In Summation
Beginning with Why We Disagree we were exposed to cultural theory as a method of simplifying the entire human race into one graph among the other tantalizing bits of opinion that Mike Hulme had to offer (Hulme 2009). In all honesty his analysis was colorful and even funny at times but it was nothing new or surprising. After that was Making the Modern World by Vaclav Smil, which was almost entirely numbers and seemed to more than confuse the majority of the class. Nonetheless I came to appreciate his extensive Life Cycle Assessment of household and other everyday materials and products (Smil 2014). Next, Leigh Phillips’ Austerity Ecology is when we began to move into more refreshing and contemporary analysis of environmental issues and turned out to be the text which I appreciated the most. It was more than disheartening to read his advocacy for a socialist government given our very recent republican turn for the worst (Phillips 2015). Phillips then bled into our segment on classical versus contemporary environmental thought in which we were bombarded with so many articles it was difficult at times to make sense of it all. I did find that this segment, however, was ultimately interesting, valuable, and provided us with, for lack of a better word, youthful commentary on extremely recent issues such updates in policy and revisions of classic literature (Smil 2005). In addition to this our segment on classic versus contemporary thought introduced us to a great deal of influential literature from the classical era of environmental thought and policy surrounding notions of sacred nature and deep ecology. Our all too short journey into Love Your Monsters amounted to a small degree of sensory overload because of its inclusion in a supplementary document heavy portion of the classic versus contemporary environmental thought unit (Shellenberger et al. 2011). These additional readings seemed to distract from the message of what could have been an incredibly interesting and enlightening book. Finally, there was Who Rules the Earth which served as an overall summary of our work thus far and as a general call to action for all serious environmentalists (Steinberg 2015).
What Is the Takeaway?
This massive amount of work and information will obviously help us conduct further study within the major, but how can it all be applied in a more broad setting? One such application of this material is the model for cultural theory introduced by Mike Hulme in Why We Disagree. Grid Group Theory, in the words of a previous post of mine, “holds a great deal of merit when attempting to analyze the ideals of both institutions and individuals which make up cultures and communities” and, as a method of analysis, it can easily be utilized in scholarly work for the rest of my life (Hosch). The same can be said for Vaclav Smil’s Life Cycle Assessment; he reveals that the materials that make our lives possible have a much deeper history than one may have originally thought. As for Austerity Ecology, Love Your Monsters, and the rest of our unit on classic versus contemporary environmental thought, the most important message is that there are many hierarchies in environmentalism, my favorite of which is the hierarchy present in politics surrounding anti-consumption. In summation, this hierarchy consists of those at the top of the economic food chain producing anti-consumerism propaganda targeted towards those in the lower class, who are simply doing the best they can to survive (Hosch). To avoid such classification it is extremely important to hold a purely objective standpoint regarding the information one receives and to heed caution in the subscription to outlets of said information. Finally, Who Rules the Earth provided us with a useful analysis of the inner workings of social rules that govern policy as well as a list of rules to live by. I view this list, in addition to Cultural Theory and Anti-consumption Hierarchy, as the culmination of an entire semester’s worth of struggle and the beginning of a lifetime of interest in ecology and conservation.
Closing Comments
I never considered myself very skilled in writing reflections of this kind but given my dedication to the subject I figured I would give it my best shot. We have been exposed to many differing viewpoints through a pretty hefty amount of literature this semester and I am curious to hear what 160 is like spread out over two semesters, as they plan to experiment with in the coming years. I get the feeling that this course is designed to separate the majors from the non-majors, weed out the weaklings you might say, and the lengthening of the course may increase that effect. This being the case, 160 has been my favorite course I have taken at Lewis and Clark thus far and it has inspired me to continue in this field. I am optimistic of the future and excited to begin building my concentration in 220.
Works Cited
Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Phillips, Leigh. 2015. Austerity Ecology & the Collapse‐Porn Addicts: A Defense of Growth, Progress, Industry and Stuff. Winchester, UK: Zero Books.
Shellenberger, Michael, and Ted Nordhaus, eds. 2011. Love Your Monsters: Postenvironmentalism and the Anthropocene. Oakland, CA: Breakthrough Institute.
Smil, Vaclav. 2005. “Limits to Growth Revisited: A Review Essay.” Population & Development Review 31 (1): 157–64.
Smil, Vaclav. 2014. Making the Modern World: Materials and Dematerialization. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K.: Wiley.
Steinberg, Paul F. 2015. Who Rules the Earth?: How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.