It is relatively easy to decide whether clothes, tools, food, etc., are necessary or not. If things are broken or rotten, then the decision is very simple. In general, the necessity or otherwise of something can be decided on the basis of its physical characteristics or appearance. The subject of this book is mainly paper, and in some cases it is easy to make a judgment about this too. Used tissues or torn paper bags obviously serve no purpose. The decision is easy because they carry no information. There are certain types of information-carrying paper too about which a decision can quickly be made. For example, newspapers: once a newspaper is out of date it has little value and can probably can be discarded. But documents and memos are completely different. They can still be important, even if they are old and torn. Discarding important documents by mistake can cause extremely serious problems.
Yukio Noguchi, Super-Organization 3
If you’ve read this far in my book, you’ll realize that Noguchi’s views are rather one-sided. If it was so simple to judge whether or not clothes, tools, and food items were necessary, homes would not be flooded with things in the way they are. Ditto the workplace. The problem lies in the fact that so many unnecessary items are in useable condition. From this point of view, they’re no different than documents. Anybody who can simply accept Noguchi’s position is someone who already regards documents (= information) as sacred. It’s this attitude that makes people incapable of managing the limitless flows of information we’re all subjected to.
Many businessmen regard their work as the most important thing in their lives. They have little respect for things in the home, but treat anything to do with work as sacred. As long as they maintain this attitude, their workplace will always be cluttered.
The Art of Discarding is not limited to particular types of things—it’s an approach to life in general. Mementos, food, and books are regarded as sacred for different reasons. Once you lose a body of information, it’s difficult to rebuild. If you lose mementos they’re gone forever. Books are books and food is food, and both should be treated with respect. (I won’t analyze why this is. Such attitudes to food and books are accepted as common sense. It can be difficult to show a clear basis for something, even if it seems reasonable.)
But whatever reason you have for regarding something as sacred, remember it’s only you that is giving it that status. Nobody else regards it as “untouchable.” The real reason you can’t get rid of it is that you have some dependence on it.
Think like this!
To stop seeing things as sacred you have to tell yourself one thing: “When I’m dead, it will all be trash.”
I don’t want to criticize you if you think certain items are worth keeping. That would be as pointless as telling a believer that their religion is nonsense. You can file away papers that you’ll never look at again. You can surround yourself with mementos and live in the past. You can let the floor collapse under the weight of books. You can forever be eating things just before their use-by date. And if you’re happy like that, then that’s fine.
But when you die, it will all be trash. If you were to die right now in a traffic accident, that album you’ve kept so carefully will be thrown away. Your books will be bought up as a job lot by a second-hand bookshop. Wouldn’t it be better to clear things out instead and enjoy a clutter-free life while you can?
6
IF YOU’VE GOT IT, USE IT
A lot of things stay unused because they are reserved for guests, or for going out, or because they form part of a set. But don’t you think it’s a waste to have something that you don’t use?
Danger items
Books, magazines, CDs, tableware, clothes, etc.
When does it happen?
Once you start creating special categories, you often end up just “having” things and never using them. The following scenarios will be familiar to everyone.
SITUATION 1: LOOKING AT A BOOKSHELF
I’ve loved Yasutaka Tsutsui’s books ever since I was a student. Most of these hardbacks are first editions. I always buy the paperbacks too—for the commentaries. Then there was a complete works edition so I had to get that. He takes up the whole shelf. But it was his earlier works I liked best—some of the recent ones I haven’t read at all. This one—I’ve never even opened it. I’ll probably never read it. But I’ll keep it. It’s part of the set.
SITUATION 2: GOING HOME
Mom, I’ve brought a cake. Let’s have some tea. Oh—you’ve bought a new tea service. Very nice! Let’s use it. What? You don’t want to? Just for guests? So what shall we use, then? What about these? The previous ones you had for guests. You don’t want to use those either? They’re just for your friends. OK. So we’ll have to use the ones we’ve always used. Look, this one’s cracked. Oh, Mom!
SITUATION 3: SORTING OUT YOUR CDS
These CDs are piling up. Perhaps I could sell some. World Music—that was popular. But I never listen to it now. I could sell all of those. Here’s one by Queen. I used to like it. I don’t think I’ll sell it. All these by The Doors! I bought all their albums, but I only ever listened to these two. I could sell the rest. But then they’re a set, so it’d be a pity. I think I’ll hang on to them all.
SITUATION 4: OPENING YOUR DAUGHTER’S CLOSET
You’re going to a friend’s house today, aren’t you? What are you going to wear? Your red sweater with ribbons? No, you can’t! That’s for best. What about your strawberry one? No? You prefer the checked one? No, you can’t wear that either. You’ve only worn it once. Keep it for New Year.
The “have-but-don’t-use” mentality
Dividing things up on the basis of use means earmarking some items as special. Once that happens, the “special” items never get touched. Your treasure remains unused. Let’s consider the mentality of keeping “sets” and having things “only for guests.”
Wanting a “set” belongs to the collection mentality. A set gives a sense of perfection or beauty. I’m told that those who collect insects tend to focus on a particular species because not many people collect them or because they feel they can obtain specimens of every type. In the same way, if there’s a set of fifteen books and you have fourteen, it seems a shame not to have the other one. This is only natural.
But once you have them all, there’s not often much advantage beyond being able to say you’ve got them. If you begin to feel this matters, then you’re venturing into the realm of the genuine collector. When you find yourself obsessed with completing a set, then you may be a lost cause.
The “set” mentality can easily take hold for items like the works of a particular author or back-issues of a magazine. You end up with a choice of either keeping them all as a set or getting rid of them all.
The idea that things are more valuable as a “set” is a dangerous one. You may be told by an expert that your plates were originally a five-piece set and, as such, would fetch a higher price. If you take that too seriously, you’ll be under the spell of “sets.”
And the “for-guests” mentality is similar. The fact that people use “sets” for guests reflects the idea that “sets” are special. If teacups from a six-piece “guest” set get broken and you only have four left, then they may well be stripped of their special “guest” rank.
Think like this!
If you have it, use it. If you don’t use it, don’t have it.
Why should things be in sets? If you want to read a particular book, that book is all you need. If you’re not going to read the whole set, why keep it? A complete set of books can look good, of course. But who besides you is ever going to look at your bookshelves?
Why bother to keep a “guest” tea set for your friends? If you have cups you like, then use them all the time. Enjoy them yourself. Instead of having five for guests and five for ordinary use, just get five that appeal to you. It’s cheaper and takes up less space. If you break one, you can always buy another.
Rather than acquiring sets, simply buy things when necessary. They’ll co
me to feel like a set in due course. It’s a more relaxed approach.
And don’t bother to keep certain clothes for special use either. There’s not much difference these days between everyday clothes and “special” clothes, anyway. It’s a waste to keep something as special and only ever wear it once.
7
STORAGE AND ORGANIZATION METHODS ARE NOT THE SOLUTION
Women tend to believe in and be keen on storage methods. Men like to believe in document-organization methods. Things which are systematically arranged may look good and give the appearance of functionality. But the fact is that the first step in any effective approach to storage or organization is disposal.
Dangerous places
This is a phenomenon affecting all storage places: closets, food cabinets, tableware cabinets, shelves, fridges, bookcases, files, filing cabinets, etc.
When does it happen?
TV programs often feature “storage experts” who proudly expound their techniques for storing things. Such programs are not as common as they once were, but they’re still very popular, especially with women. Mail-order magazines, meanwhile, are full of ads for storage goods. There are also floods of books addressing organization of documents, books, and computer files, which tend to appeal to men.
SITUATION 1: LOOKING AT A SALES CATALOGUE
A unit six inches wide? Perfect! It would just fit in the space between the fridge and the cupboard. I could use it for those spices and sauces I’ve got by the sink. They look very messy at the moment. I could put some cookbooks there too. They’d be easy to get at.
SITUATION 2: WATCHING TV
Uh huh… So for the food cupboard it’s best to have containers of the same size. Yes. They’ll fit on the shelf best that way. And if you stick a label on you know what’s what. That’s easy. At the moment, I put everything in one big container, and if something won’t fit in I shove it on the shelf in its bag. But then it gets damp. I’m really not much of a housewife. I wonder how many Tupperware containers I should get. I guess about ten would fit. Yes, I’ll get ten.
SITUATION 3: OPENING A CABINET
These containers are perfect. So well designed! The manufacturers really seem to understand storage problems. The containers use the full width and depth of the cabinet. It’s very neat. Even I’ve managed to get everything in. The row on the right is all towels. In the middle, underwear and pajamas. On the left, scissors, tape, all that kind of thing. It’s wonderful. There’s so much space!
SITUATION 4: BACK FROM THE BOOKSHOP
Oh dear! I’ve bought all these books, and the bookcase is almost full. I’d better get another one—just for paperbacks. I’ll arrange them by publisher; that’ll be simplest. I don’t think I can keep classifying hardbacks just by author. I think I’ll have to divide them up like a library does: Japanese literature, foreign literature, social science, physical science, self-help, and so on. Easy to find and easy to put back. Libraries must have good reasons for their classifications. So I’m sure it will work.
SITUATION 5: BACK AT YOUR DESK AFTER A MEETING
The piles of documents we get for meetings just get bigger and bigger. The trouble is everything’s so easy to print out these days. Well, I’d better put this stack away. It doesn’t really matter how many documents I get, though. I can handle them all with my new classification system. Very straightforward with this index. Look at that shelf. So tidy! “Competence”—that’s what it says. In fact, the whole desk looks like it belongs to someone else completely.
The “storage/organization-method” mentality
There are two potential pitfalls with these methods.
First, the methods are “borrowed.” Experts in storage and organization are generally people who enjoy such things. At the very least, they are temperamentally suited to it. This is what allows them to develop their approach in the first place. Your character is different to theirs. So however much you try to follow their methods, you’re bound to fail at some stage.
People often say things like, “I’ve tried all sorts of classification methods, but I still can’t get my documents organized. I’m hopeless!” But this isn’t just a matter of weak will. There will also be a mismatch between methods and character—the person can’t use the methods without feeling uncomfortable.
What about curator and librarian systems? They seem designed with everyone in mind—can they be applied by individuals (as in Situation 4)?
Dealing with your own books is not the same as dealing with books for the general public or for a large institution. Libraries, museums, and other organizations with large holdings have very systematic organization methods and are run by professional librarians and curators. Think also of secretaries—they are professionals in scheduling and document organization. All these types of work involve special skills acquired through dedicated study and/or experience.
But people don’t often give these skills a moment’s thought. Our storage and organization methods are often random and therefore hard to apply. Looking back at Situation 2 (groceries) and Situation 5 (document classification), it’s easy to predict that things, before long, will be back to how they were. To which you might well retort: “So what about your so-called Art of Discarding? Is that any different?” I would say, yes, it is fundamentally different. Storage and organization methods start from the premise that these are good approaches. At the moment, discarding things is generally thought to be wrong. My objective in writing this book is to break away from this assumption and also, I hope, to make you reflect on your whole attitude to possession.
That’s enough self-justification. Now let’s consider the other pitfall of storage and organization methods, namely that we apply the methods without proper thought—that we’ll classify things and then store them away without ever considering whether it’s necessary to keep them.
This tendency can make life difficult for architects in particular. Let me quote a specialist:
Almost all homes have in-built cabinets and closets. Women always insist on them at the planning stage. I’ve been asked to build five closets into a design so that the place will be tidy. But as soon as the family moved in all five were full and the house was still overflowing with stuff. People say it’s common for animals to gather a lot of things together, hide them somewhere, and then forget where they’ve put them. In mankind it seems to be women that do this (author’s note: male delusion). Women love cabinets and closets because they can shut the door and keep things hidden. We know from experience that they’ll be happy if the plans show a lot of closet space. But we also know that however much closet space there is, it will soon fill up as people buy more and more things.
Mayumi Miyawaki, Houses for Men and Women
Through my work I sometimes meet people from construction companies. All of them say that houses with a lot of storage space are very popular. Into this ample storage space go storage devices. Into the storage devices go different types of stuff, in accordance with storage methodology. And, over time, the stuff accumulates. Looking back at Situation 1, we can imagine small kitchen items being crammed untidily into the narrow unit. And we can also predict that stuff will keep on being stuffed into the cabinet in Situation 3 until it is absolutely full.
Documents are no exception.
Think like this!
Storage and organization methods must be viewed from a completely different angle. We have to realize that these methods are only necessary because there’s too much stuff. Reduce the amount of stuff and we won’t have to rely on these methods at all.
As Miyawaki indicates (above), the amount of stuff people have is destined to increase until it fills the available storage space. People with too many books buy new bookcases. These bookcases fill up immediately, and again books start piling up on the floor and staircase. Whatever the size of your closet, it will fill up with clothes. As long as you allow things to accumulate, you don’t stand a chance of getting the place tidy just with storage and organization methods. No organi
zation method can cope when there’s not enough space to accommodate things.
Earlier I quoted Yukio Noguchi’s Super-Organization 3. The book was said to represent a radical new approach because of Noguchi’s focus on the time dimension in the organization process—good order, he argues, is not just a question of categorization. But to me his approach seems similar to others in that it is still based on the belief that things can be organized if you follow a systematic methodology. Also, Noguchi proposes a provisional (or “for-the-time-being”) disposal buffer. I’ve already explained what would happen if such a stage is introduced.
Ultimately, I think the biggest danger of storage and organization methods is that one may be seduced by the pleasure of preserving order. If the preservation of order gives you peace of mind, that is fine. But if you want to prevent things accumulating, it’s important to employ really active disposal techniques.
If you reduce the number of things you have, then a system for storage and organization won’t be necessary. You’ll be able to manage things naturally. Even if you leave them in a jumble, you’ll be OK. I can understand people thinking that work documents are different. This may be true for academics, for example, who have to keep a lot of papers. But the number of documents someone like me has can be managed pretty well even if they’re mixed up together.
The Art of Discarding Page 5