Article on hoarding & history in today's Wall Street Journal

18 years ago

On the front page, no less! It's about people who grew up in the depression and learned to save and reuse. Many of them saved so much stuff they've forgotten what they have. Professional de-clutterers have discovered valuable family heirlooms but also documents that illuminate social as well as family history. Traditionally, social service agencie and landlords intervened to get rid of everything. Professional de-clutterers take a different approach, weeding out the important from the junk. In many cases, the older people who were the clients had just gotten too tired to go through stuff anymore, or lost heart/motivation when a partner died. Some of the organizers also have to convince adult children that they shouldn't just trash the lot.

They mention, in passing, the fact that the 85+ population is the fastest growing segment, but don't really speculate on how widespread hoarding is in older populations. Those over 85 now were stronly influenced by the Depression; will baby boomers, for example, exhibit the same behavior? It's interesting to speculate.

Sort by:Oldest

Comments (7)

jannie
18 years ago
Both my parents (born 1922 and 1923) were hoarders. I am one also, I buy too much and save too much. I used to say my stuff was "collectibles". Now it's mostly,but not all, junk.
zeebo
18 years ago
As for the mindset that the have to keep things they might need: this is important, this is essential, this is valuable, I paid for it! And especially when it comes to paper: Without this stuff I'm without protection. (Even though they have no way of filing or remembering where this "important" documentation is. They picture themselves in a court of law, safe, because they kept the paper.

To continue: without this stuff I am lost. Anything could happen. With all my stuff I have freedom from anxiety and fear. But it turns out that instead of being liberating it imprisoning. It's overload.

Duh. When you have or "hoard" too much stuff you can't find the "good" stuff, anyways.

I always chuckle when people post questions about how to file or cross reference all this paperwork that you know they'll never look at again. For heaven's sakes, save your mortgage papers, and tax returns. But not every utility bill since 1927. Do you think someone that out of control is actually going to make a huge spreadsheet and find a common denominator that is going to save him money? And for what? To buy a shed or a pod to put the old, saved paper in?

Resist the urge to hoard! It is imprisoning!
Related Discussions
Designing for History
Q
Comments (17)
At last I can join this thread (gave my talk, took some vacation days!). The experience I have had in historic garden work, and most of the historic places I am familiar with, are public gardens not because of the gardens themselves so much but because of the person who originally owned the house or estate that has then been turned into a museum. Therefore, the focus is to attempt to portray a certain significant time period in that person's lifetime, and the garden therefore is supposed to reflect that. So ideally, the landscape should be brought back to look like it did during that period of time the museum is emphasizing, even if the design was relatively new and not "mature." That's the ideal. The point of restoring the garden along with everything else is to allow visitors to feel like they have stepped back in time and are seeing the grounds in much the same condition as the important historic figure would have seen it. Not the way it looked fifty years later. This is rarely done, however. Mount Vernon prides itself on having completely redone their restoration to reflect George Washington's design for the flower and vegetable gardens. However, the trees he planted around the big lawn in front are way overgrown and too big to look anything like what Washington saw there during his lifetime. Gives completely the wrong picture. But no one's going to suggest we cut down the trees George Washington planted (except me)! So there is a conflict between authenticity of material (original trees) and authenticity of look (replant to get the right size for the time period). In the case of Hillwood, Mrs. Post intended early on that the house be made into a museum to house her vast collection of Russian and French art, furniture, and porcelain. She had the gardens redesigned for the purpose of entertain groups of people, and often led tours of the gardens herself during her lifetime. When deciding to do a massive restoration of the grounds, they were faced with lots and lots of huge trees which would have made it impossible to restore the vast collections of azaleas, rhodos, camellias, and other flowering trees and shrubs that were part of the original design but were languishing under all the towering evergreens and shade trees. So. What to do? Archival photos tell the story of what the grounds looked like, and so lots of the trees have come down and been replaced by the same but smaller, to get the same look as during Mrs. Post's time. It gets controversial from time to time, of course, but there's no other course of action if you want the garden she had. As an example, there are five immense arborvitaes that dominate some shrub beds on either side of the formal lawn. They're about 30 feet tall. However, in the mid 1960s, they were about 6 feet tall and meant to be kept that size by shearing (as were most of the evergreens). The rhodos actually tower over the little sheared arborvitae in the photos. So, we're yanking out the old ones and putting in new, shorter ones that will be kept in proper scale. Drastic, but necessary. There will be fights over replacing the huge American elms, but that will eventually be done as well. As for whether the garden was at its "prime" during the mid 1960s, which is what we are trying to portray, (the design dates from about 1957) it all depends and what you like, mature shade trees or blooming borders! A logical question to ask is, what happens when the new trees outgrow their allowed size? Obviously, we'll replace them again. If this doesn't get done, then you are back to losing the totality of the design for the sake of a few trees. Saving the mature trees at an old site can then lead to a "restoration" that can never be authentic because the right plants can't survive in the altered conditions. That in turn leads to problems if a historic site has an educational mission, as most claim to do. Add the complication of donated funds with many strings attached, making interpretations say what the donors want instead, and you have a real mess. I've been there, fought that fight, and lost. That's why I'm at Hillwood instead of one of the historic sites that are practically a stone's throw from my house. Sorry this is so long. I'm having a day off to plant some new perennial beds. So out I go for more soil prep. The plants arrived yesterday from Bluestone. Fran
...See More
decluttering, in the Wall Street Journal
Q
Comments (10)
Maryliz, A vendor needs your credit card number for at least a short amount of time. Here's why. You make a purchase. If the purchase is for a service (something you can't return): The vendor accepts your card and the vendor has to get paid. If the card is VISA/MC/AMex etc and the vendor is sophisticated and has good electronic systems, then the vendor electronically transmits your card number and purchase info to their bank which in turn communicates with VISA etc. A credit of the amount of your purchase passes back through the chain and your vendor gets paid. This total process usually happens within a few days. If the vendor swipes your card through the old card reader, they go to the bank in a few days to make a deposit, submit your card number and purchase info and then the process happens under which they get paid by VISA etc. If the non-returnable purchase is made with a store card, then the vendor sends you a bill up to 30 days later. You send your check or electronic payment in. How does the vendor know to apply your payment unless they have the card number? Now say your purchase is for goods. The same VISA/store card process happens. But then say you decide to return the item. The vendor won't be able to "cancel" the original purchase or credit your account unless they have the account number. But, yes, they could swipe the card again; however, that wouldn't tie back to the original purchase because a new transaction number would be applied. Larger companies use this for inventory tracking. In addition, some vendors use customer information (volume of purchases) to determine pricing for that customer...discounts to big customers for example. The transactions don't end and the use of information doesn't stop when you walk out the door.
...See More
Wall Street Journal Design Trends 2020
Q
Comments (9)
Thanks for sharing; I enjoy reading these lists every year. They give me flashbacks to the BHG and HGTV decor boards, circa 1999/2000 ... experts and posters alike were very sure and very giddy that stainless steel appliances would be “out” by 2000 .... but go ahead and get them if you want to ruin your kitchen and life!!! :D I so wish I could go back and reread those old threads. Granite countertops were also predicted to go out of style VERY SOON (2001) and never be seen again. I don’t mind the idea of trends. They’ve been around forever. Cars, decor, fashion, etc. Some new things are introduced, some old introduced as new again, interesting conversations are had, sometimes they can be inspiring, some people rebel, they almost always go too far, people want to barf just looking at another [whatever was run into the ground], and it starts again. I majored in sociology, but also worked in the design field, so can get very long-winded and super boring on this sort of subject. Anyway, I love earth tones, have always decorated that way. I love warm tones, wood, etc, but can certainly appreciate other styles, too. Marketers always try to herd us all into an either/or mentality. I’ve always believed there’s plenty of room for everything, as well as lots of ways to work with a mix. And I’ve managed to find new treasures for my earth toned surroundings, even during the cool-toned gray, frosty blue, and white era. ;) ETA: See! I warned you I’d get boring! Y’all are thinking, “Nobody asked all that”. :D
...See More
Interesting article about effect of social media
Q
Comments (11)
I was thinking this morning about how to reduce the polarization. I have no idea how to deal with the social media issue, but I think that the structure of our two party system and the electoral college contribute to polarization. I think that ranked choice voting would be a good first step. Think of a primary with 15 or 20 candidates, which we had in this election and in 2016. You tend to have a lot of candidates in the middle of the field and a few that are farther to the left of right. The middle-of-road vote gets split among a bunch of candidates, which gives the more extreme candidates an opening, even though collectively the middle-of-the-field candidates have more support. In ranked choice voting, you choose your 1st choice candidate, 2nd choice, etc. When they tally the votes, they do it in rounds. After the 1st round, they eliminate the candidate with the lowest number of 1st choice votes. The vote of anyone who listed that candidate as their first choice gets reallocated to their second choice candidate. The votes are retallied and the last place candidate is again dropped. Repeat, until you run out of rankings (I think I've only had to rank up to 5 candidates, even when the field was larger). I hesitate to use concrete examples for fear of setting off censorship. But if you are voting on 3 candidates, who we will call Left, Middle, and Right (though within a party primary, one of those would be "center), and the people who like the Left candidate put Middle as their second choice, and people who like the right candidate put Middle as their second choice, then the candidate in the middle will get the nomination. The primaries are a good place to start (especially since it is purely up to the parties). But what if we went further, and used it in the general election? And what if the Electoral College used ranked-choice voting (that would definitely take a constitutional amendment)? I think with that change you could have more than two major parties, and the ranking would push the final choice toward the middle. I think. I'm obviously ready for some serious reform.
...See More
quiltglo
18 years ago
zeebo, there's no "Duh" factor here. Before the days of instant retrieval of material with computers, not having a receipt might mean getting thrown out on the street. The fear of not having what you need is very real. Those of us who love people who do this know there isn't just some "duh" get it together kind of solution.

elisabeth, do you have a link to the article?

Gloria
zeebo
17 years ago
Actually, I didn't mention receipts. Just paper in general. I've been on other boards where people literally have stacks of outdated manuals, policies they no longer own and retirement papers which are valid, but actually no longer useful after the "newest" set arrive quarterly in the mail. Someone whom I admire greatly made a point: 95% of what people have in their paper stacks is junk. 5% is archivable or valuable. She suggests not spending a lot of time on the paper but instead box it up and forget about it while you create a system from scratch that works.

If you aren't going to make a huge mathmatical spreadsheet detailing your home's energy usage, is the paid bill really necessary to keep for months? Or once you see that you have been creditted with that payment on the following bill, can you let it go? When your retirement investment papers come in the mail with the previous balance and your new balance, can you throw the old papers? (That was a hard one for me, as I just kept investment papers in the same area and eventually created a mountain!) Each company I am with sends a year-end spreadsheet and I really like that! I also signed up for their e-mail delivery so I can just transfer that file into a folder without even looking at it, if I choose. One company is sending BOTH paper and e-mail, ick.

Gloria, you mentioned "the fear of not having what you need". I recently read an article on hoarding and would like to quote:

How do you know what's of value and what's not? All the ads, all the news scream out that 'this is important, this is essential!' And somewhere in the imagination the idea gets planted: Without this stuff, I'm without protection. I'm lost. Anything could happen. The possibilities seem infinite, in part, I suppose, because there's so little evidence that as individuals we can control much of anything. Take technology--it's hyped as 'access to information,' as x, y, and z, the solution to the crises. As freedom--from anxiety, from fear. But it turns out that instead of being liberating, it's imprisoning. It's overload

I became interested in the psychology of hoarding almost 20 years ago when a garbage house was discovered in the town where I live. I have made many observations about the psychology of why people keep things. I am not trying to be judgemental, although it is hard on the computer to convey. I keep receipts myself! I recently had a 4 month old digital camera break and the store only honored receipts up to 90 days. The manufacturer was much nicer! Sometimes when I purchase a lot of things at Target I will ask for the blouse or shoes to be rung up seperately, so I can throw away the receipt with the detergent & staples which I know I'd never return and keep only what I might need. I'm not totally ruthless! And I enjoy discussing the psychology and techniques that work for me and what others do too.
quiltglo
17 years ago
I had to give this one some thought zeebo. I was discussing this post with a friend and trying to figure out when my mom went from a "normal" cluttered house to the isles of piles.

It wasn't the fear factor which drives people to do hoarding. It was more of a lack of skill to be able to sift through all of the stuff that was coming into the household with the changes in society. Hand me down clothing was still the norm when I was a kid, yet we didn't know anyone to give the clothing to. No thrift stores. Limited trash removal. You just didn't get rid of "good" stuff.

50 years ago, anything that came in the mail was important or something you actually ordered. You needed that mail. Now, look at how seldom we actually need anything in that 2" batch of junk mail, yet my mom stayed with the older sytem of feeling like she needed to put that aside.

I also can clearly identify the time when the house started really getting closed in. I was 15 at the time (I'm now 50) and my dad was unemployed. I think the stress levels were building. It showed in the house. Moving frequently and nothing ever fit in the next house, so furniture would go in the basement and furniture would appear to fit the current rooms. The stuff just got moved from house to house. I know the bike I rode in grade school was moved until I was 25. A good chunk of the stuff only got gone because they moved into a townhouse with a small basement.

My parents were the first generation to even own a home. No hidden attics in my family of years and years of old household items, so no one had much to begin with.

I don't think that people really needed that many skills 60 years ago to deal with the onslaught of consumer goods. It's only gotten worse with items made to last a year and then you have to purchase a new one. But in my community, you aren't allowed to put that old monitor in the trash. Dealing with the excess can take a lot of energy and people just end up putting it aside.

We can't even burn stuff in a fire pit, like was suggested. That will get you a hefty fine here.

Even though I'm 50, my youngest is only in kindergarten, so I spend time with women 10-20 years younger than me. They are struggling. The mail piles up on them. The toys pile up on them. The clothing piles up on them. They don't have control of their finances, yet the families have really good incomes.

I think some people have a psychological stuggle. I really believe for the majority of us, it is learned behavior.

Gloria
ANdj_WI
17 years ago
Wow, what insight Gloria. I had never considered that the strategies I've learned for dealing with stuff - oh say over the last 40 years from depression-era parents - don't suffice for the SUPERabundance and planned obsolescence of today.

-ANdj

Below is a link to the article mentioned.

Here is a link that might be useful: Helping hoarders reunite with buried possessions
mommabird
17 years ago
My FIL was the biggest hoarder in the world. He died in Jan and my MIL is slowly starting to clean out the junk. He left her an unbelieveable job. He would never throw ANYTHING away. She is doing a little at a time & expects it to take at least a year. She put up with this clutter for 50 years! At least the purging his helping her feel better & not so sad. It gives her something to keep busy.

DH is bad, but not quite as bad as FIL. I hate clutter so we are totally mis-matched. I have a peaceful place in my mind where I take "mental trips" when it gets too much. IT's a tiny cabin the a wood, with 3 rooms - a bedroom with just a bed, side table, and dresser. A living room with a table, sofa & rocking chair. And a kitchen with just the esentials. No clutter and very few possessions. This is my dream of paradise on earth.

Article on hoarding & history in today's Wall Street Journal

Comments (7)

jannie

zeebo

Related Discussions

quiltglo

zeebo

quiltglo

ANdj_WI

mommabird

COMPANY

BUSINESS SERVICES

GET HELP

CONNECT WITH US