Literature Review - Voluntary SImplicity and Social Movements

VOLUNTARY SIMPLICITY

Voluntary Simplicity (VS) is a lifestyle choice 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.

The voluntary component of VS denotes a selection that is deliberate, purposeful and rooted in free will. In other words, a conscious choice in embracing VS over other lifestyles - in particular, the ‘more = better’ pursuit of wealth and consumption. VS is distinguished from poverty and other forms of simple living in that VS is a voluntary lifestyle choice; not one within which an individual is forced or coerced into because of economic or other reasons such as government austerity programs or imprisonment.

The simplicity aspect of VS, on the other hand, has a more fluid definition because it exists in varying degrees and manifestations, and because it is dependent on an individual’s own perspective and personal recognition of those aspects of their life that are unnecessarily complicated and cumbersome.

Although the primary motivation for an individual to choose VS may differ (e.g. global environmental concerns, social justice and equality, spirituality, physical or mental health, etc...), practitioners do generally share a common set of goals and values based upon intrinsic, versus extrinsic, pursuits.

Individuals who focus on extrinsic goals and values are marked by an acceptance and reliance on consumer culture and the organization of one’s life to revolve around the pursuit of wealth, the acquisition of possessions, and the attainment of image/status.

VS practitioners, on the other hand, strive for an intrinsic or inwardly rich life focused on personal growth, mindfulness, affiliation, and community feeling/contribution in addition to autonomy, authenticity, pursuit of fun non-consummatory activities (e.g. hiking, music), family, volunteerism, meaningful work, connection to nature, financial independence, the pursuit of self-knowledge and self-acceptance, environmental and social awareness, intimacy/connection to others, and contribution to the community. According to Duane Elgin, “This way of life embraces frugality of consumption, a strong sense of environmental urgency, a desire to return to living and working environments which are of a more human scale, and an intention to realize our higher human potential – both psychological and spiritual – in community with others” (Elgin and Mitchell 1977). VS helps “unburden ourselves [and] establish a more direct, unpretentious, and unencumbered relationship with all aspects of our lives: the things we consume, the work that we do, our relationships with others, our connections with nature and the cosmos…” (Elgin 1993). Elgin continues to define VS as “a manner of living that is outwardly more simple and inwardly more rich, a way of being in which our most authentic and alive self is brought into direct and conscious contact with living… The objective is… living with balance in order to find a life of greater purpose, fulfillment, and satisfaction” (Elgin 1993).

Of course, most individuals place some level of emphasis on both extrinsic and intrinsic pursuits. The distinction is not either/or but, rather, that VS practitioners deliberately and mindfully place significantly less emphasis on extrinsic aims and consciously pursue intrinsic goals to the extent possible.

The History of Voluntary Simplicity in the Post-War Era

Voluntary Simplicity is not new. Its conceptual roots stem from Ancient Greece (Diogenes of Sinope) and China (Lao Tzu), and the ideas of VS have reemerged throughout history through the philosophies of numerous spiritual leaders, such as Jesus and Buddha, political leaders, such as Gandhi and Lenin, and the transcendental philosophies of Thoreau and Emerson, among many others.

Within several religious traditions in particular, including Christianity and Buddhism, the principles of monasticism and asceticism have been used to institutionalize a form of voluntary poverty aimed at leading a contemplative lifestyle. Practitioners of these lifestyles lead austere lifestyles, refraining from many sensual pleasures and the accumulation of material possessions and wealth. The religious roots of VS can also be traced to early American history. In the early 17th century, for example, the Puritans developed “spiritual communities that would hold materialism in check... [by instituting a] social ethic of hard work, temperate living, civic virtue, and spiritual devotion” (Shi 2003: 101). Similarly, the Quaker ethic was “designed to teach Friends how to live rather than to make a living. Simplicity would not only serve as a testament to the rest of the world against the evils of conceit, greed, and superfluity, but also promote social justice. If a few lived in needless luxury, the Friends assumed, then the masses would be relegated to poverty. Early Quaker thought rejected the notion that the extravagant habits of the wealthy were necessary in order to provide jobs for the poor. George Fox suggested that those who believed such a theory should exchange their jewels, raiments, and mansions for money and then distribute the proceeds to the needy, a considerably more direct approach to the problem of poverty” (Shi 2003: 103).

Whereas VS today has a more fluid definition, it is worth examining its historical roots and, in particular, its manifestations within contemporary American society after World War II, when the American economy and population grew rapidly. Indeed, contemporary notions and manifestation of VS are primarily rooted in the synthesis of a range of ideas and ideologies in the United States dating back to the 1960s, 70s and 80s when VS emerged into a type of social movement (the development of VS into a movement is discussed in more detail below).

The bedrock of modern-day VS was developed by followers of the counterculture movement. These Americans “sought a lifestyle that consumed and produced little, at least in terms of marketable objects, and sought to derive satisfaction, meaning and a sense of purpose from contemplation, communion with nature, bonding, mood-altering substances, sex, and inexpensive products” (Etzioni 2003: 6). In large part, the counterculture movement laid out a foundation of values and principles that still form the core ethical framework embedded in the VS movement (as will be discussed in more detail below). These ‘postmaterialist values’ emphasized quality of life over material well-being.

One survey in particular indicated a growing trend in postmaterialist values between 1972 and 1991, with the percentage of survey respondents representing postmaterialist values doubling from 9% in 1972 to 18% in 1991 and those with materialist values dropping from 35% to 16%, respectively (Abramson and Inglehart 1995). Nevertheless, personal consumption in the U.S. continued to grow throughout the 1980s, with a 21.4% increase in per capita consumer spending and halving of the personal savings rate from 7.9% to 4.2% (Lebergott 1993, U.S. Census Bureau 1994).

It is worth noting, however, that in practice, the counterculture movement embodied a more extreme form of VS. As Etzioni (2003: 20-21) points out: “voluntary simplicity, even by those highly dedicated to it, seeks to combine a reasonable level of work and consumption (to attend to creature-comfort needs) with satisfaction from higher sources. The counterculture tried to minimize work and consumption, denying attention to basic needs, and hence became unsustainable. To put it more charitably, it provided an extreme, path-blazing version for the voluntary simplicity that followed. Nevertheless, while much more moderate than the lifestyle advocated by the counterculture, voluntary simplicity, as a result of fostering satisfaction from sources other than consumer objects, still reduces the need to work and shop. As a result, it frees time and other scarce resources for further cultivation of nonmaterialistic sources of satisfaction: from acquiring music appreciation to visiting museums; from slowing down to enjoy nature to watching a rerun of a classic movie on television.”

In the last three decades, VS as an idea, behavior and lifestyle choice has become “contagious in exactly the same way a virus is” and has been spreading rapidly through society (Gladwell 2000).

In 1989, Cecil Andrews (author of The Circle of Simplicity: Return to the Good Life) lead a VS seminar in Seattle. Four people attended the event. Three years later, there were 175 people (Humphreys 1989). A few years ago, Andrews conducted a Circle of Simplicity workshop at Douglas College where participants learned about the benefits of creating simplicity circles, how to set them up and how to communicate with similar simplicity circles on the internet.

Andrews story is not unique. Interest in VS has been increasing steadily throughout the last few decades. Indeed, through the internet, books, articles, eco-villages, social “simplicity circles” and other VS networks and organizations, more and more people are choosing VS as a lifestyle choice, spreading the news about how they achieved their VS goals, describing the benefits of a VS lifestyle, and even forming intentional communities of like-minded individuals revolving around VS.

Indeed, the growth of VS can most easily be traced through the existence and growth of simplicity circles, workshops and support groups. For example, in 1997, 108 simplicity circles were listed on the Web of Simplicity website. That number grew to 210 in 1999 and expanded threefold by 2002 to 650 (Grigsby 2004).

No one knows for certain how many people live the VS lifestyle (partly because any survey depends on how VS is defined), but many observes have identified it as a large and growing social movement (Maniates 2002, Weston 2001).

A commonly cited survey on the subject by the Harwood Group (2002) found that 60 million Americans “voluntarily reduced their income and their consumption in conscious pursuit of new personal or household priorities” between 1990 and 1995. Another survey by Schor (1998) concluded that 50 million Americans have “permanently chosen to live on significantly less and are happy with the change.” Even earlier, in 1995, a study by the Merck Family Fund reported that between 1990 and 1995, 28% of a national sample of Americans reported having downshifted (defined as voluntarily making life changes that result in a lower income, reflecting a change in their priorities) (Goldberg 1995). Common changes included “reducing work hours, switching to lower-paying jobs, and quitting work to stay home, actions which often, but not necessarily, correlate with downshifting” (Etzioni 1993: 9). In 1977, Elgin and Mitchell estimated that 10 million adults followed the tenets of VS and that the figure would increase to 90 million by the year 2000 (Elgin and Mitchell 1977).

In addition, the Merck Family Fund study found that 82% of Americans believe that people buy and consume more than they need. Another survey conducted in 1989 found that 3 out of 4 Americans would like “to see our country return to a simpler lifestyle, with less emphasis on material success” (Henkoff 1989: 41) suggesting that many Americans find VS “commendable but not widely followed” (Etzioni 1993: 9).

Other indicators also point to the growth of VS as a social movement.

Public discussion of VS, for example, moved rapidly from niche books in the 80’s to mainstream media in the 90’s. By 1996, major newspapers each published an average of two stories on the subject, whereas in 1993, it was a rare occurrence. And, in 1998, coverage jumped to 6-8 stories per paper (Maniates 2002).

Books on VS also increased rapidly during the same period. Zavestoski (2002) found that more books were published over a 4 year period between 1995 and 1998 - 32 - than in the previous 22 years when only 26 books were published on the topic.

Indeed, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Simple Living appeared in bookstores in 2000: a clear sign that VS has reached the masses.

Perhaps most tellingly, however, is the approach marketers have had to the VS movement. Johnston (2000) wrote that “widespread adoption of Voluntary Simplicity ideas may create a vastly different world for consumer marketers” and Ensley (1983) wrote that “growth in the number of adherents to Voluntary Simplicity could dramatically affect current marketing practices.” If one were to ‘follow the money’ – or at least the thinking of people who do, it is clear that VS has begun to worry marketers precisely because of its growth as a social movement.

Lastly, the emergence of websites and other organizations clearly point to the reality that VS is a social movement. The online Simple Living Network, for example, offers “tools, examples, and contacts for conscious, simple, healthy and restorative living.” In addition, the Center for the New American Dram (CNAD) “helps Americans consume responsibly to protect the environment, enhance quality of life and promote social justice.” The Slow Foods and Slow Cities movements also share many of the principles and values of VS and are, indeed, interrelated social movements.

Increasingly, as individuals “begin to realize that the promises of consumer culture are false and that retail therapy does little more than increase their credit card debt, they may become motivated to search out a different system of meaning in their lives” (Kasser 2004: 59).

Having said that, “we must wonder about the potential efficacy of any interventions as long as we remain a culture where extrinsic values are continually encourages, where intrinsic values are mentioned largely for marketing purposes, and where the media, government, and educational systems are all increasingly becoming outlets for corporate interests. If this is the state of our culture, is it reasonable to say that individuals should be solely responsible for being less materialistic?” (Kasser 2004: 62).

Nevertheless, as the New York Times reported in 1995: “Choosing to buy and earn less - to give up income and fast-track success for more free time and a lower-stress life - involves a quiet personal revolt against the dominant culture of getting and spending. Enough small revolts are now taking place, researchers say, to make [the] phenomenon... a major and growing trend of the 1990s” (Goldberg 1995: C1).

An Ethical Framework: the Central Values of Voluntary Simplicity

According to Duane Elgin and Arnold Mitchell, 5 values make up the ethical core of VS:

- Material Simplicity
- Human Scale
- Self-Determination
- Ecological Awareness
- Personal Growth

(Elgin and Mitchell 2003: 147)

Material Simplicity

Simplification of the material aspects of our lives is central VS. Within this realm, VS practitioners often ask themselves a few central questions in order to evaluate their consumptive behaviors including: “Does what I own or buy promote activity, self-reliance, and involvement, or does it induce passivity and dependence?... Do I consider the impact of my consumption patterns on other people and on the earth?” (Elgin and Mitchell 2003: 147). Mindfully answering these questions when assessing one’s own consumer habits tends to result in individuals consuming less in general and, in particular, consuming fewer items that are nonessential luxuries, energy inefficient, nonbiodegradable or otherwise harmful to people and the planet.

According to Elgin, these criteria are also designed to “(1) help people lead lives of creative simplicity, freed from excessive attachment to material goods; (2) aid the nation release more of its wealth to share with those who presently do not have even the basic necessities of life; (3) help individuals become more self-sufficient and less dependent upon large, complex institutions, whether public or private; and (4) restore to life a sense of proportion and balance between the material and nonmaterial aspects of living” (Elgin and Mitchell 2003: 148).

Human Scale

A preference for “human-sized living and working environments... [over] the gigantic scale of institutions and living environments [equated] with anonymity, incomprehensibility, and artificiality” is also a central VS value (Elgin and Mitchell 2003: 148). Politically and economically, this is translated into the decentralization of living/working environments and supportive institutions that are enormous in scale and complexity into a more “comprehensive... manageable... [and] more human sense of proportion and perspective” (Elgin and Mitchell 2003: 148-149). This, of course, would allow individuals to gain a better sense of their personal contributions to the whole of society, in addition to more clearly understanding the links between their behaviors and their corresponding social and environmental impacts. Indeed, this core VS value parallels the proposals outline in the Conclusion by Bill McKibben, who advocates for a ‘deep economy.’

Self-Determination

The principle of self-determination reflects the desire of VS practitioners to assume a greater amount of control of their lives and personal destiny, without depending on large, complex economic or political institutions. For example, “a person may seek to become more materially self-sufficient - to grow his own, to make his own, to do without, and to exercise self-discipline in his pattern and level of consumption so that the degree of dependency (both physical and psychological) is reduced” (Elgin and Mitchell 2003: 149).

Ecological Awareness

Ecological awareness is a central component of VS. It stems from the belief that people and nature are deeply interconnected and manifests itself in traditional beliefs associated with environmentalism, such as biodiversity conservation and pollution reduction. In additions, ‘ecology’ tends to be views in a holistic sense, taking into account other human beings as well as the natural environment: “In acknowledging the underlying unity of the human race, the growth of an ecological awareness expands the vision of voluntary simplicity outward and brings with it a strong sense of social responsibility and worldly involvement to what otherwise could be a relatively isolated and self-centered way of life” (Elgin and Mitchell 2003: 150).

Most major texts aimed at describing or analyzing VS stress the connection between reducing consumption and helping the environment (Elgin 1993, Durning 1992, Milbrath 1989). Mary Grigsby, in her work on the VS movement, stresses the point in the very first line and paragraph of her book: “People in the voluntary simplicity movement are concerned about environmental degradation...” and “a voluntary simplicity lifestyle is more fulfilling for the individual, creates a stronger community, and decreases environmental damage” (Grigsby 2004: 1).

VS should not, however, be equated with the back-to-nature movement because it is a lifestyle choice that is equally compelling to and applicable for both the urban majority and the rural minority of the population. In other words, “an urban existence need not be incompatible with voluntary simplicity” (Elgin and Mitchell 2003: 152). Indeed, in many aspects of day-to-day life, it may be simpler to downshift within an urban setting than it is within a rural one.

Personal Growth

The fifth core value of VS, personal growth, is in many ways the end goal of practicing the preceding 4 values. Indeed, the other values are in many ways aimed at clearing away things and elements of our lives that are burdensome, such as possessions, dependency on complex institutions and disconnection with nature. Their purpose is to create a level of freedom within which one can explore their inner self and grow. As Simone de Beauvoir notes, “Life is occupied in both perpetuating itself and in surpassing itself; if all it does is maintain itself, then living is only not dying” (Beuvoir 1948: 74-155).

Personal growth manifests itself in a variety of ways and institutions including religion, spirituality, philosophy, psychology (e.g. humanistic and transpersonal), meditation and mindfulness, and social movements (e.g. the human potential movement).

The connection between VS and personal growth is as old as VS itself. According to Arnold Toynbee, “These religious founders [Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tse, St. Francis of Assisi] disagreed with each other in their pictures of what is the nature of the universe, the nature of spiritual life, the nature of ultimate spiritual reality. But they all agreed in their ethical precepts. They all agreed that the pursuit of material wealth is a wrong aim. We should aim only at minimum wealth needed to maintain life; and our main aim should be spiritual. They all said with one voice that if we made material wealth our paramount aim, this would lead to disaster. They all spoke in favor of unselfishness and of love for other people as the key to happiness and to success in human affairs” (Toynbee 1962). Elgin expands this viewpoint by connecting personal growth to the ecological awareness value described earlier: “unless inner learning expands, it seems unlikely there will develop the degree of internal maturation necessary for the human species to act as wise trustees of conscious evolution on this earth” (Elgin and Mitchell 2003: 151).

An important aspect of these 5 values is that they’re not exhaustive, in terms of the range of values that may emerge through the practice of VS, and that they will be held to varying degrees and in different manifestations by different practitioners. Nonetheless, “these values possess an underlying coherence which suggests that they have not arisen randomly but rather as a strongly reinforcing set or pattern. Just a few moments of reflection reveals how powerfully reinforcing these values are: for example, personal growth may foster an ecological awareness which may prompt greater material simplicity and thereby allow greater opportunity for living and working at a smaller, more human scale which, in turn, may allow greater opportunity for local self-determination” (Elgin and Mitchell 2003: 152).

The VS Spectrum: Degrees and Manifestations of Simplicity

As a result of the non-dogmatic process-based definition used here, it is important to point out that VS practitioners reflect a wide variety of VS manifestations and levels of intensity: “It ranges from moderately rich (in which people downshift their consumptive rich lifestyle, but not necessarily to a low gear), to strong simplification (in which they significantly restructure their lives), to holistic simplification” (Etzioni 2003: 8).

This study is not concerned in one’s precise level of VS, as there is no stable-state definition of VS. What is important is the VS process, not whether or not the goal has been achieved (or if it ever will). In other words, the individuals surveyed and studied within the context of this research may fall anywhere on the VS spectrum defined above. They may include former investment bankers that have downshifted from an enormous mansion and 100-hour work weeks in the city to a large farm house and 50-hour work week in Vermont or middle-class individuals who have rejected most of what modern society has to offer in order to go live in an intentional community in Oregon. What is of interest to this study is not where these individuals lie on the “scale” of VS but whether or not there is movement on that spectrum towards simplicity. If these individuals have adopted VS as a lifestyle choice and have actively pursued that choice for at least one year, then they qualify as participants in this study.

The only individuals who don’t qualify for this study are those that have adopted simplicity as a style, as opposed to a lifestyle. During the last few decades, there has been a shift away from “the ‘overdesign’ of the 1980s toward a world of ‘simple’ things... We like sport utility vehicles, stainless-steel Sub-Zero refrigerators, Venetian blinds, retro electric fans, sturdy wooden tables - anything plain. Extravagance has surrendered to a look that is straightforward, blunt, unadorned” (Urbach 1997: 8). As Etzioni (2008) points out: “Unadorned, but not inexpensive.” Whereas adopting a simple style in conjunction with other, more substantive VS behaviors is perfectly normal, there are many who adopt the style change without ever simplifying their lives in any meaningful way. These individuals tend to reject extravagant styles in their home and wardrobes “so long as you can display the objects of poverty in a way that makes it clear you are just rolling in dough” (Brooks 1993: 177). Of course, this is not at all what we mean by VS.

Is Voluntary Simplicity a Social Movement?

According to Grigsby (2004: 8), “The voluntary simplicity movement does not formally recruit new members, imposes no strict guidelines or criteria for inclusion, has no officially sanctioned leaders, is not centralized or hierarchically organized, and is not aimed primarily at changing public policy.” Given all this, is there any possibility that VS could ever be defined as a social movement? Perhaps surprisingly, the answer is technically yes.

Social movements are social alliances (individuals connected through shared interests) aimed at preventing or affecting social change. Sociologists have viewed social movements using a variety of perspectives: movements as a response to social tensions, as a reflection of trends throughout society more generally, as a reflection of individual dissatisfaction and deprivation, and as a natural step in the modification of social institutions or generation of new ones (McAdam, McCarthy and Zald 1988).

In its most basic form, a social movement is a form of collective action. Specifically, social movements are organized groups that intentionally promote or resist change through collective action (Goldberg in Kendall et al 2001). Historically, most movements progress through three distinct stages: preliminary, coalescence and institutionalization (Kendall et al 2001).

The preliminary stage is characterized by underlying social unrest and the movement’s emergent activities. Leaders (chosen or self-appointed) focus on channeling people’s dissatisfaction towards institutional and social change and creating a general or specific set of goals for the movement.

The second, coalescence or popularization stage, is where the emergent social unrest is channeled into intense collective, albeit informal, organization and action. As new adherents join, the social movement continues to grow. This stage is highlighted by the existence of visionaries: “intellectuals or others with a talent for creating a social myth to account for discontent. They develop ideas and images to account for present conditions and suggest ways to collectively establish a new way of life” (Feree and Miller 1985). During this period of coalescence, social movements are normally challenged by established authorities and institutions. This, in turn, forces the movement to define its core and peripheral elements/participants and to engage in a negotiation among all these participants concerning what, specifically, the movement’s issues, goals, principles, and methods should be. By the end of this process, leaders are better defined and more formalized structures are created so that the movement can survive beyond the initial phase of emotion and idealism. Inevitably, grand visions (and, sometimes, the visionaries that originally espoused them) are replaced with strategies and strategists. Formal leadership positions are created and filled. These leaders, in turn, use the original, underlying vision to shape the movement’s strategy and increase membership.

The final stage, institutionalization, means the movement has coalesced and evolved into a formal set of structures and rules. These elements are well publicized and known not only to the movement’s members, but also to the public at large so that everyone is clear as to what the movement stands for and how it plans to operate both within and against social institutions. The movement can then engage in and interact within the broader discourse of a society as members of it (Castells, 1983; Kriesi, et al., 1995). This kind of “terminal institutionalization” often leads to the disenfranchisement of idealistic members who may choose to move on and start more radical sub-movements (e.g. the development of groups like Earth First! in response to the perceived failure of the mainstream environmental movement). Social movements are therefore constantly challenged with finding a middle ground between the stifling effect of terminal institutionalization and the dissipative effect of too little organization (Tarrow 1994).

The History and Structure of Social Movements

In the past 40 years, the Civil Rights, peace, environmental and feminist movements have brought masses of people into the streets demanding change. These American-based movements then spread to Europe, followed by “struggles for human rights in authoritarian and semiauthoritarian systems; Islamic and Jewish religious extremism in the Middle East and Hindu militantism in India; and, most recently, antiimmigration violence in western Europe, Christian fundamentalism in the United States, and ethnic nationalism in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union” (Tarrow 1998).

According to Sydney Tarrow, however, not all of these events warrant the term “social movement.” Indeed, he reserves that term specifically for “sequences of contentious politics that are based on underlying social networks and resonant collective action frames, and which develop the capacity to maintain sustained challenges against powerful opponents” (Tarrow 1998).

Tarrow goes on to identify the irreducible act that forms the basis of social movements as “contentious collective action… [that] can take many forms – brief or sustained, institutionalized or disruptive, humdrum or dramatic” (Tarrow 1998). In addition, social movements “build organizations, elaborate ideologies, and socialize and mobilize constituencies, and their members engage in self-development and the construction of collective identities. Some movements are profoundly apolitical, and focus on their internal lives or those of their members” (Tarrow 1998). Indeed, social movements are best defined as “collective challenges, based on common purposes and social solidarities, in sustained interaction with elites, opponents, and authorities” (Tarrow 1998). This definition has four distinct empirical properties:

1. Collective Challenge
2. Common Purpose
3. Social Solidarity
4. Sustained Interaction

Collective challenge is normally contentious and manifested through disruptive direct action against elites, authorities, and cultural codes through coordinated personal resistance or the collective affirmation of new values (Melucci 1996). Increasingly, this also includes participation in institutions through lobbying, legal challenges, and public relation campaigns.

Common purpose, marked by overlapping interests and values, is the primary reason why individuals associate with movements because it allows people to mount common claims against opponents.

This then leads to social solidarity and collective identity through a sharing of interests. According to Tarrow, “It is participant’s recognition of their common interests that translates the potential for a movement into action… leaders can only create a social movement when they tap more deep-rooted feelings of solidarity or identity” (Tarrow 1998). This helps explain why religion, nationalism and ethnicity are commonly used and are reliable foundations for organized social movements (Anderson 1990, Smith 1996).

Collective action in it of itself in not enough for an event to be defined as a social movement. Indeed, social movements must progress beyond temporary solidarity (such as riots and mobs) and sustain their collective action against their opponents: “Common purposes, collective identities, and identifiable challenges help movements to do this; but unless they can maintain their challenge, they will either evaporate into the kind of individualistic resentment that James Scott calls ‘resistance’, harden into intellectual or religious sects, or retreat into isolation” (Tarrow 1998).

General vs. Specific Social Movements

In 1951, Herbert Blumer created a typology of social movements that is still relevant today and adds to the discourse presented above. His main distinction is between general and specific social movements; a distinction that depends on their focus and organization. In addition, Blumer further distinguishes movements by their quality and style. Expressive movements (e.g. fashion and religious movements), for instance, deal with personal dissatisfactions without aiming to change external social conditions. Nationalistic and revival movements, on the other hand, seek to impose on society certain idealized values or social arrangements from the past.

General social movements primarily consist of uncoordinated efforts toward vague goals or objectives. They lack formal organization, leadership, and structure. They grow gradually out of what Blumer calls "cultural drifts," which are "gradual and pervasive changes in the values of a people" (Blumer 1969). As a general social movement forms, it acquires spokesmen (authors, speakers, etc…) who develop a literature or "media of interaction" among the people interested in the movement’s core issues (Blumer 1969). Within these movements, there is little or no organized action by groups. Instead, most of the activity is on an individual basis. A general movement is created and sustained by a vague network of individuals or, as Blumer refers to it, a “mass” (Blumer 1969).

A specific social movement, on the other hand, normally grows out of a general movement. Instead of being carried by a “mass”, the specific movement is comprised of interest groups with well-defined goals. Using the terminology defined earlier, specific movements are ones that have institutionalized: they have generally acknowledged leaders, a formal organizational structure, and a well defined guiding philosophy.

Norm-Oriented vs. Value-Oriented Movements

Social movements can be even further subdivided depending on their orientation. As part of his comprehensive analysis of collective behavior, Smelser (1962) deals with two kinds of movements: norm-oriented and value-oriented movements.

Norm-oriented movements deal with norms and laws and seek to "restore, protect, modify, or create norms in the name of a generalized belief" (Smelser 1962). They are content on leaving the underlying essence, culture and organization of a society intact and primarily seek changes in laws and policy.

Value-oriented movements, on the other hand, address the most fundamental aspects of a society and often attempt to create a new culture. They include many of the movements Blumer refers to as "expressive" and "nationalist," many of the religious movements throughout history, and many of the movements based on the major "isms" (Communism, Fascism, etc…) that attempt to reorder entire ways of life.

VS as a General, Value-Oriented, Reform and Alternative Social Movement

Social movements fall into one of five types, according to sociologists:

- Reform
- Revolutionary
- Religious
- Alternative
- Resistance

Reform and revolutionary social movements seek to change society while religious and alternative movements aim to change the individual. Resistance movements, on the other hand, oppose changes to society and/or individuals (Aberle 1966, Blumer 1974, Kendal et all 2001).

As a social movement, VS would clearly fall into the following categories and types:

- general,
- value-oriented,
- reform, and
- alternative

VS is a general movement because it remains highly uncoordinated and includes goals that are non-dogmatic and therefore vague. Although many individuals, groups and intentional communities across America and the world practice the principles of VS, those groups are not organized formally or through any centralized structure or institution, there are no generally accepted leaders of the movement itself (although there are a few well-known authors and speakers that deal with VS, such as Duane Elgin), and the principles on which these individuals and groups are based are open to interpretation. As noted at the beginning of this essay, the very idea of “simplicity” itself is subjective and depends on any given individual’s notion of what is necessary for living and what is not.

Indeed, VS fits perfectly within Blumer’s definition of a “general social movement” because it is precisely within the preliminary and coalescence movement phases marked by “gradual and pervasive changes” in people’s values (Blumer 1969). It has also acquired certain spokesmen, such as Elgin, who have been developing a “media of interaction” within the growing VS movement (Blumer 1969), using books and online resources. Nonetheless, it remains a general movement because it is primarily sustained by a vague network of individuals as opposed to institutionalized interest groups with well-defined goals and a formal organizational structure.

VS is also a deeply value-oriented movement because it aims to address some of the most fundamental aspects of society.

As a reform movement, VS seeks to improve society by changing a specific aspect of the societal structure. Specifically, it seeks to change the social structure of consumption and to improve our social and environmental relationships.

VS is also an alternative movement because it seeks to change an aspect of individual behavior. As an alternative movement, it provides resources that help individuals change their consumption patters and reduce their waste of resources and time. Clearly, their focus is not simply on changing policy, but on changing both the fundamental materialistic values that govern our relationship with the environment and the individual behaviors that negatively impact that relationship.

Voluntary Simplicity and Happiness

One of the most important claims of the VS movement is that it leads to a more satisfying, fulfilling and authentically happy life. Although this may seem intuitive at first glance, it has not been confirmed yet by science. As a result, the aim of this research is to examine the links between voluntary simplicity and authentic happiness. To begin, one must define what happiness is and the science behind it.