By Leah Bernstein
The urge to collect is not a new one, but in current times it has certainly become popular. What was once a niche way of reflecting appreciation for meaningful materials has become prominent in the age of the internet. Retailers from Amazon to eBay make it easier than ever to purchase anything you could want, and it’s simple for communities to congregate online to discuss the focus of what they may be collecting. Even so, the idea of having collections can be deemed “cringe”— the average person isn’t expected to dedicate space in their home to stamps, reusable water bottles, or dolls after all.
Many have specific motives as to why they collect, as explored in the 1994 study Interpreting Objects and Collections, edited by Susan Pearce. It concluded with there being five major categories as to why people collect— for one’s self, connecting with others, the purpose of preservation, a financial investment, or addiction. Yet in the aforementioned modern age of collecting, there appears to be a potential sixth category: doing it all for the sake of social validation or clout.
The most notable example of this has to have been the hit trend of Stanley tumblers, a style of portable drink mug. Originally their parent company considered them a failing product, before they caught steam with mothers through the catalog “Buy Guide”. They then became a commercial darling in 2022, achieving virality through TikTok. They’re now a staple product among people across all demographics, so much so that at the height of their popularity people engaged in brawls to purchase the $45 bottles.
Many show off their collections of the 1.2 pound (4 when full) behemoths in an array of neutral tones, proud of having the trendy item in-hand and even purchasing an assortment of low-quality accessories to make them their own. Yet it feels as if the pride doesn’t come from people enjoying a good quality mug— something Stanley tumblers can’t claim, due to the discovery that many test positive for lead. So much of the interest around these mugs comes from the fact they’re “in” and little else, which makes the desire for them appear remarkably hollow.
It can be argued the desire for Stanleys can overlap with every category in Pearce’s study, perhaps barring the want to preserve. But the widespread desire for them is harmful, and more “cringe” than anything else. They’re not sought out to connect with others or for one’s self-enrichment. Rather it’s to appear better than or equal to those who attempt to wield the unwieldy status symbol, sell the trinkets for inflated second hand prices, or fulfill an unhealthy impulse to participate in consumerist culture.
While some collections in the world may be esoteric or downright nonsensical, they will often be much more personal endeavors that mean something special to their owners compared to someone trend-surfing for the sake of acceptability.
Comments