I’ve been thinking more about my mum and how her ‘just in case’ tendencies rubbed off on me.
As I’ve explained before, we didn’t have a lot of money growing up so I appreciate keeping items may have been a necessity because there was no spare money to replace them.
The Minimalists follow the 20/20 rule – if you can replace an item for under $20 and within 20 minutes – then you don’t need to keep hold of it.
I don’t know about you but I think £13 (the GB sterling conversion) is actually quite a lot of money.
I’m not criticising the rule – if it works for you then all power to your elbow – but it did lead me to ponder whether minimalism is actually a pursuit of the privileged.
In order to reduce items to a minimum you have to have the money in your pocket to spend on things when you need them, to know that you have $20 or £13 in your bank account that you can spare if you need to purchase an item at the last minute.
Of course, minimalism is different for everyone, and one person’s necessity may be another person’s rubbish. You keep what is valuable to you and what may be valuable to you are those replaceable items that cost £13 or less because it will be a squeeze to afford them.
I’m not arguing for keeping drawers stuffed with spare phone charges and extra whisks (who uses those anyway?), I’ve got rid of the vast majority of my just-in-case items because I’m pretty sure the situations that I thought I’d need them for would never arise.
I’m lucky enough not to be living hand to mouth and have a job that has allowed me to accrue some money in the bank. I just appreciate that this may not be the same for everyone who is considering minimalism or trying to minimise their belongings and free themselves from clutter.
I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on whether there is a certain level of privilege in attaining minimalism.