When decluttering expert Marie Kondo published her ground-breaking book, The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up, hordes of grateful, stuff-encumbered readers around the world seized particularly on her question “Does it spark joy?”
That was the criterion Kondo proposed for deciding whether to keep something. Does an item in your possession give you a little thrill when you hold it in your hands? If so, hang on to it. If not, then So long, mustard-colored cardigan with the leather buttons.
Suddenly, it seemed like everyone who was flirting with the notion of decluttering their homes began talking about joy-sparks. Surely, in Kondo’s simple question was the razor to slice through indecision about what to keep and what to toss when pursuing a simpler lifestyle.
End of story. Or is it?
Let me begin by saying that, to me, any voice calling us to own fewer possessions is a welcome voice.
In America, we consume twice as many material goods as we used to 50 years ago. Over the same period, the size of the average American home has nearly tripled, and today that average home contains about 300,000 items.
Most homes contain more televisions than people. About 25 percent of two-car garages don’t have room to park even one car inside them, and still one out of every 11 American households rents off-site storage—the fastest-growing segment of the commercial real estate industry over the past four decades. Meanwhile, home organization, trying to find places for all our excess belongings, is now an $8 billion industry.
We’re at material overload and it isn’t fun like it looks in the commercials.
We live in a society where families are chronically stressed, tired, and rushed, with our excessive possessions compounding (if not creating) the problems. IKEA chief Steve Howard may have let a secret slip when he said that in the western world we’ve reached “peak home furnishings.”
The de-clutter, de-own movement is rapidly catching on, as evidenced, for example, by the popularity of Tiny Houses and the growth of organizations such as the National Association of Professional Organizers and the National Association of Senior Move Managers.
My family became converts to minimalism in 2008 after I wasted a beautiful Saturday morning cleaning out my garage, and a neighbor, seeing my frustration, made the casual comment “Maybe you don’t need to own all that stuff.” As I surveyed the heap of dusty things piled up in my driveway, out of the corner of my eye I noticed my son playing alone on the swing set in the backyard. And right then I had a life-changing realization:
Excess possessions do not bring extra happiness into life; even worse, they distract us from the things that do!
Today we live in a smaller house with only a third of the possessions we used to have. And we couldn’t be happier now that we have more money, more time, and more energy for the things that matter most.
Along the way, I’ve seen how Kondo’s trademark filter has prompted significant decluttering efforts both here and abroad. I’m thankful for that. Yet I can’t help but bristle at the phrasing because the question “Does it spark joy?” may actually rob tidying up of its fullest potential in our lives.
Specifically, we get three things wrong when we evaluate our possessions only by asking whether they spark joy or not.
1. We place our own happiness above everything else and continue to define it in terms of our possessions. Unfortunately, when the predominant question in our mind is “Does this make me happy?” we routinely fall short of actually realizing our happiness. In fact, recent research points to the biological fact that the best way to discover happiness is to help bring it about in someone else’s life.
2. Kondo’s suggested focus does not cull our consumeristic tendencies. Owning less is great, but wanting less is even better. Once we overcome the pull of consumption in our lives, we are free to pursue other passions. Unfortunately, the question “Does it spark joy?” does little to rewire our thinking in that regard. After all, when we’re standing in the department store, many things we pick up spark joy. That’s why we leave with so many of them in our shopping carts.
3. The filter may improve the peacefulness of our surroundings, but it does little to bend the trajectory of our lives. It rarely causes us to evaluate the motivations within that caused the clutter to build in the first place. And when we do not diagnose the cause of our clutter problem, we are bound to repeat it.
So let me propose an alternative question for us to ask ourselves when we’re making the hold/release call on any particular item in our possession. Rather than asking, “Does it spark joy?” let’s begin asking:
Does it help me fulfill a greater purpose with my life?
As I see it, we should be thinking about not just what we own but why we want to own it. What is our goal in life, anyway? What are we hoping to accomplish?
Sure, some people may only be interested in the pursuit of personal pleasure by acquiring as much stuff as possible, but I believe they represent a small minority. Instead, most of us desire to make a selfless contribution of some kind to a world that’s swelling with needs.
Several years ago, my wife, Kim, and I created a nonprofit called The Hope Effect that is changing orphan care by providing solutions that mimic the family. We would never have pursued this interest of ours if minimalism hadn’t freed up the time and money to do it. I’d still be spending my Saturdays cleaning and organizing. But today our lives are permanently different, and so are the lives of a growing number of parentless children around the world.
Orphan care is not everybody’s passion. But whatever others feel they were put on the planet to do, some of their possessions are either directly or indirectly helping them accomplish it, while others are holding them back. It makes the best sense to keep what aligns with their goal in life and get rid of the rest.
So when you’re holding one of your possessions in your hands, ask yourself, Does it help me fulfill my purpose? Does it help me craft a lifestyle in which I am able to build relationships and care for others, or might I be able to use my time, money, and energy in better ways?
Clear away obstacles one by one. Then advance toward your goal.
There’s a big difference between tidying up your home and freeing up your life. Instead of merely sparking some joy within yourself, light a fire in the world.
Emily Pardee says
I suspect that from a Japanese point of view, “sparking joy” may very well incorporate the idea of fitting into one’s life’s greater purpose.
Barbara Winthrop says
Totally agree.her book was so helpful for me
Nancy says
Thank you SO much for this. I read Marie Kondo’s books over a year ago and they motivated me to make a good start. But the Becoming Minimalist community is giving me renewed motivation and methods that I am confident will help me be victorious. The question, “does this (item) fit into my life’s greater purpose?” is huge for me; as well as the related question, “what IS my life’s greater purpose?”
Dee says
I think the “spark joy” question can be the first, or starter question. For some, it is a beginning – a way into deeper, more meaningful ways of being. Thanks for providing us ways to go deeper.
siobhan wall says
I found the questions ‘Does it spark joy?’ very useful. It has helped me give up things I was clinging on to for the ‘just in case I need it’ moment. But I still need many articles to complete my book research – I must get on with writing it now!
Victoria Shupe says
This is how it worked for me. In the first section of the book, she has you write out and visualize a life and space you want. It’s a nice framework for getting rid of stuff and focusing your life. My bullet points were a kind, creative, active, and bright. It really helped me cut out items that cause distraction and now I am doing more for the environment and animals as well as creative projects. I still look at my statement I wrote when I started Kondo’s book when I need to remember who I want to be and the type of environment that encourages that. I have amended the specifics here and there but my bullet points remain. I have other problems with some of her methods, but overall I think it is a useful launchpad into minimalism (even though it is not a minimalist book) and limiting consumption. I also find it an entertaining read.
Cassandra says
Interesting article. I did find the “spark joy” question helpful to me because practical questions like Do I use this? Etc I am creative and can always find an answer for them so it was hard to minimize that way. After the initial aha moment from reading the “spark joy” question though I had a hard time decluttering like I wanted to because her technique of emptying an entire space and putting back what sparks joy is somewhat difficult to do in a busy life with kids. I was able to keep clothes neater and downsize but I did find as I went through your decluttering course huge strides being made. I have a clean kitchen almost daily for the first time in years, etc. I gave up a great deal more clothes because I was thinking about what I wanted my personal and my clothes purpose to be. I think you really get how being a parent and family life really is and how to integrate decluttering into that which I am very grateful for! I think too your purpose is more about giving up things and living your life, while Kondo’s is more about organizing what you have and beautifying your home. For example, I followed her advice about folding clothes and it did make my drawers look pretty, but now that I follow the 33 clothing project or 31? I have made plans to give my dresser away because everything now fits in my closet!
Donna says
I enjoyed this article very much. It is helpful to me.
SpiritHawk says
I thought you had some worthy points to make, but it’s sad and it discredits your mission that you needed to trivalize the good and decent work of another to do it. I just used Marie’s method to move out of my bathroom and went through every item to see if it syncronized with my mission of a more effecient space to support me and help to mobilize quick get-aways while I care for my ailing husband and travel for the needs of aging parents. Thank you Marie.
Genesis says
I feel the same way about this post.
Aisha says
Interesting question (makes you think), but like some people have pointed out spark joy works for a lot of people too. There isn’t a right or wrong with both questions, it’s just “what works best for you?” Or “which question to ask for this particular thing?”
I feel we should highlight ours without having to diminish others’. Thank you!
Susan says
Awesome post Joshua. Thank you!
J says
ADDENDUM: Given the aforementioned, minimalism needs a new conversation. How about we leave the discussion of quantities and strategies (the world of objects) and we prioritize qualities (the world of values)? I suggest a new, actual philosophy of minimalism which I’m calling value-driven minimalism. What we know of minimalism today, the old guard, object-driven minimalism, is more of a method/strategy for dealing with objects directly, while the new philosophy is a method for values which determine objects last (as a consequence of a process of self-re-examination). In this sense, VDM is truly about the REJECTION of, or DISTANCING from, objects VIA a process of initial valuation, while ODM is about the (paradoxical) FETISHIZATION of objects (through their negative/absence) AS a process of valuation and goal-achieving.
Both are in pursuit of specific goals in their own ways but again VDM establishes an operating framework for individual values first (initial confrontation with internalities) which objects are later filtered through, while ODM in essence imposes an operating system for objects first and considers the steps to take towards values in the aftermath (the idea being that when everything is cleared away first then we can supposedly act, or act better in order to achieve a goal, which is process that requires too much friction with things / confrontation with externalities up front). In order for VDM to work, it has to be debated. Here is a brief comparison between the avant-garde VDM and the arriere-guard ODM.
Value-Driven Minimalism (VDM): the new minimalism
If you do x with values, then you get y via these objects.
Creation of a value system.
Objects are a fallout or side effect via their actual usefulness (this gives one actual appreciation of the object instead of an object-oriented appreciation – the object for its own sake as opposed to its tie to a value system), the object is the fallout of the creation of a value system, the value system determines what gets filtered (subtractive / additive)
bottom up
The individual / value system is foregrounded before she ever makes a move.
Achieving goals via VDM is an a priori value operation – everything is determined by taking action last – acting wisely by having constructed a real, genuine framework for acting.
Over-arching: ‘One-definition’ but individually definable
Analogy: A custom box with holes – whatever fits in it is defined as “minimal” after everything else falls through; i.e. doesn’t fit the individual’s value system. (Amusingly, this is about qualities)
Object-Driven Minimalism (ODM): the current minimalism
If you do x with objects, then you get y via these values.
Creation of a clearing operation.
Objects are a catalyst via their negative (absence) / blank-slating
Objects limited to functionalism and aesthetics
top down
The end goal is the fallout of the fetishization of the object (in its own weird, reductive way a paradoxical fetishization of the object via its negative (its absence).
The individual moves first, skipping to the end goal, before determining integral, embedded values.
Achieving goals via ODM is an a posteriori value operation – everything is determined by taking action first – acting prematurely without having constructed a real, genuine framework for acting.
Under-arching: ‘Multi-definition’ but wholly undefinable – can be defined by many and thereby nebulous and blobby as a whole
Analogy: A solid, standardized box – whatever can’t fit in it is defined as “minimal”. (This is about quantities.)
This is quite a rundown on what I think might be fairly complicated ideas that have emerged over the last day or so, but I might be on to something. The differences between the two are probably subtle, but I think that VDM becomes more effective in the long-run because it is no longer about methods and no longer about the individual “dealing” with objects. The middle-man aka the value system (which would be a deep and lengthy process in itself, TBD) is the entity determining what objects falls through and what don’t. Objects, in a sense, become truly “hand-off”.
By objects I don’t just mean things, but am using it as a general term for materiality, including the constituents of those things (like aesthetics and function) and what they also make up if they are part of a larger whole. In any case, the value framework that VDM constructs is what determines what objects are in support of that system.
And a final note… I suppose there are parallels with VDM and the psychological therapy provided to hoarders when they are first consulting. In other words, psychologists have to understand their clients and their history/background etc. in depth, before they can help them. The same is true for VDM except it deals first and foremost with everything (values, emotions, intangibles) emerging from the Self and is directed and determined by the individual (with guidelines), as opposed to the ODM initial object strategy (clearing operations, dealing with tangibles) that individuals have to first to act upon before any lengthy introspective process.
J says
ADDENDUM TO ADDENDUM
Just trying to clear this up for myself by writing it out, and hopefully for you, though I know there’s still a lot that’s vague. It’s a work in progress.
ODM: Confrontation with objects directly by limiting engagement to aesthetics and functionalism (including sentimental/emotional notions) which comprise the current understanding of “necessities” and post-rationalizing a value system based on those objects afterwards.
VDM: Confrontation with objects indirectly by engagement with objects through value framework – the “hands-off” approach. The initial amplification/strengthening of value system becomes a more effective filter for the objects to be determined. What is left is defined as “minimal” or what is “needed”. Functionalism/aesthetics are byproducts of value system instead of its driver.
To put it very simplistically: you don’t think about or touch the objects at all at the start. You spend time determining a system of values and when finished or practicable, determine whether or not the object is in support of that system. This way, minimalism can be individually defined but does not fall apart as a “lifestyle philosophy” because it becomes about a system of values which is more malleable and adaptable (not just because it can be but out of respect for the individual) than a method of dealing with objects.
Annette Corgan says
The white tank top that I wear because it’s so soft and useful, that fits perfectly…does not help me fulfill a greater purpose in my life. And it would not be a useful question to ask as I clean out my closet. And in the book, “sparking joy” was not the only criteria for keeping items. There wasn’t really a phrase for it, but keeping things you used often was quite acceptable. So my spatula, which doesn’t spark joy, and did help me fulfill the greater purpose of taking care of my family, would also be kept going along with Marie Kondo’s book. So I don’t think she’s wrong in that aspect. I do not however, talk to my socks.
April says
THANK YOU for pointing this out. I enjoyed the Kondo book when it came out but couldn’t put a finger on exactly why it didn’t work for me. Then I came across a button/pin someone had made that said “hoarding sparks joy” and that was my lightbulb moment. It isn’t about what sparks joy. Bad things can spark joy. That can’t possibly be the only filter I use. It wasn’t until I heard Joshua’s questions he asks “do I need this?” and “Why do I have it?” that I finally gained the awareness I needed to make decisions on what to do with my stuff. It’s been a slow process but I don’t miss anything I’ve gotten rid of. Even the things that sparked joy when I bought them.