In the hyper-capitalist society with which we are all too familiar, we strive to contradict

the teachings of Marx and Engels to derive a sense of self-worth from the things that we
can put our names to, whether they be houses or skills, tangible or intangible. And
for very long, we have strictly upheld the Calvinist teachings that have made this country
so great; that to own and possess is the sure route to moral fulfllment. In fact, our
possessions and our sense of self are so inseparable that the desire to own blinds us
to our true sensibilities, moralities, and personalities. Ultimately, ownership and the
development of self are dangerously and intricately intertwined, and our possessions
often become fragile trophies of self-worth and achievement.
For Okonkwo from Achebes Things Fall Apart, this is especially the case, as everything
he owns - his title in the community, his yam farm, his multiple wives - is for him, a
fragile indicator of his self-worth and and masculinity. Through years of toil and
hardship, he has emerged from an inhospitable childhood with an alcoholic father to a
paragon of masculinity and heroism in his hometown of Umuofa. To him however, the
only afrmation he has of his virtues is his possessions. Look no further than how he
beats his wives, how he abuses his sons, how he desperately attempts to cling to his
village title to see that for Okonkwo, character isnt enough; he must have the
ownership, tangible and intangible, to sustain his pride. After he accidentally kills a
village son, everything that he held dear is pulled out from beneath him, and he is exiled
to another village. Okonkwo no longer has a concrete basis with which to evaluate his
worthiness as a man, and ultimately as a human being. His illusions of self disintegrate
into shadows of inferiority. When we returns to his village, he is no longer the Okonkwo
he once was; no longer morally upstanding nor a village hero. He enters a downward
spiral that results in his murder of a missionary and eventual suicide. Okonkwos
character rested on his fragile foundation of possessions, and when this foundation was
removed, he was blinded to the traits that he already possessed that made him a hero.
Although some may disagree and contend that the ownership of tangible goods helps
moral character, the fact is simply that goods are often a seemingly obvious refection
of what an individual believes he or she is capable of achieving, attaining, or working
towards. And although goods may enhance individuals ability to donate and thus bolster
their sense of self worth, the fact is also that an individuals self worth is based on his or
her ability to obtain goods that can be mobilized for the welfare of others. Self-identity
and self-confdence are very much bounded by possessions, and this is even more
apparent in the fnancial industry. Bankers on Wall Street strive for the biggest returns
through cleverly devised exploits and loophole discoveries of fnancial regulations. By
basing their sense of achievement and identity as a member of society of of how much
money they can generate out of thin air, their value proposition lies in the magnitude of
the fgures they can achieve at the end of the day, when none of it actually refects on
how their character or their capacity to generate meaningful impact on society through
their work.
And so there is a strong, if not dangerous relationship between an individuals
possessions and self-worth, as the possessions are seen as concrete emblems of a
capabilities of the individual. To have is everything, but people who get caught up in this
mindset lose track of their inherent worth as human beings to give and contribute, and
as personalities with distinct characters. They fnd their solace in the objects, tangible or
intangible, that surround them.