Simpleness

In the last post I referred to the two poles that those who engage in simple living engage in gravitate towards: frugalism and simpleness. I suggested that frugalism is more generally lacking in any kind of altruistic motive and therefore implied that those drawn to simpleness are of a more ethical and considerate bent. This is not necessarily true. Many who choose to live a simple life do so for wholly "selfish" reasons but what they are after is not more wealth for themselves but more time for themselves.

At the farthest end of the simpleness end of the frugal/simple spectrum are those eschew material goods altogether and choose to live in communes, monastic communities, kibbutzim etc where all property is shared. There are also those who reject modern urban living and the pressures of a nine-to-five job in favour of a more self-sufficient existence. Known as homesteaders or downshifters these people go the whole hog - growing their own food, often making their clothes, implementing renewable enenrgy solutions etc. Environmental concerns often form a big part of the reason why people choose this lifestyle.

There are also "urban homesteaders" - people not willing or able to give it all up and move to the country and who try to grow their own stuff in a small gardens or allotments. The 1970's BBC sitcom "The Good Life" portrayed one middle-class suburban couple's attempt at this type of lifestyle.

Many who choose the simple life do not or cannot engage in a full-time simple lifestyle. However they do attempt to be ethical consumers, reducing what they buy, recycling where they can, buying organic and fairly-traded products etc. These to my mind are the most important group of simple livers for the reason that the lifestyle, although not perfect, is a more sustainable simple lifestyle than that of those who go the full-on route. It can actually work for milions rather than thousands of people.