What is Localism?
By Tallie Steiner, Kat Chester, Eden Smith
“Think globally act locally” is a phrase one will often hear said by environmentalists. But what does acting locally mean? Localism, as defined by Professor Jim Proctor, is “The notion that local scales of production and consumption are best. Opposite of globalism or cosmopolitanism” (Proctor 2017). Localism relies on products that are produced close to one’s home and comes with the belief that a local way of doing things is the best way of doing things. In other words, to be a true localist would mean to only consume products made in close proximity to one’s home.
Localism was first discussed in academia with great prevalence in the 1890’s before spiking again in the 1920’s, 1940’s, and 1975. There was a sharp dip ten years later before the concept of localism in academia spiked to its highest stage of popularity in 1998. Most of these discussions were related to parliamentary debates. Essentially, there has been a steady rising trend in the popularity of the concept (Google Ngram Viewer, 2017). In a more present context localism is most popular in the western countries of the United States of America and England (Google Trends, 2017). This is where most discussion of its use originates. However in the context of politics the laws of governance were first put into action in Greece. “The birthplace of modern civilisation is the city. This is where citizens came together to regulate their own affairs, to debate and discuss, to form coalitions, to promote the arts and public works, and to create an education system.” (Hartwich 2013, 7). This is the foundation for what localism has become today.
Context of Localism
Generally, neoliberals and liberals have promoted localism in all aspects of the ism, though they have placed particular emphasis on localism in government. In his book about localist movements, David Hess of Vanderbilt University suggests a reason for this support, “Localism is consistent with the neoliberal trend in favor of the devolution of national government responsibilities to the states and to communities” (Hess 2009, 54). With the transfer of power from national to local governments, other aspects of localism will have the opportunity to emerge. Those who are opposed to localism, such as those in favor of mainstream policies, stem their opposition mainly from their position on the government’s role in society. The debate between those who promote localism and those who oppose it is largely based off the political issues in the degree of participation of national government, mainly focused in the economy (Hess 2009, 51). In all, although localism has many aspects to it, such as agricultural and social context, the major differences between those who promote and oppose it comes from their opinions on the role of government in society.
The ideas behind localism are greatly connected to the ideas of cosmopolitanism. In fact, localism can be described in terms of cosmopolitanism; localism is essentially the direct opposite. For further clarification, cosmopolitanism is the ideology that all humans belong to a single community based on common ideas of morality (Wikipedia 2017). Because localism is based on the notion that our society is comprised of many different communities and that we should focus on enhancing the production and consumption within these individual communities, it is clear that localism contrasts directly with the ideas behind cosmopolitanism. Localism is also very much related to the concept of place. Because localism is defined by many different communities based on a specific context and location, localism has important ties to the ism of place.
Critiques of Localism
The popularity of localism has become an interesting addition to the news that “In 2008, for the first time in human history, more people worldwide were living in cities than in rural areas” (Holloway et al. 2014, 338). The influx of people has allowed created more motivation for city governments to address issues of sustainability and health within their local communities. However, in trying to pursue the betterment of their communities it is hard to see where the lines of federal, state, and international law begin and end. On a larger scale it is too difficult for most governments to maneuver through the unknown territory of environmental policy. On a more local scale the effects of environmental change can be felt on a much more palpable level. “Today’s major policy challenges, from financial stimulus to terrorism, cannot be readily contained within easily discernible geographic boundaries” (Ostrow 2017). That is what makes localism such a tough concept to fully articulate in any community. The policy challenge that the environment presents is so large that it is difficult to decide who does and does not regulate different parts of the environment. By federalizing environmental protection, modern environmental law imposes uniform standards across the country, preserving natural resources and protecting public health by preventing the “race to the bottom” that might otherwise occur in the absence of a federal regulatory “floor” (Holloway et al. 2014, 346). Some believe that localism can produce environmental changes that benefit our planet. On a small scale in situations of pollution and watershed mismanagement that is true, but for larger issues like global warming, or radiation small scale solutions that come out of localism are not enough.
As well as government, a large aspect of localism is based around food. As stated by Jesse McEntee, a professor at Cardiff University, there are two types of localism as related to food: traditional and contemporary. For those who display traditional localisms, motivation for buying local food stems from affordability and ease of access whereas the motivation of contemporary localism is grounded in ideology (McEntee 2010, 790). Traditional localism, because it is based on practical measures, recives little criticism due to the clear need and reason for it. The critique of localism is mainly surrounded by the ideologies of contemporary localism. At first glance, the idea of local food may seem like a fabulous idea – by buying local, one can support the local economy and farmers, eat healthier, more flavorful, in-season foods, and reduce their carbon footprint. However, as stated by McEntee, “…the vast majority of local food initiatives appeal only to those with the financial means to partake, and resultantly, these initiatives have been labelled as elitist, exclusive, and inequitable” (McEntee 2010, 786). Thus, due to the inaccessibility of local food for all people, one would argue that it is not a solid solution to solving problems such as food security and climate change. Those on a tight budget or who live in a food desert may not have the means to practice contemporary localism by stopping by Whole Foods or their friendly farmers market to pick up fresh, in season, local food on their way home from work. Although localism, as practiced on a traditional scale has reason, contemporary localism excludes those who can’t afford the time, money, and effort to buy local and therefore it is not accessible to all.
In addition to the consideration of food elements in regards to localism, it is also interesting to observe other products’ relations to localism, specifically technological devices. Many technological devices that have come to play an essential role in our lives, including but not limited to cameras, laptops, and our beloved iphones are all entangled in highly globalized manufacturing processes. In fact, the majority of suppliers and manufacturers for companies such as Apple reside in China and Taiwan, as well as in many other Asian countries (Minasians 2017). This purchase of products from far away countries directly contradicts with the ideas behind localism. Therefore, one important critique of localism is how to deal with technology production if we indeed decide to move towards a local production mechanism. Because technology manufacture nowadays is largely global, we must ask several key questions when thinking about the possibilities of localism: will we abandon the use of these electronics in regions that can not produce them locally? Can we come up with techniques to produce these technologies in local settings? And if so how will we accomplish this? Overall, although localism has many apparent benefits towards society, there are also many questions that arise with these ideas that must be considered before any practices can be put forth.
Beyond observing localism in terms of its food, technology, and government relations and critiquing it solely on these attributes, it is also essential to analyze localism in a way that takes into consideration our overall human connectedness and social relations. One important critique related to this concept arises: the idea that localism avoids and miss out on opportunities to use human connections and global conversation to address important problems, specifically in relation to environmental concerns. In her book, Sense of Place and Sense of Planet: The Environmental Imagination of the Global, Heise argues that “rather than focusing on the recuperation of a sense of place, environmentalism needs to foster an understanding of how a wide variety of both natural and cultural places and processes are connected and shape each other around the world, and how human impact affects and changes this connectedness” (Heise 2008, 425). Heise believes that in order to work on solving the large environmental problems of our generation, we must be open to observing the larger global interactions and connections rather than just focusing on immediate location. One piece of this argument against localism is that because we are so connected today, thanks to rapidly increasing communication methods and technologies advances, it is somewhat naive to think that we can address environmental problems solely in a local context. This argument promotes that we must make use of our vast global communication resources and networks in order to observe any real change.
Conclusion
In sum, localism, the idea that consumption and production are best at a local scale, is an idea which has had a long history of critiques. It was first discussed in the 1890s as part of a conversation about government. This conversation around government has led neoliberals and liberals, in favor of things done at the local scale, to generally support it. Those in favor of mainstream policies, who oppose localism, favor things done at the global scale. Their beliefs reside with cosmopolitanism, an ism which is almost the exact opposite of localism. Localism has received many critiques throughout the years, spanning from localism in government, food, technology, and social relations. In all of these critiques, the criticism for localism sprouted from questioning if things produced at a local, instead of global, scale were actually better.
Overall, although localism has shown to be beneficial in strengthening communities and in promoting environmental change in certain regards, based on our research, we have concluded that localism has many flaws and that it should only be applied with caution in an environmental context. As previously discussed in greater detail, localism as an environmental solution has many drawbacks associated with it. We have observed that localism not only has drawbacks due to its creation of economic inequities in communities and restrictions in ability to supply ample products in all regions, but also because localism fails to consider and utilize the larger global connections that we have as humans.
Additionally, we have identified that the concept of localism is not appropriate to use in solving the broad problem of global warming. It is, however, useful in solving smaller crises with less variables. Localism is similar to the Montreal Protocol that was created to make sure no further harm would be done to the ozone layer. This was done through the elimination of products that were causing the reduction of ozone in the atmosphere. The Montreal Protocol was able to be constructed and be successful because it was a smaller more straightforward part of a larger problem. The failure of Kyoto protocol demonstrates how problematic a smaller group is that is trying to solve a larger issue that is too complex for its capabilities. As the task of reducing greenhouse emissions to a point of measurable success could not be achieved because of the lack of ability in the agreement to enforce its aims. Essentially, the Kyoto protocol, metaphorically, shows the impractical essence of a localism mindset when tackling large, complex issues. In summation, because there are many downsides to the ideas of localism, it is clear that this term should only be applied in environmental situations with extreme caution.
Works Cited:
“A-Global-Perspective-on-Localism.pdf.” Accessed March 23, 2017. http://www.lgnz.co.nz/assets/Publications/A-global-perspective-on-localism.pdf.
“Cosmopolitanism.” Wikipedia, March 19, 2017. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cosmopolitanism&oldid=771021667.
Gentry, Kynan. “History, Heritage and Localism” 34, no. 5/6 (November 2013): 508–22.
“Google Ngram Viewer.” Accessed March 23, 2017. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=localism&year_start=1800&year_end=2012&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Clocalism%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Clocalism%3B%2Cc1.
“Google Trends.” Google Trends. Accessed March 23, 2017. /trends/explore.
Heise, Ursula K. (2008-09-29). Sense of Place and Sense of Planet: The Environmental Imagination of the Global (Kindle Locations 400-425). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.
Hess, David J. Localist Movements in a Global Economy Sustainability, Justice,
and Urban Development in the United States. Cambridge, MIT Press, 2009.
“Localism as a Political Ideology Against Globalism.” Gaia Imperium, May 13, 2013. https://isisimperium.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/localism-as-a-political-ideology-against-globalism/.
McEntee, Jesse. “Contemporary and Traditional Localism: A Conceptualisation of Rural Local Food.” Local Environment 15, no. 9/10 (November 10, 2010): 785–803. doi:10.1080/13549839.2010.509390.
Minasians, Christopher. “Indian Firm Gets Contract to Build iPhone SE.” Macworld UK. Accessed March 24, 2017. http://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/apple/where-are-apple-products-made-how-much-does-iphone-cost-make-india-3633832/.