The first connection I had with this article was the frustration with books such as “The Lazy Environmentalist” or “Its Easy Being Green”, that reduce a global crisis to something that is solvable within our day to day lives. This is obviously just not true – changing all the light bulbs in your house, and recycling your overpriced bottles of water isn't going to halt the cataclysmic movement of climate change.
However, I would disagree with Maniates in saying that these sort of books arise solely from the fact that, “we, by nature, aren't terribly interested in doing anything that isn't private, individualistic, cost-effective and, above all, easy.” True, making these small household changes can be individualistic, easy, and cost-effective, but the fact that these sort of books make a bestseller list speaks much more to the trend as a whole.
As middle-class Americans, caught up in our consumer society, we recognize that “going green” is the new thing, the new trend, the new cool way to establish yourself within society. Its Descartes for the 21st century - “I recycle, therefore I am”. We do these things like purchase literature on saving the environment because we as individuals feel the need to be a member of something greater than ourselves. Maniates is most certainly right when says that being able to do things like quote “An Inconvenient Truth” or buy Seventh Generation products, we are stylish. We in essence buy into something not because we deeply care about it or value what it stands for, but because it is part of a habit of consuming and taking part in society.
Finally, I would argue that not all adults are aware enough of the difficult choices that Maniates says we must make. We will certainly listen if and when our leaders present us with the honest truth about the destruction of the planet, but I'm not sure that most people understand the necessity of hard work. The environmental movement has a lot of growing to do, but the fact that so little is being done now, makes me pretty pessimistic about the ability of average man. Don't get me wrong, I think we have the resources and power to make some really great changes in the world, but I wouldn't put so much pressure or faith in the creativity and endurance of people who rely on “The Lazy Environmentalist”.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dear Emily,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments on my work. Just a few quick thoughts, if I may:
1. You say "I would disagree with Maniates in saying that these sort of books arise solely from the fact that, “we, by nature, aren't terribly interested in doing anything that isn't private, individualistic, cost-effective and, above all, easy.”" I think that you miss my meaning here, perhaps because I was unclear. My point was that these books, by sometimes implicitly but often explicitly stating that Americans can only be counted on to do the simple, easy, cost-effective things, work to instill in the thinking of all of us the assumption that Americans can't be bothered to do much more than screw in a light bulb. If, as you say, we want and need to be part of something greater than ourselves (I agree fully), then I think that we can agree that the kinds of books I called out in my piece do violence to this yearning. Indeed, by so emphasizing measures that are cost-effective, easy, and stylish, they say that our prime motivators are economic advancement, minimal fuss, and the need to stand out and above others. These don't sound like the essential motivators of a people yearning to be part of something larger them themselves.
2. You write "not all adults are aware enough of the difficult choices that Maniates says we must make." I fully agree. But why must all adults be involved in meaningful ways before we can expect change? The "50 simple things" approach that I critique carries with it this idea that everyone has to be on board in order to make a difference, and that social change comes from the accumulated small lifestyle choices of hundreds of millions of people. This is a crass distortion, one that is ultimately disempowering, of how social change has happened in this country. Our history tells us that change occurs when small groups of people work hard to change social structures and economic processes, which in turn guides the behavior of the rest. Alas, those who think we save the world one lightbulb at a time have a hard time seeing these empirical truths about how change occurs, and are left to despair when they realize that they can't get "everyone on board" to drive change. A few people drive change, change happens, and then everyone else adapts or sometimes, if the change is too radical, they rebel. But they mostly adapt. Perhaps Prof. Nicholson will get into this or maybe he'll arrange to have me inflict my explanation of all of this on you via a teleconference.
A warning to the "Lorax Lovers"; As cute as he is, the Lorax is a symbol of all this is wrong with mainstream environmentalism, and how we think about social change. If you haven't yet read my worries about the Lorax, Prof. Nicholson may have you look at it soon.
Thanks again for struggling with my piece.
Yours,
Michael Maniates