Natty Chatter

Question. Do you own things or do things that you have own you?

It's almost a silly question, yet when you consider the culture of consumerism that America is built on it becomes a serious issue. For instance, the phrase "keeping up with the Joneses" was once the status quo of many Americans. Nearly every aspect of an American life was analyzed and contrasted to measure the relative social hierarchy where one falls. Sure no one would ever reach the heights of Bill Gates, but striving to be just that little bit higher than your neighbor or co-worker was a pride worthy prize (even though it would be a Pyrrhic victory).

In fact, it reminds me of a scene with Christian Bale in American Pyscho (1991) where he and his colleagues are comparing (of all things) their business cards, specifically, the minute details of paper weight, font selection, color selection, and even embossing. Apparently, these minute details were a form of competition to establish the social hierarchy among this elite group. Yet this too seems so meaningless as these pieces of paper can be replicated and improved upon so readily.

However, despite the silliness of comparing business cards, the real application of the aforementioned question is based on perspective. We can easily say that this car or that house or that TV belongs to me therefore I own it. However, if we bought these things on credit then technically, we have these things but we are in the process of paying off a bank/institution to acquire "ownership". But even in the case of a car or a house, once the final payment is made, there are still maintenance fees, taxes and other costs that must be met continually. While most would argue that there is equity in said object after you pay it off, the fact remains that most objects are not self-sustaining and will require future investment by yourself.

Conversely, if you haven't paid off the balance on the car or house or even credit cards, the monthly payments you make are essentially making you a slave to the things you have. After all, hours worked at x job provides y dollars in which z amount is used to pay for <insert object name> per billing cycle. Moreover it's not like you could quit because without the monetary funds, you wouldn't be able to keep said object and for reasons mentioned previously once you finish paying it off, you still would have to have funds to pay for continual upkeep.

Maybe that's why Tyler Durden in Fight Club (1999) was so persuasive with the following:

The things you own end up owning you.

Therefore, it may be better to not own things as that would bring more freedom and mobility. Granted it may not be keeping up with the Joneses but to be free rather than bound by the shackles of materialism seems like a worthwhile goal to me.

-C