Is Baker’s Mezzanine Secretly a Critique of Materialism?

In The Mezzanine, Howie confronts the world based on the products which surround him. From the milk carton at the start of the story, to his ex-cursus on paper towels, and finally his analysis of the escalator which he rides every day, Howie reflects deeply on the objective reality of these objects and the social relations which surround them.  But is Nicholson Baker attempting to glorify these commodities or show how deeply rooted contemporary life is in our relationship with products of mass consumption? Howie’s reactions seem to suggest Baker himself admires the “human innovation” behind the modern world, but looking deeper, a critique of our over-reliance on goods, whether purposeful or not, starts to appear.

Let’s take for example, Howie’s interaction with his coworker Tina at the start of the book. While describing the complicated social cues and rules one should know as an office worker, he notes that Tina “knew the conventions well”. In doing so, Baker implies that these conventions, which form in the world of value production also known as labor, are not innate human nature and are instead man-made restrictions. To go as far as to say that Baker resents these restrictions would be to ignore the constant praise he gives to them, but I do not believe that Howie is the embodiment of a man at peace with the system. The sense of freedom Howie feels even living such a monotonous life does not come from the objects themselves, but instead the constant over-analysis and critique of these objects. The dialogue with Tina begins with her relating the story of how Ray, the office janitor, hurt his back on the job. Immediately, the sense of sympathy for a colleague is represented through the creation of a symbolic object, the signed card. The conversation is then interrupted by Tina receiving a phone call, reminding us of the current setting, work. While Howie waits, he reflects on the social requirements imposed upon him by the coworker relationship.

Another example of critique becomes clear when rereading his analysis of the escalators intended purpose, and the unintended use of the technology by the population. The escalator was intended as a walking assistant but ends up functioning under the same role as the elevator, as a replacement for walking. This observation points out a different relationship with objects, where an object’s role is not directly assigned by its creator, but instead by the consumer. All of what Howie describes as unintended benefits of this invention, such as the ease of cleaning, demonstrate how a products benefit is directly correlated to the population’s use of that object. Does the price of the escalator go up after it assimilates to ones needs? Not necessarily, but its demand and value almost certainly do.   

I do not believe that the book aims to condemn our relationship with objects, at least not directly. But I do believe that whether it is an intended or unintended consequence, the over-analysis of goods which the book promotes, results in the questioning of materialism. For this reason, Howie, and fundamentally the book itself, is neither materialist or anti-materialist, it represents the consciousness of the materialism, which governs our lives.