Redemption vs. Revolution: A response to Derrick Jensen
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
image courtesy of fontplaydotcom
In Derrick Jensen’s recent article in Orion Magazine, “Forget Shorter Showers: Why personal change does not equal political change,” he throws down the gauntlet for would-be activists in the 21st century in the very first paragraph:
Would any sane person think dumpster diving would have stopped Hitler, or that composting would have ended slavery or brought about the eight-hour workday, or that chopping wood and carrying water would have gotten people out of Tsarist prisons, or that dancing naked around a fire would have helped put in place the Voting Rights Act of 1957 or the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Then why now, with all the world at stake, do so many people retreat into these entirely personal “solutions”?
He goes on to explain how our capitalist system wrongly puts the onus for protecting the natural environment on individuals and their consumption patterns, when the vast majority of waste and emissions are produced by industry and the military. More than 90 percent of the water used by humans is used by agriculture and industry. The remaining 10 percent is split between municipalities and actual living breathing individual humans. Collectively, municipal golf courses use as much water as municipal human beings.
The rest of the article explains the major problems with viewing lifestyle choice as the way to change the world, closing with this exhortation:
The good news is that there are other options. We can follow the examples of brave activists who lived through the difficult times I mentioned—Nazi Germany, Tsarist Russia, antebellum United States—who did far more than manifest a form of moral purity; they actively opposed the injustices that surrounded them. We can follow the example of those who remembered that the role of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power with as much integrity as possible, but rather to confront and take down those systems.
I couldn’t agree more with him that we need far bigger changes than new lightbulbs and shorter showers. Our lifestyle choices don’t have nearly the impact that the culture tells us they do. He makes many excellent points throughout the piece—please do go read it. But I stop short of full endorsement, because of his assessment of the solution. Is our only choice to “confront and take down” industrialized society? Is there no hope for development, for transformation?
He talks about how human beings are in a double-bind—a situation where there is no good choice and no way out—but, the way I see it, the point of view he espouses puts us there every bit as much as the industrial culture he so villainizes. If our only choices are to do nothing/lose everything, or to destroy modern civilization, then we truly are doomed.
Jensen is taking a vast leap. Our problems are not industry and capitalism; our problems are carbon emissions, wasted resources, and inequality. Rather than ripping down the whole system—which has brought unprecedented wealth, health, and education to millions of people—why not put our energies into recreating that system so that waste, emissions, and inequality are no longer a part of it? Isn’t there a chance that our ingenuity and creativity and capacity for growth can save us from the problems created by less developed versions of our ingenuity and creativity and capacity for growth?
We can read history as Jensen reads it—activists “taking down” systems of power. Or, we can look at it as a process of development in which swift, radical transformation is catalyzed by two concurrent and related forces: a problem to be solved, and a moral compulsion to solve it.
Brave people acting in the confluence of these two forces ended slavery; won women the right to vote; organized to protect workers’ rights; created a new way to view racial differences; and on and on. It’s important to note that none of these movements tore down what came before them. Rather, they achieved progress by appealing to the higher morality of the populace—a higher morality, I might add, that would never have been achieved without the increased level of material security and education brought about by industrialization.
Each of these movements pointed out a difference between the way things are and the way things could be, and awakened in millions of people the courage and capacity to bridge the gap. And this—internal moral development reflected in action—is how the world is changed, one step at a time, through a developmental process.
In short, not all personal change is useless. Taking a shorter shower might not appreciably change the world, but developing ourselves—our creativity and our sense of care for the whole of creation, oceans and industries and everything in between—certainly does. For it is only in embracing ever-broader points of view that we can see clearly enough to create new ways of living and thinking.
As we develop our capacity to see more deeply and more comprehensively, we also learn how to make our ideas meaningful to people who embrace different values. Just as not everyone who embraces traditional religious values is a bigot, not everyone who embraces capitalism is a moustache-twirling villain. We have to stop looking at this in such adversarial terms, and start seeing it as a process in which each of us—environmentalist, businessperson, mother, and soldier—has a part to play.
Calling for the destruction of modern society is a losing proposition. Calling for its redemption just might work.
(21) Comments | Permalink
See more articles by Megan Dietz.
Wow. What a great piece of writing you have created. I have not even read the original article yet, but I am convinced by your piece. Yes, tearing down the system should not be the goal. You have a very good hammer for hitting nails.
Megan, thank you for your thoughtful article. I agree with many points, but also have some comments.
You ask, “Is there no hope for development, for transformation?”
Sure there is hope. But is hope action? This question sort of reminds me when people say “capitalism/communism/socialism/whatever-ism would work perfectly IF ONLY EVERYONE WOULD JUST _(fill in the blank)”. It also depends upon your definition of “development” and what sorts of “transformations” are permitted within the power structure - because we all know too well that if we did transform towards something that threatened the current economic structure, we would be confronted on many levels, most of those levels being physical violence. The historical examples you provide illustrate only those groups wanting their piece of the pie within the system - not those who saw the damage the system was doing and trying to stop it. In short, those in power are not readily going to stop the practices they partake in that grant them that wealth and power; turning wild nature into tin cans and forests into furniture - no matter how urgently we ask, how moral our appeals are, and how seemingly willing industry is to hop on the Green-wagon.
Some of the claims you make like “Our problems are not industry and capitalism; our problems are carbon emissions, wasted resources, and inequality. Rather than ripping down the whole system—which has brought unprecedented wealth, health, and education to millions of people…” make certain assumptions that I don’t want your readers to simply take for granted. One of those assumptions is that the benefits of Industrialized Civilization outweigh the negative affects, and furthermore, justify the means to those ends - and this I strongly disagree with. Those that benefit from this system financially, physically, emotionally, politically; those that maintain power - are doing so on the very backs of many, many less-fortunate people, animals, ecosystems and communities. Overwhelmingly, those individuals and communities (who would otherwise not willingly give up their traditional lifestyles and resources) were and continue to be purposefully put in positions to have no other choice than turn over their labor and resources to accommodate our ever-expanding, ever-developing civilization. It is structural, systematic, and at the very core of our civilization. It’s easy to have the idea that the benefits outweigh the negatives, living in the places you and I do, but one look around the world, where the largest concentrations of populations exist, and where the people who reside among largest amounts of resources exist, tell a very different story which can be summed up as: “Join or die”.
Another important point to raise is that many people who believe that we will “evolve” or “awaken” (change into a brilliantly wise species that lives in a technological utopia) are seemingly rationalizing the loss of the present, irreversible, invaluable, and intrinsically valid people, animals, and ecosystems that are a means to reaching the light at the end of that long dark tunnel we categorize as a dark stage in human history.
What I am saying is that is it scientifically impossible to live in an economic structure that requires perpetual “growth” on a finite planet, and total equality in a hierarchical power structure will be met by force.
see my article for some details in the current extinction event, accelerating resource consumption patters, food crisis, and others:
http://thediscerningbrute.com/2008/04/14/three-earth-day-doozies/
I do believe that it is possible for there to be a moral awakening - buy my fear is that the time needed to foster the basic needs people have - to put them in positions to have this awakening, is in itself dooming us. We have already driven over the cliff, and now we are putting a hybrid engine and a cup of fair-trade coffee in the car on the way down instead of jumping out.
I think what Derrick Jensen does that people don’t like is that he smashes our illusions that comfort us, that allow us to believe that we are not doomed, that permit us to be passive and comfortable, that permit us to sit in cafes on our laptops throwing money at “causes” and patting ourselves on the back rather than taking serious action to change things. And the scariest thing we may come to realize is that there is no peaceful, clean, happy solution to this problem. It’s a f*cking mess.
I am not claiming to be the living example of what DJ is asking us to do by any means, but I appreciate and openly accept that this culture is not going to go through any sort of voluntary transformation that will actually bring about the drastic changes required to save our home. I am happy to promote green products and list “simple things you can do…” but I remain realistic about the problems we face and the problematic nature of how vigorously we are permitted to stir the pot as activists and thinkers.
John—thank you for your comment!
And Joshua—thank you as well. Your input is insightful and full of truth. There’s no question that we are in dire straits, that the systems that support our lives are in fact deadly, and that those who run those systems will not go quietly. When I look around at the world we’ve created, I have to agree that much of it is horrifying.
Please understand that I do not believe in a “techno utopia.” Nor am I saying that our survival depends on the sudden and mysterious of evolution of humans into better creatures.
My goal in writing this piece is to encourage those of us who care about such things to step back a bit and look at where we are now from a broader context. Just by virtue of being alive in this universe, we are always in the midst of a developmental process. And that process is messy, fraught with danger, and completely without any guarantees.
However, if we are going to face this crisis head-on, we need industry on board. The fact that industry has caused so many of these problems—as Jensen clearly points out—means that necessarily it will have to be involved in the solutions. You and I and everyone we know could make the lifestyle changes listed in any magazine, and it still wouldn’t have the impact of Wal-Mart deciding to sell organic foods, or reducing the amount of packaging in the items they sell. If we have any hope of growing past the problems facing us now, big “evil” corporations are going to have to take part. So demonizing them doesn’t make any sense.
Nor does placing all the blame on them. No titan of industry set out to destroy the planet, and no one put a gun to our heads and made us buy the stuff they’re selling. Black hats and white hats don’t fit here. WE ARE ALL RESPONSIBLE for the situation we find ourselves in.
So, where does that leave us? It leaves us—each and every one of us—with a moral imperative to do everything we can to change the world. Not just to reduce our individual footprints, but to talk with each other, try new ways of living, and even put on suits and go and meet with captains of industry with proposals that will save them money while also saving the planet. No one wants the world to blow up, not even the most evil company you can think of. How would they continue to make money?
What I’m trying to do in this piece—and on this blog—is to open up minds, including my own. I want us to lay down the anger and the despair and the usual adversarial way we have of looking at these things and try something new—try believing in ourselves and each other—try talking and listening to each other without rancor or venom. All these us vs. them ways of seeing do is divide us. We need to collaborate like never before.
Please understand that my position does not come out of naivete or lack of understanding of where we are. I simply, firmly believe that if we are to get anywhere with solving these crises and creating a future that works, we need to (1) believe that we can and (2) do it together.
Again, thank you for your insightful contribution.
First, Derrick Jensen didn’t just point out that industry has caused many problems. EARTH has pointed out industry has caused many problems. The endangered species list points it out. The extinction of our animal and plant and even human friends point it out. The fact that NW Washington summers are now reaching 100-110 degrees points it out. The floating debris in the ocean points it out. The overwhelming number of “drug (pot) criminals” versus actual criminals in jail points it out. Everything points it out. The lack of a lot of things point it out. Maybe it needs to be taken down rather than slowly chastized for bullying…
You refer to history not as “Jensen reads it,” being activists taking down systems of power but as ‘a process of development in which swift, radical transformation is catalyzed by two concurrent and related forces.’ Isn’t that activism taking down systems, just in more words? Maybe, I’m wrong…
Second, placing blames on companies that obviously have a huge part in this DOES make sense. Though they won’t hold themselves accountable, it definitely makes sense to make other people aware, since a lot of people keep themselves in the dark so they can sleep better at night. Stupidity plea. And while we may all be individually responsible on some scale, I would like to not think because I drank some soda when I was a kid that I am equally as responsible to any paramilitary squad or the companies that send them out to dump bullets into families… I also think that any company that destroys, and very willingly so, the very infrastructure of our existence, as a planet and people and non people, on any level to make money has already waged war on us. And that to me is a darn good reason to call them out on it. I know what side I’m on.
It was really nice of Al Gore to make a movie about the little ways we can change our lifestyles to ‘save the planet’ but the dangerous mentality it created has horrified me. Changing lightbulbs is great. Using reusable bags to overconsume is cute. Recycling is nice. These things are not going to stop what has been done and are only giving people the illusion that they’re making a difference. It’s allowing them to believe they’re accomplishing something and allowing them to believe they’re not part of the problem. That is very very dangerous. We can slow down the inevitable (maybe, but honestly…can we really?) and reduce our own footprints but the problem with that is, most options left still don’t repair what’s done. Why put a band-aid on a gapping, blood gushing head wound?
We are to the point where we should no longer be nice about this, because the definite outcome is not very nice. Yes, we can all thank our own generations and those that came before us for participating in this wheel of disaster. I think, though, we should look at why we were all put in the position in the first place. Not because our mom said we had to suck the earth dry before dinner or no dessert. Not because our teachers said if we didn’t consume and waste and pollute, we’d have Saturday detention. We’ve all been led to believe a great deal of lies that have continued, and will continue, to crumble something beautiful and replace it with our very own graves.
Now, either we slit our own throats and give in, or we decide that it’s okay to stand up and say it. But painting the picture you did, these companies are just looking out for us and want what’s best for us and even though they’re greedy, we’re still in their thoughts… That’s not the case. We know it. They know it. Let’s not let other people believe that or we’re just continuing the cycle of deceit and destruction.
Hi Javan,
Thanks for commenting.
I think there is a big difference between viewing progress and success by activists as tearing down what came before it, and seeing it developmentally. Activists actually BUILD upon the culture as it exists. They don’t tear down what’s there so much as point to a better way for it to be. This results in transformation.
Nowhere did I say that companies are looking out for us and want what’s best for us. There are obviously untruths all over the place. But how does it make sense to argue with the past? Rockefeller and Carnegie may not have had aims that you find admirable, but they didn’t set out to destroy the planet. They simply didn’t know what the consequences of these actions would be.
Now that we do know, it’s up to us to fix it. All of us. We may not be to blame, but we are ultimately responsible. Just like a child who is abused isn’t to blame for that abuse, but is ultimately responsible for how she turns out, for what she allows her life to become.
The angry rhetoric that you and so many other environmentalists use to make your points is impassioned and it’s understandable. But it is not helpful. Have you ever changed anyone’s mind in this way?
If our goal is really to change the world—rather than just be angry about the way it is—we need to learn how to communicate with people with different values. Perhaps people who like iPhones, air travel, industry, and all the good things that go along with living in modern society.
Can we slow down the inevitable? Can we turn this boat around? I’m not sure. But I’m positive that standing around yelling at each other about how we’re going in the right direction isn’t going to help.
Unfortunate typo in that very last sentence. It should be “I’m positive that standing around yelling at each other about how we’re going in the WRONG direction isn’t going to help. ”
Know this: I AM angry. Very angry. I DON’T just stand around and yell at people about it. And please, don’t ever mistake me for impassioned. If there is one thing I’m not, it’s impassioned. In my every day life, in the way I love, in the way I fight, I am very passionate.
Something needs to change. In that, both my “angry rhetoric (realistic outlook)” and your hopeful idealism are necessary. You change people with your online blogs, I’ll change people by living a beautiful, happy, meaningful life a little less responsible for the ruin..
Javam, I can tell you’re angry. My question is, how effective is that in changing minds? I have been very angry, too, and found it to be very ineffective in opening people to a new way of thinking. In fact, in my experience, it usually has the opposite effect.
“Impassioned” means full of passion and it’s obvious that’s what you are! We are both looking for a way to live a beautiful, happy, and meaningful life. I wish you well!
What’s funny is I read it ‘unpassioned’ and then typed impassioned anyway.
Keep up the hopefulness.
I like your piece a lot, Megan, though I have a different view. I guess I feel that Jensen is not going too far because most of us are going so close. I fully embrace Jensen’s message and admire his courage in writing it. Could we say that rather than overthrow Naziism, people with a higher consciousness and a desire to end the persecution of Jews, gays and other minority groups should have risen up and…dismantled the concentration camps? I know many have a hard time associating our government with the Nazi government, but consider just a few examples of what they do. Torture captives, make foreign coups(historically), allow monopolistic for-profit health companies to determine the care or lack thereof of the people, try and sentence as terrorists those who disseminate information about animal abuse and vivisection, wiretap citizens, conduct military practice raids on domestic towns (Portland), infiltrate peace organizations with military operatives, employ mercenaries to fight wars, provide tax incentives to coal companies who practice mountain top removal while fining citizens who protest the destruction of their land and water $1,200 each, set up video game kiosks in malls to use as army recruitment, to get soldiers to continue a war that most Americans do not support yet have contributed $669,019,654,940 to, a war that has killed over a million Iraqis… Despite all these facts which strike some and make others go numb, I know best what to think when I listen to the voice within. My inner voice’s message is not angry, but it’s clear in saying that the existing system is more injurious than supportive to life and spirit. I don’t yet have the answers, I’ll never stop seeking a healthier way to live for myself. I value the education our rationally advanced society has afforded me, but rationality can only go so far. It can allow for great wrongdoing and justify it brilliantly. Love is the higher level of consciousness and, right now, I see that the system in power (despite lip service)operates in opposition to Love. I am not interested in violence or arguing. Nor am I interested in supporting a system rooted in fear, anger and pride. As much as I can, I will work to get free of it and as I do, I will seek to work with others to build a new society that reflects our Love of the earth and each other.
hey sarah,
where do we draw the line between us and them? where does the system rooted in fear, anger, and pride stop and where do we begin? there are injustices everywhere, and we absolutely must speak up against them. but we also must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. for all the injustice, for all the incredible abuses of power, for all the enormity of the mess we find ourselves in, that doesn’t change the fact that modernism has freed slaves, created real wealth, and educated and brought people out of poverty to an extent that we have never seen before in human history.
is it perfect? is it even wholly good? of course not. i’m no apologist for the excesses of modernity. we still have an incalculably long way to go. we will ALWAYS have a long way to go. whatever solutions we cook up to the current crop of problems will inevitably cause further ones that we couldn’t possibly have foreseen. the pioneers of industrialization couldn’t have foreseen species destruction or global warming or any of the things we’re dealing with right now. they were trying to create wealth and security from where they were. but now we see the consequences, and so it is up to us to deal with them.
i don’t think it makes sense to come down firmly on either side—industrialization is neither wholly bad nor completely good. there are strands within it that have brought about enormous suffering. and there are other strands that have led to our ability to have this conversation here today—each of us with the education and resources and depth of consciousness to even be able to look at these issues in this way.
what i’m arguing for in this piece is a more subtle level of discernment, a finer instrument—a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer. the diseased parts need healing and/or eradication, but that doesn’t mean the whole thing has to go.
it’s easy to get wrapped up in the righteousness of everything that’s wrong with the world. but just imagine—what would the world look like tomorrow if the industrialized world simply disappeared? do you honestly think that things would be better??
besides, we can’t tear down the whole thing and start over. even if everyone on planet earth agreed to do so, it still wouldn’t work. in green building, there is a saying: “the greenest building is the one that’s already built.” we have neither the resources nor the time to rebuild everything from scratch.
our civilization has good bones—there are good values in traditional viewpoints, in modernity, and in postmodernism. none of them is 100% right or wrong. it’s up to us to sift through them all and decide what to take with us into the future.
i think this is really where the rubber hits the road in terms of personal development. what is more important—being right about everything that’s wrong with the world? or reaching out to others across our polarized points of view to come up with new ideas to change it?
Do creators and perpetrators of genocide and ecocide of disgustingly epic proportions deserve subtle reactions? It scares me that you don’t know where the line is drawn. I see a big, huge, blazing with fire line between me and them… What is “real wealth” when the real poor are STILL dying in the streets worldwide? Education can’t always feed the hungry. Neither can subtlety. And “other strands,” while convenient, are just luxuries. People learned very useful things for a very very long time that kept them afloat for a very very long time without the internet, text messaging, cars, guns, BOOKS even…
While I think it’s hard to imagine that things would instantly be fixed if industrialized civilization disappeared, what is truly important is that it would be gone. It would be better for the earth, the atmosphere, the animals who’ve been trying so hard to live with us, the indigenous people worldwide who’ve been bombarded by this disease of greed and fear and ugliness.
More people seem to question if it would be better for US. That’s not MY concern. It would be hard for many, but hey, it’s hard for the salmon, too, just BEING. What’s good for the goose slaughters the gander.
i can’t argue with the examples you bring up of catastrophes caused by the industrial world we live in. all i can do is offer a new way to look at our position based on a developmental understanding of human culture that fits into a developmental, evolutionary universe. my goal is not to argue; it’s to reach and gather those who see the problems we face and who also want to see possibilities beyond them.
i want an environmentalism that includes space travel, spiritual exploration, clean water, beautiful food, the internet, economic justice—all of it. we may or may not be able to have that, but at this point i think it’s too soon to call. we have to keep trying, to keep our chins up and face the immense problems ahead of us with as much courage and grace and humor and hope and passion and gumption as we can muster. what other choice do we have?
hi megan, thanks for such a wonderful post and thoughtful, grounded responses to your commentators. what always strikes me when looking at our predicament, is how these structures relate to evolutionary theory. it’s clear that our cultural structures have evolved from and are built on (transcending and including) previous cultural structures, and that all of this is still part of the whole thing moving forward, this is all just a snapshot somewhere between the big bang and what has yet to be created in the future, and our cultural evolution is not separate from that. it’s a law of nature that as each new level forms and stabilizes, that evolutionary pressure is put on it. it can never stop or stay stagnant. each cultural level must transcend and reorganize itself into a higher way of operating. and if it doesn’t, it collapses. it’s so amazing to look at what’s happening in the world and see that all of this is part of the process, and that we must find a better way of doing things (AND OF COURSE! THAT’S JUST THE WAY IT GOES!). all of the problems that we have to face are just indicators that it’s time. the world is hungry for new models and better ways of doing things, and the more that we can come together and actually create NEW ways of doing things and find solutions together and build structures that transcend the old ones, the more the old structures will adopt and embody the new, because they’ll have a path and a model to look to and move into. and if there’s a possibility that the current structures will collapse in on themselves at some point, i see that an even more of an incentive to come together to create new structures now so we have something to move into and work with when/if that happens. i do agree with so much of what derrick jensen thinks and sees in terms of what’s wrong with the world, but the issue i also have with his view is that rather than taking responsibility for creating a better world, he simply advocates tearing down the one that doesn’t work. and to me, that isn’t taking responsibility for much.
also when you look at how these issues relate to the relationship between consciousness and culture, it’s clear to see that our culture is created from our level of consciousness. our postmodern predicament is a result of our postmodern consciousness, which is self-centered and narcissistic. how can anyone care for the whole of the world when ultimately they see themselves as something separate from it? our new structures must demand that we care for the whole, because we ARE the whole. and until we can see that clearly, there isn’t a lot that can be done. so that’s why it’s so important for us to come together collectively, to change ourselves together, to create new structures that go beyond shorter showers and composting, to develop on a personal level, collectively, not for ourselves but for the sake of the WHOLE. for the sake of our own survival. and the fact that we are doing that and there are others who care enough for the world to actually come together to make that happen gives me so much depth of hope and joy and love, that i literally feel like i’m going to explode as i’m writing this.
I’ve felt boxed in and perplexed by Derrick’s suggestion that extreme measures must be taken in defense of the living and on behalf of their strengthened return to vigor and healthy numbers—whether trees, salmon, corals, wolves, or whatever. It’s heartened me a lot to be reminded (by a Christian commentator) that even Gandhi’s universe included a recognition of the reality and the occasional necessity of violence:
“Gandhi guarded against attracting to his satyagraha movement those who feared to take up arms or felt themselves incapable of resistance. ‘I do believe,’ he wrote, ‘that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.’”
“At every meeting I repeated the warning that unless they felt that in non-violence they had come into possession of a force infinitely superior to the one they had and in the use of which they were adept, they should have nothing to do with non-violence and resume the arms they possessed before. It must never be said of the Khudai Khidmatgars that once so brave, they had become or been made cowards under Badshah Khan’s influence. Their bravery consisted not in being good marksmen but in defying death and being ever ready to bare their breasts to the bullets.”
Transformation is a worthy goal. Engaging the Powers (the powerful) with the aim of redirecting their energies and redefining their interests is a worthy goal. But finding ways of “monkeywrenching” will find their place in this movement, and it is a worthy and to some degree a necessary place. Not all moral issues are cut and dried when it comes to siding with a Gaia who is defending herself, often with lethal measures.
Hey, Megan. Great thoughts on this topic. Redemption is usually a better way to go than complete destruction. (As someone with a Christian worldview, it’s very evident throughout the New Testament that Jesus was interested in redeeming people and rebuking staid religious establishments that sought to keep people under their thumb as opposed to creating pathways for freedom through redemption ... but I digress.)
I do think our world system can be transformed ... though it’s like turning the Titanic. But given enough time and patience, it can be done. Yes we can! :)
What a great debate you have fostered here Megan. I think people like Jensen have an important role to play in stirring the pot, and challenging us, but I also share Jeremy (and your) sense that there is something limiting in his black and white us vs. them approach, which feels to me like old paradigm activism. I’ve spent the last five years exploring this, and feel that we need to go beyond our anger, and get to a place where we invite, and yes sometimes demand, everyone - and I mean everyone, even our so called ‘enemies’ - to the table. We need to go beyond polarizing approaches. There is the need for multiple solutions to a complex problem, ranging from direct action to dialogue to - yes - personal transformation. Ultimately, we need a new paradigm, we need a new story. The industrial growth society has to shift into a life sustaining society, and fast. I just finished a film that’s coming out now, called Fierce Light: When Spirit Meets Action, (http://www.fiercelight.org) which explores new paradigm activism. The next in the trilogy is called Evolve Love: The Meaning is Life. WHich is about the evolution to a life sustaining society, or as Joanna Macy calls it, The Great Turning. She;s worth checking out, at http://www.joannamacy.net She’s also in Fierce Light.
Anger can be a good fuel, but as Van Jones says, it’s like burning diesel - we need to learn to burn solar.
As for violence as a solution, and Gandhi suggesting it be used, that was theoretical. He said if there was a choice that had to be made between violent resistance and cowardice, he would prefer violence. But in practice, he stuck to non-violent, but very direct, and powerful, action. Non-violence is not about passivity.
“It’s better to light a candle than curse the darkness” - Gandhi
The old structures are actually falling apart quite well. The big question for me is: what are we going to replace them with? It’s easy to be against. But what are we for? We need a new story. We need a new vision.
As long as one is able to remain ignorant of the root cause of our problems, then this article is perfectly valid. Unfortunately that position is essentially, denial. The whole structure of industrial civilization is demented and untenable, from its hierarchical nature to its unsustainable need for continual imports of energy, and not forgetting the cultural “necessity” that we need economic growth: surely the greatest lie we have ever been told.
So, we have a choice: we can either salvage a system that is fundamentally flawed, patch it up and disguise it like an AK-47 wrapped in velvet; or we can accept that this “one way to live” that we have been born into and forced to embrace has to go.
Megan, I would encourage you to read, “The Problem With…Civilization” (http://earth-blog.bravejournal.com/entry/27929/) and then look again at what you have written. Does it make so much sense now?
No one has ever said that leaving civilization is going to be easy, but the alternative is catastrophe.
Velcrow Ripper (great name) - the “new vision” is the old vision, the same “vision” we had for tens of thousands of years before civilization took over the world: finding a way to live appropriate to our immediate surroundings and the people whom we live with. Any talk of a big plan or new vision is asking for trouble - civilization has plans and visions; humanity just lives.
I find that kind of an approach to being human a little depressing. We are part of an evolutionary life force that has unfolded in miraculous ways - as Briane Swimme says, the miracle of hydrogen atoms evolving into roses, giraffes and humans. But humans have self reflexive consciousness - we can actually be aware of what we are doing, and become aware of the fact that we are living our lives based on various stories - such as the industrial growth society story. Yes, we can step into pure “being” and just exist, which is wonderful, but we are also here to “do” - we manifest, creatively. Not all creativity is destructive. To think the answer is to go back to pre-industrial civilization in it’s entirety is very limiting and unrealistic and uninspiring. The new vision I’m talking about would involve the best of pre-industrial civilization, and the best of what we’ve learned since then. The fact that we are in a global community, and can share and learn from the full spectrum of wisdom in this world doesn’t need to be discarded. What you are talking about is also a story. A return to the past. We can’t do that. But yes, we can learn to live in harmony with the natural world, and still be fully conscious evolving humans. Civilization is not the problem. Industrial civilization is the problem. The form of civilization, the stories we run by, is the problem. We have wonderful new experiments taking place - like what is happening in Bolivia, with the first indigenous run modern day nation state, a combination of participatory democracy and traditional indigenous wisdom. The new story for me is integral - let’s look for the highest common denominator. It is also self organizing, and is evolving horizontally, not top down. I’m not talking old style, hierchal imposed “revolutions”. Something new is afoot, and it is much more hopeful than simply eliminating civilization altogether. Civilization needs to evolve. I love humanity, we just have serious problem with Hubris. We need new stories, new ways of seeing and central to that is recognizing that we are part of a web, not isolated fragmented selfish individuals, a story Descartes helped inspire and industrial consumer civilization thrived on.
’
When did I ever say it was a job for individuals?
The future is community; it has to be.
Post a comment
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.