Posts
ABSTRACT
Voluntary Simplicity (VS) is both a lifestyle choice and a social movement based upon a system of intrinsic values focused on lightening and unburdening one’s life from things and experiences that interfere with a higher quality of life and, instead, concentrating on the things one genuinely needs and cherishes. This is primarily done by deliberately and mindfully reducing one's consumption of goods and services, living with fewer possessions, cultivating nonmaterialistic sources of satisfaction and meaning and developing deeper connections with one’s social and ecological community. VS practitioners, also known as “voluntary simplifiers” or “downshifters,” work on developing lifestyles aimed at minimizing the traditional pursuit of wealth, conspicuous consumption and the acquisition of possessions and the attainment of image/status. They maintain that a VS lifestyle is more fulfilling for the individual, helps create a stronger community and decreases environmental damage.
Broadly speaking, this project examined the psychological effects of individuals who chose to follow a lifestyle based on the principles of VS.
Although the environmental benefits of reducing one’s consumption are well documented, the mental health benefits of a simpler and more sustainable lifestyle - in terms of happiness (or “subjective well-being,” SWB) - are poorly understood in the sciences. As a result, the aim of this research was to discern the relationship between VS practice/behavior and happiness (SWB).
Within this process, a variety of research methodologies were employed. They included: 1. A comprehensive review of the literature on the three main topics of inquiry (Voluntary Simplicity, Happiness/Subjective Well-Being and Ecological Sustainability/Ecologically Responsible Behaviors) in order to document the states of the fields, define the critical terms and conceptual frameworks employed, determine the boundaries/frontiers of these fields, synthesize the existing framework of knowledge, and to clarify the contribution of this project, 2. National SWB surveys aimed at measuring both happiness and life satisfaction (broken up into two groups: a control group and an experimental group of VS practitioners), 4. Key informant interviews, participant observation, informal interviews, focus groups, and oral histories of VS practitioners and communities , and 4. A blog-based self-study of the happiness benefits and ecological footprint reduction associated with downshifting over a 2 year period. All of these methodologies employed new media tools and the internet in their execution and the dissemination of the corresponding results and analysis. Through these methodologies, the goal of the research was to answer the following question:
On average, and within the United States of America, do individuals who practice Voluntary Simplicity experience higher levels of subjective well-being than the average American?
As hypothesized, Americans who have deliberately chosen to simplify their lifestyles do in fact report and experience higher levels of subjective well-being (in the form of happiness and life satisfaction) than the average American. Survey and case study evidence further suggests that adopting a VS lifestyle positively correlates with increases in levels of subjective well-being.
VS involves a process-based definition, not one that is dogmatic, rigid or quantifiable with set parameters. Study participants that were classified as Voluntary Simplifiers represent a wide spectrum of VS values and practice. Nevertheless, the purpose of this particular study was to asses the SWB effects of movement anywhere along that spectrum towards a simpler life. For many, that movement may not lead to some commonly accepted definition of “the simple life,” but the process and the SWB changes as a result of that process is at the heart of this study.
INTRODUCTION
“Let us resume our inquiry and state, in view of the fact that all knowledge and every pursuit aims at some good, what it is that we say political science aims at and what is the highest of all goods achievable by action. Verbally there is very general agreement; for both the general run of men and people of superior refinement say that it is happiness, and identify living well and faring well with being happy... Now we call that which is in itself worthy of pursuit more final than that which is worthy of pursuit for the sake of something else... and therefore we call final without qualification that which is always desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else. Now such a thing is happiness, above all else, is held to be; for this we choose always for itself and never for the sake of something else, but honour, pleasure, reason, and every virtue we choose indeed for themselves (for if nothing results from them we should still choose each of them), but we choose them also for the sake of happiness, judging that through them we shall be happy. Happiness, on the other hand, no one chooses for the sake of these, nor, in general, for anything other than itself.”
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics
The human species has reached a point in history at which anthropogenic environmental degradation is occurring at an alarming rate and scale: natural resource depletion, pollution, species extinction, climate change, and overpopulation are dominating global concerns. The search for a sustainable relationship with the Earth has taken on new dimensions and a sense of urgency as the human-induced environmental crisis threatens the rich tapestry of biodiversity central to our planet’s ecological foundations.
Few, if any, environmental problems can be addressed by scientific, technological, or public policy solutions alone. Although political factors have played a defining role in developing the current crisis, broader philosophical views of the human place in nature are responsible for its creation. Therefore, to achieve long-term sustainability, we must reevaluate our anthropocentric worldview and establish a new ecocentric doctrine of interdependence with the natural world.
Unfortunately, environmental activists and scientists focus most of their energy dealing with short-term, ‘band aid’ solutions to society’s ecological disasters. Whereas this approach has been largely born out of necessity, it is also akin to a doctor treating the symptoms of a disease rather than the disease itself.
This doctoral research focused on one dimension of the fundamental problem we face (humanity's troubled relationship with the natural environment) as opposed to the symptoms of that problem (i.e. global warming, deforestation or over-fishing). Specifically, it seeks to understand and address the relationship between “affluenza” (a portmanteau of the words affluence and influenza; defined as an unsustainable and unhealthy addiction to mass consumerism and economic growth resulting in an epidemic of waste, overwork, indebtedness, stress and anxiety) and both the environmental crisis we face in addition to our individual levels of happiness (or, subjective well-being).
Within this process, one must analyze the root economic causes of our growing environmental crisis. Indeed, many of our problems are inherently rooted in the prevailing neo-liberal economic paradigm. According to Stephen Gill, “the logic of neo-liberalism is contradictory: it promotes global economic integration… but also generates depletion of resources and the environment… Indeed, neo-classical economic thinking that lies at the heart of neo-liberal discourse tends to ignore, with impunity, ecological constraints…” (Gill 2003).
Towards a Sustainable Future:
Redefining the Dominant Economic Worldview
The neo-liberal economic paradigm Gill describes places primary importance on the values of the market, not on nature, and ultimately results in an uncompromising emphasis upon economic growth, the conversion of nature to commodity form, the drive for economic globalization, the industrialization of all activity, the privatization of an ever-increasing list of environmental services and industrial byproducts (such as carbon emissions), deep integration and cultural homogenization, commodity and wealth accumulation, massive urbanization and, of course, human alienation and hyper-individualism.
All of these are fundamentally incompatible with ecological and social sustainability on a finite Earth.
Indeed, from a social perspective, one potential future humanity faces if it continues on a path of unconstrained economic growth is a descent into social chaos: “This is a future in which the society is torn by divisions and tensions among competing interest groups. There is no cataclysmic demise - just the grinding, unrelenting deterioration of the social fabric as crisis is compounded by crisis amidst diminishing public consensus as to how to cope with it all. Inept bureaucratic regulation and unforeseen events (such as severe climate changes) could change the drift toward social chaos into a rush” (Elgin and Mitchell 2003: 161). According to Gill, “such organized and institutionalized chaos stems from the increasingly liberalized economic structures of contemporary capitalism.” Gill refers to these transformative practices as “market civilization” – practices that promote the “myth of capitalist progress” and “are associated with the cumulative aspects of market integration and increasingly expansive structures of accumulation...” The most disturbing feature of this perspective, according to Gill, is that it’s “materialistic, me-oriented, short-term, and ecologically myopic” (Gill 2003).
To transform the dominant anthropocentric worldview, we must first challenge the prevailing wisdom that the goal of economies should be unlimited growth.
Many economists and politicians are blinded by the dominant mantra that “growth = more = better.” Unfortunately, reality paints a different picture and “growth” doesn’t necessarily equal “more” for most people. The average American wage, for example, is less now (in real dollars) than it was 30 years ago (Boushey and Weller 2005).
In addition, "more" is no longer synonymous with "better" - indeed, for many of us, they have become opposites. As GDP has risen in a number of industrialized countries, mental health indicators have declined (the richest countries are suffering from more depression, stress, anxiety and overall unhappiness than ever before) (Seligman 2004). Above the $10,000 mark, there is absolutely no significant correlation between wealth and happiness, clearly demonstrating that wealth accumulation beyond the degree to which fundamental needs are met does not automatically lead to something “better” (Seligman 2004). In addition, although Americans are, on average, twice as wealthy today as they were in the 1950s, the percentage of people claiming that they are “very happy” has remained stable (Myers 2000). Furthermore, during this same period of time, incidences of depression have risen (Cross-National Collaborative Group 1992).
Even if the economic equation of “growth = more = better” was in fact true, the world simply doesn't have enough natural resources to sustain endless economic expansion. For example, if the Chinese owned cars in the same numbers as Americans, there would be 1.1 billion more vehicles on the road - untenable in a world that is running out of oil and rapidly warming the planet in the process (the global fleet of cars today is only 800 million, in comparison) (Friedman 2007). If China continues to grow as it has, its 1.3 billion residents will be as rich as the U.S. by 2031. They will consume 1,352 million tons of grain each year (two-thirds of the world's entire 2004 grain harvest), use 99 million barrels of oil a day (15 million more than the entire world consumes at present), use more steel than all the West combined, and double the world's production of paper. Of course, that’s not even taking into account India (which, by then, will have an even bigger population) – or the rest of the world, for that matter (Friedman 2007).
The hidden reality of globalization is simply that unconstrained growth has produced, on a global scale, more inequality than prosperity and more insecurity than progress (McKibben 2007). It is environmentally unsustainable. And, it leads to isolating affluence and hyper-individualism.
The Need for Localization
Rather then promoting accelerated and endless cycles of economic expansion - a mindset that has brought the world to the brink of environmental (and, some may argue, socio-cultural) disaster - we should concentrate on creating sustainable, localized economies.
We need to move beyond "growth" as the paramount economic ideal and pursue prosperity in a more local direction, with households, cities and regions producing more of their own food, generating more of their own energy, and even creating more of their own distinct culture (McKibben 2007).
Elements of such a sustainable system may include community-scale power systems instead of huge centralized power plants; co-housing communities instead of sprawling suburbs, clean and efficient public transportation systems, and local farmer’s markets instead of supermarkets relying on the mass importation of foods from around the globe. Single-mindedly going back in time to an environmental “stone age” isn’t necessary – or feasible. Indeed, economies can be localized within existing cities as easily as they are in small towns (McKibben 2007).
Government policies could help instigate and support this economic paradigm shift by removing massive agricultural subsidies, placing tariffs on goods that require an excessive amount of air and land miles to be transported, investing heavily in clean and renewable energy technology such as solar, and redesigning road systems in cities so that owning your own car becomes all but pointless (McKibben 2007).
The internet can further coalesce these efforts by connecting highly localized experiences throughout the global community (McKibben 2007).
Examples of promising local and sustainable ventures around the world abound including a community biosphere reserve in Himalayan India (where locals retain ownership of their land but concurrently develop a conservation program for the area), a world-class public transport system in Brazil which reduced energy use in the city by a quarter (Rabinovitch and Hoehn 1996), a hundred small, community-scale wind turbine projects that are being developed across America (Ebbet 2006), a Guatemalan cooperative that manufacturers farm machinery from old bicycles (creating a bicimolino which allows farmers to complete a weeks worth of work within a day and a half) (Fox 2005), the creation of self-sustaining villages in the Congo which use local materials and skills to achieve agricultural independence and improve the standard of living for residents (Petroff 2006), and, of course, classic examples of eco-villages and “intentional communities” such as EcoVillage in Ithaca, New York which has managed to reduce their per capital ecological footprint to 14 acres (the typical American uses 24 acres of the planet’s resources to support them).
We are at a tipping point (Gladwell 2000). According to Lance Morrow, “Economic rationales (more = better) that came in with Adam Smith and are now achieving gaudy fruition in globalized hallucinations like the new Shanghai or the Palm Islands of Dubai seem spiritually threadbare - spectacularly pointless. And not only pointless but something worse, stupid” (Morrow 2007). Clearly, we need to take human satisfaction and quality of life, socio-cultural durability/diversity and environmental health more seriously.
By localizing and slowing down our economic metabolism (the Slow Food and Slow Cities movements are fantastic examples of this trajectory), we may be able to secure the “goods and services” people genuinely need and care about: time, security, mental health and authentic happiness. By localizing our efforts, we can once again depend on those around us for something real, something tangible. It’s a conservative approach born out of progressive values, but also a necessary one if we are to turn back from the brink of environmental and social destruction.
Health and Sustainability
In order to slow down our economic metabolism and achieve the goals of localization, individuals must first choose simplicity over the wasteful consumption patterns of modern society. In fact, some (including the author of this dissertation) would argue that the most critical step in solving issues like global warming and resource over-exploitation on a fundamental level is for individuals to voluntarily choose simplicity over the manic consumerism of contemporary society.
Over the last 30 years or so, two main arguments have been used to convince people to lead ecologically sustainable lifestyles. The first is based on ethics and essentially argues that humans have no fundamental right to dominate over, transform and ultimately destroy nature beyond that which is necessary for survival. Logically, it is a sound philosophical argument, but it can only be applied to people who have the capacity (or luxury) for such an ethical framework (a farmer in Brazil’s Amazon rainforest who needs to feed a family of 10 may not have that luxury).
The second argument is based on economics: “buy a hybrid car because it will help the environment – and save you money on gas” or “create a green business so you can be environmentally responsible… and, in the long-term, improve your bottom line.” This argument also has limited potential for sustained social and behavioral change because it is based on economic principles that can just as easily work against the environment.
As a result, it would clearly be useful to develop a new argument. The long-term aim of this research is to form one based on psychological and physical well-being.
In examining the relationship between environmental ethics, voluntary simplicity, sustainability, social cohesion and happiness, this research hypothesizes that, by choosing Voluntary Simplicity, or downshifting (transitioning from a traditional Western consumerist lifestyle to a simpler ecocentric alternative), one can lead a more sustainable, meaningful, fulfilling, healthier and happier lifestyle beneficial to oneself, society and the planet.
