The interdiscplinarity of Environmental Studies not only encourages us, as students, to connect different disciplines, but also different opinions, perspectives and ideas about environmental issues. In this post I explore some connections that I have discovered throughout this semester.
Consumerist Hypocrisy (AE & MMW)
Both Leigh Phillips and Vaclav Smil talk about the dangers of anti-consumerist culture in the context of dematerialization and an ignorance and hypocrisy that underlies the movement to dematerialize as many do not consider the complexities and unrealistic nature of that request. Phillips suggests that we cannot merely say “we must get rid of stuff” because as humans, in the culture we have made for ourselves, there is a lot of stuff we do need and being mindful of consumption is different and much more plausible than simply stating we must shut down consumerism (Phillips 2015). Alongside this, we cannot demand people to stop consuming certain things, such as GMO food, because the act of abstaining from that is a privileged opportunity. The anti-consumerism trend, as Phillips puts it, starts to turn into an anti-poor people trend as well-off people are demanding cuts that many cannot afford to realistically make. Phillips points out the hypocrisy in this, describing an advocate of anti-consumerism, Naomi Klein, talking about her love for shopping while in an expensive outfit. There is a hypocrisy here that must be recognized, that even the wealthy are not dematerializing even though they are so quick to point fingers and be in support of this movement (Phillips 2015).
Smil also gives insight to this hypocrisy. He states “clearly, there is no recent evidence of any widespread and substantial dematerialization- be in it absolute or relative (per capita) terms-even among the world’s richest economies” (Smil 2014, 142). He also puts in to context, as Phillips does, that the materials consumed by people is relative. He states “acknowledge this: too many people still live in conditions of degrading and unacceptable material poverty that translates into poor nutrition, inadequate health care…absence of even small comforts and shortened life expectancy. All of those people…need to consume more materials per capita in order to enjoy a decent life” (173). He goes on to express how it is difficult to judge what a comfortable life is. Therefore, how can one say where the point of necessary dematerialization is when people all over need different quantities of material just to live comfortably?
Think Bigger, Act Bigger (WRE & Proctor)
One of the main arguments to the book Who Rules the Earth by Paul Steinberg is that too much of environmental change is trying to be done at the individual scale and that in order to make a significant difference we must think larger and “vertically” at multiple levels (Steinberg 2015, 163). As he introduces in the first chapter, people are stuck looking to make a larger difference than “tossing a bottle in the recycling bin- an action that produces a strange, conflicted sensation of knowing you are doing the right thing, yet wondering if it really makes a difference at all” (Steinberg 2015, 6). Proctor also expands on this idea in No College is an Island: Sustainability as Self-Sufficiency and Interdependence. Proctor states that “we are seriously limiting our student’s horizons” if we think of sustainability practices in too narrow of a manner. We must expand past the campus level and think bigger rather than stopping at the local scale (Proctor 2010). Perhaps we “act locally” more than we “think globally” and that should be reversed (Proctor 2010).
Is thinking pure, pure? (WWD & White)
One of the many reasons that Hulme offers of why people have different views about the environment and about climate change is simply the way that they view nature. He offers one possibility, given the phrase “Lamenting Eden” (Hulme 2009). This perspective is one of yearning for a pure, untouched and unharmed Earth. White also dives into the idea of seeing nature as pure in great depth. He talks about the complexities of this perspective and how connecting our humanistic culture to nature is often dangerous and may lead to acts of sexism and racism as biology and culture are mistakenly intertwined. He acknowledges this danger while also suggesting “on the other hand, we cannot deny that the social and the natural are inextricably mixed and that the natural world is, for better or worse, already a result of our past actions” (White 2000). Therefore although the ‘purity’ perspective can be problematic, it also cannot be totally abandoned as our identity as a species is so deeply rooted in our relationship with nature. Our species’ search for paradise and for ‘lamenting eden’ may be foolish, but it is not an unreasonable human desire (White 2000).
Each of these connections between the texts of this course are connected in numerous ways. It is through finding these connections that I can gain a better grasp on these huge themes that come up in the world of Environmental Studies.
Works Cited
- Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why we disagree about climate change: understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Phillips, Leigh. 2015. Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-Porn Addicts: A Defence Of Growth, Progress, Industry And Stuff. Hants, UK: Zero Books.
- Proctor, James D. December 3, 2010. “True Sustainability Means Going beyond Campus Boundaries.” Chronicle of Higher Education.
- Smil, Vaclav. 2014. Making the Modern World: Materials and Dematerialization. Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom: Wiley.
- Steinberg, Paul F. 2015. Who rules the earth?: how social rules shape our planet and our lives.
- White, R. 2000.“The Problem with Purity.” Tanner Lectures on Human Values 21 (2000): 211–228.