How hard is it to live with less?
Downsizing to 200 items forces closer look at meaning of 'stuff'
Two hundred things seems about right for Lina Menard, a Northeast Portland tiny house resident who has tried for a few years to live with less stuff. She teaches workshops in downsizing. She thinks living with fewer material possessions is not only responsible from an ecological point of view, but frees her to live a happier, more meaningful life.
And yes, her 200 things has a little bit of cheat in it. She counts her jewelry box as one item, even though there are about 30 pieces of jewelry inside. Her bike counts as one, though it has paniers, a water bottle and lights that could be considered separate items. A truer count of her possessions, Menard says, would be more like 577. But thats not the point.
Menard used to live in a nice, two-bedroom house before she took the 200 Things Challenge, her version of the 100 Thing Challenge, inspired by Dave Brunos 2010 book about living a simple life with only 100 possessions. So she had stuff she had to lose. And getting rid of stuff, she says, is hard.
But most of us are surrounded by thousands of material possessions, and only a few of which deliver pleasure, say academic researchers and downsizing experts such as Menard. In her Less is More workshop, Menard has encountered young couples intrigued by tiny house living as well as baby boomers transitioning from houses to apartments and lives with more travel.
So why is it so hard to downsize?
Portland is part of the problem. Yes, the city is a national center for the tiny house movement and as an adjunct, the living-with-less ethic. But that means theres also a lot of free stuff here.
Especially in Portland, you dont have to buy things to acquire a lot, Menard says. Learning to say no to free things is actually a challenge.
On the other hand, the popularity of tiny houses and micro-apartments here, and the many communal efforts such as the citys tool libraries, make Portland a leader in living with less.
Downsizing became an emotional process for Menard, and an analytical one. Throughout each day, before moving into her 121-square-foot tiny house, she was mentally prioritizing every object she owned. She was just 27, not old enough, she thought, to have accumulated much.
But it was still amazing to me how many things I had that I had never intended to own and how few of them had meaning and how few of them had a story, she says. She took photographs of objects that did have meaning but were still destined for a new location. Among the items that made her 200 things cut: the blanket she had as a child, a hammock from Costa Rica, her laptop and cell phone, one mattress, one pressure cooker, and a favorite teacup she had brought back from Prague.
Programmed in our genes?
In her workshops, Menard is not a scold. Shes selling a concept, not a standard, and she suspects shes battling natural selection in the process.
If its not voluntary, it feels like deprivation, she says. We have an intrinsic worry about scarcity thats related to a biological need for survival.
Yes and no, says University of Missouri evolutionary anthropologist Karthik Panchanathan. Sure, Panchanathan says, it makes sense that our ancestors developed habits that associated hanging on to stuff with survival. But a survey of human cultures casts doubt on that idea. Owning lots of stuff, he says, is a relatively new phenomenon in the sweep of history. And in other developed countries such as Finland and Norway, people are accustomed to drastically fewer material possessions than those in the United States.
The evidence, Panchanathan says, is that the amount of stuff we keep is not due to natural selection, but culture. We view how well were doing by comparing ourselves to others, he says. Hes even got experiments that appear to prove it.
In one, a group of co-workers were offered raises of 5 percent but told their colleagues received raises of 7 percent. In a companion experiment, everyone received 4 percent raises. If materialism were the dominant value, the workers in the first experiment who received a 5 percent raise should be happier than those in the second experiment who received 4 percent raises.
But thats not how it worked out, according to Panchanathan. The majority of people who received more money but less relative to their co-workers reported unhappiness. Which spells trouble for trying to live light here.
The one with least toys wins
The best hope for people attending Menards workshops, Panchanathan adds, might be to surround themselves with like-minded people who believe in the living light ethic. And they dont all have to support each other competing to be most green might work just as well.
This idea of counting possessions started with San Diego resident David Bruno, who four years ago wrote The 100 Thing Challenge after giving up his guitar and a baseball jersey signed by Pete Rose in a purge on his possessions. Bruno, incidentally, lives in a 2,000-square-foot house with a wife, three daughters and nine pets. The 100 items are Brunos alone.
Brunos 224- page book and blog connected with hundreds, maybe thousands, of people who started looking at their material possessions in a different way. He found that major obstacles in his downsizing efforts were items that held emotional value. His garage, he says, held an assortment of rarely used woodworking tools. For years hed envisioned spending weekends making dollhouses for his daughters or furniture for the rest of the house. Giving up those tools meant giving up an image.
Bruno says the letters and emails from those who have written him after taking up his challenge sound eerily similar. The consistent, word-for-word response from hundreds of people was, It was like a weight lifted off my shoulders, he says.
Thats because more stuff, even more money, past a certain point doesnt make us happier, says Cornell University economist Robert Frank, author of Luxury Fever: Money and Happiness in an Era of Excess.
Directed spending boosts happiness
But that doesnt mean we cant buy more happiness, he adds. In fact, he says rich people still are generally happier than poor people in the United States. But its not due to the bigger cars or larger houses they acquire.
The secret? There are some things to which we dont adapt. Spend money on those and your happiness likely will increase. One unadaptable is environmental noise. Loud, unpredictable sounds irritate people who never quite get used to the intrusion. Another is long commutes to work. A third is a job where you have no sense of control.
The Lina Menards have it right, Frank says, if they are ridding themselves of material objects and spending their money so they can live free of the situations that will never stop making them less happy.
Tammy Strobel has hit the jackpot by Franks happiness standard. With husband Logan Smith she has moved from a life where she felt assaulted by noise, had hourlong commutes to work in a cubicle-centered job that felt confining, and was far from family. She acquired her new lifestyle not by spending money, but by ridding herself of stuff.
Strobel and Smith were among the first members of Portlands tiny house community when they left apartment living behind and perched in a friends backyard in 2011. But their tiny house was the culmination of a process begun earlier when Strobel took up the 100 Thing Challenge and gave away 90 percent of her material possessions.Today Strobel and Smith have parked their tiny house behind Smiths parents house in rural northern California.
Something in, another thing out
Strobel no longer counts her possessions, but figures she is still right around 100 because shes adopted a policy that perpetuates the challenge she took three years ago. I have what I need, and when I buy something new I give something away, she says.
Still, Strobel says initially getting rid of her possessions was hard. She and Smith took six years to complete their downsizing process, going one room at a time.
Economist Frank offers another reason we find it so hard to get rid of stuff. Everybody can remember throwing something out and then immediately discovering that you needed it, he says.
Of course, we dont remember the thousands of times we threw something out and didnt later need it, he adds. Thats what economists call the Availability Heuristic we recall the odd event more than the commonplace, and form irrational attitudes as a result.Add a comment