In Digital Minimalism, Cal Newport goes to great lengths to ensure the reader understands that the movement is not anti-technology, but just critical of how it is used (and, helpfully, suggests alternative ways to use technology).
When feeling threatened by someone, or a new idea, of something that you see happening, or something you read, it’s worth taking a step back to identify exactly what it is that is being challenged.
In Cal’s case, he's affirming the tool (technology) but challenging how it is used. It is easy to understand that there will be better ways of using a given tool, or at least preferences in style. In this light, it is much easier to digest and get to grips with the views of Digital Minimalism.
Tiny houses could be seen in this light. Except that here, I think, the challenge is really.
Tiny houses are many things, and can represent many ideas. They can speak about environmentalism, or a connection with the land. They might focus on portability and mobility, or proximity to a people or place. They might be focusing on an urban lifestyle, or a rural.
But it would appear that all tiny houses directly comment on the amount of space most of us take up at home.
A 25 square meter home might represent a distant marker point, sure. But while tiny houses don’t pretend to be a practical or long-term accomodation option for everyone, they do seem to say that most of us (if not all of us) could live in less space.
An article on tiny houses was published in New Zealand Geographic in July 2018, and specifically takes aim at the size of our houses.
In 1974, the average house in New Zealand was 110 square metres. By 2010, that had bloated to 199 square metres, and house sizes have dropped only slightly since then.
Big houses need more resources and take longer to build. They cost more to heat, light and clean—and they’re not even what we really want.
“Economists would say people just like bigger homes, but that’s not consistent with the research I’ve done,” says sociologist Kay Saville-Smith from the Wellington-based Centre for Research, Evaluation and Social Assessment (CRESA). “We are producing houses which don’t fit our needs.”
So having clarified that the tiny house movement is many things, but consistently asking us to consider living in less space (and apparently, living better), what is our response?