Voluntary Simplifiers,Spirituality,and Happiness

Abstract

In this article, we explore the connections between voluntary simplicity (VS), people who are dedicated to consuming less material goods, and Western spirituality. We investigate how voluntary simplifiers connect their practices of simplicity with their concepts and enactments of Western spirituality. First, we propose two categories of voluntary simplifiers identities based on interviews with individuals practicing VS: (1) spiritual voluntary simplifiers (N = 9) and (2) secular voluntary simplifiers (N = 6). Second, we suggest that voluntary simplifiers believe that they are happier and more content than consumers. We conclude by suggesting future research about spirituality and identities.

Keywords

Western spirituality identity voluntary simplicity

Personal Reflexive Statement

We are a sociologist, a professor of curriculum theory, and an adult educator. Our research focused upon critical theory and the intersections of marginalized identities. The sociologist’s research has focused upon intersections of marginalized identities in a variety of communities. The curriculum theorists’ research focuses on the intersections of education, learning, and consumption; as well as on the theory and practice of public pedagogy. She also investigates sites of public pedagogy and popular culture-based, informal, and social movement activism centered on “unlearning” consumerism. All three researchers have been active in anti-consumption movements.

The term voluntary simplicity (VS) describes a movement of people who are dedicated to changing their consumption patterns. VS involves limiting material consumption and freeing up one’s money and time in order to seek satisfaction through the noncommercial and nonmaterial aspects of life (Etzioni 1998; Finnerty 1977; Gregg [1904] 1936; Huneke 2005; Lorenzen 2012; Rudmin and Kilbourne 1996; Shaw and Newholm 2002; Shaw, Newholm, and Dickinson 2006; Wagner [1904] 1936. As both a belief system and a practice, VS involves “cultivating self-reliance” as well as maximizing control over everyday living and minimizing dependence on institutions (Huneke 2005:528). Those who participate in the VS movement question the ways in which modern society defines “the good life” and advocate for a less materialistic lifestyle that is more “personally fulfilling, spiritually enlightening, socially beneficial, and environmentally sustainable” (Johnson 2004:527).

Much of this literature focuses on who voluntary simplifiers are, why they become voluntary simplifiers, and how they practice VS. Little extant research focuses specifically upon voluntary simplifiers feelings of Western spirituality, happiness, and contentment (see Boujbel and d’Astous 2012; Kahl 2012, for exceptions). We place our current research within this larger movement of researchers who are increasingly seeking to understand VS, and specifically focus on exploring the happiness and contentment that VS gain by practicing in VS. In this article, we build upon and expand the literature by asking the following question: How do voluntary simplifiers connect with Western spirituality?

In this article, we explore the connections between VS identities and Western spirituality. We define Western spirituality as a multidimensional construct and as “ . . . 2) a world-oriented spirituality stressing one’s relationship with ecology or nature; or 3) a humanistic (or people-oriented) spirituality stressing human achievement or potential” (Hill et al. 2000:57, italics in original). In other words, we mean that humanistic spirituality refers to social relationships and social interactions between people who do not alienate and oppress others. We suggest that our findings critique Marx’s theory of alienation and Weber’s work on religious practice and economic systems. In this article, we point out that VS and Western spirituality connect people together rather than alienating them, embedding VS into one’s identity. We propose two categories of VS identities based on interviews with individuals who view themselves as the following voluntary simplifiers: (1) spiritual voluntary simplifiers, who speak of a humanistic-oriented Western spirituality (Hill et al. 2000; Zavestoski 2002) and (2) secular voluntary simplifiers, who do not discuss Western spirituality in connection to their simple living (Rudmin and Kilbourne 1996). Second, we examine voluntary simplifiers’ feelings of being happier and more content than “normal” consumers.

Who Are Voluntary Simplifiers?

We will first provide an overview of the VS movement, exploring some of its historical precedents, its linkages to Western spirituality, and some characteristics of voluntary simplifiers. Simple living has long been linked to spirituality, and likewise many expressions of spirituality also have been historically linked to simplicity. For example, saints such as St. Francis lived a simple life. Gregg ([1904] 1936:20-21) points to Biblical deeds, words, and commandments by Jesus about living a simple life.¹ Catholic nuns and priests take vows of poverty. Schlatter (1951) and Shi (1985) suggest that the early Christian churches adopted the Stoic tradition of simplicity and adapted it to place new emphasis on stewardship.

Moreover, Puritans, Quakers, Mennonites, and the Amish have a long history of living a simple life. Puritans emigrated to the colonies espousing hard work, social stability, and personal contentment. As the Puritans began to thrive, they focused not on the wealth that they began to collect but on the selfishness and avarice of wealth (Shi 1985:12). Pastors ranted against the sloth and idleness that they accused wealthy Puritans of producing in their children. Over time, wealthy Puritans transformed their identities and social class as Yankees and began moving away from the idea that wealth was a sin (Shi 1985:21).

Many Quaker leaders, as the Puritans had done, argued that Quaker youth especially were falling away from the simple life and becoming unemployed, slothful, and idle. David Shi (1985) describes “the common denominator among the various approaches to simpler living as the understanding that the making of money and the accumulation of things should not smother the purity of the soul, the life of the mind, the cohesion of the family, or the good of the society” (p. 411). Similar to the Puritans, many Quakers eventually became quite wealthy and began questioning the idea of VS.

Furthermore, Weber (1958) stresses the anticonsumerist aspect of the Protestant religion. Weber (1958) argues that Protestants misplace their call from God toward simplicity and instead started focusing upon wealth. He further posits that this focus on wealth leads not to spiritual blessings but to capitalistic consumers and even to Christianity itself as a capitalistic endeavor—as is evident in the multibillion-dollar Christian fundamentalist “Christotainment” industry which sells Jesus through popular culture (Steinberg and Kincheloe 2009).

Today, research suggests that many people who choose to identify as voluntary simplifiers do so for many reasons such as spirituality, environmental issues, finding balance with inner self, morals, ethics, questioning capitalism, and having more intense relationships with family, friends, and community (Alexander and Ussher 2012; Boujbel and d’Astous 2012; Craig-Lees and Hill 2002; Elgin and Mitchell 1977; Huneke 2004; Leonard-Barton 1981; Marx 1992; Sandlin and Walther 2009; Walther and Sandlin 2013). Pierce (2000, 2003) found that respondents held Western spirituality as one of the most valued beliefs of voluntary simplifiers, and Alexander and Ussher (2012) report that 62 percent of VS do so for spiritual reasons. Elgin and Mitchell (1977) suggest the most common reason for choosing a simpler lifestyle was the desire to find balance between the inner self and the outward expression of that self in various aspects of living, from material possessions, to personal appearance, job, and raising children (also see Alexander and Ussher 2012). Moreover, Zavestoski (2002), in a content analysis of VS books published for a general (nonacademic) audience, found that books published between 1973 and 1994 (N = 26) centered on themes that he names “spirituality/religious aspects of VS” and “virtues of simplicity.” He explains that many of these books were written specifically for Christian audiences while others took a more general “ethical” or “moral” stance. When examining books published between 1995 and 1998 (N = 32), he found not only that their numbers had greatly increased and that they were being published by larger presses but also that their main foci had shifted from more overt religious appeals to a focus on individual meaning making and “authenticity” in a busy, stressful world. That is, these newer books speak to readers’ “feelings of overwhelming stress, and their desire to find meaning in their consumption-driven, hectic lives” (Zavestoski 2002:153), which is similar to Marx’s (1992) discussion of alienation.

Regardless of this shift in popular press books, however, many simplifiers are still guided by religious and spiritual drives. For example, many evangelical Christians today follow ideas of VS via stewardship and environmentalism (Moisander and Pesonen 2002; Orr 2002), while many mainline and liberal Protestant denominations (ELCA, United Methodist, Disciples of Christ, and United Church of Christ) and individuals (such as financial advisor/expert Dave Ramsey) have curricula exploring money, stewardship, and simple living, arguing that one’s relationship with God is linked to one’s relationship with money (Weber 1958).

Social Identity as a Voluntary Simplifier

With the rise of modernity, the development of the new self moved to a process of individualization (Bauman 2000; Beck and Beck-Gernsheim 2002; Roberts 2014). Instead of living connected lives, we live anonymous lives where connections such as family, religion, class, and nationality are weakened and modified and where individuals have the freedom to determine their own self-identities. This “freedom” is problematic because it creates anxiety as one must “become what one is” (Bauman 2000:32). Within this context, lifestyle choices and consumption patterns now help create people’s senses of identity rather than their work or family roles. Bryant, Johnston, and Usher (1997) have argued that “consumer behavior rather than work or productive activity has become the cognitive and moral focus of life, the integrative bond of society” (p. 16). They go on to assert that contemporary consumer capitalism encourages and requires both consumption and “people who develop their identities through consumption” (Bryant et al. 1997:16). In other words, what we consume is who we are.

To become what one is, as Bauman (2000) suggests, involves viewing consumption as an identity project and as a way to participate in an ongoing construction of lifestyles (Strannegard and Dobers 2005; Giddens 1991). Gabriel and Lang (2006:47-48) argue that we buy material objects because “they embody a system of meanings through which we express ourselves and communicate with each other. We want and buy things not because of what things can do for us, but because of what things mean to us and what they say about us” (see also Douglas and Isherwood 1979; Miller 1995). However, how do simplifiers construct their identities, given that they do not craft themselves through their material possessions?

The perspective of identity theory suggests that the self is a reflection of society and that individuals are viewed as complex yet patterned and with the inclination to reproduce themselves (Hogg, Terry, and White 1995). The self is organized into differentiated, multiple, and sometimes contradictory identities. As people interact in a range of groups, they will hold as many different identities as there are distinct groups of significance for them (James 1950). However, these identities can be hierarchical (Stryker 1980). Hogg et al. (1995) suggest that those identities at the top of the hierarchy are more likely and more often invoked in situations to guide action to achieve self-congruence and are more self-defining than those identities situated toward the bottom of the hierarchy. For example, in studying individuals who are financially affluent but also have “sustainable” identities, Hurth (2010) posits that the financially affluent self may be higher on the hierarchy than the sustainable identity and thus financially affluent individuals will act accordingly and be less “green.”

Because individuals hold a range of identities, one’s different identities compete and are consequently “potential competitors in producing behavioral choices” (Stryker 2000:21). Different contexts invoke different identities and behaviors. An identity that is higher on the hierarchy can guide behavior and that identity can become part of the long-term ideal self. A person’s different identities depend on the support given by the person and those who affirm an identity through social interaction, how much someone has committed to an identity or has invested in an identity, and the internal and external gratification associated with it (McCall and Simmons 1978). A primary function of identity is to maintain self-esteem, which is reflexive of interpretation of self and through outcomes of interaction with others (Sirgy 1982).

Mead’s (1934) work suggests that a person’s identity is structurally shaped and reinforced by shared meanings that are derived from symbolic meaning in social and cultural interactions. Identities can be shaped by the symbolic and cultural resources people incur through their behavior. For example, Wilkins (2008) found that as individuals interact in an evangelical Christian group, they experience happiness by participating in the group and when praying in stressful situations. Additionally, Sharp (2010) found that when women who have experienced domestic violence and pray to God or to a “Higher Power,” that these interactions provide emotional resources such as “an other to whom one can express and vent anger and positive reflected appraisals that help maintain self-esteem,” among other resources (p. 417). We next turn to a discussion of categories of VS.

What Constitutes a Voluntary Simplifier?

Many scholars have categorized voluntary simplifiers into groups based on various criteria or aspects of simplifying. Etzioni (1998) discussed “level of intensity” of VS and outlines three groups: (1) “moderate levels (in which people downshift their consumptive rich lifestyle, but not necessarily into a low gear), (2) . . . strong simplification (in which they significantly restructure their lives), [and] (3) holistic simplification (which is a philosophical rejection of consumer society)” (p. 692). Shaw and Newholm (2002) distinguish between voluntary simplifiers (consume less) and nonvoluntary simplifiers (consumers). Huneke (2005) categorizes voluntary simplifiers as committed simplifiers to less committed voluntary simplifiers based upon the consistency of their practice. Young and his colleagues (2004) argue that there are three different kinds of voluntary simplifiers: (1) nonvoluntary simplifiers (who consume at an American consumption rate), (2) beginning voluntary simplifiers (who perform some VS behavior such as walking their children to school, but also may drive 30 or more miles away to work), and (3) “radical” voluntary simplifiers (who will not consume products and may live “off the grid”). Young and his colleagues argue that voluntary simplifiers should be viewed as continuum of attitudes and behaviors.

In general, those who consume less report higher levels of happiness and contentment (Brown and Kasser 2005; Jackson 2005; Kasser 2009). Brown and Kasser (2005) found that individuals who were environmentally responsible have higher subjective well-being. Lorenzen (2012:109) interviewed members of a household who had voluntarily changed aspects of their life and wrote that “[v]oluntary simplifiers argue that quality of life increases with restricted consumption, and claim that material objects literally get in the way of personal fulfillment and social relationships that can be restored when material barriers are cleared away.” Alexander and Ussher (2012) found that those who identified as VS were happier overall than those who did not identify as VS. In other words, those who practice VS report being happier and having higher life satisfaction. We argue that individuals who have constructed an identity as a voluntary simplifier feel more happiness and contentment than typical or “normal” consumers.

Data and Methods

We conducted face-to-face qualitative open-ended interviews with 15 adults between the ages of 25 and 75 who self-identified as practicing some form of VS. We gathered participants through convenience and snowball sampling strategies, starting with individuals we knew through mutual participation in a local VS reading and discussion group which met in a theological liberal Christian church in a Southwestern state (see a similar study conducted by Grigsby 2004).² We also recruited participants through e-mail announcements sent over several e-mail listservs (progressive, libertarian, and green listservs).³ We then used snowball sampling after contacting our initial round of participants.

Interviews lasted between 1.5 to 3 hours and were tape recorded and transcribed by the researchers. We uploaded all transcribed data into the qualitative software package Atlas.ti and analyzed the data, guided by the constant comparative technique. This method of analysis is generally associated with Glaser and Straus’ (1967) grounded theory methodology (see also Strauss and Corbin 1990; Harry, Sturges, and Klingner 2005; Charmaz 2006), in which it is used to develop substantive theory. However, it is also “compatible with the inductive, concept-building orientation of all qualitative research” (Merriam 2009:199) and is thus a useful tool for data analysis for many qualitative researchers. Denzin and Lincoln (2005) explain that the constant comparative method focuses on constructing meaning from patterns emerging from data. As meaning emerged from our data, tentative themes were discussed, explored, refined, and revised, following our main research questions, which focused on how Western spirituality influenced VS and feelings of happiness. To ensure trustworthiness, we conducted audit trails, triangulation, and member checks. We used multiple data sources, including newsletters from the Simple Living Network (see Sandlin and Walther 2009; Walther and Sandlin 2013), data from the netnography (Kozinets 1998; Sandlin 2007) we conducted at the Simple Living Network, and the face-to-face interviews described above for our triangulation (Sandlin and Walther 2009; Walther and Sandlin 2013). Participants were invited to read their interview transcripts and comment on them; many added additional clarification after their interviews. Two participants e-mailed or called the authors to clarify responses or give other examples after the interview had concluded.

Demographically, all participants had very similar characteristics. All participants self-identified as white. Educationally, one participant had some college (over 100 hours, but had not completed a degree) and two participants had doctorate degrees, while most held undergraduate degrees. To female participants were stay-at-home mothers, while their husbands worked in the field of education. All participants either owned their own homes or were in the process of purchasing homes at the time of the interviews. All respondents practiced a liberal Christian faith or a new age tradition. Please refer to Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of Interviewees.

Respondents	Education	Occupation	Marriage Status	Family Size	Type of VS
Amy	PhD	Education	Married	4	Secular
Barbara	BSc	Chemistry laboratory assistant	Married	2	Spiritual
Brandy	BSc	Secretary	Married to Jerry	2	Secular
Calvin	BSc	Computer technician	Married	3	Secular
Curtis	BSc	Education	Married to Sarah	2	Spiritual
Howard	Some college	Construction	Married	4	Secular
Jacob	BSc	Computer technician/consultant	Married	3	Secular
Jerry	BSc	Computer engineer	Married to Brandy	2	Secular
Lilly	BSc	Stay-at-home mother	Married to Matthew	3	Spiritual
Linda	BSc	Stay-at-home mother	Married	4	Spiritual
Matthew	BSc	Education	Married to Lilly	3	Spiritual
Nancy	MSc	Education	Married	4	Secular
Peggy	BSc	Computer technician	Single	2	Spiritual
Sarah	MSC	Education	Married to Curtis	2	Spiritual
Selena	MSC	Social work	Married	2	Spiritual
Thomas	PhD	Education	Married	2	Spiritual

Note. VS = voluntary simplicity.

With all methodologies, there are limitations. Through using a snowball and convenience strategy, we recruited predominately white, educated, Christian, and middle-class respondents in the interviews—demographics that are, in fact, representative of the larger VS movement. That is, demographically, many of those who participate in VS are well educated, live in urban or suburban areas, do not have children living within the household, and are white (Alexander and Ussher 2012; Elgin and Mitchell 1977; Grigsby 2004; Huneke 2005; Maniates 2002; Schor 1998).

Categories of Voluntary Simplifiers Identities

We agree with Young and his colleagues that simplifying exists along a continuum. In our data, we found two categories of voluntary simplifiers’ identities that can be plotted along such a simplifying continuum. The first category along a simplifying continuum is the spiritual voluntary simplifier (N = 9). These respondents used Western spirituality and voluntary simplifier identities to be “closer to God,” feel happy, think of others, and be content. Selena, for instance, has worked in social work for 17 years assisting the poor in obtaining funding for basic needs. She is very aware of the suffering that poor populations endure. In addition, she describes herself as having grown up “poor.” After marrying a professor and having established a comfortable financial position, she feels compelled to share her wealth with those with great need. She defines simple living by the decision to live generously and share by giving to charities. This giving often takes the form of money, but also consists of gifts of service and time. She believes that such generosity draws one closer to God. In addition, she states that it is necessary to adopt a less selfish perspective on life. She stated that she lives by the motto: “Live simply so others may simply live” (Gandhi). She recognizes that there are those who are living involuntarily simply (the poor) and contrasts certain characteristics of those who consume in abundance with those who live simpler lives and try to give from their earnings to others in generosity.

Thomas, another example of spiritual voluntary simplifiers, views living the simple life as living a life of stewardship. In his view, human beings are stewards placed on the earth to take care of various resources and relationships and have been entrusted with this duty by God. Thomas admits that anyone could be a steward even without subscribing to higher power or deity, but for him, he does identify with the Judeo-Christian God. For him, the two largest aspects of stewardship are time and money. Thomas repeatedly emphasized that humans too often exhaust themselves with their expectations of what to accomplish in any given day. He values trying to tackle a reasonable workload in a given day: a day’s worth of work per day. In addition, the most significant factor of stewardship is being willing to share one’s financial resources. Thomas says that the traditional tithe, or 10 percent of one’s income, should be a starting point—everyone should give at least 10 percent. After that, depending on life circumstances and needs, one should give even more as one is able. He stated that he knows that this will indeed require sacrifice and that at times one is in a position to give more than other times. But it disturbed him how much humans tend to hoard their possessions and treat them with ownership rather than stewardship. Thomas also consistently stressed the importance of leaving the earth a better place than it was before one arrived here, and of viewing one’s life as a calling to invest rather than deplete—to leave a surplus behind for other people and other generations. While we are articulating Thomas’s perspective as distinct from Selena’s, they are similar in that they both view giving (whether as generosity or as stewardship) as a calling from God to the benefit of others and to the benefit of oneself. In fact, Thomas is so bold as to say that there is such an inherent benefit in giving, that even if the money donated were somehow lost or burned, the giver would still be blessed. This seemed to imply the inherent blessing in being able to disconnect or relinquish control of money or possessions.

Another spiritual voluntary simplifier, a married couple, Sarah and Curtis, both practice VS by bicycling to work and buying locally. When Sarah and Curtis were asked what they have learned from practicing voluntary simplifying, Sarah states,

…I’ve learned it fits…I said this before it fits me because it makes me be close to God in a way…because there’s not all these things coming between me and God…It just feels closer.

And Curtis continues by stating,

I think that in every person there is a homing beacon for the creator. And that we all want to go back. That we all want to return. And I think that the creator is a unity, and a singleness, and a oneness that involves harmony . . . And I think that the simplicity and the spiritual value of the simplicity is . . . a calming. And I think that is what brings us closer. And so and I think that is who we all are . . .

Sarah and Curtis describe VS as bring a closer connection to a God or Higher Power. In both these examples, Sarah and Curtis describe how by simplifying their lives and consuming less, creates unity and calmness in their lives. Along with Curtis describing spiritual VS as a “calming,” Barbara describes VS as,

feel(ing) like I can breathe better now. I can feel like my life is less filled up . . . . Some of my quiet time, some of that time is spent in prayer and I’ve added a meditation component to it. And study and reading, both for pleasure for a class or for reading the Bible for spiritual stuff Sunday school tomorrow.

Barbara makes a direct connection between simplifying and freeing up time to conduct more spiritual practices, such as meditation, study, and reading the Bible. All of these respondents express a people-oriented spirituality stressing human achievement or potential in the relationship between relationships and God (Hill et al. 2000). In summary, spiritual voluntary simplifiers feel a direct connection between VS and Western spirituality, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Spirituality Consumption and Simplifying Continuum.

Consumers	Spiritual Voluntary Simplifiers	Secular Voluntary Simplifiers
Habitual spending	Closer to God	Purchases filtered by financial goals
Acquire new things regularly	Happy	Ability to purchase big items when needed
Replace old things before used up or needed	Thinking of others	Ability to avoid credit purchases
Buy unnecessary things	Contentment	Use items through their entire life
Purchasing and owning tied to perceived status		Does not replace something unless used up or broken
Lack resistance and self-control
Consumption = “sickness”
Difficulty being close to God
Unhappy
Selfish

The other category on a simplifying continuum is secular voluntary simplifier (N = 6). A secular voluntary simplifier focuses upon reducing the purchasing and use of items without a religious or spiritual focus. Brandy and Jerry view living the simple life as a financial trade-off representing personal values more than spirituality. They are aware of their finances but are not controlled by them. Jerry and Brandy are very mindful and at times express that the fear of being in debt is a motivator for wanting to plan ahead for the unexpected. Brandy even admits that she might have an inflated sense of responsibility where money is concerned. However, they value their personal freedom and flexibility to be able to spend money, for example, making a large purchase (such as a cabin) without having to go into debt. They clearly explain that although they do spend money, they just spend money very thoughtfully and in ways that differ from most others they know. They do not view spending money as entertaining or fulfilling. They see purchasing as a goal-oriented endeavor that requires trade-offs—if they choose to spend money on one thing, they must make conscious decisions to cut back somewhere else.

Jacob views VS as a way in which to make connections between people, not between God. He and his wife had suffered the loss of his mother-in-law to cancer. Because they were responsible for cleaning up the mother-in-law’s house and because they had lost many jobs on the west coast, Jacob states, “She (his wife) had a job making good money but all we were doing is . . . just working and buying and spending stuff and we kind of lost connection. We kind of lost connection in our relationship. Kind of lost connection with how we were living . . . ” Since Jacob felt that the connection between his wife and himself improved upon deciding to live a VS life, he noted that all of his items that he owns now have a function and he has a connection to the item. Jacob stated,

And I think I have a greater connection to it. It’s not some kind of deep . . . connection to it but at least I know why I own it and know what purpose it serves. Whereas before when we had everything you know kind of like didn’t we buy that (and) always have that question. Where did we get this from? Didn’t we buy this? And it’s amazing how much you don’t know or where you got it from. Now we don’t have as much stuff . . . I remember that your dad (father-in-law) gave that to me back (a while ago).

Jacob describes the connection between VS and social relationships. He knows where each of his material items came from and what social relationship he has with each person and item. In summary, these interviewees exemplify the secular VS category which is based upon anti-consumerism and personal relationships, rather than spirituality.

Happiness and Simplicity

The respondents we interviewed believe that they are happier than voluntary consumers, those who consume material items at “American levels.” Respondents often compared themselves and their happiness against those they perceived as unhappy, voluntary consumers. For example, Jerry and Brandy, secular voluntary simplifiers, feel passionate that individuals should have the capability to make such financial decisions and argue for the reward of healthiness and contentment that such freedom offers. Especially in their own families, where they witness some family members going into debt and having extensive materialism, Brandy asserts that the opposite of healthiness and contentment—materialism and unfulfillment—are prevalent:

Jerry:

But I think most of them [some of their friends and coworkers] are somewhat in some debt and struggling, and almost every one of them live beyond their means. They look at us like . . . tight, tight, tight . . . We’re not embarrassed at all, but I think it bothers them some. They look at us and wonder how could they be happy living like that.

Brandy:

They can’t possibly be happy.

Brandy and Jerry suggest that family members who are voluntary consumers cannot feel happiness or contentment.

Additionally, Selena, a spiritual voluntary simplifier, asserts that for those who have a great deal there is a never-ending striving to get more, yet this does not lead to fulfillment. She attributes this desire for more to personal greed and states:

And I guess because they’re (voluntary consumers) never really satisfied and not very happy people. They feel like if I get this, then I will feel better. And if I get this, I will feel better. And better. And they get to the point where they’re over here but I don’t think they are very happy.

Similar to Brandy and Jerry, Selena believes that voluntary consumers cannot be happy and cannot feel contentment. In this section, we explore how spiritual voluntary simplifiers discuss the connection between happiness and a life of VS. There were three major themes that surfaced in common among the interviews despite significant differences. These themes included what it means to be happy, discovering contentment, and understanding how to control purchasing rather than have purchasing control the person. While the secular voluntary simplifiers described feeling happy and contentment, we focus upon the spiritual voluntary simplifiers to demonstrate the connections between VS, spirituality, and happiness.

Happiness as Freedom from Worry

To our participants, happiness entails not having to deal with the problems, worry, conflict, and stress that are often associated with money management. Selena views simplicity as simplifying one’s own possessing and sacrificially giving to charitable causes, which she calls the act of generosity. Selena asserts that such generosity brings happiness for the individual and connection with her God. She states:

I guess the biggest thing that I’ve learned is that when I help another person or deprive myself of something because I help someone else, I feel better about myself. I feel good. And I guess I feel closer to God . . . . I think it’s very rewarding to me. Maybe that’s selfish to say that but I feel that the more I do for others the better I feel about myself and my relationship to God . . . . It’s just it’s a happy feeling. I’m a happy person. I think I am a happy person because I go outside myself. I think if more people did that there’d be happier people.

Selena’s claim to experience inner happiness and peace by going through the process of simplifying. By helping other people and living a less consumer life, she is rewarded by feeling happiness and being “a happy person.”

Thomas, also expresses that he experiences happiness and fulfillment through living a simple life, which he calls stewardship. He says that stewardship, “would involve a component of simplicity because a simple life in the end is the most fulfilling life, sometimes we don’t get hung up on some other things.” Thomas views stewards in contrast to owners and argues that ownership and possessing weighs people down into obligation with their material things. Through his faith foundation, Thomas believes that there is reason for humans serving as stewards: to manage things, but not get too hung up on owning and possessing material things, because this interferes with fulfillment and happiness. Each interviewee framed their living a simple life in terms of connection with spirituality and living a happier life.

Weber (1958) argued in the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism that religious ideas interacted with economic behavior as part of the rationalization of the economic system. Weber noted that by accruing more wealth by practicing Protestant faiths increased the wealth of families and the capitalistic system. The quotes above suggest that spiritual voluntary simplifiers used Western spirituality to consume less and thus not contribute to the capitalistic system, in the manner that Weber suggested.

Happiness as Discovering Contentment and Self-fulfillment

Participants explained that they felt contentment and self-fulfillment as the discovery of an inner truth that runs contrary to the message of the American consumer society and the ideals of the American Dream (Hochschild 1995; Kasser and Ryan 1993); this inner truth stated that contentment and self-fulfillment are not tied to purchasing. Participants agreed that, despite mainstream America’s messages to the contrary, having more “stuff” does not necessarily bring one more happiness or fulfillment. Although all interviewees recognize that not having essential items (poverty) causes stress and unhappiness, this type of acquiring of consumer items goes beyond needs and moves into the realm of purchasing “wants.” Resisting consumption and purchasing can prove to be difficult because strong messages through advertising and peer purchasing behaviors challenge the simple life as normal or healthy. However, each of the interviewees offers solid foundations as to why they see this endless consumption as unfulfilling. First, Selena, who works with people in poverty, discusses the irony that those with fewer materialistic things often seem to grasp contentment better than those who continue to strive for more. She states:

I guess I feel like “why do you want so much because when you die you cannot take anything with you?” And I don’t think it makes a person any happier. In fact, when I interact with my clients [those who are poor], I feel that they are the ones that have figured it out because a lot of them have a really good relationship with God and a lot of them are happy people. You know I might find someone who’s living in a shack and doesn’t have enough money to pay their utilities but they seem to be a happy person, and they seem to feel that somehow, some way they are gonna make it—that they are gonna survive. To me it seems like they are happier people than somebody that’s got a million dollars or more. And that their focus is only on getting more and more and more.

Additionally, Barbara discusses being happier and states that simple living has strengthened her relationship with God. Barbara describes how participating in a meditation group provides contentment. She states,

. . . but certainly we talked about just strengthening our relationship with God and I think that if that is your base I think simplicity rolls along with there or it certainly can. I mean to me on a spiritual level . . . And it’s quiet time. It’s spiritual time. So its meditative, it’s spiritual but also its simplicity because I can get lost in that time. And I can really renew myself in that time and yet all I’m doing is walk outside and sit on my back porch with a cup of coffee. But I do that regularly. And it really gives me positive feedback that I need . . .

VS provides for Barbara spiritual time, meditative time, renewal time and thus allows her to connect to God. In addition to Selena’s and Barbara’s observations that continually seeking more from a consumer culture does not bring contentment, Thomas makes a similar observation about the futility of continually seeking more things. He says,

We will be happier, we will feel better about ourselves after we’ve put in a day’s work than we would if every day we wake up and ask what’s in it for me. Because, when you ask the question what’s in it for me, you never get enough. It’s not fulfilling. . . . I think there’s a victim and . . . partly the victim is yourself. Because I think ultimately the Buddhists would tell us this and I think Christians would too, you know, that whatever it is you’re not going to be satisfied. When you have all these desires that will never be fulfilled and thus the way to satisfaction and the way to fulfillment is not trying to end with more toys than anybody else because that is an unfulfilling sandwich and you’re never going to be fulfilled if you keep ordering that sandwich. . . . You need to try something else something that brings you more self-fulfillment.

The final element that Thomas shares about having contentment is reaching a point of being able to let go, learning to give, and relinquishing the attachment to money and materialism. He states:

If they took ten percent [tithing] of what they had and thought they were giving it to somebody, and it burned up, I’d think they’d be better off. Even if it didn’t go to something, I think that would be good for them, okay, to learn the blessing of giving. And I don’t think churches point that out.

For Thomas, there is a connection between inner contentment and detachment from money and materialism. Not being able to tithe and share one’s assets not only demonstrates selfishness, but also risks putting the individual under the control of money and things instead of being the one who is steward and in control of managing money and material items. This issue of stewardship and relinquishing attachment leads to the next theme of individuals having control over money and material things versus being controlled by them.

Happiness as Controlling Materialistic Things, not Being Controlled by Them

VS does not mean depriving oneself of needs. Participants who identify as simplifiers certainly vary in the degree to which they desire to make “sacrifices,” but there is no expectation that individuals choose poverty in order to enact VS. The point of simplification tends to begin after needs have been met and consumers have reached a point of deciding what “wants” they want to purchase and what “wants” they consider excessive or unnecessary. Participants discussed how individuals must exert control when making purchasing decisions; otherwise they enter purchasing mindlessly or even cede control to purchasing. One can be controlled by material goods and purchasing instead of the other way around. For instance, Barbara states,

It probably all came about gradual over time. It probably culminated with my participation in the Journey⁴ which is the spiritual retreat but it is a multifaceted journey of just trying to declutter my life physically. I think just to make room so that I can breathe and think more spiritually. So for me it probably started with a desire to just clean out the clutter in my house. But it also kind of bled over to living a life that was cluttered with lots of activities and also a desire to prioritize my life, just simply tasks that need done. To be able to have a little extra time for more pleasurable moments.

For Barbara, getting rid of clutter allows her to be spiritual and consume less. Barbara continued that after hearing a talk titled, “Priorities,” and with her children growing older and moving out of the home, she decided to reprioritize which included spirituality. Barbara states,

So some of my prioritizing at that time was trying to find time for myself and you know feeling a little lost of whom am I outside of a mother? But there was definitely a spiritual component too. Some of my desire to have time by myself, it was time away from family, away from kids, away from job. Time to prayer or study or read. So that is probably where [it] started.

Selena also addresses the notion of having to exert control to resist the messages that one encounters in mainstream society and peer pressure or expectations. She states,

We don’t live in a fancy house like a lot of faculty members do. And I told my husband that I didn’t think it was necessary. Just to have something comfortable, warm, where you’re not living in a shack. I think that’s enough for me. I don’t think we have to buy this big house that has more rooms than we need or drive fancy cars. I think that is part of that. I feel like don’t get more than what is comfortable. . . . Engaging how I spend money in a material way . . . I feel like that is part of my guidelines as a Christian and as a human being. You can have too much . . . and I don’t understand why some people that have money want more and they are in a position where they could help so many people because there’s a lot of poverty and a lot of suffering in this country.

For Selena, values of VS and Christianity guide on how she spends her money and what she buys. She is not controlled by the material items; rather, she feels she controls the material items.

Some followers of VS recognize that having more material possessions often requires more time and energy to maintain them, which is Marx’s (1992) critique of capitalism. Thus, it can be advantageous rather than sacrificial to downsize and simplify. For example, Thomas discusses a recent decision he and his wife made to downsize from a multi-bedroom home to a small apartment and is able to vacuum the entire apartment from one electrical plug. Thomas continues discussing the inner struggle or battle for control by stating:

And I think that when your goal on any given day is I’m gonna consume as much as I can this day, you’re gonna end the day and not feel that good. And so in some ways, the victim is, we lose ourselves when we structure our world thinking that the only way we’re going to be happy is to consume more than everyone else and I think it’s a losing battle. I think we’re not going to be happier that way and of course by consuming we’re indirectly not allowing others to consume what we just consumed.

Conclusion

Similar to Young and his colleagues’ (2004) description of VS being a continuum of identities, we demonstrate two different categories of VS based on how spiritually—drive the decision to simplify is. Selena, for example, discussed VS as a people-oriented spirituality and spiritual VS. Second, Brandy and Jerry viewed VS as mindful spending and saving and as secular VS. In both categories, individuals were pursuing VS lifestyles.

Voluntary simplifiers in our study freed up resources to engage in spiritual practices. Barbara, for example, found practicing VS as freeing up time to pray, read the Bible, and meditate. Practicing VS for Selena freed up her time to help other people living in poverty which she found to be of Christian value. Thomas’ practices of VS allowed him to not overwork in his job, tithe, and spend less time cleaning his apartment. Thomas suggests that because of his Christian and VS lifestyle that it encourages his spiritual practices. Because of their identities as voluntary simplifiers, these respondents received internal and external gratification that often reinforced their VS identities.

In our study, voluntary simplifiers also expressed feeling happier and feeling more contentment than consumers. Kahl (2012) argues that faith-based voluntary simplifiers create moral repertoires. While we find support for her study, we also note that the voluntary simplifiers in our study specifically focused upon the happiness and contentment that they felt by living a voluntary simplifier life. Boujbel and d’Astous (2012) noted that voluntary simplifiers of low financial resources felt higher subjective well-being. The respondents in our study have financial resources, but they perceive that they are happier than consumers because they do not mindlessly consume. Through their spirituality and voluntary simplifying practices, participants discussed how they perceived themselves to be happier and their subjective well-being to be higher than voluntary consumers.

Wilkins (2008) suggests that a religious group can encourage happiness among its group members, although she also found that the group members can also socially control the emotions of the individuals in the group. In our study, we find that voluntary simplifiers felt that material items socially controlled voluntary consumers. In our study, they often referred to voluntary consumers as being the out-group.

Other research has examined anticonsumer identities, such as downshifters, who scale back their work hours and consumption to have more time for meaningful relationships (de Graaf 2003; Schor 1998). Schor (2010) has suggested a plentitude economy, where adults work four days a week and have other time to spend on do-it-yourself projects, which would reduce consumption in first world countries. Additionally, screen-free researchers, such as Brock (2006), who studied screen-free families, suggest that these families are more likely to identify as anticonsumers. However, much of this research has not examined whether there is a connection between an anticonsumer identity and spirituality. Future research should examine more closely the multidimensional constructs of spirituality and anticonsumer identities.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Alexander

Samuel

Ussher

Simon

. 2012. “The Voluntary Simplicity Movement: A Multi-national Survey Analysis in Theoretical Context.” Journal of Consumer Culture 12:66-86.

Bauman

Zygmunt

. 2000. Liquid Modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Beck

Ulrich

Beck-Gernsheim

Elisabeth

. 2002. Individualization. London, UK: Sage.

Boujbel

Lilia

d’Astous

Alain

. 2012. “Voluntary Simplicity and Life Satisfaction: Exploring the Mediating Role of Consumption Desires.” Journal of Consumer Behaviour 11 (6): 487-94.

Brock

Barbara

. 2006. Living Outside the Box: TV-free Families Share their Secrets. Cheney, WA: Eastern Washington University Press.

Brown

Kirk Warren

Kasser

Tim

. 2005. “Are Psychological and Ecological Well-being Compatible? The Role of Values, Mindfulness, and Lifestyle.” Social Indicators Research 74:349-68.

Bryant

Ian

Johnston

Rennie

Usher

Robin

. 1997. Adult Education and the Postmodern Challenge: Learning Beyond the Limits. New York: Routledge.

Charmaz

Kathy

. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory. London, UK: Sage.

Craig-Lees

Margaret

Hill

Constance

. 2002. “Understanding Voluntary Simplifiers.” Psychology & Marketing 19:187-210.

10.

de Graaf

2003. Take Back Your Time: Fighting Overwork and Time Poverty in America. San Francisco, CA: Berret-Koehler.

11.

Denzin

Norman K.

Lincoln

Yvonna S.

. 2005. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

12.

Douglas

Mary

Isherwood

Baron

. 1979. The World of Goods. New York: Basic Books.

13.

Elgin

Duane

Mitchell

Arnold

. 1977. Voluntary Simplicity. Co-evolutionary Quarterly. Retrieved December 15, 2007 (http://www.simpleliving.net/awakeningearth/pdf/voluntary_simplicity.pdf).

14.

Etzioni

Amitai

. 1998. “Voluntary Simplicity: Characterization, Select Psychological Implications, and Societal Consequences.” Journal of Economic Psychology 19:619-43.

15.

Finnerty

Adam Daniel

. 1977. No More Plastic Jesus: Global Justice and Christian Lifestyle. New York: Orbis.

16.

Gabriel

Yiannis

Lang

Tim

. 2006. The Unmanageable Consumer. London, UK: Sage.

17.

Giddens

Anthony

. 1991. Modernity and Self-identity. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

18.

Glaser

Barney G.

Strauss

Anselm L.

. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.

19.

Gregg

Richard B.

[1904] 1936. The Value of Voluntary Simplicity. Wallingford, PA: Pendle Hill Essays.

20.

Grigsby

Mary

. 2004. Buying Time and Getting by: The Voluntary Simplicity Movement. Albany, NY: SUNY Press

21.

Harry

Beth

Sturges

Keith M.

Klingner

Janette K.

. 2005. “Mapping the Process: An Exemplar of Process and Challenge in Grounded Theory Analysis.” Educational Researcher 34:3-13.

22.

Hill

Peter C.

Pargament

Kenneth I.

Hood

Ralph W.

Jr McCullough

Michael E.

Swyers

James P.

Larson

David B.

Zinnbouer

Brian J.

. 2000. “Conceptualizing Religion and Spirituality: Points of Commonality, Points of Departure.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 30:51-77.

23.

Hochschild

Jennifer L.

1995. Facing Up to the American Dream: Race, Class, and the Soul of the Nation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

24.

Hogg

Michael A.

Terry

Deborah J.

White

Katherine M.

. 1995. “A Tale of Two Theories: A Critical Comparison of Identity Theory with Social Identity Theory.” Social Psychology Quarterly 58:255-69.

25.

Huneke

Mary E.

2005. “The Face of the Un-consumer: An Empirical Examination of the Practice of Voluntary Simplicity in the United States.” Psychology and Marketing 22:527-50.

26.

Hurth

Victoria

. 2010. “Creating Sustainable Identities: The Significance of the Financially Affluent Self.” Sustainable Development 18:123-34.

27.

Jackson

Tim

. 2005. “Live Better by Consuming Less? Is There a Double Dividend in Sustainable Consumption?” Journal of Industrial Ecology 9:19-36.

28.

James

William

. 1950. The Principles of Psychology. New York: Dover.

29.

Johnson

Brett

. 2004. “Simply Identity Work? The Voluntary Simplicity Movement.” Qualitative Sociology 27:527-30.

30.

Kahl

Kristina

. 2012. “‘My God Wants Me to Live Simply”: The Constructed Selfhood of Faith-based Simple Livers.” Symbolic Interaction 35:249-66.

31.

Kasser

Tim

. 2009. “Psychological Need Satisfaction, Personal Well—being, and Ecological Sustainability.” Ecopsychology 1:175.

32.

Kasser

Tim

Ryan

Richard M.

. 1993. “A Dark Side of the American Dream: Correlates of Financial Success as a Central Life Aspiration.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65:410-22.

33.

Kozinets

Robert V.

1998. “On Netnography: Initial Reflections on Consumer Research Investigations of Cyberculture.” Advances in Consumer Research 25:366-71.

34.

Leonard-Barton

Dorothy

. 1981. “Voluntary Simplicity Lifestyles and Energy Conservation.” Journal of Consumer Research 8:243-52.

35.

Lorenzen

Janet A.

2012. “Going Green: The Process of Lifestyle Change.” Sociological Forum 27:94-116.

36.

Maniates

Michael

. 2002. “In Search of Consumptive Resistance: The Voluntary Simplicity Movement.” Pp. 199-235 in Confronting Consumption, edited by Princen

Thomas

Maniates

Michael

Conca

Ken

. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

37.

Marx

Karl

. 1992. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. New York: Penguin Classics.

38.

McCall

George J.

Simmons

J. L.

. 1978. Identities and Interactions: An Examination of Human Associations in Everyday Life. New York: Free Press.

39.

Mead

George H.

1934. Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

40.

Merriam

Sharon B

. 2009. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

41.

Miller

Daniel

. 1995. “Consumption and Commodities.” Annual Review of Anthropology 24:141-61.

42.

Moisander

Johanna

Sinikka Pesonen

. 2002. “Narratives of Sustainable Ways of Living: Constructing the Self and the Other as a Green Consumer.” Management Decision 40:329-42.

43.

Orr

Matthew

. 2002. “Environmental Decline and the Rise of Religion.” Journal of Religion & Science 38:895-910.

44.

Pierce

Linda Breen

. 2000. Choosing Simplicity: Real People Finding Peace and Fulfillment in a Complex World. Carmel, CA: Gallagher Press.

45.

Pierce

Linda Breen

. 2003. What Is Voluntary Simplicity? Retrieved December 15, 2007 (http://www.gallagherpress.com/pierce/whatisvs.htm).

46.

Roberts

Paul

. 2014. The Impulse Society: America in the Age of Instant Gratification. New York: Bloomsburg.

47.

Rudmin

Floyd W.

Kilbourne

William E.

. 1996. “The Meaning and Morality of Voluntary Simplicity: History and Hypotheses on Deliberately Denied Materialism.” Pp. 166-215 in Consumption & Marketing: Macro Dimensions, edited by Belk

Russell W.

Dholakia

Nikhilesh

Venkatesh

Alladi

. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.

48.

Sandlin

Jennifer A.

2007. “Netnography as a Consumer Education Research Tool.” International Journal of Consumer Studies. 31:288-94.

49.

Sandlin

Jennifer A.

Walther

Carol S.

. 2009. “Complicated Simplicity: Moral Identity Formation and Social Movement Learning in the Voluntary Simplicity Movement. Adult Education Quarterly 59:298-317.

50.

Schlatter

1951. Private Property: The History of an Idea. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

51.

Schor

Juliet B.

1998. The Overspent American: Upscaling, Downshifting, and the New Consumer. New York: Basic Books.

52.

Schor

Juliet B.

2010. Plentitude: The New Economics of True Wealth. New York: Penguin Press.

53.

Sharp

Shane

. 2010. “How Does Prayer Help Manage Emotions?” Social Psychology Quarterly 73:417-37.

54.

Shaw

Deirdre

Newholm

Terry

. 2002. “Voluntary Simplicity and the Ethics of Consumption.” Psychology & Marketing 19:167-85.

55.

Shaw

Deirdre

Newholm

Terry

Dickinson

Mary L.

. 2006. “Consumption as Voting: An Exploration of Consumer Empowerment.” European Journal of Marketing 40:1049-67.

56.

Shi

David E.

1985. The Simple Life: Plain Living and High Thinking in American Culture. New York: Oxford University Press.

57.

Sirgy

M. Joseph

. 1982. “Self-concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review.” Journal of Consumer Research 9:287-300.

58.

Steinberg

Joe L.

Kincheloe

Shirley R.

. 2009. Christotainment: Selling Jesus Through Popular Culture. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

59.

Strannegard

Lars

Dobers

Peter

. 2005. “Design, Lifestyles and Sustainability: Aesthetic Consumption in a World of Abundance.” Business Strategy and the Environment. 14:324-36.

60.

Strauss

Anselm L.

Corbin

Juliet M.

. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

61.

Stryker

Sheldon

. 1980. Symbolic Interactionism: A Social Structural Version. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings.

62.

Stryker

Sheldon

. 2000. “Identity Competition: Key to Differential Social Movement Participation?” Pp. 21-40 in Self, Identity and Social Movements, edited by Stryker

Sheldon

Owens

Timothy J.

White

Robert W.

. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

63.

Wagner

Charles

. 1936 [1904]. The Simple Life. Translated by Hendee

Mary Louise

. New York: McClure, Phillips & Co.

64.

Walther

Carol S.

Sandlin

Jennifer A.

. 2013. “Family and Social Reproduction Strategies of Green Capital Within Families Practicing Voluntary Simplicity.” International Journal of Consumer Studies 37:36-45.

65.

Weber

Max

. 1958. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Translated by Talcott Parsons. New York: Scribner.

66.

Wilkins

Amy C.

2008. “‘Happier than Non-Christians’: Collective Emotions and Symbolic Boundaries among Evangelical Christians.” Social Psychology Quarterly 71:281-301.

67.

Young

William

Hwang

Kumju

McDonald

Seonaidh

Oates

Caroline

. 2004. “Understanding Individual Decision-making for Sustainable Consumption.” Economic and Social Research Council. Life, School of the Environment, University of Leeds, England.

68.

Zavestoski

Stephen

. 2002. “The Social-psychological Bases of Anticonsumption Attitudes.” Psychology & Marketing 19:149–65.