Materialism Fails

I was fascinated by a news item I saw yesterday here on Britain's Daily Telegraph site, where it was reported that a recent UNICEF study concludes that in Britain materialism is rampant.  Indeed, according to the report,

materialism has come to dominate family life in Britain as parents 'pointlessly' amass goods for their children to compensate for their long working hours.

One researcher goes on to conclude that:

While children would prefer time with their parents to heaps of consumer goods, [their] parents seem to find themselves under tremendous pressure to purchase a surfeit of material goods for their children.

I haven't found a similar study focused on America, but it doesn't take too much imagination to believe that materialism is rampant here, too.  The observation of Reg Bailey, chief executive of Britain's Mothers Union, speaking about British society, could apply equally well to American society:

I think it is an issue with the nature of our society, that so often we’ve placed a dependence on things rather than being.

As I've written before here, contentment comes from not from seeking stuff, but from seeking REM:  relationships, experiences, and memories.  British kids are crying out for time from their parents; according to the UNICEF study, their parents seem to despair of giving it to them because they are working too hard to provide stuff for them instead. But stuff can never provide long-term contentment, because the thrill of acquisition never lasts; pretty soon we adapt to the new thing, the feeling of elation wears off, and we turn to pursuing the next new thing.  What a treadmill to be stuck on!  Lord willing, I will be able to recognize when I am on it....

Materialism certainly is a problem in America, but I wonder if its effects are as severe as in Britain, which in an earlier UNICEF report ranked worst of 21 developed countries for child welfare.  According to the Telegraph article,

British children were twice as likely as the average to have been drunk by the age of 15, and significantly less likely to be in two parent families than those elsewhere, were more likely to have tried drugs and had one of the worst diets in the developed world.

Why has materialism seemingly had a more deleterious effect in Britain than in America or other developed countries?  Sue Palmer, author of the book Toxic Childhood, has a hypothesis:

We are teaching our children, practically from the moment they are born, that the one thing that matters is getting more stuff.  We are probably the most secular society in the world, we do not have the counterbalance of religion but at the same time we are a very driven society very into progress and making money. (emphasis added)

According to the Scripture of that religion that Britain used to have, Jesus warned the crowd, "Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions."  (Luke 12:15).  Be rich not in stuff, but in relationships.  Pursue experiences with those you love instead of another gadget.  Stockpile memories, not shirts.  You, your children, indeed all your loved ones, will be the happier for it.

Perspective, again

News about the American and global economies continues to be pretty grim, with zero new jobs created last month in America, European debt crises still driving markets downward, and bank shares everywhere under attack by speculators.  Every coffee shop I'm in is filled with people looking for work, or fretting about their circumstances.  I don't know anyone who doesn't feel poorer than he did three years ago, even if it is just on paper.

So I appreciate the shot of perspective that the Economist provided in this week's issue in a article about the global middle class.  Accompanying the article is this chart showing the growth of the middle class around the world over the past two decades:





According to this joint study by the African Development Bank and the Asian Development Bank, nearly 2 billion people have risen into the middle class from poverty since 1990, which is welcome news.   But what really made me think is the asterisk at the bottom of the chart, which defines what the study's authors mean by "middle class":  people living on $2-20 per day. 

I don't want to belittle or dismiss the worries of any Americans, because whether you are making $1 a day or $1000 a day, to suddenly have your income eliminated or severely cut creates short-term hardship.  But the next time I'm tempted to lament my retirement account balance while sipping a $4 coffee drink, I hope I can hold my tongue and spare a thought instead for the billions of people who would view my situation with envy, and who are working hard every day with bustling determination to earn their way up to my blessed situation.