I came into ENVS 160 a blank slate, not having any background in Environmental Science or Studies courses in high school. My misunderstanding of 160 as an intro class into the diverse sciences of ecology, geology and resource management was quickly corrected on the first day. Being an enthusiast for such subjects and a perspective biology major, Environmental Science was what I had signed up for, however after the first class, Science or Studies, it didn’t matter; I was hooked either way.
1.
The world is like your grandma’s knitting drawer, not the library bookshelves
On the first day, the film, Darwin’s Nightmare (2004), exposed the underlying network of connection between different actors and events centering around the nile perch introduction into Lake Victoria and the following eutrophication. I was intrigued to learn that the life and problems of a resident prostitute could affect the fishing industry and therefore the ecological state of the lake ecosystem (Sauper 2004).
The veil of separation and distinction was further pulled back upon diving into the first text, Why We Disagree About Climate Change. The concrete concept of clouds and rising temperature as “climate” was replaced by an overarching, constantly changing definition. Mike Hulme tentatively defines climate as “the prevailing attitudes, standards or environmental conditions of a group, period or place,” (Hulme 2009).With this insight, climate and environmental issues such as Climate Change become not only a scientific dilemma but a social, political, cultural, historical and philosophical one as well. I understand now the true meaning of the label “interdisciplinarity” often applied to Environmental Studies.
Making the Modern World furthered this need for inquiry and openness of all connections and possibilities. Introducing such analyses as the life-cycle assessment of products. This analysis evaluates all factors and industries that go into its formation and distribution. It seems the best way to address a problem or issue is to use an all-inclusive model to consider a variety of views and processes (Smil 2014).
2.
No more “nature”
For the Interrogating Isms assignment, my group immersed ourselves in the Post-naturalism movement. Many postnaturalist scholars denounce the use of the term “nature” because of its confining and complicated meaning that recognizes a pure view of the world. For most of my life, I have always gravitated towards this seemingly “universal” concept of nature. Buying eggs with a large stamp shouting “All Natural” and a picture of happy chickens grazing on unrealistically large and green fields. I knew I had a connection with “nature” while never knowing what I was actually attracted to. However, I think what I am captivated by is less the confusing term and more the nostalgic feeling that is associated with it.
Timothy Morton, in Ecology Without Nature, believes that this shaky, unrealistic worldview of pure nature which many movements use as their foundation will not be concrete enough to capture the attention of the general public or important institutions (Morton 2007). In order for real progress, a hybrid view of nature, one that acknowledges humans and the natural earth as a single realm, must be accepted as reality. Many contemporary environmental scholars (eg. Shellenberger, Collard, etc.) recognize that we are in the age of the Anthropocene where humans act as “planetary stewards” of the earth (Shellenberger and Nordhaus 2011). I will not completely denounce the romantic, and yes nostalgic view of nature, however, I now understand that instead of a guide, this pure nature concept is more of an encouragement and a reminder of the full scope of our new responsibilities.
3.
“Think Institutionally”
From elementary school, individual action (eg. recycling, turning off lights, taking shorter showers) has been drilled into my head as the way to save the earth. However, according to many scholars, these are just trivial actions to quell a looming feeling of guilt created from the nostalgic mindset of the “pure” view of nature discussed above. Perhaps these acts are not only to satisfy the guilt but as a way to feel essential and involved in the determining of the future state of our planet.
Valcav Smil, in Making the Modern World, mentions the Jevons Paradox, also known as the rebound effect, where the conservation of a material leads to increased use/consumption of that same material (Smil 2014). This means, for example, that the decreased energy use, from such methods as turning off lights, increases the total energy supply. This increase in supply decreases the price which then again increases the demand. More people use more energy. For our individual efforts of conserving energy to cause a real reduction, everyone must cut down on their energy usage. To be able to organize such a movement, institutions must be involved. Therefore, to implement effective change, institutional forms of action must be used.
Michael Maniates’ powerful call “think institutionally” serves as a guide for novice activists wanting to make a lasting change. He states that often the mechanisms and objectives of individual action translate to larger needs and goals which require institutional action (Maniates 2001). Steinberg, of Who Rules the Earth?, exposes the plethora of social rules guiding and shaping the hybrid natural world we live in (Steinberg 2015). Social rules must be adjusted in order to alter the current situation.
Even though environmental and political activists and scholars alike call for institutional action, I am not quite ready to give up completely on my small, daily acts. Similar to the information flow between scientists and the public, explained by Leigh Phillips in Austerity Ecology and the Collapse-Porn Addicts, action needs to be thought of as a two-way street (Phillips 2015). Individual and institutional action need each other in order to function. To change social regulations, individuals must unite to form such a movement. To have a long-lasting global impact, institutions must solidify changes in social/political laws and regulations. There needs to be a balance of both. As James Proctor introduces in his post, Individual or Institutional (or Both?), my daily individual actions could just be my way of “doing the right thing” and encouraging more conscious decisions in my everyday life (Proctor 2017). They make a difference to me.
On the first day of class, we were asked to write down challenges we thought we would have to grapple with throughout the complicated journey of ENVS 160. Most of them had to do with the reputable workload and balancing of other classes, but the two that I think held most true where:
- Branching out from a purely biological mindset to consider other fields and opinions
- Considering ALL the possibilities
Environmental issues and the world as a whole cannot be simplified down into distinct categories. All people and opinions must be considered.
Works Cited
Sauper, Hubert, dir. Darwin’s Nightmare. International Film Circuit, 2004.
Hulme, Mike. Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Postenvironmentalism and the Anthropocene. Breakthrough Institute, 2011.
Kindle edition.
2015. Kindle edition.