An Analysis Of Disengagement By Stephen Hill

1558 Words 7 Pages
disengagement” (212). Meaning, people trapped in a consumer mind-set experience negative emotions and a withdrawal from society, and thus are no happier than before they had a consumer mind-set.
Logos: This is a prominent figure throughout Hill’s argument. His most observable use of logos, or logic, is turning himself into the example that consumerism leads to further problems later in life. In one of Hill’s direct claims to his audience, he states that “Intuitively, we know that the best stuff in life isn’t stuff at all, and that relationships, experiences, and meaningful work are the staples of a happy life” (213). In that statement, Hill is appealing to the logic of his audience and the common sense mentality of the age-old saying money
…show more content…
Supporting Details: Hill’s argument uses appropriate supporting details that back up his main claims: Consumerism can’t buy happiness and that it often leads to emotional distress for the consumer. He covers a variety of topics with no notable logical fallacies, such as appealing to authority or poisoning the well. Hill reinforces his points with the supporting details of statistics, credible sources, and his own experiences (210-12). Hill uses statistics to prove that consumerism is worsening global warming, increasing out of control, and damaging to our health. Hill discusses how the average temperature of the globe has been higher than the average when compared to nearly the entire 20th century. He then claims that housing size is currently more than double of what it used to be sixty years ago, but that the amount of people per household has inversely gone down. As if all that extra space wasn’t overkill enough, people still rent storage units to store their excess stuff after their garages are filled to the brim with stuff, not cars. Finally, Hill discusses that while consumerism is at an all-time high, happiness levels have not risen with them, and that psychologists believe stuff can actually impair the happiness center of the mind …show more content…
His claim, or thesis, is that he is happier living with less than the average consumer and that it is better for the environment, due to his small carbon footprint. His rebuttal is directed at those who believe he is biased for not liking stuff, when in fact he says that he does still like material things similar to others, just that he now lives within his means instead of in excess. His qualifier is that he is living with less, not nothing as some may argue. Meaning, that he is not saying the way to fight consumerism is to stop it completely, but to reflect on what we buy in life that we don’t need. His evidence are the statistics, researchers, and personal experiences that he brings into his article to support his points. His warrant, which is left unspoken, is that he is happier living with less, and that his readers likely would be too. Finally, his backing to the warrant shows when he claims that his life now is big despite living with less, and how proud of himself he is with his small carbon footprint

Related Documents