Just as thinking about theory is an adventure into the mind, applying theory is an adventure into the imagination. Or, at the very least, an adventure to Roseburg, Oregon.
“Class” this week began a little earlier than usual; around 7 am to be exact. And lasted a little longer too. Our field trip took us down one road in two dimensions, first we headed south to Douglas County, and second, we headed into the world of applied theory.
The goal of our field trip, besides seeing the world’s tallest Douglas Fir (!), was to get a feel for Douglas County and begin identifying ways in which we might construct projects aimed at applying our nascent knowledge of environmental theory to aspects of life in Southern Oregon.
First we visited the Douglas County Museum in order to develop an understanding of the area’s history, and add a little more context and background to our project ideas. Our next event was lunch at Elmer’s, followed by a council with County Commissioner Doug Robertson.
Our meeting with the Commissioner proved tremendously interesting. We learned not only about the history of the O&C bill, but also of current legislative and regulatory challenges associated with the bill, shrinking funding, diminishing timber resources (or at least shrinking harvests), increasing pressure from environmental organizations and much more!
It’s interesting to hear the perspective of not only a concerned resident of Douglas County (which CC Robertson most certainly is) but also of a long serving Oregonian politician. The stories of Mr. Robertson’s success in attracting big corporations to Douglas County speak not only to his cunning, but also of his true and noble desire to improve the quality of life in Douglas County.
Coming from a different political (and maybe idealogical) and certainly different ecological stance than Commissioner Robertson, I can’t say I support his policies (especially in regards to timber production, and big business, etc.), but greatly admire his commitment to his constituents and his drive to accomplish tangible results through policy.
And this is where I see the greatest link between theory and action; when individuals attempt to translate their values and ideas and concepts of issues/solutions into action, which then further engender results. Often this is achieved through shaping official policy, but it also takes the form of daily life practices such as consumption and production.
Now, this isn’t entirely economic, and I want to assert that this consumption and production I speak of concerns the consumption and production of cultural objects (art, music, architecture) as much as the consumption and production of ideas (newspapers, etc. i.e. the Roseburg Beacon).
You could say that our individual world-views (theories) are translated into results through action. What we think influences what we do (buy, make, sell, etc.). However, it happens more often than not that we criticize one another over what we do, rather than what, or how, we think. Which is not truly acknowledging that what we do is often a product of how we think, not even necessarily what we think. And what we think is influenced by how we think.
The point I’m trying to introduce here is the concept of hybrid objects; objects created by people thinking and acting in one way, and under some “societal” definition become interpreted or understood differently.
In my mind, a good example of a hybrid object is Doug Robertson’s policy on timber farming. For example, I might criticize Commissioner Robertson’s O&C policy out of hand for accommodating the timber industry too much. This is me forming my perception of an object (a thing, resulting from an action. In this case the Commissioner’s policy) based on my life history and way of seeing the world. What is happening is that I’m considering/condemning the results of Robertson’s way of thinking, without attempting to understand his thought process (theory). Take this equation for example, except I’m only seeing and criticizing the part that I think matters; which in this case is the policy result, or hybrid object. Theory (ideas about timber use, quality of life, etc.) + action (politics) = object (result, in this case the policy which then impacts the world).
So, at the end of the week the lesson I’ve walked away with is that when we apply theory to hybrid objects (results) we’re trying to dig into the processes which precede action. We’re trying to see more of the equation that creates/manufactures the hybrid objects, and reach the point in our analysis so that when we look at hybrid objects we’re not looking at the object, but what makes it. Hence, (thought [process or theory]+action=object [which then has associated impacts and other interpretations]).
I think hybrid object analysis is an appropriately critical and effective way at detangling the complexities of everyday objects whose origins we may assume as implicit and take for granted vis a vis our own theoretical inclination. Such analysis can lead to more nuanced understanding of the effects these objects might have on social and ecological systems and demonstrate how more complex interpretations of objects can lead to the creation of more effective objects in the future (i.e. more effective policy, etc.).
Thanks for reading, thoughts greatly appreciated.
Best,
-Ben