In James Twitchell's essay "Two Cheers for Materialism," he explores the diverse and often troubling relationship between success and materialism. In today's society, he argues, personal and emotional satisfaction, as well as societal satisfaction, comes from the accumulation of wealth and material goods. While many people seem to criticize this perspective as shallow and absent of emotional and character growth, Twitchell has a defense for materialism as an important and positive aspect of American culture. Consumerism and materialism are comforting and freeing for Americans, says Twitchell, as it offers us the direct incentive to make our own way in the world and to be creative about doing so.
Twitchell defines the key terms of this discussion in appropriate detail, in terms of their literal and metaphysical meanings. Materialism is defined as "the most shallow of the 20th century's various -isms," at least as categorized by some; it is shown to be "antithetical to the world of ideas" (Twitchell, p. 43). At its core, materialism is the practice by which "most of the world most of the time spends most of its energy producing and consuming more and more stuff" (p. 43). Materialism is viewed as the glue that holds human nature together - "to a considerable degree we live for things. In all cultures we buy things, steal things, exchange things, and horde things" (p. 44). In the major framework of American and world society, materialism is a consequence and factor of commercialism, which is defined as the system that provides an outlet for materialism. What materialism means in the grand scheme of things, and whether or not it is a good thing to have, is the primary focus of Twitchell's essay.
In order to make his points, Twitchell uses plenty of theoretical information to back up the basic claims that he has, but often relies on anecdotal evidence and hypothetical situations to address his issues. He uses Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto and the accounts of economists like Stanley Lebergott to denote both the virtues and pitfalls of commercialism and how they fit into the history of American culture. The citing of Veblen, the inventor of the phrase "conspicuous consumption," is used as a criticism, Twitchell throwing out words like "fancied himself a socialist," belittling his critics before he even has a chance to rebut their claims (p. 48). To that end, it cannot be said that his information and his claims are strictly fair or without bias.
For all the ugly truths that Twitchell discusses, including the need for consumerism and the ability to try on new identities through things, his reasoning does make a lot of sense on the surface. Part of what helps his argument is the fact that he does not sugarcoat the ugly nature of materialism - he admits that it is ultimately hollow, shallow and without meaning. However, he champions that perspective, and essentially notes that we should just admit to it and live with it. In fact, he claims it is "liberating and democratic" to many others, implying that those who do not accept this point of view are whining, or not thinking human society through enough (p. 52). Despite this somewhat smug and self-aggrandizing worldview, he makes many strong points about the emphasis that consumerism and materialism has taken as a priority over our daily lives.
Twitchell, given his research and his examination of the subject, concludes that materialism is, in the end, a good thing. The idea that we can move beyond creature comforts is a fantasy, and our children's children will pledge more loyalty to brand names than they will to familial groups or peers. He states that "it would be nice" to put materialism in a positive light, and to think that people can use it in some way to overcome their issues and get along (p. 52). However, he gives up that particular perspective and just admits that people should give up, since there is nothing they can do to change it.
Despite Twitchell's realistic and more pragmatic appraisal of materialism, I do not agree with his assessment of human life and priorities, nor his methods for "disproving" criticisms of consumption. He engages in many theoretical targets, who are already set up to be hypocritical (e.g. the college professor who has an expensive Yale window sticker wailing against conspicuous consumption), making his own arguments far too easy. He fails to consider what would happen if he ran across someone who honestly did not engage in conspicuous consumption to a great degree; he even argues that the poor would spend just as much if they could, and that they want to. This type of generalization is very poorly handled in the essay, making his own arguments seem relatively empty and cynical. As Twitchell's essay concludes that we should just give up, he does not convincingly convey that this is a good thing.
Works Cited
Twitchell, James. "Two Cheers for Materialism." How We Believe.
