Like many other free-range grass-fed liberals, I applied to Lewis & Clark College for the Environmental Studies major. I am, after all, the poster child for environmental studies: a privileged young hippie from an outdoorsy city (for me it is Seattle!) who spent her childhood playing in the nearby ocean and mountains, and who, after falling in love with land left untrampled by humans, wants to dedicate her life to end all pollution and make the world a better place for everyone and everything. I’m also a vegetarian! Clearly, I have it all figured out. ENVS 160 however, did not let me bask in self-righteousness for long. Rather, it has challenged many of the beliefs I came into the course with. In this post I reflect on three of the most influential lessons ENVS 160 has taught me so far.
- Individual action should be practiced in accordance with institutional action
One of my top strengths provided by StrengthsQuest upon enrollment at L&C was individuality. While this trait is exhibited by my independent personality, it also manifests in many of my social and political beliefs, where I typically place more value on individual action than on collective action. The EcoTypes Survey axes for scale also supported this, as it revealed that I believe personal practices are more likely to make an ecological difference than institutional and collective action. I grew up valuing individual action; picking up garbage and removing invasive species in my neighborhood, being a conscious consumer of food, and shopping at second hand stores. Needless to say, I was surprised to learn that my individual action was not necessarily as effective as I thought it was. The debate between individual versus institutional scale action caused me to alter my beliefs about how to best create meaningful and lasting change. The discussions in class on Paul Steinberg’s Who Rules the Earth?: How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives, made apparent that individual action does not adequately address or fix problems. In fact, by valuing individual action over institutional action, I was enabling institutions in their environmental degradation, be that in overuse of physical materials, improper waste disposal, or emissions of toxic chemicals and gases. While I still believe everyone has the opportunity to make a difference through individual action, Professor Proctors recent post has lead me to understand the debate as an ‘and’ rather than an ‘or.’ I will continue taking individual steps while I begin to integrate institutional and collective action into my goals; in the long term I see this as a career that holds companies and governments accountable for their actions. StrengthsQuest further defines individuality as having a “gift for figuring out how people who are different can work together productively,” which provides the opportunity to use my predisposition towards individuality to create institutional and collective action.
2. Nature is not pure and is still valuable
In part, the very motivations I had for pursuing an Environmental Studies degree rested on the belief that nature is pure and should remain untouched by humans, rather than recognizing nature as complex and interconnected with all species. The EcoTypes Survey axes for nature recorded my view of nature (defined as the physical world collectively) as significantly more pure than hybrid. My support for management of natural resources from exploitation and destruction has rested upon a view of nature as an untainted and fragile place that must be protected from humans. Until this course, I saw human civilizations, most notably the city, as completely separate from parts of the world uninhabited by humans. I readily ascribed to the idea of wilderness as an environment not modified by humans, unaware of the cultural and political construction of this definition. In Why We Disagree About Climate Change, Hulmes described how people’s cultural theories influences their idea on the role of nature when addressing climate change. Throughout this discussion I had to think critically about my own ideas of nature and how limiting they were: I am beginning to see nature as more hybrid than I have previously thought. The EcoTypes summary of the nature axes suggests the biophysical world is entangled with human actions. However, although my ideas about nature are adapting to be more hybrid than pure, I still believe in the cause to protect the exploitation of finite resources and to reduce the negative aspects of humans impact on other living organisms.
- Lazy people use meaningless Big Words!!!! (I am still learning not be lazy)
I was a blissfully ignorant user of Big Words until just last week when the Interrogating -Ism’s post burst my bubble. As it turns out, I have been throwing around words like ‘the environment,’ ‘conservation,’ and ‘nature’ my entire life without ever defining the terms in the specific context I meant. Throughout ENVS 160, my writing skills have developed so that I can more accurately convey to my reader what I want them to understand. By eliminating the use of Big Words I am forced to be more direct and specific in my word choice, which improves my scholarly communication skills. For the Interrogating -Isms post, we were clearly told to not use Big Words, and this was the first time I really engaged with the vocabulary in my writing. The assignment was more concise after replacing Big Words with the definitions I meant to imply. This challenge to not use Big Words is one that I am taking head on. I intend to bring this skill out of the ENVS 160 classroom and into all of my scholarly writing.
Citations
Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Steinberg, Paul. 2014. Who Rules the Earth?: How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. New York NY: Oxford University Press.