The Dangers of Triviality

They say “power tends to corrupt,” and in a society where money is power, it comes as no surprise that money tends to corrupt as well. No matter where or when you look, it is very typical for the rich to act and live out very materialistic lives. Nowadays, in contemporaneous society, the wealthy may acquire a wide variety of material possessions, engage in excessive and often useless consumption, and flaunt their wealth. This isn’t necessarily bad, but it usually spirals out of control when they become too obsessed with their wealth which prevents them from seeing the more important things in life.

But let’s rewind a bit and see how aestheticism has changed throughout the course of time. Going back a couple hundred years, to the Middle Ages, the nobility didn’t really have to do anything to become, or even stay rich. And I wish I was exaggerating when I say “anything.” As I’ve learned in my World History class, they were born into a life of luxury and got a steady inflow of money to sustain that lifestyle, all while not having to lift a finger. In fact, this might be the most fitting example of people living a materialistic lifestyle.

In 19th-century Victorian London, we were beginning to see the Industrial Revolution impact the lifestyles of many people. As the English commoners made the transition from agriculture to urban culture, more people gained a lot of wealth relatively quickly. To mark their status, the newly rich engaged in excess ornamentation and began to embrace this new lifestyle of aestheticism (Levine). 

Oscar Wilde not only lived in Victorian London but also set his plays in Victorian London and therefore, he “[celebrates] the superficial at the expense of earnest seriousness” (The Importance of Being Earnest). Wilde, on several occasions, encourages living a life of aestheticism, or as he put it, “art for art’s sake.” Wilde views all art as something you should take at face value, and nothing more. Extending this ideology to life, we get triviality. Living shallowly like this is bound to have some negative effects on life. But how exactly does living a life of triviality/aestheticism detract from the purpose of one’s life?

Let’s start by looking at one of Wilde’s plays “The Importance of Being Earnest.” There are many examples of superficiality in this play, from their relationships to their witty banter. As we constantly see, their relationships don’t go beyond surface-level attractions. So surface-level, in fact, that the number one criterion for Cecily and Gwendolen when choosing their husbands is the name (which is extremely ironic because the name they are obsessed with is “Earnest,” and one of the definitions of earnest is being sincere). Something else to notice is the incongruity in Cecily’s speech. On one occasion, she says, “I don’t like novels that end happily. They depress me so much,” which is wonderfully illogical (Wilde). She says the opposite of what one would consider a “typical” response, which not only serves as humor but also shows that small talk is just meaningless and doesn’t allow for deeper conversations.

Not once do the characters snap out of their shallow personalities. They never have a significant conversation, even at the climax. When Cecily and Gwendolyn find out about the “Bunburying,” none of the characters react in a serious manner. Instead, they stay true to their characters and continue with their uncaring and unbothered dialogue. This goes to show that by living trivially, they became incapable of caring about anything or anyone. It practically takes away one of the traits that make us fundamentally human. 

The Stranger by Albert Camus doesn’t exemplify aestheticism or materialism the way “The Importance of Being Earnest” does because the main character Meursault doesn’t live a lavish life. Instead, the triviality lies in how he lives his mundane life. Camus describes Meursault’s repetitive life as “rising, streetcar, four hours in the office or the factory, meal, streetcar, four hours of work, meal, sleep, and Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday and Saturday according to the same rhythm” (The Stranger). Beyond just running through the motions in life, Meursault doesn’t try to find any deeper meaning or connections in his life. For example, in his “relationship” with Marie, he really doesn’t care about her. When asked if he wanted to marry her, he said “it didn’t make any difference to [him].” Upon further questioning to see if he even loved her, he says “it doesn’t mean anything” (Camus 51). While others consider things like marriage very seriously, Meursault doesn’t see the point in it. He can’t find anything in his life that would make it worth living for. Moreover, Meursault's detachment from life can also be seen in his lack of emotional response to the death of his mother. He doesn't display any remorse or sadness when she passes away, which goes against all societal norms. Now whether he felt emotion without outwardly displaying it is a different story. But everyone around him assumes that he doesn’t feel any emotion at all, which later comes back to haunt him. During his trial, the jury makes their ruling solely based on his lack of tears during his mother’s funeral, which eventually causes his execution.

In addition to the examples provided above, the negative effects of triviality and aestheticism can also be seen in the way they prevent individuals from truly experiencing and enjoying life. Algernon and Jack don’t get to experience being in a loving relationship with Cecily and Gwendolyn. Meursault also has this problem with Marie, but on top of that, he can’t find anything in his life that makes him excited to wake up. This emptiness makes Meursault’s life feel hollow and pointless.

Most of us are told to live our lives to the fullest and enjoy them (excluding the high-schoolers who don’t touch grass). A great interpretation of this is “exercising one's human capacities as fully as possible” (Huston). Meursault’s life is so bland and dull that he definitely doesn’t fit this statement. At least the characters of “The Importance of Being Earnest” follow this advice in the way that they indulge in material pleasures in life. But at the same time, they never exercise their capacity to think about more important things in life. 

It’s quite expected that someone like Aristotle would also ponder how one should live life. He thought of various ways of leading one’s life, “but his ultimate concern was the importance of living a fully happy life” (Huston). This logically follows from the previous point because living your life with the goal of enjoyment would ultimately result in some form of happiness. Everyone in “The Importance of Being Earnest” looks happy and carefree on the outside. However, it’s very likely that this is some sort of a facade they put on to fit in with their trivial society. And I doubt any of them are truly happy on the inside, given the almost artificial lives they lead. Meursault’s life is a constant monotony that seems to suck all the happiness out of him. But he never tries to escape this monotony and find something to live for. He gets his chance with Marie to finally find something meaningful in life, but he squanders that away as well, preferring to stay detached in life. Both these stories demonstrate the detrimental effects that living a shallow and materialistic life has on your life.

I would like to end this essay/blog post with an anecdote I have from an English class in middle school when our teacher asked us what the meaning of life was. As everyone stumbled over their words and tried to form an all-encompassing answer that would accurately answer this all-encompassing question, he said, “Because why not? Why can’t you live just to live?” And I think this answer is just wonderful.