For my solutions project for ENVS, my group and I decided to focus on the ethnocentrism of the environmental movement in Portland and how it excludes people from diverse racial, socioeconomic, and cultural backgrounds. Our project is intended to emphasize how the environmental movement emphasizes ‘taking action’, ‘going green’, and ‘getting involved’, but does not make this accessible.
Our solutions project has made me think a lot about how inclusivity is so important to make action possible. People often make the claim that taking action is simply a choice, you either commit to it or you don’t, when in reality it is much more complicated than that. Taking action and getting involved is really a privilege – do you have the means to spend a few extra dollars on that ‘environmentally conscious’ product? Do you have the time and the transportation to drive a few extra miles to a grocery store rather than eating at a fast food chain? Do you have the resources to eat ‘healthy?’ The reality is many people do not, and not only are they wrongly criticized for being apathetic, but they are also continually excluded from participating in the movement.
One solution my group and I are considering is the use of ethnography. Ethnography is intended to explore different cultures and communities from their perspective rather than from the outsider’s. Perhaps in this way ethnography can be a means to reach out to diverse communities, learning about their needs and reconstructing the environmental movement so it accommodates and includes diverse groups of people.
I also wonder in what ways the environmental movement struggles to be inclusive because perhaps it is based less on active action and more so on material action. One thing I’ve noticed while at Lewis & Clark is how being ‘environmentally conscious’ is just as much a lifestyle as it is an aesthetic, a style, a vernacular. The materiality of the environmental movement is something I find back home, too, and I think it only makes the movement feel more exclusive. Even if the movement is not as material as it appears, that is the perception I, and perhaps others, have of it. The risk of the movement being so material and aesthetic oriented means those who cannot afford to participate in the material side of the movement may not be recognized as being environmentally conscious, or perhaps may feel discouraged from participating since they do not fit the ‘go green aesthetic.’