January is a month for decluttering. Or at least for dawdling over what to throw out. Actual decluttering requires a certain amount of ruthlessness and, when it comes to hoarding, many of us lean towards Michael D Higgins rather than Marie Kondo.
The President’s gloriously messy desk – which had a starring role in Joe Biden’s Áras visit in 2023 – seems a world removed from the KonMari Method™, which prioritises getting rid of books and paperwork, along with clothes, to create inner calm. “The queen of clean” shocked followers last year when she acknowledged a bit of disorder was no bad thing. However, she stands over her golden rule for deciding whether to keep an item: “Does it spark joy?”
Fresh advice on the matter comes from American philosopher Erich Hatala Matthes, who examines conservation in a broader sense in a new book What to Save and Why (Oxford University Press).
Preserving only that which is joyful is philosophically problematic. Should we preserve nature for its own sake, Matthes asks, or for human enjoyment? And what of holding on to family heirlooms? What’s wrong with having some items at home that remind us of sadness or loss?
When it comes to clutter are you more like Michael D Higgins or minimalist Marie Kondo?
Smartphones are an easy scapegoat for a more profound unhappiness
Lessons in philosophy from Sally Rooney’s latest novel that can help us make sense of the world
‘On the ninth day of Christmas, Nietzsche said with glee: sever links with your family’
Matthes, who has research interests in cultural heritage and the environment, has no simple answers but he asks the right sort of questions to help us navigate our own collections of clutter. The Massachusetts-based author explains further as this week’s Unthinkable guest.
What criteria should I use to decide whether or not to keep a personal item?
“There are all kinds of good reasons to save things, and when there’s little to no cost involved, simply having some good reason will be good enough. If a particular book is meaningful to you because a friend gave it to you, or a knick-knack that you’d otherwise have no interest in always invites memories of your mother, then those are good reasons to hang on to those items.
“But sometimes we save things for no other reason than because we feel that we’re supposed to, and that sense of obligation should invite scrutiny, especially when saving things becomes burdensome. Where does that sense of obligation come from? If it feels like a duty to a departed relative, for example, we might reflect on whether we can meet it by saving a representative item, or something that is particularly special, rather than everything they’ve ever touched. And sometimes that sense of obligation can stem from a feeling that you owe it to yourself, that caring for something is part of who you are, and that you’d let yourself down, even diminish yourself, by not saving it. Conservation that’s tied to identity in this kind of way can offer us an especially potent reason to keep things.”
You explore what it means to neglect, or “disrespect”, an item. Do we show material goods too much respect?
“We often default to the assumption that showing respect for a material object requires saving it, but that’s not always the case. To consider a stark contrast, Buddhist sand mandalas are meant to be swept away after they’ve been painstakingly created, because doing so expresses respect for the Buddhist idea of impermanence. Here, trying to save the mandala would in fact be disrespectful.
“Many cases won’t be so cut and dried, but we can discover lessons in these clear cases: they demand that we ask what exactly it is about a material object that calls out for respectful treatment, and then ask whether preserving that thing – as opposed to allowing it to change, for instance – is really consistent with expressing respect for it.”
Conservation regularly comes up as an issue in planning, for example, where homeowners object to change in their area. How do you address such conflicts?
“I’m afraid there’s no easy rule for resolving them. But I do think that looking carefully at the reasons motivating different parties can help reveal what’s at stake in going in one direction or the other, which can indirectly aid in addressing the conflict.
“For example, sometimes what can at first seem like an innocuous commitment to maintaining the character of a place can reveal itself to be grounded in xenophobia. But if we want to make progress on the issue, it will often help, at least as a starting point, to try to take people’s worries seriously.
[ Is decluttering dead? ‘I have too much living to do, to spend my days cleaning’Opens in new window ]
“Why do they think that demographic changes will erode the identity of a place, rather than allowing it an opportunity to grow? Might changing their orientation to that change – eg, taking a role in welcoming people in, learning about their traditions, teaching them about your own – put one in a new position that recasts change as exciting and ennobling, rather than threatening?
“Sometimes simply making sure that people don’t feel that change is being foisted upon them will be as productive as acceding to demands that things never change.”
* A footnote on an upcoming community philosophy event: Knocknagoshel in Co Kerry is hosting its inaugural Body and Mind Philosophy Festival on Saturday, January 25th, organised by the local tidy towns group. It includes discussions on truth, hope and the “stories and philosophy” of Kerry. For more details, email: knocknagosheltidytowns11@gmail.com