I've been thinking about this debate over voluntary individual action and its place in the larger fight for sustainability (see here, here, and here). It's missing something.
A huge gulf has developed in America between public and private life. This has put green activism -- all of progressivism, actually -- on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, private life has become all but coextensive with consumerism -- what we choose to buy. Shifting consumer dollars around isn't a sufficient solution to any substantial problem. On the other hand, the levers that control the state are out of reach of the average citizen, even in a democracy. Most people are no longer accustomed to being actively involved in self-government.
To tackle environmental problems, we know we need governments to make big changes, but it's difficult to tell individuals what they should do about that. (Call their representatives? Vote? Then what?) We know individual changes will never add up to the societal shift we need, yet individual changes tend to be the ones that motivate, you know, individuals. We're reduced to hoping that small, ultimately ineffectual personal changes will open hearts and minds, leading to ... something.
Neither position is satisfying. What's missing is the middle ground, the space that used to mediate between private individuals and states. I'm talking about civil society: church groups, NGOs, professional associations, unions, affinity groups, etc.
It is in civil society that action can be personal but not private. It can leverage large numbers of people but still be individually meaningful.
Civil society has declined in America. Historically it's two pillars were unions and churches. Unions have been under sustained attack since Reagan, and American churches from evangelical to liberal have turned their focus to individual fulfillment. Americans have been isolated from one another by ubiquitous, overbearing commercial culture, atomized into their individual strip malls, cars, and suburban houses. Where there was once a vibrant and enduring network of voluntary associations, there is now mostly TV.
Psychologically speaking, it is important to offer people ways of engaging and taking action that are tangible. But telling people to buy better lightbulbs, cars, and clothes is a wan response to the magnitude of our peril.
What we need is for people to become active citizens. We need them to return to churches and union halls, but also to create new civil institutions that can leverage collective action into real change. We need to rebuild civil society in America.
Getting involved in civil society is something "you can do." Hell, I'd put it right there at the top of my "10 things you can do." It may mean exercising muscles many Americans have allowed to atrophy, but rebuilding civil society will not only move the needle on climate change, it will make our culture more resilient against coming stresses. Time we all rediscovered our neighbors.
Ten things we can do. Got a better ring to it, no?
This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!
Growing up green: How to shop for a green baby
MTV-approved advice on reaching those who aren’t paying attention
Comments
View as Threaded
Jones Posted 9:03 pm
13 Sep 2007
The fair trade standard is how old? About 2/3 of the coffee at my local el-cheapo corner store carries the label, and all of the cofffee at my supermarket does. The produce in my supermarket is about 40% certified organic, and they've pledged to do more in the future, on both fronts (and I actually believe them). This is a case where the consumer spoke, and the corporations listened. Remarkable. Then the politicians pricked up their ears, here in Britain at least. These movements are far from over: we need to think of the results ten/twenty years down the road, if such programs were to go from strength to strength, and if they worked in conjunction with other efforts--consumer, political, and "civil".
Again, I'm not saying that such consumer efforts are sufficient to produce total sustainability. And they certainly didn't rise up in isolation of other societal factors. And I definitely agree that civil society is the way to go, for all kinds of reasons. But we'd be foolish to downplay the powerful sort of dynamic that's been demonstrated by the consumer-labelling movements.
Permalink
jfellrath Posted 9:33 pm
13 Sep 2007
We've fought against churches entering the political arena via pastors exhorting their flocks to vote one way or another. Usually, this has been due to the fanatical reactionary messages that they've usually heard. But if we were to get liberal pastors to actively stand up and say "Call your Congressmen about Global Warming," etc., the right would be absolutely justified in throwing the IRS right back at us like we've done to them.
I know that this isn't (or rather, SHOULDN'T be) a political issue, but for many folks it absolutely is - especially due to the deception that has been sown by Big Oil and their cronies. And just like the Bush Administration has done by putting environmentalist groups on terrorist watch lists, you can be sure that churches who espouse liberal doctrine would be investigated by the IRS. They're just that evil these days.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jamie Fellrath
Columbus, OH
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 9:42 pm
13 Sep 2007
And will these actions, taken collectively by large numbers of people in the developed world, have a significant impact in preventing that global climate catastrophe?
Not so much. However valuable, these actions cannot form the foundation of public policy for an effective environmental movement. However much we do personally there are other bigger, stronger entities that will take what we voluntarily give up and squander it all and more in the abuse of our crucially significant atmospheric commons for reasons of unbelievably short-term financial gain. To these entities our exemplary lifestyle is the lifestyle of a fool, a loser, and fools and losers exist only to be taken advantage of. The "privatization of responsibility" in Alex Steffen's excellent phrase is one of the tools employed in that despoliation. YOU must use less resources so I can grab more.
Curbing those powerful entities is the indispensable duty of government. Government however is swayed by powerful interests. David appears to be suggesting we need to create a few more powerful interest groups of our own. I believe he's right.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Steve Thorngate Posted 10:43 pm
13 Sep 2007
Certainly, this seems to be the general cultural trend, and it's affected liberals and conservatives alike, if somewhat differently. And in any situation, the church is constantly living in the tension between challenging culture and simply reflecting it. But the mainline (roughly equivalent to "liberal") church has been generally pretty insistent about talking about "we" rather than "I," in particular because this trait has become its primary distinctive in its ongoing struggle to keep its members from being secularized or evangelicalized. The mainline church is as interested in the priorities named here as it ever was--but its influence has declined dramatically in the last 50 years or so.
Meanwhile, most recent attention to religious environmental activism has focused on evangelicals, on the "creation care" movement. I worry that this group's theology and culture will make it difficult to move beyond green lifestyle/consumer issues to more collective and systemic efforts. But the movement is part of/is coinciding with other trends in that community, trends away from simplistic individualism and toward communalism, reations against the Church of Me, with its prosperity gospel and its spiritualized self-help promises ("10 Steps Toward Godlier Personal Finances!").
The evangelical church often uses the "personal not private" line to describe the way that faith should be lived out. I'm hopeful that they will grow into a role in which they fill some of this civil void, as the liberal church once did and continues to try to do. If this happens, a top priority of those who make it happen will be addressing global warming.
stevethorngate.blogspot.com
Permalink
farnishk Posted 11:44 pm
13 Sep 2007
Individuals can do amazing things, but as I wrote on Green Seniors :
"for every individual action that makes a difference, there are many more actions taken by a group of people with a similar purpose, that make a much bigger difference. The logic is simple : it is easy to ignore one letter, much harder to ignore a hundred; it is easy to ignore a lone protester at the factory gate, much more difficult to ignore a thousand people blockading the entire factory; it is easy to say one vote doesn't matter, impossible to say 10,000 votes don't matter.
"Group action works because groups of people cannot be ignored."
Keith Farnish
www.theearthblog.org
Permalink
JMG Posted 11:44 pm
13 Sep 2007
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
JMG Posted 11:54 pm
13 Sep 2007
Some years ago the topic on a listserv I joined turned to problems with municipal water system contaminants and then to home tapwater filters and which one was best. People got defensive when someone pointed out that if we affluent few all bought PUR water filters we'd simply add to to the solid waste problem while leaving the poor to contend with a decaying water system (just like the wealthy kids filling private schools tends to lead to disinvestment in the public schools where the poorer kids go).
Over the years since, I have observed this countless times: we are seeing the wealthy secede from society by buying personal respite from problems rather than agitating for a proper civil response to the problem. Yesterday I got a plea for money to support court-appointed special advocates (the folks who help ensure that childrens' interests are heard in custody battles and parental termination proceedings etc.) The flyer said that the law was that all children had a right to a CASA but that the amount budgeted was only 10% of the need -- so they're doing a silent auction/dinner fundraiser and would I pony up $50 a ticket to help? Seems to me that someone ought to use the energy involved in putting on a fancy dinner to sue the county over the CASA funding instead.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:34 am
14 Sep 2007
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:38 am
14 Sep 2007
Permalink
Liz Borkowski Posted 12:43 am
14 Sep 2007
JMG makes a good point with the water filter example, too. I think most of us who own water filters also think that our municipalities should provide safe drinking water; the question is whether we'll be less motivated to push for better systems if we think our personal risk is already lowered.
A lot of movements struggle to strike a balance between limiting damage in the short term and building a just and sustainable system for the long term. The work usually gets split up between organizations, so you'll get food pantries and homeless shelters addressing immediate needs while other groups work on policies related to food stamps, affordable housing, job training, etc.
Permalink
Steven T Posted 1:03 am
14 Sep 2007
How to rebuild civil society given all of the competing pressures on Americans (re: Bowling Alone).
How can activist groups be more effective given the much more sophisticated political challenges they face today?
At least in my local community, activist groups have a tough time recruiting new members, particularly those who are younger. Meanwhile, fundamentalist churches seem to be doing just fine. Why?
I wonder whether our organizing model has become obsolete, e.g., most of our local enviro groups are single-issue and policy focused. This is in stark contrast to progressive era organizing, where the Grange provided an integrated program of economic and social support mixed with a broad political agenda. Compare the Grange model to that of the modern fundamentalist church. They are very similar. Who has been more successful in the last decade -- the typical enviro group or fundamentalist churches?
In a previous post I mentioned the high level of burnout I saw among baby boomer enviro activists. Some have become quite cynical about their ability to affect political change even at the local level despite investing years of their lives. From an organizational development perspective, that relative lack of success may be at least partially the result of shaky skills in movement building. We activists tend to know LOTS more about our subject area (e.g., the nuances of growth management law) than in how to efficiently mobilize a community.
The trouble with emerging issues such as global warming is that they up the ante in terms of the complexity and size of the policies we need to pass and implement. Yet enviro groups haven't yet mastered how to affect change with much simplier and easier issues.
Thus, I would argue that if you seek to rebuild civil society then activist groups need to take a great leap forward in their organizational capacity. And that ain't gonna happen until we transcend the tendency to focus on policy wonkery rather than movement building.
As a Bush administration official once told a blogger: While you guys are thinking about policy we're changing the world. That's more true than many of us would care to admit.
Permalink
ac5p Posted 1:07 am
14 Sep 2007
Permalink
ac5p Posted 1:18 am
14 Sep 2007
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:20 am
14 Sep 2007
Bush understands this. Reagan understood this -- but your typical enviro ignores it.
So, what you end up with are a bunch of activists who are really very totalitarian -- they demand that everyone follow their edicts, like converting to biodiesel, or forcing people to wash their socks at midnight to save energy -- but they do not make a case for themselves -- or heaven forbid, as in the case of Al Gore, even bother to get themselves elected!
That is why I put the enviroes in the same category as the civil service bureaucrats who are elitist and think they "know better" about where to build bridges or zone property.
Even if you are 100% correct about the science, or the policy, at some level you have to make your case to the common man to get the power to do what you want.
Gristers would rather fume in HTML.
John Bailo
Sutext:
Permalink
billd Posted 2:10 am
14 Sep 2007
The Catholic Coalition on Climate Change
http://www.catholicsandclimatechange.org
and
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/ejp/climate
Permalink
kmp Posted 2:11 am
14 Sep 2007
However - an exhortation to "rebuild civic society" is about as useful as "vote" or "write your Congressman(woman)." One of the reasons that the Top 10 lists are so popular is that they do offer concrete, immediate steps, to help the individual feel that they are "making a difference." Now, I do believe that these small steps can ultimately lead to a greater awareness, not only of the problems, but of any individual's ability to effect a solution. I also believe that we no longer have the time for this type of approach. Perhaps what I am looking for is a "Top 10" list of things you can do to rebuild civic society. A list with concrete steps, hopefully appealing to a number of different types of people and pointing people in a direction that makes it easy, rather than just "volunteer - It's good for you!" I'm thinking of such a list, but need to head out. More later - but in the meantime, folks can chime in!
Permalink
Mark Powell Posted 2:18 am
14 Sep 2007
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 2:47 am
14 Sep 2007
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1000+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
trock Posted 2:49 am
14 Sep 2007
It must be so wonderful to be so much smarter than anybody else here. The curse of your gift would be a true burden.
Those who win close elections are of the right stuff and those that don't are wrong? What an easy way to look at the world.
What is the message that works the best with many people? A nive soothing fantasy. The message doesn't have to be true or even best for the person it's told to, it just should contain wonderful mythmaking.
A few years ago, one study found that presidential candidate that won the election for the past 40 years was the one who was the most optimistic. Which maybe great or not. Maybe the ideas the candidate had who won were the best. Or maybe it was just happytalk.
Iraq comes to mind. Bush was caught with not understanding the mythmaking of a campaign and the need for competence in an occupation. For some, happytalk is all they come with.
People can be happy with reality that is going good, but also they can be happy with myths in their minds. Knowing which is which when for all of us is what we go thru.
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 3:20 am
14 Sep 2007
If we price in the externalities of environmental damage, and if we remove the regulatory protections of the worst actors, we will create these opportunities. This is certainly our company's approach, but it never ceases to amaze us how many regulatory barriers there are to doing the right thing... and we've been at this for 30 years! (Or to put it much more crassly, if all we wanted to do was get rich, we picked the wrong business... in spite of the fact that there are massive dollars to be saved from lowering carbon - which ought to suggest a way for someone to make a buck or two at it.)
Again, I in no way mean to suggest that making money ought be a surrogate for civil engagement. But so long as the ONLY opportunities for change are through civil engagement, our chances of success are unnecessarily hobbled. Not impossible, just hobbled. And why let ourselves be hobbled? Because the most powerful individual actions are those that leverage others. It is noble for one person to install more efficient lighting - but it is transformative when one person gets a whole community to do so. The wonderful thing about businesses and entrepreneurs is that they are built around this leverage - and yet our energy policy is far too focused on protecting incumbents rather than providing those entrepreneurs with the opportunity to succeed.
Permalink
Steven T Posted 3:31 am
14 Sep 2007
If you want to better understand why a movement isn't being successful then I think it is critically important to take a step back and assess how its past informs the ways it currently acts. In the case of enviros, our leadership had tended to be populated with white, affluent, white-collar professionals. In my community most leaders have advanced degrees (often in the hard sciences) and tend to be teachers, professors or government workers. These folks are unusually good at understanding complex science and policy, but often not so good at explaining it to average folks. So they can be perceived - fairly or not -- as holier than thou.
Just as importantly, environmentalism tends to be more ideologically diverse than, say, the labor movement (ranging from pink-haired Audubon bird watchers to Earth Firsters). Environmentalism is also relatively young compared to the labor, gender and civil rights movements. The structure and culture of modern environmentalism was effectively formed in the 1970s - at the height of technocratic, policy driven, single-issue political organizing. Compare that to the labor movement, whose basic form emerged during the 1930s-1950s, when more "fraternal" organizing approaches were dominant. Or look at the League of Women Voters, which is a lasting vestige of the suffragette movement of the 1910s. The League is structured in surprisingly different ways than more "modern" environmental groups.
All of this helps illustrate why environmentalism has tended to be slow in building coalitions with the likes of the labor and social justice movements. Instead, environmentalists have tended to live in a world of their own making, replete with lots of policy insider-speak that may be hard to understand even by fellow environmentalists focused on a different sub-issue. Mainstream environmentalism also tends to hold at arm's length more militant approaches to organizing because many of our leaders - and funders -- are very much part of the political and economic establishment.
Do we need to change our ways if we seek to rebuild civil society? Yes. Does that mean copying the faux populism of the neo-conservative movement, as Bailo implies? I hope not. Should we disown our past? No - but me thinks we won't successfully adapt without better understanding how we got here.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 3:44 am
14 Sep 2007
I was once booked a flight on a cheap charter from New Delhi to London. Just before departure the flight was at risk of being grounded without refunds due to regulations concerning unfair competition. The ticket agent came on board and said that each passenger needed to tell a little white lie, that they were members of a club, or they must leave the plane. It was so simple to tell this happy little lie, and so transparent. Yet, many passengers could not do it. They were stuck. They left the plane and we fellow liars flew to London.
Now I am trying to get the wealthy on board the fight to mitigation. I have recently found that money does not make people smart, in fact just the opposite. So do I lie to compete with the happy big lies of Silicon Valley? Or am I stuck?
Are we stuck competing with the happy lies that global warming is not a big problem and that coal is clean? Should we tell happy lies that trees and light bulbs will save us. Or do we get off that train?
Permalink
ids Posted 5:24 am
14 Sep 2007
Greater social connections without the proper U.S. leadership and vision is just as likely to make matters worse for the world at large than better.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 6:11 am
14 Sep 2007
For the kind of cultural change that is required, one cannot rely on preaching, self-sacrifice and idealism. That way lies burnout.
One quote from a grandmother-kayaker-activist in my permaculture class: Our side has more fun!
The successful religions and movements for social change knew to how combine idealism with institutions that satisfied human needs, such as: Security Belonging Meaning Status Food Joy
Currently, people attempt to satisfy many of their needs by consumerism - which puts them under financial and time pressures - which makes it even more difficult for them to satisfy their needs in any other way. This is why I think a key strategy is to break the lock that consumerism has on people, and to provide alternative ways to satisfy needs. (Voluntary simplicity, downsizing, etc.)
Another area that is much more powerful than appears at first is FOOD. Gardening, sharing food, talking about the food traditions of one's family or ethnic group, learning about where our food comes from -- there are so many ways to get people involved. The subject of food is related to almost every environmental and social issue. For example: pollution, energy usage, corporate control and climate change.
If a movement and its institutions can satisfy basic human hungers, then the political action will follow.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 7:19 am
14 Sep 2007
Wow.
I bet you throw your shoe at the TV when American Idol comes on.
John Bailo
Sutext:
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 1:34 am
15 Sep 2007
That's what Step it Up 2 is about, leadership. That's why it focuses on identifying and encouraging leadership on this topic in time for primary season.
Even if the goal set forth is 43 years in the future, it starts now, this next year, with leadership, and with reductions in emissions, god willing, in order to get to the goal in 2050. Revisit their site if you need a dose of inspiration. http://stepitup2007.org/
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1000+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
Wolfy Posted 11:32 am
15 Sep 2007
The problem with trying to promote a civil society is that most Americans do not have a moral code, a sense of civic duty, or a desire to look beyond themselves. Most Americans do not feel that they own a debt to society. The society that fought for the freedoms that they enjoy; the society that paves their roads, educates their kids, and whisks away their sewage. To use an old phrase, our "society" (and I use that term loosely) lacks moral fiber.
A bad tree cannot yield good fruit. Neither can a society that lacks ethics and a moral obligation create a good civil society. The examples of moral ineptitude are all around us. Corrupt politicians that get re-elected time after time infiltrate the political playing field from congress all the way down to the city council. They represent their own corporate interests, not the people that they are supposed to serve.
Corporations set their own agendas, pick and choice what laws they will abide by. NGO's squander money and act as land agents for the mining and oil companies. We're waging war for cheap oil. We are paying high dollar for corn to go into our gas tanks while people in our own country starve and live in filth. Alcohol and drugs are poisoning our youth. We live in the most violent nation in the world.
Apathy abounds and nobody cares. Our country needs to find its moral compass and get back to a real value system before I would consider anything to be "civil" about this society.
Most times for evil to win it doesn't take a large, horrible event; it just takes a lot of people each doing just a little bad.
AOOOOOOooooooooo.........
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:50 am
17 Sep 2007
The real problem is that Americans don't know the difference between what is really valuable and what is financially valuable.
The real mistake is that most dismiss the consumer society as not a society.
If you start to understand the transfer of goods between companies and people as "messages" and metaphor rather than simple commerce, you'd understand America better.
John Bailo
Sutext:
Permalink
ids Posted 5:24 am
18 Sep 2007
Step It Up is asking pol's to show leadership by adopting the Step priorities. I took your suggestion and looked (again) at the Step site to see if the social capital creators at Step can inspire me.
Their priorities are adopted from the 1skycampaign.org initiative. In the brochure at 1sky, it admits they are asking for the "minimum acceptable standard for climate policy." Asking for the minimum does not inspire me.
A popular model for change put forth by Milton Friedman is "only a crisis produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around." The Shock Doctrine: the Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein looks like a good read on this.
The priorities from Step lack the ideas to jump on the next time a climate crisis hits my town or yours. "We must reduce our GHG 80% by 2050 Now" does not do it for me. Nothing on the face of it implies immediacy is required (note that Step stopped referring to the 10% conservation goal by 2010). There are 600+ coal power plants in the U.S. A list of the top 60 to extinguish in the next 6 years would excite me as a message (there's two in my town I'd add).
I understand Step wants to hook into a wider campaign and be flexible in the solutions it offers. I'm sure being there on Nov. 3 will be as good a way to blow off steam as last year. However, there are times I think environmental leadership from U.S. is the opiate for the people.
Permalink
alimafairchild Posted 7:38 am
25 Sep 2007
When I am actively involved in doing new, 'greener' things, there is an example for others to follow. If I'm just telling people how to do better and be better, or let myself get involved in causes that are not mine, however righteous, I become a nag or a 'wannabe', not a worker for the Light. Let each of us shine with our own share of the Divine plan, do the work we came her for, and love one another.
Gramma Greenfingers
Permalink