The Friendlier cup program on campus presents itself as a reusable alternative to single-use plastics. With a $0.50–$1.00 deposit, a companion app, and a two-week refund window, Friendlier promises less waste and more responsibility. What it actually gave me was a latte I couldn’t finish and a new ritual of carrying an extra object that made my day worse. These cups are an evocative object: small, material, and infuriatingly demanding. The Friendlier cups evoke not just personal reflection, but genuine rage.
The Cup That Followed Me Home
I bought an iced latte one Thursday before a lecture. Instead of the disposable cold cup I expected, I was handed a reusable Friendlier cup meant for hot drinks. I agree that UBC goes through an excessive amount of disposable cups, and I welcomed Friendlier as a potential solution. But not only was my drink served in the wrong vessel—it was half full when class ended. My commute is over an hour and a half, and I carry a purse, not a backpack. That meant balancing a half-full drink on a rapid bus ripping through Vancouver while also trying to balance myself without a seat. And since I didn’t have class the next day, I kept it over the weekend until Monday to finally return it and see my $0.85 deposit again. When I got to campus, the café I’d bought it from didn’t have a Friendlier bin, so I had to track one down elsewhere. Once I found it, I stood there beside the bin creating a Friendlier account, an app I didn’t want, for at least a full minute before I could toss my cup in the bin. Two weeks later, the refund was still pending.
Getting a coffee is something I used to do almost every day. It was a small ritual that fit easily into my routine. Now, it feels like a chore. I’m not just annoyed, I’m enraged. This isn’t a personal failure to be eco-minded; it’s the result of a design that ignores real students and real routines. It assumes I can reshape my day around an object I never asked for. That friction is the point: these cups insert themselves into my everyday life, and they do it badly.
Rage, Routine, and the Objects That Shape Us
Sherry Turkle emphasizes that objects are “relational”: we form relationships with them much like we do with people, bringing expectations, attachments, and sometimes disappointments into these interactions. The Friendlier cup, intended as a reusable alternative to disposable coffee cups on campus, positions itself as a companion to daily routinesInstead, it has become a source of irritation. Rather than supporting my coffee habits, it mediates my interactions with campus life, sustainability practices, and even my own sense of efficiency in ways that frustrate me.
Turkle also notes that objects function as agents of reflection, prompting us to consider who we are, what we care about, and how we navigate the systems around us. The Friendlier cup forced me to confront the misalignment between the ideal of sustainability and the reality of campus infrastructure: missing bins, app registration delays, and pending refunds turned a daily ritual into a source of stress. What was meant to be a simple tool for environmental mindfulness became a reminder of friction in my already established routines, revealing how much our interactions with objects reflect broader social and institutional structures.
By framing the cup as both relational and reflective, we can see that its design is not neutral: it shapes behaviors, emotional experiences, and our relationship to sustainability, intentionally or not. I am passionate about sustainability, but my frustration with Friendlier has made me confront how a well-intentioned system can produce stress and resentment instead of care Rather than facilitating care and responsibility, it evokes rage, highlighting the tension between policy and lived experience.
Exchange, Deposits, and the Medium of Value
In David Graeber’s chapter “Exchange,” he helps explain the emotional politics underlying my frustration with Friendlier. A deposit is a token, a small piece of monetary media intended to guarantee return. Graeber argues that media of exchange can take on lives of their own: they may become detached from the social relations they were meant to mediate. The Friendlier cup’s $0.85 deposit is meant to be a simple economic nudge; in practice, it becomes a lingering IOU, processed by a corporate app, delayed, and sometimes never returned. This system transforms a socially oriented sustainability gesture into a market, in which the campus may even monetarily gain from unreturned deposits.
Reddit users on the r/UBC subreddit echo this logic. One commenter observes that the cups are “theoretically nice, but in reality […] stupid,” expressing concern that someone could snatch a cup from the bin and the original returner would never receive the refund. Others note that slow or unreliable processing could turn the deposit into a revenue stream. Another user flagged data privacy concerns: to get refunded, students must download an app and create an account, surrendering personal information to a private company for a campus sustainability initiative. These complaints are not trivial; they illuminate how the cup functions as a media of exchange that reconfigures obligations, trust, and data flows.
Viewed through Turkle’s lens, this is more than just a transactional failure: it is a relational failure. Turkle emphasizes that objects are companions to our emotional lives, carrying histories, expectations, and feelings into everyday routines. The Friendlier cup, rather than supporting sustainable habits, has become a companion of frustration, a persistent reminder of misaligned systems. Graeber helps explain why: when the cup’s deposit detaches from its intended social logic, it erodes trust and amplifies irritation, making me experience sustainability not as a shared ethical practice but as a set of obligations. In this sense, the Friendlier cup mediates campus life emotionally and materially, exposing the tensions between policy intentions and lived realities, and highlighting how even well-meaning objects can evoke rage when design and routine collide.
Affordances and Friction
From an affordances perspective, the Friendlier cup offers: reuse, reduced disposables, and potential normalization of a circular system. What it lacks is matched affordance for everyday bodies and schedules. A commuter with a purse, someone with irregular on-campus hours, or a person who has to wait days to return a cup are all disadvantaged by the program’s assumptions. The cup mediates access to a convenient beverage experience by adding layers of time, technology, and logistics. Instead of reducing friction, it slides friction into other parts of students’ lives.
Turkle’s point about objects catalyzing self-creation is helpful here: we do change around our objects when they become meaningful companions. But that process requires careful attention to how people actually live. A well-designed evocative object ought to invite incorporation; a poorly designed one forces compliance.
Sources:
Turkle, Sherry. Evocative Objects: Things We Think With. MIT Press, 2007.
Mitchell, W. J. T., and Mark B. N. Hansen, editors. Critical Terms for Media Studies. University of Chicago Press, 2010.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UBC/comments/1mqewj0/thoughts_on_friendlier_resuable_containers_in_the
Photos:
“UBC Launches Reusable Packaging with Friendlier.” Food at UBC, University of British Columbia, https://food.ubc.ca/ubc-launches-reusable-packaging-with-friendlier/.
Header made on Canva by Sam Garcea
Hey Sam, this is such a refreshing (and valid) take on sustainability systems that sound good in theory but can disappoint in practice. I like how you framed the Friendlier cup as an evocative object that inspires rage, it made your analysis feel both personal and critical. Your integration of Turkle and Graeber was super smooth too; I hadn’t thought about how something as simple as a deposit system could reveal so much about trust, value, and institutional friction. Also, loved your point about “forced compliance” – it captures that tension between care and obligation that often gets overlooked in campus sustainability projects. Great read! + i agree
Hi Sam, loved your thoughts on your evocative object, bringing up very valid points on how enraging these cups can be. This reflection clearly shows how the Friendlier cup turns a good idea into a daily frustration. I like how you connect Turkle and Graeber to show how design and routine clash. The phrase “a companion of frustration” sums it up perfectly. A great and relatable read, thanks for sharing your evocative object 🙂
Hi Sam! This is such a relatable and engaging piece! I was quite literally laughing out loud reading “The Cup That Followed Me Home” section. I really appreciate how you bring theory and lived experience together so naturally. The way you connect Turkle’s and Graeber’s ideas to the everyday frustration of carrying around a cup is both funny and deeply insightful. The notion of how “eco-friendly” systems can unintentionally offload responsibility and emotional labour onto individuals is so true, and I don’t think is talked about enough! Your writing balances critical analysis with personal storytelling super well. It reads like something that deserves a wider audience. I think you should genuinely consider submitting this to The Ubyssey. It would resonate with so many students who’ve dealt with the same “sustainable” inconveniences and spark an important campus conversation about the design of green initiatives. Just a thought!
Hi Sam! This was such an insightful and relatable read! I appreciate how you mention that sustainability initiatives often overlook real-life routines. It goes to show that institutes may be performing these acts without properly taking user experience into account, and instead doing it ‘to do it’ or get some checkbox marked. I love that you not only discussed how this object has lacked affordance in convenience for you, but also for the broader UBC community, and your applications to critical theory, especially with how objects are used as a reflection, encapsulate how a mundane activity can slowly become despised and treated like a grievance rather than an ideal way to start the day.
It reminds me of a discussion I had with a peer the other day, where he shared his experience listening to a UN guest lecture in Malaysia on sustainability efforts. They claim that change starts from individual efforts, rather than a collective effort of pushing for more realised, practical change. The typical mantra of “reuse, reduce, recycle” was mentioned over and over, without any proper call to action.
Tangent aside, I love how relevant this article is and how you chose to analyze the object and its coinciding initiative theoretically. I learned a lot from this read!
Great post Sam! I really enjoyed how you focused on an object that you’ve had a negative experience with. I found it a refreshing change of narrative after writing my own assignment. Your emphasis on how the Friendlier Cup interrupts your routine and how that interruption spawns anxiety and resentment is really impactful. As someone who hasn’t yet used a friendlier cup, the concept of having to set up yet another account and app just to have a cup of coffee feels ridiculous. And the fact that it takes weeks to refund the deposit is also so upsetting. That lack of initiative is interesting considering your discussion on how this new system capitalizes off of ecoconsciousness on campus. To me, the ill promise of my money being held hostage by some random app (even if it’s only 0.85$) actively deters me from buying their products, ultimately giving them less business. It makes me wonder about physical money. It’s basically obsolete in our everyday lives but in this context it’s almost preferable, though it would be annoying to carry change from daily coffees.
Hi Sam! Thank you for this great post! I appreciate how you express your own experience with the object and how we create relationships with these things we might often view as insignificant. I think your post raises a good point; we often fail to recognize how an object can “position itself as a companion”. Your post works to recognize how this is more than just a small problem, but a reflection of institutional structures. This is something I wholeheartedly agree with. The friendlier cup project might seem like a good incentive, but given that there’s often a lack of bins. The need for another app works more to turn people away rather than encourage them to give the containers back. I personally have encountered the friendlier cup project and just ended up keeping the containers, as it’s a hassle to go through the process just for a small amount of money. I really admire how you mention that objects are never neutral, as much as this project might be a “good thing”, it affects students’ everyday life and does not provide a good solution for all students, as it lacks many affordances. Overall, this leaves me wondering why UBC is using monetary value to encourage sustainability, especially if it’s overlooking everyday life and how it impacts students. I really appreciate how you deep dived into the topic, and this left me extremely curious about the intentions of this project!
Out of all the evocative objects so far, I think this might be the most relevant one because I think almost everyone feels the same way about these cups. I really liked how you managed to seamlessly incorporate Turkle idea of relationality and Graeber’s ideas of exchange. I also thought that citing the subreddit comments was a great move, as it gives a lot more weight to your argument and makes the piece a more sophisticated examination of an issue plaguing most of the student population, rather than just a passionate venting of your own emotions. Also the part about the data privacy concerns is exactly the reason why I despise this whole Friendlier scheme too, so I am glad you brought that up. ‘The Friendlier cup, rather than supporting sustainable habits, has become a companion of frustration, a persistent reminder of misaligned systems.’ was my favourite line from this piece, because it sums up exactly how I felt about this entire initiative as well.
I found your take on the concept of an evocative object quite refreshing! I appreciate your using this blog to voice such valid concerns about new sustainability efforts that seem worth a try at first, but are layered with frustrations and thoughts about just how worthwhile this initiative is. While the friendlier cups are intended to be a medium for sustainability, they seem to have turned into a medium of judgment too. “do you care enough about the environment to put up with the frustration.” This thought has crossed my mind multiple times when I can’t seem to find a bin near me, or if I request a disposable cup just for the sake of convenience. This constant flicker of judgement towards myself over what used to be a simple coffee in between classes makes the friendlier cup the most evocative object I come across in my daily life.
Hi Sam,
This is such a relatable and relevant take on the evocative object assignment! Since these ‘friendlier’ cups were released, I’ve found myself buying drinks on campus far less frequently simply because I don’t want to deal with the inconvenience of using them, which, in a way, promotes sustainability, I guess, but it’s definitely not the ideal solution.
Since the campaign’s launch, I’ve noticed nothing but contradictions. For an initiative that aims to promote sustainability among students, why make it so that there’s no other choice but to purchase the cup, especially when students are notoriously prone to losing things or being a bit lazy about such habits? How productive is it to forcibly push a campaign onto an audience that’s not particularly suited to its objective, ultimately creating both inconvenience and more lasting waste when many students will inevitably toss the cups instead of taking the extra steps to return them as intended?