Beyond Materialism

To the Editor:

Columnist Dan Dudis asks why "people work...beyond the minimum required to secure...food and shelter," in "Summer, Saks, and Sin?" [9/11/98, YH], and he is correct in assuming that his solution is "disquieting to some." Dudis's basic premise--that ambition and success are driven solely by a desire to purchase material goods--is a gross generalization of the impetus towards learning, excellence, and innovation.

Certainly, the digits in one's salary drive one to work hard and succeed. However, Dudis is incorrect in stating that this is the only (or even major) force behind work ethic. Integrity, passion, or hardship--to name a few--can be factors in an individual's need and desire to succeed.

Dudis is correct to say that purchasing and owning goods should not be a source of guilt. Objects can give us great pleasure, whether it be a car, a painting, or a "$185 Versace T-shirt." However, the "wealth-creators," as Dudis calls them, do have a responsibility to the less fortunate. It is economically naïve to believe that this tiny percentage of Americans can succeed without the help of the middle and lower classes. It is politically naïve to simply state that "we pay taxes" for the care of the sick and those living below the poverty line. Most importantly, though, the urges to stock up at Saks and drop a few coins in a homeless man's cup are not mutually exclusive, as Dudis intimates. It is possible to buy a beach house and still be active in creating communities less divided among economic lines (of which giving money to beggars is perhaps the most thoughtless action and volunteering time or restructuring welfare laws more constructive). Indeed, the only reason to feel guilty about spending money is if one feels the money is being misspent--a somewhat circular argument, but perhaps where Dudis ought to begin to a rethinking of the anecdotal peg for this particular column.

--Kate Merkel-Hess, ES '99

Back to Opinion...