While reading Paul F. Steinberg’s Who Rules the Earth, I have noticed that it often times can be hard to piece together the main argument that he is trying to prove. Steinberg talks about many useful things in varying degrees of detail, and while this can be incredibly useful it also makes the bigger argument diffused at time. However, when looking closely I think that the main idea that Steinberg is trying to get across is that institutional change (most often seemingly at the political level) is required in order to create any amount of lasting and significant change.
The beginning of his main idea starts early, at the first chapter header to be exact. Before any of the book is even read, Steinberg in big, bold letters says “Recycling Is Not Enough” (Steinberg 2015). This quick and jarring heading instantly critiques a core belief that many seem to have, which is thinking that recycling, and in an even larger picture individual action, will make a significant difference in and of themselves. However, he is not one to wallow in despair, as he quickly goes on to talk about a perfect example where institutional change mixed with individual action was able to create a significant and lasting change. In the same chapter he mentions the laudable work of Dr. June Irwin, who through her own actions and those near her was able to create lasting change in the town of Hudson, Quebec in regards to the unnecessary use of pesticides. She did her own research and through that was able to influence that mayor of the town and create a ban on the use of said pesticides, thus blending the actions of the individual with the actions of the institution and creating powerful change (Steinberg 2015, 6-7).
And Steinberg doesn’t stop there regarding the need for individual action to power institutional change. Much later in the book, he again mentions how recycling alone is not enough and how lifestyle changes and greener choices do little to change anything by themselves. He goes on to say “If today we breathe more easily…it is because previous generations took seriously the political dimensions of sustainability” (Steinberg 2015, 219). In his opinion, one must look past merely individual action and instead focus on the political aspects that could create a societal change. Soon after the previous section he goes on to mention the idea of “ruts” and how they are created by many forces, many of which are massively influenced by politics and institutions. Because these ruts are formed by such powers, one cannot break out of them without using those same powers in some way. Purely individual action is not nearly enough to destroy a rut created by so many different things, from economics to perceived social need. (Steinberg 2015, 222).
Having sat back and done some reflection on any potential main idea of the class as a whole, I have noticed that this same idea is reflected throughout many of the readings that we have done. From Leigh Phillips critique of “locally grown organic carrot pants” and the need for a devoted change from the damages of capitalism (Phillips 2015) to in class discussions about the role of government in issues such as the protection of endangered species, this argument against solely individual action into a more balanced approach combining individual with institutional can be seen inundating this class.
Work Cited