My confusion and disillusionment with consumer and “awareness” raising based modes of change has been a long time coming, although I have dabbled in these complacency-inducing actions. Increasingly, especially given that not everyone has the time and money to make such lifestyle changes, I’ve grown frustrated. I just can’t see any examples or evidence of its efficacy. All that appeared to result from this was more products on the shelves with labels that don’t communicate substantial information, and people engaging with “awareness” at such superficial levels. Ok, we get it, we’ve all been there, now we move on! For many reasons, one being the common use of the term “institutional racism” in discussions with friends, I’ve gravitated towards the idea that the material and social realities of our life will only ever durably change through acting within and against institutional forces to create new standards of operating.
Right of the bat, Steinburg (2015) makes it clear that rule changes (or changes to institutions) are possible, and that these types of solutions are what is needed in response to the “severity and pace of the problems unfolding before us” (Steinburg 2015, 13). Because it is not immediately apparent that we operate within social rules that were developed by people just like us over reasonable time scales (generations!), it’s easy to feel like power is unassailable, or that we are not a part of the rule making process. However, “often power obstacles exist because no one has bothered to organize for change” (Steinburg 2015, 55), and perhaps today this is because the only options for they’ve been presented with (awareness raising, and socially conscious consumption) are seemingly ineffective.
However, change is possible. Gosh, don’t let people tell you it’s not. Just look around you and be thankful you’re not in the back ally of some grimy medieval city, rolling in your own filth because hygiene just simply isn’t a priority. This is probably a bad example, definitely hyperbole, and there are more pressing issues that have been accomplished through mobilization of people within institutional boundaries.
Anyway, that’s the big point here. Politics and grassroots organizing go hand-in-hand where policy, or enduring social rules, is concerned. However, global, national, and small community rules are all important, and more importantly, intertwined. The power of nations in shaping social rules cannot be disregarded, as “whether promoting highways, sustainable harvesting techniques, or the preservation of wilderness, nations and the rules they make are literally shaping the contours of the earth” (Steinburg 2015, 133). But how national standards affect, for example, a forest is contingent on regional, local, and individual support, regarding how that resource ought to be used, as well as how that resource is used in relation to international trade and political and economic influence.
Therefore, “rulemaking in like a multitiered chess game, with the outcomes at one level often hinging on how the game is played” (Steinburg 2015, 153). Because “environmental problems are literally un-ruly —they meander across political borders and agency jurisdictions,” (Steinburg 2015, 162), we must engage with rulemaking at multiple levels, since the power and voices of those involved fit into each other like nesting dolls. But they don’t just fit into each other with defined, impermeable barriers. They must interact. Depending on where an issue is situated, what kind of government is at large, how it is trusted, and how strong the economy and community are there, to name but a few factors, these interactions will look different. Crucial to these types of interactions is the trend of “decentralization” and an outward spread of power. Local governance and citizen participation are just as important as international treaties and agreements, as well as national standards. However, efficacy of governance, at any level, is ever varied, and “people power makes all the difference” (Steinburg 2015, 203) as to how a policy will be enacted by officials. Further, “whether resources are sustained or squandered, these local outcomes carry global consequences” (Steinburg 2015, 198) perhaps in the forms of other regulations and standards at national levels. Interesting to me was Steinburg’s (2015) instrumental approach to this intertwining of layers of governance (in a sense, this is more horizontal than vertical), which goes as follows: “We must search out those local governments at the forefront of sustainability, support their efforts, and showcase their accomplishments by facilitating peer-to-peer meetings with leaders of other localities who might be inspired by their deeds” (Steinburg 2015, 205). How might this actually look?
Ultimately, we operate in the web of these institutions, in the hope of affecting some type of durable, lasting change – for “if a rule doesn’t last, it’s not an institution at all,” (Steinburg 2015, 141). But it can’t be too sticky, for we and our social practices are ever evolving. We can and will continue to break and build rules.
Works cited
Steinberg, Paul F. 2015. Who Rules the Earth? How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. New York, United States: Oxford University Press.