Less isn't always more

There is a new strain of writers and thinkers who are reflecting upon the state of our new economy, and they don't like what they've seen. Authors such as Leo Babuta in his book "The Power Of Less" offer a message that is a softer, sober kind of anti-materialism, an enlightened path of de-cluttering and dumping all the "unnecessary" things we've acquired and, apparently, no longer can afford. We've all learned, as the thinking goes, what happens when we want or acquire too many material objects. In this line thinking we'll find greater joy and freedom if we just slip the surley bonds of materialism and focus on the sheer happiness of having less, of doing without, and curbing our destructive appetites.

One can't find much argument with "having less and doing more", but that is really material common sense. After all, we can only carry so many things on our backs, literally, before we become weakened and exhausted by the haul. Having more than we can afford to pay for, or living beyond our means are all signs and symptoms of a disfigured financial discipline, it's a management issue and doesn't necessarily mean we need to simplify. There has a puritanical undertone to all of this, a self-flagellating narrative that puts us all in monks robes or rag stock second hand clothing, giving up shopping malls, designer dishware and Louie V hand bags, in favor of meditation centers and Ikea economic minimalism.  But is this really a solution?

I have moved my own standard of living down the scale. Like millions of others, my income went from great to worse, skipping "bad" entirely, and it left me with an income stream that couldn't sustain the waterfall lifestyle I'd incrementally created. I'm not a big spender, per se, but I was forced to curtail my wanting in favor of economy, and have had to "down size" in order to fit into a skinnier balance sheet.

All of this makes sense, since as a small business owner I have to post income to pay for the stuff I have and need. But my decision to thin my spending doesn't necessarily equate to simplicity.  We all have to have simple management systems so everyone knows the bottom line, or understands what the outcome should be to sustain our enterprise. Beyond that, however, is any of this really to the core of what simplicity is about?

The word "simple", as a noun, means "a person lacking intelligence or common sense". As an adjective it means "having few parts, not complicated or involved".  It also means "lacking mental capacity or subtlety". Interesting words for certain, and none of which seems to fit the westernize pseudo buddhist ideal.  While parts of the pop-culture have co-opted simplicity as the brand name of anti-materialism, it is also part and parcel of a new kind of spiritualism, the mantra of the seated meditators that believe we are truly free when we no longer are controlled by wants and desires, we give up our material attachments and adhere to the ballot of a simple lifestyle, where, less is always, always, more, and more is always wrong.

But we can do better than this. Why is it necessary to give up our drive for having better things, for pursuing a life designed to enjoy the material fruits of our labors?  We certainly need to balance our consumption with the realities of our community and environment, but without our sense of aesthetic pleasure and our drive to acquire those shapes and colors we most desire, we run the risk of derailing our own creativity and innovation.  Simplicity isn't just about having less, it's about being more. We don't always need to sacrifice our material pleasures in order to connect with others, or do good work in the world. To the contrary, material success can lead us to build better mousetraps, pay for community programs, and help others in need.

Simplicity can also be about finding uncomplicated ways to invite people into our lives, to connect with them, and share and build energy. If we continually complicate our relationships, every invitation has to come with a set of terms and obligations. Instead, a simple invitation of friendship, or love, or collaboration, needs no terms and its only obligation is respect and, hopefully, constancy. In this way, simplicity cultivates kindness and our own sanguinity, neither of which should require us to throw away our Starbucks, give up our dream of owning a nice car or having anything else that brings us personal fulfillment or joy. We may discover having and own less makes our connection to others easier, but that will only arrive through trial and error, and personal choice.

Simplicity, for all it's current hype and promotion, isn't about what we do, or do not have. Simplicity is the freedom of being who we are, of knowing others directly, and not complicating every relationship with a set of obligations or terms.  That's really the bottom line. We can take away all of our material wealth, our technology, and all of the clutter, and we'd still come up short. Where we need simplicity most is in the quality of our invitations, in easing the unnecessary complications and distractions with friendships, companionship, service and community.

Comments

[Dad]

What I read is simplicity as a choice defines sensibility, or stark honesty with self

[Renee]

Yes, a simple invitation of friendship, or love, or collaboration, needs no terms and its only obligation is respect and, hopefully, constancy. Sort of like the Hokey Pokey huh? Old friend from Hickory St.