I'm going to hijack this quote to discuss an incredibly unpopular idea (among my generation, at least) that I've been kicking around lately. I encountered the exact idea in a book recently, so I'll just let the book explain it:
> Romanticism tells us that in order to make the most of our human potential we must have as many different experiences as we can. We must open ourselves to a wide spectrum of emotions; we must sample various kinds of relationships; we must try different cuisines; we must learn to appreciate different styles of music. One of the best ways to do all that is to break free from our daily routine, leave behind our familiar setting, and go travelling in distant lands, where we can 'experience' the culture, the smells, the tastes and the norms of other people. We hear again and again the romantic myths about 'how a new experience opened my eyes and changed my life'.
> Consumerism tells us that in order to be happy we must consume as many products and services as possible. If we feel that something is missing or not quite right, then we probably need to buy a product (a car, new clothes, organic food) or a service (housekeeping, relationship therapy, yoga classes). Every television commercial is another little legend about how consuming some product or service will make life better.
> Romanticism, which encourages variety, meshes perfectly with consumerism. Their marriage has given birth to the infinite 'market of experiences', on which the modern tourism industry is founded. The tourism industry does not sell flight tickets and hotel bedrooms. It sells experiences. Paris is not a city, nor India a country --- they are both experiences, the consumption of which is supposed to widen our horizons, fulfill our human potential, and make us happier...
--- Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari, p. 115-6
I looked at my Mom's generation and was majorly put off by their general obsession with material possessions. Fight Club profoundly moved me when I first saw it, partly for this reason. So I told myself that I'd spend my money on experiences. Only recently, after having the good fortune to be able to travel around the world a bit, have I come to the different opinion that it's still consumerism. Instagram culture made this very clear. Even my love of reading is a form of consumerism.
It was a bit of a shock to see that passage in Sapiens, because for all of my supposed individualism, I realized that this is probably a widespread trend among my generation (I was born late 80s) and that I wasn't as unique, contrarian, and individualistic as I had imagined myself to be.
I'm still a rebel without a cause, so now I'm focusing my efforts on creating. Painting. Writing. Starting a business. Programming stuff, with the sole purpose of fun and expression. Creating feels like more of a qualitative shift away from consumerism. Don't really have a name for it, though. Creatorism? Creationism...? ;) But who knows, 5 years from now maybe I'll realize that my creationist phase was as much of a herd mindset as my romantic consumerist phase.
I think this is an interesting way of framing things. I'm not someone who travels a lot, although I have the means and the time.
Over the years, multiple people have wondered out loud to me why I don't "travel the world". I rented an apartment from someone recently, and this was one of the first things out of his mouth -- as if it were a given that anyone with the means should do it.
I've always confused by this sentiment. Sometimes I pick up the implication that they think I'm incurious.
I think it boils down to the fact that I care about ideas (and realizing ideas) more than experiences. I listen to (and play) plenty of music, eat all types of food, and I might even know a slightly more diverse set of people than most, but I don't particularly feel a need to travel to do these things.
----
I had a similar conversation with someone here on HN a year or two ago. I'm not sure if I'll be able to find it, but the idea was that "the only authentic mode of travel is work". There was actually a book that espoused this idea as far as I remember.
There was an implicit criticism of those who spend a lot of money to go sightseeing and "get experiences". "Experiencing" is not the same of participating.
I think this is what your quote means by "romanticism" (although I question the use of that word, since it has so many other meanings.)
(BTW I'm in the queue for Sapiens at the library, so thanks for renewing my interest :) )
-----
I also carpooled with a stranger up the west coast (one of the few times I travelled). I told him about this idea -- that the only authentic mode of travel is work. He travelled the world to shoot documentaries and happened to agree with me (naturally). A lot of his friends seemed to be into Burning Man and he questioned the value of spending so much money for experiences that are divorced from the world.
I don't necessarily endorse his viewpoint, but I think it's a perspective that might spark an interesting conversation.
-----
Anyway, I think you're right that there's a form of "experiencism" in modern culture that is akin to consumerism. I didn't directly connect the two before!
I don't think there is anything wrong with acquiring possessions, or acquiring experiences... but there does seem to be clique-ishness involved. In my experience, as yours, people who value experiences do tend to look down on consumerism.
In "The Rebel Sell," another one of those books that I continue to think about and reference many years later, the authors make the provoking claim that, contrary to the self-images of most tourists, backpackers, and lovers of foreign culture, the only authentic way to travel is on business trips. With a tangible reason to go abroad, a plausible desire for mutual exchange, instead of the usual leering and viewing and aimless wandering, the business traveller is authentically engaged and directed by a real project.
> Fight Club profoundly moved me when I first saw it, partly for this reason.
This is a serious misreading of the message of Fight Club. The point isn’t that an interest in possessions is bad– it’s that extremist views are bad. The idea is that living in a hovel with a lunatic terrorist should (hopefully) be more abhorrent than flipping through the ikea catalog in a condo.
This is profoundly disrespectful to me. Please do not speak to me as though you're the keeper of The One Correct Interpretation of Fight Club. It's absurd to me that you'd try to speak authoritatively on something as subjective as how I interpreted a story. Your interpretation to me, likewise, seems far away from (what I think are) the main themes of the story, but I'd never label your view as a "misreading."
It's not like I'm coming out of left-field with my interpretation, either. The main character says "the things you own end up owning you." A good chunk of the movie depicts a man who seems to be genuinely happier, freer, and more alive because of his radical rejection of material possessions. E.g. not caring about his condo enables him to stop working a job he hates, and so on. Yes, he ends up being an ethically-ambiguous extremist, but to me that doesn't invalidate the freedom and happiness that he seemed to achieve along the way by renouncing material possessions. Renouncing material possessions does not inevitably lead to becoming a terrorist, either. There's a lot of precedent in Buddhist thought [1] that material possessions keep a person suffering in this world, and only through freeing oneself from attachment to material possessions can that person achieve enlightenment.
P.S. I'm talking about the movie, not the book. I've read the book, but this is one of the rare instances in my opinion where the movie was better than the book.
At the end of the movie they say that they evacuated all of the buildings before the explosions. We could sit here and argue "well maybe they didn't get everyone out" (which I'm guessing is why you said "possibly") but the movie explicitly says that the buildings are evacuated.
Sorry if I came off harsh or aggressive in my other reply. I just got heated. I'm going to stop here, because in my opinion your perspective is too black-and-white for us to have any constructive conversation.
That's interesting, because I think I generally took it as pro-extremist. While it may have created revulsion by design, it seems so thoroughly devoid of a positive alternative, that it never really occurred to me that the author might be against terrorism or fascism as a means to a sense of authenticity and purpose.
After 9/11 I found the foreshadowing of the end of the movie to be disturbing and wondered if it inspired anyone. I can't remember when I watched it (not in the theater so it might have been afterwards).
Edit: I saw the movie and did not read the book, for clarification.
I'm going to hijack this quote to discuss an incredibly unpopular idea (among my generation, at least) that I've been kicking around lately. I encountered the exact idea in a book recently, so I'll just let the book explain it:
> Romanticism tells us that in order to make the most of our human potential we must have as many different experiences as we can. We must open ourselves to a wide spectrum of emotions; we must sample various kinds of relationships; we must try different cuisines; we must learn to appreciate different styles of music. One of the best ways to do all that is to break free from our daily routine, leave behind our familiar setting, and go travelling in distant lands, where we can 'experience' the culture, the smells, the tastes and the norms of other people. We hear again and again the romantic myths about 'how a new experience opened my eyes and changed my life'.
> Consumerism tells us that in order to be happy we must consume as many products and services as possible. If we feel that something is missing or not quite right, then we probably need to buy a product (a car, new clothes, organic food) or a service (housekeeping, relationship therapy, yoga classes). Every television commercial is another little legend about how consuming some product or service will make life better.
> Romanticism, which encourages variety, meshes perfectly with consumerism. Their marriage has given birth to the infinite 'market of experiences', on which the modern tourism industry is founded. The tourism industry does not sell flight tickets and hotel bedrooms. It sells experiences. Paris is not a city, nor India a country --- they are both experiences, the consumption of which is supposed to widen our horizons, fulfill our human potential, and make us happier...
--- Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari, p. 115-6
I looked at my Mom's generation and was majorly put off by their general obsession with material possessions. Fight Club profoundly moved me when I first saw it, partly for this reason. So I told myself that I'd spend my money on experiences. Only recently, after having the good fortune to be able to travel around the world a bit, have I come to the different opinion that it's still consumerism. Instagram culture made this very clear. Even my love of reading is a form of consumerism.
It was a bit of a shock to see that passage in Sapiens, because for all of my supposed individualism, I realized that this is probably a widespread trend among my generation (I was born late 80s) and that I wasn't as unique, contrarian, and individualistic as I had imagined myself to be.
I'm still a rebel without a cause, so now I'm focusing my efforts on creating. Painting. Writing. Starting a business. Programming stuff, with the sole purpose of fun and expression. Creating feels like more of a qualitative shift away from consumerism. Don't really have a name for it, though. Creatorism? Creationism...? ;) But who knows, 5 years from now maybe I'll realize that my creationist phase was as much of a herd mindset as my romantic consumerist phase.