Guy de Maupassant’s short story “The Necklace” is a clear critique of a materialist lifestyle. The entire narrative revolves around Mathilde Loisel’s materialistic world-view: she has high social ambitions, which lead to her husband trying to satisfy these desires. Loisel ultimately is invited to a high-class party, but is unsatisfied with her lack of jewelry. This leads her to borrow what she believes to be an expensive piece from an acquaintance. She loses the jewelry at the party and buys a similar peace at an extravagant price to return to her friend, which ruins her financially. The twist ending is that some years later a destitute Loisel meets this friend again, who informs her that her piece of jewelry was fake.
De Maupassant is clearly commenting on the flawed perspective that places an emphasis on material goods. This is ethically justified by the fact that Loisel is ultimately ruined. However, the irony is that Loisel did not even realize that the original jewelry was fake. This is arguably a crucial moment in the narrative, as it shows the false value that is ascribed to the jewelry, which in turn becomes a symbolism for the false values conferred to any materialist good.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"The Critique of Materialism in de Maupassant’s “The Necklace”".
De Maupassant’s story appears in a different historical period: however, it does express concerns which are entirely relevant today, perhaps even more so, in so far as current American society is defined by a type of consumer capitalism. Consumerist culture encourages the purchasing of goods merely for the sake of purchasing goods. This is why marketing is such a powerful force in contemporary society, as it attempts to create demand for its products. The very existence of marketing in a sense shows that these goods are not needed: they are an attempt to create demand.
Loisel in the story also does not need the jewelry: instead, she thinks that she needs this jewelry. The reasons behind this are not explained in the narrative, but the fact that we can clearly identify with them shows that this is an almost intuitive point: we understand that there are individuals who are enthralled by a materialistic lifestyle. This materialism can take various forms: having expensive goods, having as many goods as possible, having the latest commercial items that are offered, such as the infamous Apple products. The underlying question is: why is society structured around such a love for the material?
Following De Maupassant, when a society bases itself on materialist ideology, a society is essentially basing itself on deception, on a myth. This is revealed in the ending, where the true value of the item is disclosed to be worthless. It is in this same sense that De Maupassant makes the commentary that any society based on this lie will be ruined, perfectly symbolized in Loisel’s destitution.
From this perspective, the story becomes even more powerful, as it suggests the inevitable decline and fall of any consumerist and materialistic society. Such societies ultimately have a distorted sense of values, of what is important, and, accordingly, are led to destruction. From the contemporary standpoint, this clearly implies the downfall of American consumer culture and, the downfall of capitalism. This has already been seen in the various economic crises of the past years. Society did not change its ideology after these crises, but instead tried to perpetuate them. But, much like Loisel, the deception can only carry on before so long, until it leads to ruin; in this same sense, societies and not just individuals which base their fundamental social decisions on principles equivalent to those of Loisel are also on the precipice of disaster.
