The conflicted American dream: Large homes, excessive consumption, and the rise of minimalism.

Land and property ownership was inherent in early American conceptions of ‘success’ and opportunity, whereby land ownership brought legal rights, social status and, in some states, voting rights (Jackson, 1985; Schlay, 2006). Yet land ownership was not accessible to women and minorities. This Jeffersonian understanding of land rights highlighted the early embeddedness of homeownership as the tenure of choice within American culture, while also using it as a tool to divide and discriminate (Wright, 1983; Schlay, 2006). After the Great Depression revealed the shortcomings of private lending markets, the federal government stepped in and established programmes to stabilise the housing market (for example, the Federal Housing Administration [FHA]), furthering their agenda of creating a nation of homeowners. This twentieth-centurypush for homeownership was linked to the notion that a stable home creates a loyal citizen, rooted in a fear of communism and labour unrest (Wright, 1983; Hayden, 1981). Housing policies were further expanded post-WWII to stimulate the economy through various finance innovations, including subsidised loans and increases in credit from secondary mortgage markets (Shlay, 2006). Subsidised loans were prohibited in urban and minority neighbourhoods, thus leading to a suburban exodus of largely white-middle class (Jackson, 1985). Indeed, the American dream moved to the suburbs, further perpetuating divisions between homeowners and non-homeowners (renters) and the desirable way to be housed (Carliner, 1998). As Shlay (2006) argues, US homeownership policy has been about ‘creating the expectation of owning one’s own home’ (p. 511). Neoliberal policymaking in the latter part of the twentieth century preyed upon the pursuit of the American dream and the embedded expectation around this aspirational tenure of choice. This pursuit of homeownership is reinforced and encouraged by the dream of consumption in all aspects of life, resulting in excessive spending and massive debt.

Contemporary neoliberal discourses, underscored by policy interventions, use the American dream to normalise the need to aspire towards and continually pursue a life of prosperity and material wealth. Homeownership is entrenched within this pursuit. Indeed, political rhetoric connects homeownership to the pursuit of the American dream and notions of safety, comfort, security, longevity, aspiration, freedom, family, and others. The following examples highlight this language involved in the normalisation and optimisation of homeownership in the United States.

Examples of homeownership political discourse:

‘Fundamental to the American dream is somewhere to call home – a safe and welcoming ‘anchor place’ where families are raised and memories are formed.’ Millennial Housing Commission Report May 2002: 3

‘A part of economic security is owning your own home. Part of being a secure American is to encourage homeownership. So somebody can say, this is my home, welcome to my home.’  President George W. Bush: speech promoting homeownership  June 2002

‘More Americans will know the joy of scratching the child’s height on the door of their new home – with pencil, of course.’ President Barack Obama: speech on housing crisis recovery August 2013

‘For generations of Americans, owning a home has been an essential element in achieving the American dream. Homeownership is often the foundation of security and prosperity for families and communities and an enduring symbol of American freedom.’ President Donald Trump: proclamation for National Homeownership Month 31st of May, 2017

However, due to oppressive neoliberal policies that support ever-growing socio-economic disparities, most are unable to achieve this ‘optimal’ dream (Harvey, 2012). In the modern era housing is an exchange commodity, seen as a privilege not a right. The deregulation and financialisation of housing in the latter part of the twentieth century until the present day resulted in ‘hyper-commodification’ in which powerful elites attained more housing. This limited access to middle- and lower-income individuals, in turn increasing rental prices (Madden and Marcuse, 2016). Despite this, modern liberal democracies hegemonically maintain homeownership as the responsible, optimal, and natural housing choice, superior to renting (Gurney, 1999; Rowlands and Gurney, 2000; Flint, 2003; Flint and Rowlands, 2003; McKee, 2011; McIntyre and McKee, 2012; McKee et al., 2017). Furthermore, normalisation tactics around homeownership suggest the superiority of owning one’s house as an investment, implying irresponsibility in renting (Gurney, 1999; Ronald, 2008). This is a form of branding within the commodified housing market to differentiate between the acceptable and desirable, and the deviant (Flint and Rowlands, 2003). Those unable to pursue and maintain this investment of homeownership have been found to have a ‘double disadvantage’, as these individuals experience exclusion from this societal norm while the lack of this asset increases their chances of poverty in old age (Dewilde and Raeymaeckers, 2008). 

For many, the contemporary American dream is defined by excessive material accumulation, overtly seen in the onset of ‘McMansions’. This name, coined in the 1980s, makes the comparison between the construction of ostentatious mass-produced, homogenous, poorly designed houses, and mass-produced fast-food (i.e. McDonalds) (Nasar et al., 2007). This trend sits within the ‘McDonaldization of society’, as suggested by Ritzer (2001). For many, these houses and their ascribed ‘super-sized’ opulence have become entrenched in the pursuit of the American dream (Ritzer, 2001). It is perhaps the most glaring result of the ways in which a hyper-commodified good can become a hyperbolised version of itself, yet this is the version of homeownership many pursue (Nasar et al., 2007).

Excessive consumption has become the norm within the contemporary American lifestyle, defined by fast fashion, fast food, single-use plastic, and large homes and cars. The promotion of a dream of prosperity and success reinforces this practice of excessive consumerism, underscored by conspicuous consumption tendencies and a ‘keeping up with the Joneses’ mentality. Admittedly, this is a mentality prevalent in other countries in the Global North, specifically Australia and Canada, both of which have large average sized homes (Australia, 231 m2 (2475 ft2); Canada, 204 m2 (2200 ft2)). These countries are defined by high rates of debt, with Canada’s household debt-to-GDP being the highest in the G7 at nearly 100%, and the US is at 79.9%, while Australia sits at 122 %. Unsurprisingly, these countries have some of the highest rates of CO2emissions per capita (the US, 14.95 m tonnes; Canada, 14.91 m tonnes; and Australia, 17.22 m tonnes) (IEA, 2017). While the rise in household debt in the US decreased as a result of the Great Recession between 2008 and 2013, it reached an all-time high in 2018 at $13.2 trillion, and personal savings sits at 2.4%, one of its lowest levels. Thus, suggesting that Americans, supported by political and corporate rhetoric, have continued to accrue debt at exorbitant rates, perhaps not learning a lesson from the Great Recession. 

However, minimalism and simplification lifestyles have been on the rise, especially among Millennials. Minimalism, and similar lifestyles (i.e., simplification, downshifting, anti-consumption), have seen increased attention and interest in the form of podcasts (for example, The Minimalists, The Simple Show, The Slow Home Podcast), books (Marie Kondo’s The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up, Joshua Becker’s The More of Less: Finding the Life You Want Under Everything You Own), television shows (Tidying Up, The Minimalist, Happy), and social media accounts (Instagram: @thesimplicitymovement, @minimalismlife, @minimalistbible. @minimalmess) in recent years. These lifestyles gained popularity out of the need to restrict and sacrifice amidst the Great Recession and have continued to define consumption tendencies for some. Millennials are burdened by high levels of student loan debt, stagnant incomes, high costs of housing, and thus have been driven to sacrifice in other areas (i.e., cars, homeownership, other material possessions). This dichotomous context, of continued excess and increased debt and minimalistic tendencies ignited by the Great Recession, defines the complexities of the contemporary American dream.