The perennial debate over the value of voluntary individual action -- recently revived by Tidwell's piece and the sociologists' response -- reminded me that some of the best, or least my favorite, writing on the subject comes from Worldchanging's Alex Steffen.
Like this:
And here's the essential break between lite green and bright green thinking: the reality is that the changes we must make are systemic changes. They involve large-scale transformations in the ways we plan our cities, manufacture goods, grow food, transport ourselves, and generate energy. They involve new international regulatory regimes, corporate strategies, industrial standards, tax systems and trading markets. If we want to change the world, we need to forge ourselves into the kinds of citizens who can effectively demand such things.
Dire practicality demands that we reject the privatization of responsibility. None of us can make this great transformation happen alone, and it removes pressure from our leaders to take needed steps when some suggest that the changes that need to be made in the world start with our personal choices. They don't.
...
Can strategic consumption be one of the tactics we use? Of course. But the power most of us can actually exert at the cash register is extremely limited. Far, far more important are our public lives: our roles as citizens, as change agents within our businesses, as advocates in our communities, as investors and philanthropists, as opinion leaders in general (and if you're reading this site now, you are, however uncomfortable it may be, an opinion leader). [my emphasis]
And this, from yesterday:
Why do good people keep advocating lifestyle change? Well, the hope is that small steps will lead to a big change of heart: that a tipping point will occur when the crucial can falls into the critical recycling bin, and people all around the world will awaken to the sustainability imperative, and then that, in some vague-but-direly-hoped-for way, this awakening will change everything and all will be well (and everyone gets a pony!). I think of this theory as betting the farm on the arrival of a Mythological Universal Conversion Event.
Here's the biggest problem with this theory of social change: we've been at it for decades, it hasn't worked and it probably never will. Things are demonstrably worse than they were when we began advocating recycling and such, and they're getting much worse far faster than any lifestyle choices can make them better. In the absence of an unlikely change in the nature of humanity, buying bamboo shirts or sustainable furniture is like spitting at a forest fire.
...
We don't need more people living marginally greener lifestyles. We need thousands of people, millions of people, swarming out of their lifestyles and leading worldchanging lives: practicing strategic consumption, sure, but also inventing new answers, changing their companies (or quitting their jobs and starting better companies), running for office, writing books and shooting films, teaching, protesting, investing in change, mobilizing their communities, redesigning their cities, getting up off the couch and going to the meeting, and in every other way making it happen. It is time to live as though the day has come, because it has: tomorrow is too late. One planet, three decades.
Put another way: Don't just be the change, mass-produce it. We need, through brilliant innovations, bold enterprise and political willpower, to make sustainability an obligatory and universal characteristic of our society, not an ethical choice. We need to remake the systems in which live. We need to redesign civilization.
And in case you didn't follow the link, go on back and read Alex's "Winning the Great Wager," one of my favorite pieces of green writing from the last few years.
This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!
Growing up green: How to shop for a green baby
Comments
View as Flat
Steven T Posted 3:46 am
13 Sep 2007
It isn't easy being a change agent, particularly as the social safety net becomes more and more frayed. For most people, their "civic voice" is to some degree limited by the conventions of their career track. Not everyone can work for Grist. For example, as a government employee I am constantly struck by how often hard-working, intelligent and visionary people are either ground down or pushed out of the system by the heavy gravitational pull toward the status quo. Young folk may not worry too much about losing, say, their health and retirement benefits, but it's not as easy to take such risks after you turn 40 and have a family to support.
In my experience, the tendency of many to turn inward and focus on modeling sustainability in their private lives is a quite understandable response to activist burnout. If you did a survey of baby boomer enviros I suspect that you would find burnout dangerously widespread.
I don't mean to be pessimistic. Instead, I'd like to cultivate a more realistic discussion about strategies and tactics for avoiding burnout . . . and a cynical turn inward.
Permalink
zacaroni Posted 4:01 am
13 Sep 2007
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 5:16 am
13 Sep 2007
I'm afraid that this way of framing the issue is unproductive from multiple viewpoints.
Alienates allies and the general public. It would be good to look to past struggles to see why "solidarity" is important.
It's the usual in-fighting, in which the bulk of one's energy is spent fighting positions that are 90% the same as one's own. The voices who are real impediments to environmental awareness are elsewhere.
Completely neglects the psychological aspects of how people develop attitudes and opinions. Please, let's do some research and listen to the social psychologists, rather than spinning theories of our own!
Completely neglects the prospect of developing an alternate culture to the consumer culture, with alternate institutions and belief systems. The conservatives have been wildly successful at developing an alternative culture over the last few decades. It would be good to learn from them.
It's perfectly possible to raise similar issues within a different, more positive framing. For example, "An emphasis on lifestyle change alone is one-sided. How can we build on the popularity of that approach for organized political changes?"
I'm surprised at the logical and historical fallacies in Alex's recent post: Here's the biggest problem with this theory of social change: we've been at it for decades, it hasn't worked and it probably never will. A perfect example of all-or-nothing thinking. Could I just mention the phenomenal rise of organic agriculture as a counter-example?
More generally, the last several decades have been politically conservative. Environmental activists have been getting tired and discouraged. The power arrayed against environmental thinking is awesome. To expect social change to take place in such a historical period is foolish. Even the ever-hopeful Marxist groups realized that this is not a period in which advances can take place.
Lifestyle environmentalism is one place in which people could keep the flame alive, in which they had a sense of control over their lives. Those who participated reaped many side benefits. They reduced their stress and expenses. They became aware of the day-to-day decisions that either alleviate the problem or make it worse. As a result, their awareness is often much more advanced than those who concentration on lobbying and raising money. Case in point: air travel.
In terms of success alone, maybe we could learn something from the fact that lifestyle changes seem to speak to so many people, whereas lobbying and political organizing leaves so many people cold. Let's learn from success, not try to throttle it in its cradle.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:43 am
13 Sep 2007
The problem is not so much on "our" side, that is, dissing people who push consumer solutions, the problem seems to be that the people who push consumer solutions only push consumer solutions. By only pushing consumer solutions, I think you leave alot of people confused: "if the problems are so big, why are they only talking about lightbulbs?" If you talk about "things you can do", plus get your butt to an organization so that we can push Congress,etc. to do something very large and concrete, then you have both the personal and the political covered.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 7:21 am
13 Sep 2007
Lightbulbs, buying local, cutting energy use - these are concrete actions that people can get started on the next day.
What's the equivalent in political action? I have seen bullet items suggesting that people: 1) Inform themselves about the issues 2) Vote.
Well, big whoop. I care about these issues, and I'm yawning. Does that sound exciting to you?
Your suggestion about getting involved with an activist organization is much better. But still rather vague, wouldn't you say? And any emotional payback from getting involved is usually far in the future.
The best suggestion I can come up with is: "Find an issue or an area that is meaningful to you. Learn all you can about it and become an expert. Help devise good solutions and political actions." I realize though, that this path only will appeal to a few people who are already committed.
A huge problem we have - much more important than any competition from lifestyle advocates - is the lack of any long-term organizational strategy. Our thinking is primitive, to say the least.
One thing that has impressed me about the conservatives is their creation of institutions. For example, if you want to be a conservative academic or journalist, they have scholarships and internships for you. When you're ready, there's a career path, with good paying jobs. Sounds appealing, doesn't it?
There are conservative schools, summer camps, churches, think tanks, movies, book clubs. A whole network of opportunities.
There is a potential for a similar network for environmentally-minded people. In such a network, there would be plenty of room for both lifestyle and political action. It should be a synergistic relationship, not a competitive one.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:34 am
13 Sep 2007
The Jehova Witnesses show up at my house at least twice each year, ask whether I have any questions, and leave a few pamphlets containing Bible quotes, human interest stories, and some actual scientifically accurate accounts of archeolgical expeditions and natural history.
When I lived in an apartment, environmentalists rarely showed up and it was to ask for a signature on a petition and/or a donation. And they always showed up real late at night for some reason. An environmentalist has NEVER showed up at my house to offer advice on native landscaping, green remodeling, or other issues regarding things I can do to protect the environment.
You folks need some good marketing material and enthusiastic young -- or elder -- activists to travel from house to house offering guidance. And try just providing information -- like the Jehova Witnesses -- without immediately begging for money.
Just a suggestion.
Another victim of Jean-Paul Marat's ghost and his virtual guillotine?
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:38 am
13 Sep 2007
The conservatives had/have one very important advantage -- millionaires and billionaires saw that it was in their interest to support a network of institutions that would argue that the free market is better than government regulation, in other words, funding the conservataive institutions was in their immediate self-interest. Environmentalists/social justice activists don't generally have that opportunity.
The other problem with global warming, unless someone knows differently, is that the big environmental organizations are very good at what they've been doing, but I think for them to concentrate on global warming requires a different way of operating. So, there isn't even really an infrastructure set up to deal with global warming in the same way that there is for, say, fighting to preserve a particular ecosystem (as difficult as that still is).
Just saying "vote" or "call your congressman", while helpful, is, yes, a yawner. About all I can say right now is that forums such as this one provide a place to try to figure out where to go next, which will, I think, eventually turn into some network of organizations, either actually-existing or yet to be formed.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 8:08 am
13 Sep 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Miscetal Posted 2:00 pm
13 Sep 2007
30% of our individual impact on the planet comes from our housing. The effects of location, construction, operation, furnishing and replacement come to about a third of the carbon imprint alone - without the other costs like water quality and localized environmental pollution.
If we all make our homes less polluting by using more renewables and making better choices about other commodities related to Home, we will buy some time - we must do what we WILL do, since almost no one does everything they COULD do. And that major change will help make the dominos fall in favor of commitment to preserving and restoring the earth.
And we will be nudging the dominos through direct and indirect social and political action and collaborations with others more or less willing.
We won't all be burned out on activism at the same time, and buying time by beginning with our shelters means we can rotate our burnout and temporary despair, each taking a turn and doing the personal best things while we recover.
http://www.livegreenlivesmart.org
Miscetal
Permalink