I came to Lewis & Clark entirely unsure of my major, and always kind of figured Environmental Studies would be the one I could fall back on if my other possibilities, math and SOAN, ended up not grabbing me. A part of me hoped I had time to figure it out, and that the obvious decision would effortless reveal itself to me, although I knew this was silly. How do I reconcile my love of math, numbers, a single right answer, with people, complex big picture thinking, and networks of fuzzy connections? So long story short, my journey to ENVS started Fall semester of my Sophomore year with the SOAN class, Political Economy of Food, then a Spring semester of 16 credits that count towards the ENVS major. This Spring, I’ve been utterly bombarded with the tragedy of the commons, cap and trade, socialism, Malthusianism, purity of nature (to name but a few common topics) from literally all directions.
Therefore, the most grounding (not necessarily most important) lesson I have learned is that Environmental Studies is just an academic discipline like all the others. I definitely don’t feel as though its interdisciplinary-ness is as defining a factor in its uniqueness as people tend to promote. Like I said, I’ve learned a lot of the exact same information in four different ways (from a philosophical, economic, chemical, and environmental perspective). Beyond factual information that is good general knowledge to have, ENVS 160 mainly teaches you a certain way to think. A philosophy major is going to think about the “Tragedy of the Commons” in a very different way than an economics or ENVS major (Williams 2010, Mankiw 2012, Ostrom 2008), and SOAN and Philosophy majors are going to think about institutions, nature vs. culture, etc. etc., very differently, just based on the type of cerebral tools they have at their disposal. But we can all still end up on a relatively similar page, because we’re all kind of interdisciplinary (hello liberal arts). This is why I think the most important element to take away from this class, for me personally, is the way in which I’m approaching material which is not really that new to me. By sharpening this tool that is my mind and cultivating a set of values and mechanisms, I know I’ll eventually be able to tackle the complex dynamics of this world.
This grounding mindset is just one of a few ways that is keeping me from being “overwhelmed by it all.” Obviously I’m not expected to correctly answer any instrumental questions yet, even though that’s why (almost) all of us were drawn to this discipline. So, instead of putting the cart before the horse, it’s helped me to realize that ENVS encourages us to view things from many different perspectives, and critique classical modes of thinking. This can be overwhelming, but I think there is strength in this way of looking at things, as it works really well in tandem with more focused viewpoints – in other words, ENVS perspectives can offer a point of mediation. This, to me, is a strength, but only if we ensure we are are truly engaging with different perspectives. We’ve talked about cultural theory and values and institutions, but we haven’t really talked about people, directly, as much as I’d anticipated we would. Therefore, something I’ve learned is that ENVS could quite possibly be giving me a very skewed perception of the world. I say this in echo of Kurt’s strong words. I try never to claim to know more than I know, which is a virtue I don’t believe everyone, especially white men, follow. Therefore, because we’ve been exposed almost exclusively to white male perspectives, I strongly feel that there is the potential for anything I say about Environmental Studies to be flat out wrong and a detriment to society. Further, it’s always been pretty obvious to me that the cultural and the natural are intertwined (White 2000). But it’s frustrating to keep talking about it in these terms when we are only talking from a white man’s cultural background.
But I have hope for our generation to embrace intersectionality, and that will only provide strength in this developing field and its applications after college. One of the most memorable moments in all of ENVS 160 this semester was when we were discussing the Future EcoTypes axis (Proctor 2017). When the class was asked if anyone ended up on the hopeful end of the spectrum, I was the only person to raise their hand! Not only this, I was pretty high! In fact, I did the math – with a score of -25, I was in the 5.2% with a score of -20 or less. That’s kind of an isolating feeling, and in the moment I felt naive, but I can’t feel bad about the way that I am if I want to meet others where they’re at. Mike Hulme’s entire book, and Cultural Theory in particular, provided interesting insights into how we look at the world can be vastly different. While this information is valuable to read in a book – yes, everyone is different, wow – and interesting, my biggest take-away from this is that I need to directly engage and interact with people – everyone! – more. While I do see in some cases where certain individuals might fit, in terms of grid-group and various EcoTypes axes, and that this might be helpful in terms of framing conversations and issues (Hulme 2010), these do not reflect other crucial cultural factors due to identity, which we have not at all discussed in ENVS 160. In starting this train of thought that is this paragraph, I wasn’t anticipating bringing it back to issues of intersectionality. I really wanted to just say “everyone is different and that doesn’t have to be stressful” but the truth of it is our individual perspectives are unique to us, and only by engaging empathetically yet boldly with topics that are touchy will we be able to fill in the gaps. This also relates back to what I’ve said about ENVS acting as a mediator, though this is a new idea I am working through, and perhaps will be a post for another time.
Works Cited
Mankiw, N. Gregory. Principles of Economics. Sixth ed. OH: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2012.
Ostrom, Elinor. “The Challenge of Common-Pool Resources.” Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 50, no. 4 (2008): 8–21. doi:10.3200/ENVT.50.4.8-21.
Proctor, James. 2017. Ecotypes; Exploring Environmental Ideas. Digital Scholarship Multisite: Lewis & Clark College.
White, R. “The Problem with Purity.” Tanner Lectures on Human Values 21 (2000): 211–228.
Williams, Chris. Ecology and Socialism: Solutions to Capitalist Ecological Crisis. Chicago: Haymarket Press, 2010.