Possessions Not Critical to Our Identity

In a book to be published next year, the author postulates that our possessions define us and are key to our identity. Morewedge points out the trends of ownership in houses, clothes, books, music, art, vehicles, etc. where many things have become products/experiences-as-a-service. He describes how we value our possessions more than we may value “the same thing” sitting on the shelf because it’s now “mine.” Rightly pointing out that the cost of ownership is greater for goods that we infrequently use, e.g. vehicles are not utilized 98% of the time. While the author suggests ownership is part of our identity and it changes us—in our valuation of those things, how we feel about ourselves—he limits his perspective on why we own only to the psychology or the economics of possession. He failed to consider a broader expanse of decision elements, options and comparisons, and especially other aspects of our life that create our identities.

Besides the economics of owning vs renting, including whether tax credits to one class or another are available, home ownership may be more valuable to: pet owners; parents who want their kids to complete their schooling in the same district or school system; security of knowing the rate of occupancy is fairly fixed for decades. These are the intangible decision elements that aren’t covered by identity or self-esteem.

In one example, he suggests that throwing out three shirts is not three times as painful as throwing out one—similar to the diminishing returns of having more pleasurable items/experiences, plateauing at some hypothetical maximum of pleasure. The curve may not plateau with more loss, remaining in the “pain” side of the axis; the curve may be parabolic in that the more we discard the happier we are because we’ve created more capacity and opportunity for more new products/services/experiences. Instead of only replacing one five-year-old shirt and getting one more trendy shirt, within some budget, I can replace more of my out-of-fashion wardrobe and upscale my personal brand. (See Part 3.)

His comparisons, for example, of the declining sales of physical music products (albums, CDs, tapes) over the past decades while streaming has eclipsed those sales is too narrow. People have recognized that we pay for services one way or the other. Remember the 21st century adage: if the product is free, you’re paying for it in another way—such as being inundated with ads. Streaming may cost less than owning thousands of music “records,” as the author once did, but it comes with ads perhaps, less cost of storage and so on. Even if our access to particular songs or artists go away, streaming may be less like owning records and more like listening to the radio, in which we had no control over “access” or variety. At least with streaming we pay for the privilege of an expansive library of global music, whether we choose to sample them or not; they are mostly there. Likewise, we pay to stream shows, movies and sports because on-demand has value compared to broadcasting schedules or limited stacks of VHS tapes, DVDs, etc.

While the comparisons may be incomplete in his book, the author does not look at second-home ownership vs short-term rentals, like Vrbo, given a growing population. Has the number of second-, third- or fourth-homes decreased, or just the percentage of people owning more than one home? How does this relate to the past decade’s K-shaped recovery—where the top tier net worth people are getting richer while the middle- and bottom-tiers are getting poorer?

Vehicles sales may have decreased because of a reconsideration of ownership and/or because cars are more durable and being kept longer and thus, the turnover rate has decreased. Additionally, as urban areas continue to grow, vehicle storage becomes more costly. Perhaps a fairer comparison, which the author ignores, is the rate of ownership of vehicles in exurban and rural areas, where rideshare is less prevalent. Vehicle ownership overall is less with the under-50 urban demographic, but is that true in rural areas?

Morewedge then tries to project what possessions will change—but into a service?—in Part 3: smartphones; our personal brand with its breadth/depth of social networking; valuing experiences more than possessions and becoming more nomadic. Smartphones have changed us; we spend more money and time on them…because their utility is far greater than other communication and pocket research devices. There’s just no comparison. The only reason Steve Jobs agreed to the iPhone project wasn’t because he loved cell phones (he hated them) but because it was described as a computer in the pocket. And its interface was better than BlackBerry’s and Nokia’s—two companies that dominated the cell phone markets and barely exist today. Personal branding socially may be important but personal branding in the sense of credibility, competency, trustworthiness and capacity are important for earning what you need to do the rest. The author seems to take this for granted and has forgotten that employment in the traditional sense has declined and more are involved in the gig economy: freelance, fractional, contractual work. And that’s work that needs to be “re-sold, re-marketed, rebranded” for every “encounter.” Your personal brand in hyperdrive.

And most people don’t have the luxury of flexible schedules for maximizing experiences over possessions. We have jobs, families, volunteer work, friends to see (even if it’s only 15 in a given month), aging parents, etc. These roles and responsibilities have the most influence on our identities.

Morewedge focused on the psychology of possessions but that’s like saying clothes only provide color to our flesh. Clothes have much more function than adornment. Likewise, our possessions do much more for us than make us feel good or bad about ourselves and others. Our circumstances (and our family background and early learnings in our nuclear family) shape how we view ownership, its utility and its perils (obsolescence, risk of loss, cost of maintenance). A comparison book may be considered here: “The Psychology of Money” by Morgan Housel. Housel considers far more aspects of possession, ambition, investment and the roots of how we adopted and developed our core beliefs about money and things. This book’s perspective is too narrow. 

Foundation of Modern Values

 Later this fall, an essential collection of writings by Epicurus and Lucretius—a student of Epicurus’—which shows the amazing thought processes of these early philosophers is being published. As the introduction by Anya Leonard points out, Epicurus is misunderstood for espousing a hedonistic lifestyle. These essays and fragments show that Epicurus, following another philosopher’s work, Democritus’, spent a lot of time positing the composition of matter (atoms) and the triune nature of a human—soul, body, mind—as well as some cosmology.. Epicurus is one of the forefathers of metaphysics, the origin and nature of things, values and time. And by doing so, Epicurus explained the phenomena too often attributed to the capricious and jealous gods—storms, illnesses, etc. His goal was to explain a lot so that we would not fear these kinds of gods. He did marvelously well looking at macro-effects in the world to deduce the micro-nature of our universe.

While pleasure is desired over pain, Epicurus suggests in a way that all things should be taken in moderation. Pleasure is not the be-all and end-all. “It is not possible to live pleasantly without living prudently and honorably and justly….” (Principle Doctrines, V), a sentiment carried forward into the Declaration of Independence with the “pursuit of happiness.” The drafters in the Continental Congress were influenced by the sentiments of Epicurus such that happiness meant tranquility, serenity, “The justice which arises from nature is a pledge of mutual advantage to restrain men from harming one another and save them from being harmed” (Principle…, XXI), i.e. let’s have a society operating on win-win so that we all might live in peace—life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Epicurus is a foundational thinker influencing many of our modern values and cultural norms.

What is also clear is that Epicurus’ disciples seem to ramble into strange fringes, such as Lucretius’ advocacy of “schadenfreude” (the pleasure at witnessing someone else’s discomfort or troubles). While this might resonate with some readers, it raises the paradox of empathy/friendship (which Epicurus highly valued) with the avoidance of pain even the contagion of someone else’s dire circumstances. (Some have experienced the loss of friendships concurrently with the loss of a job or a spouse or health.)

Though the ancient writing (and translations) are dense, heavy, repetitive, a reader can glean many important concepts and conundrums. Some of what Epicurus postulates doesn’t synchronize with our modern understandings, but it’s amazing given his era’s lack of scientific investigation. This book is a concise introduction to one of the great Greek philosophers.

I’m appreciative of the publisher for providing an early copy.