusing and fun at the same time, because of how ridiculous certain questions were), and wasn't sure if this was meant to be a "joke book" of sorts. You know, like satire or something.
So that's basically it. I'm really not sure what the tone of the entire book is. Is it meant to be poking fun at materialism and the lack of alternatives? Or is the author really being serious and suggesting that we all start to like "intangibles" more than "tangibles"? If so, what right has he to claim that anyone should do that?
1 star for entertainment value.
As the book progresses, the author examines alternative lifestyles to the "materialist" one, like for instance minimalism, self-sustainability, making "just enough" to get by, etc. Many of these chapters feature case studies of people actually living those lifestyles (e.g. one of the women gave up her city life to move to the country with her family and start growing crops to sustain themselves, while another couple both declined job promotions - despite a higher salary - just so they could have more time, etc). And the "science" part (or I should say "pseudoscience") is mainly backed by psychologists' research, all of which I found to be bunkum, having been a psychology major myself in university.
One of the psychological studies cited in this book I particularly remember because it was so laughable, was of a team of researchers following several families around for a certain period of time and recording their behaviour. You can immediately see the problems with this: people behave differently when they know they're being studied and analysed, and so on.
Other things to be found in this book are quizzes to help you determine if you are more of someone who craves material things, as opposed to someone who craves experiences. I found these to be superbly moronic (though amusing and fun at the same time, because of how ridiculous certain questions were), and wasn't sure if this was meant to be a "joke book" of sorts. You know, like satire or something.
So that's basically it. I'm really not sure what the tone of the entire book is. Is it meant to be poking fun at materialism and the lack of alternatives? Or is the author really being serious and suggesting that we all start to like "intangibles" more than "tangibles"? If so, what right has he to claim that anyone should do that?
1 star for entertainment value.
Want to read
April 2, 2014Haven't read the book yet, but have heard the author's talk along with some interesting discussions at the RSA.
Yes, I agree: less 'stuff', more experience.
However, 'Experience economy' = the new marketing? Do we want 'experiences' engineered, put on price tags and sold?
Similar to wanting designer bags, bigger and faster cars; we pursuing the life of others will not bring us contentment...yes, there will be money to be made, but ain't we back to the old same route.
Yes, I agree: less 'stuff', more experience.
However, 'Experience economy' = the new marketing? Do we want 'experiences' engineered, put on price tags and sold?
Similar to wanting designer bags, bigger and faster cars; we pursuing the life of others will not bring us contentment...yes, there will be money to be made, but ain't we back to the old same route.
February 10, 2014
I would give this book at least 4 stars just for coming up with a most excellent word to describe the condition I and obviously many others feel so acutely: "stuffocation". It perfectly captures the sense that all the stuff we are accumulating is sucking the air from the room and the energy from our lives, and not doing the planet any favors either.
What Wallman does very well in this book is to step back from the current state to show us how we got here, because it is not just an individual journey but a societal one. And in deconstructing how we got here, we can see that because it was a set of societal choices that led us into this ecological and psychological mess, we can just as easily make another set of choices to move us in another direction.
Wallman explores four alternatives to materialism: minimalism, voluntary simplicity, medium chill, and experientialism. In trying to present these as distinct alternatives, though, Wallman presents each in its extreme. He shows minimalists who compete with each other to see how few items they can pare their possessions down to, and a family who practices voluntary simplicity in its extreme "back to the land" form. The medium chillers are presented as no ambition drop outs, while the experientialists are going from one extreme sport or exotic destination to another. In reality, most people who are consciously moving away from materialism are doing a little of all of the above, but not in the extreme forms presented.
In the end I think that Wallman is guilty of the thought trap of substitution that he described in the book. Substitution, he explains, "is a sort of mental shortcut... that people use to avoid the time-consuming work of making complex decisions. Instead of answering a difficult question by the long, rational route, instead, we look for a simpler version of the original question." Wallman does this when describing his view that a shift to experientialism is how our economy will survive the move away from materialism, since an experience-based economy will still drive the need for goods and services - just different types of goods and services. What this view ignores are the ecological, moral and spiritual issues that are at the heart of stuffocation. We need a solution that not only provides jobs, but does so in a way that addresses the ecological impacts, social inequities and the loss of a sense of purpose and community that are the side effects of our current materialism based economy. Just switching to different types of stuff will not fix those things.
So while "Stuffocation" does a good job of diagnosing the condition, I think it falls short on the solution end. A better read for that is "Enough is Enough: Building a Sustainable Economy in a World of Finite Resources" by Rob Dietz and Dan O'Neill.
What Wallman does very well in this book is to step back from the current state to show us how we got here, because it is not just an individual journey but a societal one. And in deconstructing how we got here, we can see that because it was a set of societal choices that led us into this ecological and psychological mess, we can just as easily make another set of choices to move us in another direction.
Wallman explores four alternatives to materialism: minimalism, voluntary simplicity, medium chill, and experientialism. In trying to present these as distinct alternatives, though, Wallman presents each in its extreme. He shows minimalists who compete with each other to see how few items they can pare their possessions down to, and a family who practices voluntary simplicity in its extreme "back to the land" form. The medium chillers are presented as no ambition drop outs, while the experientialists are going from one extreme sport or exotic destination to another. In reality, most people who are consciously moving away from materialism are doing a little of all of the above, but not in the extreme forms presented.
In the end I think that Wallman is guilty of the thought trap of substitution that he described in the book. Substitution, he explains, "is a sort of mental shortcut... that people use to avoid the time-consuming work of making complex decisions. Instead of answering a difficult question by the long, rational route, instead, we look for a simpler version of the original question." Wallman does this when describing his view that a shift to experientialism is how our economy will survive the move away from materialism, since an experience-based economy will still drive the need for goods and services - just different types of goods and services. What this view ignores are the ecological, moral and spiritual issues that are at the heart of stuffocation. We need a solution that not only provides jobs, but does so in a way that addresses the ecological impacts, social inequities and the loss of a sense of purpose and community that are the side effects of our current materialism based economy. Just switching to different types of stuff will not fix those things.
So while "Stuffocation" does a good job of diagnosing the condition, I think it falls short on the solution end. A better read for that is "Enough is Enough: Building a Sustainable Economy in a World of Finite Resources" by Rob Dietz and Dan O'Neill.
August 19, 2017
I read this book because I'd loved James Wallmans TED talk on the subject. I liked the central premise of this book: that materialism/ having too much stuff in our lives is a problem. I enjoyed the various anecdotes about people's ways of dealing with the 'Stuffocation'. I even enjoyed the scattering of research and data the author presents. I'll tell you where it lost me - I wasn't sure if the book wanted to be predictive or prescriptive!
To wit - the author describes the problem, Stuffocation, it's root causes and history, and ill effects. He tells us he's a predictions guy. He describes three different ways people are dealing with the problem i.e. minimalism, simple living, and the 'medium chill'. He then rejects all these as not good enough and instead recommends experientialism. Then he shows how it's already catching on. The he talks about the developing world and the Church. Then he recaps. Um, OK!
It all felt a little loosely connected to me. Sometimes it felt like the author was being too glib about causation or in describing problems or solutions. Other times, he seemed more concerned with anecdotes and symptoms than causes and solutions. I guess the best way to say it is that the book lacked gravitas.
Still, it has some good ideas, and did make me think about the cupboards full of crap I need to sell or toss! It also made me realize I'm better off than most people I know, and while in some ways I'm stuffocated, in others I'm quite experiential! A readable, worthwhile book in the end.
To wit - the author describes the problem, Stuffocation, it's root causes and history, and ill effects. He tells us he's a predictions guy. He describes three different ways people are dealing with the problem i.e. minimalism, simple living, and the 'medium chill'. He then rejects all these as not good enough and instead recommends experientialism. Then he shows how it's already catching on. The he talks about the developing world and the Church. Then he recaps. Um, OK!
It all felt a little loosely connected to me. Sometimes it felt like the author was being too glib about causation or in describing problems or solutions. Other times, he seemed more concerned with anecdotes and symptoms than causes and solutions. I guess the best way to say it is that the book lacked gravitas.
Still, it has some good ideas, and did make me think about the cupboards full of crap I need to sell or toss! It also made me realize I'm better off than most people I know, and while in some ways I'm stuffocated, in others I'm quite experiential! A readable, worthwhile book in the end.
November 9, 2021
Nothing particularly earth shattering here. Reviews the arguments for materialism, the simple life, and minimalism, with a fair number of anecdotes. Plumps for something he calls experientalism, which (as he acknowledges) sounds like Facebook one-up-manship and seems to him to be at least partially a type of status-seeking. Accumulating experiences as a lifestyle feels to me oddly like parasitism.
The tone of my review may be due to an overload of books written for wistful MBAs, IT professionals, and bloggers who are tired of working in the corporate world.
The tone of my review may be due to an overload of books written for wistful MBAs, IT professionals, and bloggers who are tired of working in the corporate world.
March 12, 2014
Late last year a friend at work suggested we start a minimalist game, in which we get rid of one thing on the first of the month, 2 things on the second, and so on. We did this for two months and then it was Christmas time so we took a break. If properly carried out, we each decluttered 496 items this way each month. I saw some major progress in the two months, getting rid of old makeup, worn out shoes and clothes, clothes that didn’t fit, expired food, and many other things. I may pick it up again when the weather is warm and I can work on the garage.
Thus, I was very interested in the book Stuffocation by James Wallman. He outlines the experiment of a man who had methodically and logically worked his way to a well-paying job and all the toys and frills it could afford. But he felt that something was still missing from his life. He tried packing up all his belongings and only unpacking items he actually needed in the moment. A toothbrush. One towel. After a couple weeks, he didn’t need to unpack anything else! He sold, donated, or pitched the rest. Could everyone live this way? Could he continue to live this way for the rest of his life? Even Thoreau lived at Walden Pond only about two years.
Wallman then explained the reasons why Americans are so focused on stuff and materialism, contrasted with those in Europe or in poor countries. Stuffocation is a fascinating look at how the industrial age made goods of all kinds cheaper and more plentiful. Many people our parents� ages bought their first of certain items as adults, like televisions. But some people are realizing that “stuff� doesn’t equal fulfillment, and it costs money to buy and maintain. Some of the individuals described even chose to downsize their jobs, so they had more time and made the choice to have less stuff, at the expense of their paycheck. But the happiest people learned that they wanted new experiences because the joy of memories can last forever.
You’ll never look at your “stuff� the same way but you may think more before spending.
Reviewed by Mary DeKok Blowers for Library Thing.
Thus, I was very interested in the book Stuffocation by James Wallman. He outlines the experiment of a man who had methodically and logically worked his way to a well-paying job and all the toys and frills it could afford. But he felt that something was still missing from his life. He tried packing up all his belongings and only unpacking items he actually needed in the moment. A toothbrush. One towel. After a couple weeks, he didn’t need to unpack anything else! He sold, donated, or pitched the rest. Could everyone live this way? Could he continue to live this way for the rest of his life? Even Thoreau lived at Walden Pond only about two years.
Wallman then explained the reasons why Americans are so focused on stuff and materialism, contrasted with those in Europe or in poor countries. Stuffocation is a fascinating look at how the industrial age made goods of all kinds cheaper and more plentiful. Many people our parents� ages bought their first of certain items as adults, like televisions. But some people are realizing that “stuff� doesn’t equal fulfillment, and it costs money to buy and maintain. Some of the individuals described even chose to downsize their jobs, so they had more time and made the choice to have less stuff, at the expense of their paycheck. But the happiest people learned that they wanted new experiences because the joy of memories can last forever.
You’ll never look at your “stuff� the same way but you may think more before spending.
Reviewed by Mary DeKok Blowers for Library Thing.
May 1, 2015
I read an ARC of this book via Netgalley for an open and honest review.
As I’m currently going through a phase in my life where we want to declutter and enjoy life more than possessions, I felt this a great book to read. And, to be honest, big parts of it were rather interesting in the things they discussed. I learnt a lot and did enjoy small sections.
But, unfortunately, for a book that was meant to help with decluttering our lives, I found it way too cluttered, at times really mind numbing to read and actually gave up about half way through after struggling for months to read it. First Netgalley book on my DNF (did not finish) pile.
I think it was the constant story like “case studies� where all the women seemed pixie like and shallow to start with but were deemed saints by the end that started to get to me. That and the fact the book goes from these casual story like tales into huge swathes of fact and text book style prose and then back again� As much as I wanted to read it, I have other books on my TBR (To Be Read) list that need to have a chance and this one is just bogging me down and I’ve decided to stop struggling to finish it and give up.
Also, and I don’t know if this is because I’m Australian or already not that much of a materialistic person, but I could barely relate to any of the people in the case studies. Yes I’ve been successful in a high paying job, now I’ve chosen to slow it down and be a stay at home mum who cooks, knits, sews, makes things from scratch and was raised with the “make do and mend� philosophy, rather than “go buy something new and make more clutter”� but I just couldn’t relate and therefore couldn’t see this book helping me as much as I’d hoped.
I do really hope it does help others look at their lives, stop being packrats and accumulating and actually slow down and enjoy life more for what it has to offer, than for what you can buy� but I’m obviously not the right audience for it.
As I’m currently going through a phase in my life where we want to declutter and enjoy life more than possessions, I felt this a great book to read. And, to be honest, big parts of it were rather interesting in the things they discussed. I learnt a lot and did enjoy small sections.
But, unfortunately, for a book that was meant to help with decluttering our lives, I found it way too cluttered, at times really mind numbing to read and actually gave up about half way through after struggling for months to read it. First Netgalley book on my DNF (did not finish) pile.
I think it was the constant story like “case studies� where all the women seemed pixie like and shallow to start with but were deemed saints by the end that started to get to me. That and the fact the book goes from these casual story like tales into huge swathes of fact and text book style prose and then back again� As much as I wanted to read it, I have other books on my TBR (To Be Read) list that need to have a chance and this one is just bogging me down and I’ve decided to stop struggling to finish it and give up.
Also, and I don’t know if this is because I’m Australian or already not that much of a materialistic person, but I could barely relate to any of the people in the case studies. Yes I’ve been successful in a high paying job, now I’ve chosen to slow it down and be a stay at home mum who cooks, knits, sews, makes things from scratch and was raised with the “make do and mend� philosophy, rather than “go buy something new and make more clutter”� but I just couldn’t relate and therefore couldn’t see this book helping me as much as I’d hoped.
I do really hope it does help others look at their lives, stop being packrats and accumulating and actually slow down and enjoy life more for what it has to offer, than for what you can buy� but I’m obviously not the right audience for it.
Shelved as 'abandoned'
May 12, 2015Ironically, way too stuffed with words, making it unfocused & tedious to wade through. If you read blogs about minimalism &/or choosing experiences over things, you've already read most of what is covered, imo.
October 18, 2022
Макар книгата да е от 2013-та, не бих казала, че нещо се е променило или че нещата, които споменава не са същите. Всъщност книгата си е актуална и днес. Не сме мръднали много в развитието си. :)
Не е лоша книга, но в повече ми дойдоха примерите и откровено - всичките до един ме караха да въртя очи. Нито един пример не служеше като пример, който като читател можеш да се видиш. И най-голямото въображение да имаш, пак ще ти е трудно.
Другият ми проблем е, че неговата теория, че хората се обръщат към минимализъм,"simple life" и подобни движения, защото са срещу консуматорството и материализмът. Ами, не! Хората осъзнават, че никога няма да имат добър живот и търсят алтернативи как да го направят за себе си поносим. Научаваш да се адаптираш, когато не можеш да си позволиш нещата, които наистина искаш.
Неговото решение на тъй наречения проблем с многото вещи е преживявания, което само по-себе си няма лошо, но както става ясно от книгата му - малцина са тези, които истински могат да се възползват от това, защото да си на палатка на Хаваите е различно от това да си в хубав хотел на Хаваите. А и примерите за разходка в парка, чудесно, но като го направиш стотина пъти и някак си ти доскучава и имаш нужда от нещо различно. Та, имам чувството, че авторът май е писал само за три-четири страни и това е, всички останали вълци ги яли. Да, споменава Китай и Индия, ама не бих казала, че много добре представи нещата.
А и ми писна да слушам в книги за това, че щастието на човек не се повишавало след $75,000 или каквато там сума беше. Защото всички пропускат да обяснят какви са условията, с които тази сума върви. Ако е както в днешно време - това да ти е заплата и да изплащаш дома си и куп други глупости, няма как да си щастлив, но виж... ако не работиш, получаваш тези пари нетно годишно, имаш изплатен дом, прилична кола, имаш невероятна здравна застраховка, ами може и да склоня, че щастието не ти се повишава много, но пак... повишава се. Въпросът е как използваш тези пари и колкото повече - толкова повече възможности да си щастлив, ако не - нищо лошо да си нещастен в удобство. :)
Та, не е лоша книга и очевидно е забелязал тенденции много преди да станат очевидни за всички останали, но тонът и посланието му, някак се губят за мен и само му се изнервих. :)
Не е лоша книга, но в повече ми дойдоха примерите и откровено - всичките до един ме караха да въртя очи. Нито един пример не служеше като пример, който като читател можеш да се видиш. И най-голямото въображение да имаш, пак ще ти е трудно.
Другият ми проблем е, че неговата теория, че хората се обръщат към минимализъм,"simple life" и подобни движения, защото са срещу консуматорството и материализмът. Ами, не! Хората осъзнават, че никога няма да имат добър живот и търсят алтернативи как да го направят за себе си поносим. Научаваш да се адаптираш, когато не можеш да си позволиш нещата, които наистина искаш.
Неговото решение на тъй наречения проблем с многото вещи е преживявания, което само по-себе си няма лошо, но както става ясно от книгата му - малцина са тези, които истински могат да се възползват от това, защото да си на палатка на Хаваите е различно от това да си в хубав хотел на Хаваите. А и примерите за разходка в парка, чудесно, но като го направиш стотина пъти и някак си ти доскучава и имаш нужда от нещо различно. Та, имам чувството, че авторът май е писал само за три-четири страни и това е, всички останали вълци ги яли. Да, споменава Китай и Индия, ама не бих казала, че много добре представи нещата.
А и ми писна да слушам в книги за това, че щастието на човек не се повишавало след $75,000 или каквато там сума беше. Защото всички пропускат да обяснят какви са условията, с които тази сума върви. Ако е както в днешно време - това да ти е заплата и да изплащаш дома си и куп други глупости, няма как да си щастлив, но виж... ако не работиш, получаваш тези пари нетно годишно, имаш изплатен дом, прилична кола, имаш невероятна здравна застраховка, ами може и да склоня, че щастието не ти се повишава много, но пак... повишава се. Въпросът е как използваш тези пари и колкото повече - толкова повече възможности да си щастлив, ако не - нищо лошо да си нещастен в удобство. :)
Та, не е лоша книга и очевидно е забелязал тенденции много преди да станат очевидни за всички останали, но тонът и посланието му, някак се губят за мен и само му се изнервих. :)
September 5, 2019
Czy kiedykolwiek czuliście się przytłoczeni nadmiarem rzeczy w swoim domu? Z pewnością macie w szafie masę ubrań, których nie nosicie, a wyrzucić nie wyrzucicie, bo Wam szkoda. Posiadacie mnóstwo sprzętu, którego nie używacie, masę ozdób w domu, które wcale nie sprawiają, że Wasze otoczenie wygląda lepiej. Być może większość z Was ma tyle rzeczy, że nie mieszczą się już w szafkach i nie wiecie co z tym zrobić, a i tak kupujecie więcej. Macie dość sprzątania tego wszystkiego? Być może czujecie Rzeczozmęczenie.
W tytule napisałam, że ta książka zmieniła moje życie i naprawdę może to się wydawać nieprawdopodobne, ale tak jest. Ale do tego wrócę później. Zacznę od tego, że nie spodziewałam się po tej lekturze nic wielkiego, najwyżej parę ciekawostek, ale jak zaczęłam czytać odpadłam. Byłam coraz to bardziej głodna wiedzy i tego co ma do powiedzenia autor.
A kim jest sam pisarz? James Wallman to "dziennikarz, futurolog, prognostyk trendów i doradca takich marek jak Absolut, BMW, Burberry i Nike." Jest osobą, której warto wysłuchać, co ma do powiedzenia i za stworzenie tej książki bardzo mu dziękuję (chociaż on i tak się nigdy o tym nie dowie).
Wallman podjął się tematu "Rzeczozmęczenia" i wydawać by się mogło, że wiele na ten temat nie można powiedzieć i bałam się, że książka będzie naciągana, bo jest dość obszerna, ale okazało się, że połączenie wszystkich faktów, ciekawostek, analiz, stwierdzeń i obserwacji autora dało nam naprawdę ciekawą całość, którą czyta się z przyjemnością od początku do końca. Najlepsze były życiowe przykłady, które podał autor, i które bardzo przekonywały i utwierdzały całość. To one przede wszystkim sprawiły, że uwierzyłam, że pozbycie się zbędnych rzeczy ze swojego życie jest dla mnie naprawdę korzystne.
Dwa najbardziej palące problemy związane z rzeczozmęczeniem - kurczące się zasoby naturalne i zanieczyszczenie środowiska - pogłębia się, kiedy miliardy ludzi zaczną domagać się swojego kawałka materialistycznego tortu.
Pisarz pokazuje, że w życiu powinniśmy kolekcjonować wspomnienia, a nie rzeczy. Żyjemy w świecie, w którym każdy chce prześcignąć każdego w ilości rzeczy, czy jakości (np. kupując to w coraz droższych markach), podświadomie chcemy mieć lepsze rzeczy od naszej np. koleżanki, czy sąsiadki. Patrzymy z zazdrością na ludzi, którzy mają więcej, a przecież nie o to chodzi. Po co nam te wszystkie rzeczy!? Pracujemy więcej, tracimy swoje życie, wolny czas tylko po, to by zarobione pieniądze wydać na kolejne rzeczy. A nie lepiej wydać je na jakieś wspomnienia, np. gdzieś pojechać, albo pójść wieczorem do kina. Przecież nie potrzebujemy kolejnej pary butów, czy garnka.
Mi samej często zdarzało się kupować pierdoły, które sobie potem po prostu leżały i do niczego się nie przydawały i tylko zagracały mi pokój. Ostatnio kupiłam długopisy w biedronce, tylko dlatego, że były ładne!!! A wcale ich nie potrzebuję...
Książka była tak przekonująca, że często jak wieczorem czytałam parę stron, to potem nie mogłam zasnąć bo ciągle analizowałam sobie wszystkie nabyte informacje, obudziła ona we mnie chęć do zmiany, do działania, do zmienienia czegoś w swoim życiu. Na drugi dzień wstałam i wywaliłam z pokoju wszystkie niepotrzebne rzeczy, nawet te, których mi było szkoda, ale wywaliłam, bo dobrze wiedziałam, że ich nie potrzebuję. Zostały mi same książki, kwiatki i laptop no i kilka drobiazgów, ale zrobiło się u mnie bardzo przestronnie, jasno i przyjemnie. Łatwiej jest mi się w takim pokoju skupić na tym co akurat robię, bo nie rozprasza mnie ilość rzeczy w okół.
W ogóle chcę sobie pomalować ściany na biało i będzie trochę jak w psychiatryku, ale co tam.*
Dzięki tej książce zmobilizowałam się, by iść coś doświadczać, spędzać dni z ukochaną osobą. Wydać nawet dużo pieniędzy na coś dobrego, czy emocjonującego i mieć z tego ciekawe wspomnienia, niż kolejną rzecz. I to właśnie robię! Zadziwiające jest to, jak bardzo ta książka na mnie wpłynęła.
Chiński rząd również postanowił stworzyć nowych konsumentów i zapożyczyć kilka rozwiązań z amerykańskiego XX-wiecznego eksperymentu. Planuje podnieść płace, żeby ludzie mogli więcej wydawać. W tym samym celu chce zwiększyć dostępność kredytów. Wzmacnia system opieki społecznej, żeby ludzie nie martwili się o swoją przyszłość, a w konsekwencji mniej oszczędzali, a więcej wydawali. Inwestuje w krajowy system pocztowy, żeby ludzie chętniej korzystali ze sklepów internetowych.
Autor ma niesamowity dar przekonywania. Potrafi nawet zgłębić tematy polityczne i ekonomiczne tym samym mnie nie nudząc, a właśnie sprawiając, że jestem jeszcze bardziej ciekawa, o co chodzi.
Jego styl pisania jest naprawdę lekki, przyjemny w odbiorze, treść przekonująca i wiarygodna, a przede wszystkim skierowana bezpośrednio do nas.
Podsumowując, nawet jeśli sądzicie, że nie potrzebujecie takiej wiedzy, że wcale nie jesteście materialistami i uważacie, że macie w domu odpowiednią ilość rzeczy, to nie myślcie o tym, po prostu sięgnijcie po tę książkę. Ona ma niesamowity dar przekonywania - nawet jeśli nie skłoni Was do jednej rzeczy, to do innej z pewnością. Nie jest to byle jaka lektura, jest to felieton, który być może zmieni Wasz życie. Moje zmieniło. Teraz Wasza kolej.
September 6, 2018
I have seen this book around, especially when I was really started to get interested in minimalism. My interest waned but I still wanted to read this book and when I saw it come up in my library on audiobook, I took the chance. And while I didn’t find it a complete waste of my time, I am very glad I didn’t spend any money on it.
Stuffocation is a book about how the current culture of buying more and more simply for the sake of it is making people unhappy and how culture should move more towards valuing experiences instead. I have to say that I felt like maybe I wasn’t the intended audience of this book because I am already fully on board of the valuing experiences than actual things, but the first quarter of the book was interesting and sucked me in, only for me to be let down. Minimalism in this book is a movement for people who are already successful by society’s standards, i.e. great, high-paying job, big house, several cars, lots of money etc and are unhappy with their lives still. This book is not really reading as intended for people who struggle to keep themselves financially afloat or are struggling with their mood that has nothing to do with how much stuff they have and I feel like the book did not address these limitations enough. Or at all really.
First of all, I will say that I completely agree with the message that we should be valuing unique experiences and time with loved ones over stuff, especially stuff we buy simply for the sake of having it. The first quarter of the book talking about how society as it is developed into this constantly buy-more place and how it is making us unhappy and sometimes putting our lives in danger and I found this part really interesting. I was agreeing with this part of the book and Wallman was sticking to the main point of his book.
And then it derailed.
We went from case study to case study of people who had given up everything they had, either their jobs and frequently their homes as well, either to go and live in the wilderness or to go backpacking around the world with their children in tow, but of course they had the high-flying jobs and skills necessary to be able to earn money as they did this. In between these case studies, Wallman would say that you don’t have to go so extreme to value experiences over possessions, but then he would bring up another extreme case study.
I was expecting this book to be more about how to declutter your possessions and your life but really it just grabbed onto the point that you should value experiences over possessions and then spent the rest of the book hammering this point home. This book definitely was not what I expected, in a negative way and it could have been a lot shorter. I grew very bored by the end of the book. I probably wouldn’t recommend it anytime soon. It’s not a particularly inspiring book either.
2.5 stars and, like I said, I’m very glad I didn’t spend any money on it.
Stuffocation is a book about how the current culture of buying more and more simply for the sake of it is making people unhappy and how culture should move more towards valuing experiences instead. I have to say that I felt like maybe I wasn’t the intended audience of this book because I am already fully on board of the valuing experiences than actual things, but the first quarter of the book was interesting and sucked me in, only for me to be let down. Minimalism in this book is a movement for people who are already successful by society’s standards, i.e. great, high-paying job, big house, several cars, lots of money etc and are unhappy with their lives still. This book is not really reading as intended for people who struggle to keep themselves financially afloat or are struggling with their mood that has nothing to do with how much stuff they have and I feel like the book did not address these limitations enough. Or at all really.
First of all, I will say that I completely agree with the message that we should be valuing unique experiences and time with loved ones over stuff, especially stuff we buy simply for the sake of having it. The first quarter of the book talking about how society as it is developed into this constantly buy-more place and how it is making us unhappy and sometimes putting our lives in danger and I found this part really interesting. I was agreeing with this part of the book and Wallman was sticking to the main point of his book.
And then it derailed.
We went from case study to case study of people who had given up everything they had, either their jobs and frequently their homes as well, either to go and live in the wilderness or to go backpacking around the world with their children in tow, but of course they had the high-flying jobs and skills necessary to be able to earn money as they did this. In between these case studies, Wallman would say that you don’t have to go so extreme to value experiences over possessions, but then he would bring up another extreme case study.
I was expecting this book to be more about how to declutter your possessions and your life but really it just grabbed onto the point that you should value experiences over possessions and then spent the rest of the book hammering this point home. This book definitely was not what I expected, in a negative way and it could have been a lot shorter. I grew very bored by the end of the book. I probably wouldn’t recommend it anytime soon. It’s not a particularly inspiring book either.
2.5 stars and, like I said, I’m very glad I didn’t spend any money on it.
August 24, 2015
Wallman starts strong, but the second half of the book is bitterly disappointing. The first quarter of the book is a lively critique of materialist culture, the drive to amass possessions, and role of advertising (the captains of consciousness) in advancing this vision of the good life. The next quarter is an examination of several routes out of this "stuffocating" lifestyle: minimalism (shedding as many possessions as you can), the simple life (getting back to basics and roughing it), the medium chill (an odd phrase describing what is essentially bohemianism), and, finally, experientialism (doing rather than owning). The second half of the book is devoted to extolling the virtues of experientialism and proffering arguments as to its superiority and viability as an alternative to materialism.
Before discussing his argument on that front, it's important to note that he puts these four "threads through the labyrinth" into silos, as if they are mutually exclusive and incompatible with one another. The truth is you can be both a minimalist and live the simple life and be a bohemian at the same time, all the while pursuing experiences rather than things. So he creates this false distinction and an either/or choice when it isn't necessary.
In the first half of the book he does not critique consumerism but rather materialism, and it becomes abundantly clear why; he is actually all for consumerism. He just wants us to consume experiences rather than stuff. Even that's not exactly true because he admits the experiences he is describing cost a lot of money. He pays lip service to the idea that experience doesn't have to be expensive, but then undermines his argument by insisting that our experiences will be the new status symbols that will allow us to showcase our success and worthiness (using an argument from evolutionary psychology). In the end, he's inviting us to enter yet one more rat race overlayed on the existing materialist one, demanding constant and ever-increasing consumption and status display.
The most telling moment in the book, for me, is the section near the end titled, "Thou shalt covet thy neighbors donkey." In these few paragraphs he really sums up the problem with materialism, consumerism and experientialism, it's all quite deliberately built on the manufacture and exploitation of discontent. The system is built on greed and covetousness. Wallman not only has no problem with it, he extols it as the only rational alternative. He sees what many in the church cannot see today, that the system is in direct conflict with the teaching of Christ. Any system that tells us that greed is good and the accumulation of wealth is the mark of the highest and best among us cannot find a home in the heart of a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth.
Before discussing his argument on that front, it's important to note that he puts these four "threads through the labyrinth" into silos, as if they are mutually exclusive and incompatible with one another. The truth is you can be both a minimalist and live the simple life and be a bohemian at the same time, all the while pursuing experiences rather than things. So he creates this false distinction and an either/or choice when it isn't necessary.
In the first half of the book he does not critique consumerism but rather materialism, and it becomes abundantly clear why; he is actually all for consumerism. He just wants us to consume experiences rather than stuff. Even that's not exactly true because he admits the experiences he is describing cost a lot of money. He pays lip service to the idea that experience doesn't have to be expensive, but then undermines his argument by insisting that our experiences will be the new status symbols that will allow us to showcase our success and worthiness (using an argument from evolutionary psychology). In the end, he's inviting us to enter yet one more rat race overlayed on the existing materialist one, demanding constant and ever-increasing consumption and status display.
The most telling moment in the book, for me, is the section near the end titled, "Thou shalt covet thy neighbors donkey." In these few paragraphs he really sums up the problem with materialism, consumerism and experientialism, it's all quite deliberately built on the manufacture and exploitation of discontent. The system is built on greed and covetousness. Wallman not only has no problem with it, he extols it as the only rational alternative. He sees what many in the church cannot see today, that the system is in direct conflict with the teaching of Christ. Any system that tells us that greed is good and the accumulation of wealth is the mark of the highest and best among us cannot find a home in the heart of a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth.
March 14, 2015
I received an ARC of this book from NetGalley.
If you picked this up thinking once again you're going to read about home organizing techniques, guess again. "Stuffocation" is about what led us to this point of having so much stuff--not just physical things, but endless food to stuff our faces, and endless digital files, emails and streaming video to keep us occupied 24/7--and if we have possibly reached the tipping point, as shown by the growing crop of minimalist blogs and the Tiny Home movement, to move from a materialist to an "experientalist" culture.
And it's an intriguing concept, one that I think might possibly snap a lot of people out of their "maybe THIS book will help me organize my closets" addiction once and for all. Seeing the connection of the Industrial Revolution, which grew the monster of the advertising industry, and then our addiction to telling ourselves we're fine as long as we have a robust GDP, among other factors-- is much food for thought. The problem is the writing is uneven, and at times the points being made are kind of repetitive. Data and anecdotes are fit in that we wait for a follow-up, or question why it's even there. And the challenge in this world applying experientalism today is 1) people who can't afford to have the big homes and a mountain of stuff in the first place that they can control downsizing; instead they're living on the edge, and 2) a vast global economy built by corporations that are, let's say, HIGHLY resistant to this potential shift. Granted, you can still monetize experiences, but not to the bank balances achieved by simply talking people into buying tons of cheap plastic crap and decorated cheesecloth we call clothing. And these same corporations are racing to the bottom to see how much lower than can make everyone's wages while still allowing them to be even some of the crap they're forced to pedal. Somehow I don't get the impression Walmart cares if their wage slaves can afford to go rock climbing or see a Broadway play anytime soon.
Sill, an interesting if at times frustrating read.
If you picked this up thinking once again you're going to read about home organizing techniques, guess again. "Stuffocation" is about what led us to this point of having so much stuff--not just physical things, but endless food to stuff our faces, and endless digital files, emails and streaming video to keep us occupied 24/7--and if we have possibly reached the tipping point, as shown by the growing crop of minimalist blogs and the Tiny Home movement, to move from a materialist to an "experientalist" culture.
And it's an intriguing concept, one that I think might possibly snap a lot of people out of their "maybe THIS book will help me organize my closets" addiction once and for all. Seeing the connection of the Industrial Revolution, which grew the monster of the advertising industry, and then our addiction to telling ourselves we're fine as long as we have a robust GDP, among other factors-- is much food for thought. The problem is the writing is uneven, and at times the points being made are kind of repetitive. Data and anecdotes are fit in that we wait for a follow-up, or question why it's even there. And the challenge in this world applying experientalism today is 1) people who can't afford to have the big homes and a mountain of stuff in the first place that they can control downsizing; instead they're living on the edge, and 2) a vast global economy built by corporations that are, let's say, HIGHLY resistant to this potential shift. Granted, you can still monetize experiences, but not to the bank balances achieved by simply talking people into buying tons of cheap plastic crap and decorated cheesecloth we call clothing. And these same corporations are racing to the bottom to see how much lower than can make everyone's wages while still allowing them to be even some of the crap they're forced to pedal. Somehow I don't get the impression Walmart cares if their wage slaves can afford to go rock climbing or see a Broadway play anytime soon.
Sill, an interesting if at times frustrating read.
May 15, 2016
I think this reviewer said it much better, but here it goes anyway:
For a book dealing with clutter and minimalism (and other similar subjects), it sure was cluttered! The idea was good, some of the information you could extract was interesting, but to get to it you had to wade through a mix of extremely boring anecdotes/quasi-stories, and loads of fact dump (it kept going from one to the other indiscriminately). Eventually I just grew bored and gave up reading it. I just don't have the patience for it.
For a book dealing with clutter and minimalism (and other similar subjects), it sure was cluttered! The idea was good, some of the information you could extract was interesting, but to get to it you had to wade through a mix of extremely boring anecdotes/quasi-stories, and loads of fact dump (it kept going from one to the other indiscriminately). Eventually I just grew bored and gave up reading it. I just don't have the patience for it.
June 16, 2017
Een van de boeiendste en meest onderbouwde boeken die ik al over dit onderwerp heb gelezen.
December 2, 2016
I was hoping for more from this book. Stuffocation - and I'll pause to note, what a great title! - by James Wallman attacks the growth of clutter and materialism in Western culture, and how best to move away from this cultural crisis. He expounds on the history of materialism and how we got here, how we know we are there, and where we can go, not necessarily in that order. He looks at options: minimalism, simple living, and medium chill, before settling on experientialism as the great answer.
I wanted to be more impressed, but this book was both annoyingly cynical and idealistic at the same time, which is a feat in and of itself.
The first problem came in the introduction, which is never good. He talks about how we know we are drowning in stuff and gives a very interesting case study about the CELF project, which aimed to see how people in the middle-class U.S. lived. One of the results showed that people frequently feel more trapped by their possessions than they feel happy with them. To find out if you feel this way, he presents a quiz. Now look, this isn't a scholarly, academic book, but its tone certainly tries to present itself as that way, so it's rather jarring to see the bias implicit in these questions. Qualitative studies are very careful to vet questions so they don't lead any way - for instance, like this one: "Are you (a) happy with our current materialistic culture, or (b) do you worry that it is, from an environmental point of view, like the proverbial frog in the saucepan as the water slowly comes to the boil?" (xvii). Oh, well, when you put it like that!
I'm not disagreeing with him, really, just his methods. Clearly the rise of decluttering books and shows and self-help blogs are pointing to a fairly serious problem we have in the United States - and elsewhere - that says we have too much stuff and don't know what to do with it. But his methodology is flawed.
For one thing, though he admits that there might be more of a correlation rather than a causation between stuff and unhappiness, he doesn't dwell on this - and that's a problem, because it's at the core of his argument. We could easily say that people are just disillusioned in general with the world, and swapping marketing from goods to experiences will not cure it, but instead just give us new reasons to be cynical. He answers this by saying that psychologists give the "rose-tinted glasses" effect (his words) to experiences more than goods - meaning that if you buy a bad dress, it's still a bad dress six months later. If you have a camping trip that's miserable, six months later, you may laugh about it. He even brings in the phenomenon of "FOMO", Fear Of Missing Out, that has popped up due to only seeing the best of people's lives posted on Facebook. This is a valid question - after all, FOMO makes people unhappy, right? But he argues that it's still better than materialism because experiences cannot be compared so easily.
Wallman is very keen on status markers. Everyone uses them. In previous years, they were the new Rolex or Porsche in the driveway. He argues that experiences can be the new status markers. However, there are some problems with this.
1. Perhaps people aren't happy with their stuff because they are comparing them to others. Maybe we would be happier if we didn't know that our brand new car isn't the newest model, like our neighbor's or friend's. So exchanging our status markers for experiences means that we will still be comparing ourselves to others, which may be why we're all really unhappy.
2. Okay, okay, but he says that experiences can't be compared as easily! You can go sledding and someone else can go to Tahiti, and how do they compare? Well. Um. Pretty unfavorably. Experiences like, "I went to Tahiti" and "I went to South Africa", sure, there's less of a comparison, because they're more or less equal in terms of money spent, exotic factor, etc. But his argument that they experiences in general cannot be compared, or that anyone can have experiences regardless of monetary status, is fundamentally flawed. They can, and will be - the person who stays home and reads for a vacation is having an experience, but it's not as an exciting one as the person who took a cruise to Alaska for theirs.
Finally, we're reaching the foundation of my problem with this book. I don't think he's wrong in that we need something new, but I don't think that his assertion that experiences are the way to go is right - because there's something deeper at work, and he's scratching the surface. As he would call it, substitution - wherein we exchange the harder question for the easier. He replaces, "Why are we unhappy?" with "What would make us happier than stuff?". Experiences may very well make you happier than your stuff, but not necessarily. There are still social and status markers that invite comparison, making us worry we're not favorably competing with the Jones's vacation to Europe while we went to visit our parents three hours away. There's a wonderful book called The Paradox of Choice that points out that our very abundance of choices causes us unhappiness - and that choice isn't taken away when we have to choose between whether to go to Oregon or Maine for vacation for our experience rather than the Ferrari or the Jaguar.
There are some valid critiques on his focus on the middle-class and what they've accomplished, but most of what I would say has been said, so I won't belabor the point except to say that his cultural forecasting is flawed, as well. For instance, he uses how many have adopted this new way already as a measure - which is great, but you also have to look into why it was adopted in the first place. He asserts that millennials are buying small apartments rather than houses, or not buying cars, or other things - and yet, how many aren't because they're bogged down in student loans and can't afford to? If the student loan problem is solved, will they go back to doing what their parents did, and buying the flashy car and big house in the suburb? Because if so, then we're not moving away from materialism because of a cultural shift of values, but an economic shift.
It's not a bad book. It has some interesting points, and I think it does add to the voices saying that we need to change something, otherwise we're all going to be unhappy - but I'm not sure the Grand Answer he supplies is the one really worth pursuing.
I wanted to be more impressed, but this book was both annoyingly cynical and idealistic at the same time, which is a feat in and of itself.
The first problem came in the introduction, which is never good. He talks about how we know we are drowning in stuff and gives a very interesting case study about the CELF project, which aimed to see how people in the middle-class U.S. lived. One of the results showed that people frequently feel more trapped by their possessions than they feel happy with them. To find out if you feel this way, he presents a quiz. Now look, this isn't a scholarly, academic book, but its tone certainly tries to present itself as that way, so it's rather jarring to see the bias implicit in these questions. Qualitative studies are very careful to vet questions so they don't lead any way - for instance, like this one: "Are you (a) happy with our current materialistic culture, or (b) do you worry that it is, from an environmental point of view, like the proverbial frog in the saucepan as the water slowly comes to the boil?" (xvii). Oh, well, when you put it like that!
I'm not disagreeing with him, really, just his methods. Clearly the rise of decluttering books and shows and self-help blogs are pointing to a fairly serious problem we have in the United States - and elsewhere - that says we have too much stuff and don't know what to do with it. But his methodology is flawed.
For one thing, though he admits that there might be more of a correlation rather than a causation between stuff and unhappiness, he doesn't dwell on this - and that's a problem, because it's at the core of his argument. We could easily say that people are just disillusioned in general with the world, and swapping marketing from goods to experiences will not cure it, but instead just give us new reasons to be cynical. He answers this by saying that psychologists give the "rose-tinted glasses" effect (his words) to experiences more than goods - meaning that if you buy a bad dress, it's still a bad dress six months later. If you have a camping trip that's miserable, six months later, you may laugh about it. He even brings in the phenomenon of "FOMO", Fear Of Missing Out, that has popped up due to only seeing the best of people's lives posted on Facebook. This is a valid question - after all, FOMO makes people unhappy, right? But he argues that it's still better than materialism because experiences cannot be compared so easily.
Wallman is very keen on status markers. Everyone uses them. In previous years, they were the new Rolex or Porsche in the driveway. He argues that experiences can be the new status markers. However, there are some problems with this.
1. Perhaps people aren't happy with their stuff because they are comparing them to others. Maybe we would be happier if we didn't know that our brand new car isn't the newest model, like our neighbor's or friend's. So exchanging our status markers for experiences means that we will still be comparing ourselves to others, which may be why we're all really unhappy.
2. Okay, okay, but he says that experiences can't be compared as easily! You can go sledding and someone else can go to Tahiti, and how do they compare? Well. Um. Pretty unfavorably. Experiences like, "I went to Tahiti" and "I went to South Africa", sure, there's less of a comparison, because they're more or less equal in terms of money spent, exotic factor, etc. But his argument that they experiences in general cannot be compared, or that anyone can have experiences regardless of monetary status, is fundamentally flawed. They can, and will be - the person who stays home and reads for a vacation is having an experience, but it's not as an exciting one as the person who took a cruise to Alaska for theirs.
Finally, we're reaching the foundation of my problem with this book. I don't think he's wrong in that we need something new, but I don't think that his assertion that experiences are the way to go is right - because there's something deeper at work, and he's scratching the surface. As he would call it, substitution - wherein we exchange the harder question for the easier. He replaces, "Why are we unhappy?" with "What would make us happier than stuff?". Experiences may very well make you happier than your stuff, but not necessarily. There are still social and status markers that invite comparison, making us worry we're not favorably competing with the Jones's vacation to Europe while we went to visit our parents three hours away. There's a wonderful book called The Paradox of Choice that points out that our very abundance of choices causes us unhappiness - and that choice isn't taken away when we have to choose between whether to go to Oregon or Maine for vacation for our experience rather than the Ferrari or the Jaguar.
There are some valid critiques on his focus on the middle-class and what they've accomplished, but most of what I would say has been said, so I won't belabor the point except to say that his cultural forecasting is flawed, as well. For instance, he uses how many have adopted this new way already as a measure - which is great, but you also have to look into why it was adopted in the first place. He asserts that millennials are buying small apartments rather than houses, or not buying cars, or other things - and yet, how many aren't because they're bogged down in student loans and can't afford to? If the student loan problem is solved, will they go back to doing what their parents did, and buying the flashy car and big house in the suburb? Because if so, then we're not moving away from materialism because of a cultural shift of values, but an economic shift.
It's not a bad book. It has some interesting points, and I think it does add to the voices saying that we need to change something, otherwise we're all going to be unhappy - but I'm not sure the Grand Answer he supplies is the one really worth pursuing.
May 25, 2022
This was a really interesting and insightful read about minimalism and focusing more on the experiences of life rather than physical possessions.
I found this book really inspiring and helpful in my journey to living with less.
There is a great mix of scientific studies and information but also real life case studies. There is also information about the history and psychology of delcuttering and minimalism which was very insightful.
I found this book really easy to read. It was engaging and not boring or dull.
If you are interested in potentially living with less and focusing more on the experiences of life rather than possessions, I highly recommend this book.
Overall, this is a very informative read which will hopefully help me with my journey into living with less.
I found this book really inspiring and helpful in my journey to living with less.
There is a great mix of scientific studies and information but also real life case studies. There is also information about the history and psychology of delcuttering and minimalism which was very insightful.
I found this book really easy to read. It was engaging and not boring or dull.
If you are interested in potentially living with less and focusing more on the experiences of life rather than possessions, I highly recommend this book.
Overall, this is a very informative read which will hopefully help me with my journey into living with less.
June 14, 2017
Are we all tired of "stuff"? Are we instead look for experiences? I know this is true for me. Do I want jewels, new clothes, a new car? No thanks, give me a seminar, a weekend away or a plane ticket any day. James Wallman believes this is a trend we are seeing throughout our society. As we all look for ways to pare down our stuff, we are looking for new things to experience - possibly as simple as time with family, but also as stimulating as hang-gliding. His theory is very convincing. Are you an experientialist? Take the quiz and find out.
October 5, 2017
[3.5 stars]
Dates are approximations as I borrowed the eAudiobook from my library. I also *technically* didn't finish is as the epilogue (thing) seemed to just go on and on so I eventually hit pause and then forgot to return to it...
Anyway, I've been wanting to read this book for a while because I'm personally very interested in STUFF and how it affects my mood, wellbeing etc. I've spent the last couple of years regularly going through my belongings and donating bags and bags of STUFF to charity (or just binning the JUNK I have clung onto for too long). This whole process started because I, like a lot of people these days, seemed to have an inability to part with my belongings well after they had served their purpose and even if I hadn't used a particular item in yeeeears, I just couldn't let go.
So this book certainly was interesting because it takes a look at many different opinions regarding STUFF and how it is affecting our lives but it wasn't ever mind blowing. Maybe that's just because I've already realised how stuff was negatively impacting my life? Perhaps if you're currently surrounded by things and are feeling overwhelmed not knowing how to cope, then maybe this is more for you.
Long story short; happy I listened to it, glad I didn't pay for it.
Dates are approximations as I borrowed the eAudiobook from my library. I also *technically* didn't finish is as the epilogue (thing) seemed to just go on and on so I eventually hit pause and then forgot to return to it...
Anyway, I've been wanting to read this book for a while because I'm personally very interested in STUFF and how it affects my mood, wellbeing etc. I've spent the last couple of years regularly going through my belongings and donating bags and bags of STUFF to charity (or just binning the JUNK I have clung onto for too long). This whole process started because I, like a lot of people these days, seemed to have an inability to part with my belongings well after they had served their purpose and even if I hadn't used a particular item in yeeeears, I just couldn't let go.
So this book certainly was interesting because it takes a look at many different opinions regarding STUFF and how it is affecting our lives but it wasn't ever mind blowing. Maybe that's just because I've already realised how stuff was negatively impacting my life? Perhaps if you're currently surrounded by things and are feeling overwhelmed not knowing how to cope, then maybe this is more for you.
Long story short; happy I listened to it, glad I didn't pay for it.
December 25, 2021
solid 3 stars. the book has an interesting and intriguing topic, it mentions something that's not widely spoken about. but, in my opinion, it could have easily been 150 pages instead of 300. it feels like the author is repeating himself after a point, I was really bored while reading the last few chapters.
March 31, 2015
I was pleased to read James Wallman's thoroughly researched book. My wife and I have chosen to live in a smaller house so that we don't have the stresses associated with a mortgage and extra bills. Instead, we often say that we would rather do than have. This idea was the core of Wellman's book. He tackled the issues clearly and fairly and pointed out the problems with each view he describes.
I particularly liked his explanation that stuff is good because of the benefits it gives us. But at the same time, he adds, stuff has stress and anxiety associated with it. I also appreciated his distinction between experiential stuff and materialistic stuff. If we are going to be experientialists, we are going to need certain items to pull that off. A mountain biker can't climb the mountain without a bike, for example.
The reason I only gave three stars to the book is due to its length. I felt two chapters (11 and 12) were not necessary and didn't add much to the entire message of the book. In addition, some of the chapters felt as if they were dragging on well after a point had been made and substantiated.
I particularly liked his explanation that stuff is good because of the benefits it gives us. But at the same time, he adds, stuff has stress and anxiety associated with it. I also appreciated his distinction between experiential stuff and materialistic stuff. If we are going to be experientialists, we are going to need certain items to pull that off. A mountain biker can't climb the mountain without a bike, for example.
The reason I only gave three stars to the book is due to its length. I felt two chapters (11 and 12) were not necessary and didn't add much to the entire message of the book. In addition, some of the chapters felt as if they were dragging on well after a point had been made and substantiated.
January 30, 2015
This book is a fascinating look at today's society and economics. The author posits that our culture has gone beyond materialism because we can easily afford all that we need and more and we now realize that stuff does not make us happy and we have too much stuff. He feels that a new age is dawning, one where we, as a society will value experiences more than stuff, something that he calls experientialism. He explains the reasons for this shift in attitude and proof that it is happening and gives many examples. He states that the internet, and social media in particular helps to promote experientialism because people can broadcast their experiences to everyone. The author feels that experientialism is a good and valid replacement for materialism because it still produces consumers who will spend money on experiences and stuff that goes with them which will keep the economy afloat. He even gives a list of steps towards becoming an experientialist yourself. I received this book free to review from Netgalley and I highly recommend it.
January 15, 2014
It preached to the proverbial choir. But now I know why I get anxious in kitchens with poorly organized cupboards. Also, learn the difference between a minimalist and a experientialist and how both are still consumers. I like stuff, actually. Well...I like beautifully and cleverly designed stuff. Breaking from the materialism mold one garbage bag full of clothes at a time.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 473 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.