I have been seeing more and more smart critiques of tiny house living, the privileged “minimalist” movement, and the trendiness of secular asceticism. As I wait on prints of my forthcoming chapter on tiny houses, I am so encouraged by these critiques – they are great examples of what I had roughly in mind when writing my chapter (here). After wrestling with many of the same criticisms, I am currently of the opinion that the tiny house movement does hold radical political potential. First, the difficulty of going tiny in our current culture clarifies the failures in, and sinister natures of, structural and systemic ideologies which prefer to be assumed unquestionably ubiquitous; and – more materially – when living in a tiny space, one must confront waste (bodily and consumer) in ways virtually impossible to ignore. These critiques are a sign, I think, that the movement and public perception of it is becoming more nuanced – itself a symptom of more engaged politics. Tough questions come from thinking harder and, in turn, make people think harder. Incisive critique creates tension for, and demands responsibility from, the ethos behind the movements. Dialogue and debate is good for the noggin (and the spirit)! In that spirit, keep on thinking, disagreeing and demanding more from our imaginations!