April 26, 2011: Discussion Questions: Models of Cultural Change

[Emilie Dubois]

Alberto Melucci, 1996, Challenging Codes: Collection action in the
information age,” chs TBA.
Paul Hawken, Blessed Unrest: How the Largest Movement in the World
Came into Being and Why No One Saw It Coming, pps. 1-8, 139-167, 168-
190.
Guido Buenstorf and Christian Cordes, 2008, “Can Sustainable
Consumption Be Learned: A Model of Cultural Evolution,” Ecological
Economics 67:646-657.
Colin Beavan, 2009, No Impact Man, ch 1, (Farrar, Strauss and Giroux),
pp.3-17.

[L Carfagna]

Hawken gives me hope, but a question I'm left with is how a broad non-ideological movement captures structural change?  Hawken writes "This movement's key contribution is the rejection of one big idea in order to offer in its place thousands of practical and useful ones.  Instead of isms it offers processes, concerns, and compassions" (18).    I'll agree that there is something amazingly powerful about non-utopian, pragmatic options.  However, I'm curious if these options are only non-ideological as long as they are examples of a meta-movement per se.  Further, Hawken concludes with a chapter on the atrocities of globalization and the great instruments of power that are its institutional actors (IMF, WTO, etc).  I'm a bit unclear as to how we are to dismantle these actors without ideology?  Also, what political and structural instruments support these 1 million chisels chipping away such deeply embedded foundations?  Melucci writes "The cultural nature of movements raises the crucial problem of their relationships with political systems and the urgent question of developing structures for their representation and organization" (175).  When so many find our democratic system here in the US to be broken, how can those relationships be taken as worthy recipients of limited organizational and strategic resources?  Might it be more practical and useful (to borrow from Hawken's language) to focus on what is reasonably achievable and changeable, like so many of his business card wielding friends?

Thus, at the risk of sounding pessimistic, is it fair for me to question and assess whether or not this non-ideological movement is a symptom of broken political systems rather than a cure?  In defense of Hawken however, perhaps looking for structural change is like looking for life on other planets - we'll never find it if we believe life to only be what we are.  Maybe when I bemoan the lack of structures I'm missing the real signs of life - the way our networks (facilitated by technology and actually made smaller by globalization) are building a structure that might stand up to deeply institutionalized systems of power.  Only time can really tell and I'm not in the business of losing hope or turning into a doubting Thomas (timely, yes) until proof is in my hands.  Aside from these scholarly musings, I might instead take a tip from Beavan and personally do something about the fear that creeps in when I sit and think too long about the predicament we're all in together.  Is anyone else curious about his zero-impact toilet paper solution?  John?

[Shan]

So far, I've only gotten through the Hawken and Beavan writings for
class this week, but I wanted to go ahead and say a few things before
the day gets away from me. My first item is a more general statement
about the course, but the other two are specific, having to do with
today's readings.

First, I am grateful for good writing. Throughout this semester, I
have been struck by how well sociologists write, and as a former
composition professor, this has both made me happy and surprised me.
Generally, theologians are terrible, often inaccessible or obtuse
writers, which frustrates me to no end and sometimes makes me want to
poke my own eyes out in horror. In sociology, authors move more
fluidly between discourses and effortlessly between qualitative and
quantitative analyses; the writing is never boring even if it might
seem so at first (as when I dreaded picking up the Goldstein,
Cialdini, and Griskevikus article on towel use back in early March but
found it to be rather thrilling!). Many of these writers have a great
sense of humor, too, which I found especially present in today's
readings. In particular, I loved Hawken's description of the combined
street theater protest of the Free Trade Agreement of America in 2001,
mounted by the Deconstructionist Institute for Surreal Topology and
the Society for Creative Anachronism: "As police launched tear gas
canisters over the fence onto protesters, fuzzy animals arced back
across the barrier onto police. [...] Police seized what they later
called a 'dangerous weapon,' a pink rabbit, and arrested twenty-nine-
year-old activist Jaggi Singh and held him for seventeen days without
bail for attacking police with stuffed toys" (148). I laughed until I
cried at that description! I also enjoyed Beavan's writing in "No
Impact Man" although he is clearly more in love with his own authorial
brilliance than Hawkens and several others whom we've read this
semester, who are a bit more understated. That said, I know that what
Hawken, et al., are talking about is very grave and worrisome, but I
appreciate the humor despite the gravity of the social and
environmental situation. Theologians take ourselves too seriously, and
our writing shows it. Thanks to you sociologists for reminding me of
the necessity of laughter. All that said, I wonder what role humor
might play in fomenting social change?

Second, as I was reading Hawken, I kept thinking that some ideas were
familiar...and then I remembered having recently come across some
writings by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, a French philosopher
and a French psychoanalyst, respectively, who teamed up to do a
poststructuralist analysis of epistemology that includes examining
Freud, fascism, capitalism, desire, and the kitchen sink. In their
"Capitalism and Schizophrenia" series, the two propose that Western
thought has been based on a structure of arborescence, a tree-like
form with a trunk and branches that emerges vertically from a single
root. This conception of thought might be best exemplified by Linnean
taxonomies, which are hierarchical and pose limited relationships
between the different components or branches. Deleuze and Guattari
want to challenge arborescence with the image of crabgrass, a rhizome.
This rhizomic structure has a horizontal orientation and myriad
flowing and unregulated connections. Crabgrass has many roots, is
decentralized and non-hierarchical, and is made of networks. While
Hawken does have a sense that all these evolving and decentralized
nodes in "the movement," as he calls it, are connected to a single
origin--the "single ancestral cell" described by Franklin Harold in
"The Way of the Cell"--he does advocate a kind of non-hierarchical
organization of thought and of action that is similar to what Deleuze
and Guattari describe (189). I don't know how far I could push the
comparison because I am only starting to get to know Deleuze and
Guattari, but I find it interesting that Hawken's argument is so
similar is some ways. Reading Hawken and the two poststructuralists, I
am asking myself whether I need to work harder to cut loose from my
need to organize everything (mentally and in the physical world) in
order to be more responsive to what's happening in the world. Probably
because of my academic training, I tend to want to get a handle on
everything, to label it and put it in its appropriate boxes, but I
wonder if it's time to get rid of the boxes and let things marinade
together in a pile for a while (which probably won't help me get a
dissertation done anytime soon!).

Third, one of the similarities between the French poststructuralists'
ideas and that of Hawken is their reliance on naturalistic images to
describe human thought and action--and this is where my question of
the week lies. Deleuze and Guattari have their trees and crabgrass;
Hawken has his analogy of the human body and human society (in the
chapter "Immunity") and another analogy between life on earth more
broadly (and even cellularly) and our human lives (in "Restoration").
I wonder what to make of this kind of comparison. While I agree that
we should see human beings as nature, as Hawken proposes in
"Restoration" (for we ARE nature, not separate from it), what does
comparing our social arrangements to natural order (or natural
patterns?) offer us? I can think of arrangements in nature that are
not so lovely as some of the positive ones that Hawken describes--
lions converging on a baby zebra and tearing it to bits, for instance--
and which have been used to fuel visions of social Darwinism's idea of
the survival of the fittest. I recognize that Hawken is trying to read
the narrative of evolution differently--across the grain, perhaps, and
against the assumption that capitalism is evolution in a good sense--
but I worry. I am not taken with the tendency in some circles to
reduce human beings to biology, for this can result in essentialism of
the worst kind (as in, women's bodies are meant to have babies;
therefore, they must all be mothers and exhibit certain behaviors,
attitudes, social roles, etc.). Does it help us to read human society
in the ways that Hawken proposes? If so, what are the limits of this
interpretation?

[John Petroff]

Luka, I'm glad you caught that mention of a zero-impact toilet paper
solution. I am not sure how that is possible, but I would like to find
out and see if it could fit in with my project this summer. Overall, I
am fairly skeptical of Beavan's attempt to live a no-impact lifestyle.
I do not think it is possible. There is truly no carbon-free
transportation method; carbon is used in the manufacturing processes
of bicycles and shoes. In addition to the lack of carbon-free
technology, I have recently become acutely aware of the other problems
these same manufacturing processes create like water use and pollution
production. His attempt to create positive impacts to offset his
unavoidable negative impacts seems simplistic. This idea reminds me of
a discussion I once had regarding plastic grocery bags: my friend did
not like the idea of policy to reduce plastic bag production because
he thought it unnecessarily suppressed economic growth, and when I
raised environmental concerns, he responded by saying, "we can always
plant more trees." It should be obvious that all offsets do not apply
to every impact, and I am skeptical of any kind of conversion system
as well. However, the impossibility of a zero-impact lifestyle does
not diminish my respect or admiration for Beavan's attempt. Even
though he cannot accomplish his goal, he can develop a lifestyle that
is far superior to just about everybody else in terms of environmental
impact. The example he is setting along with our discussion of
networks and Hawken's beliefs regarding the "the movement" is
encouraging. Also encouraging is the fact that zero is not really the
most desirable level of environmental impact. My environmental
economics professor has belabored this point all semester. If nobody
created any kind of environmental impact, society and life would not
really exist. Instead people should attempt to develop a lifestyle
that lies within the limits of Earth's regenerative and sequestering
capacities. The problem now, as it has been all semester, is getting
people to develop this kind of lifestyle as if it were the norm.

[Monique]

Hawken’s comparisons of human culture with natural systems are
beautiful and inspiring. Conceptualizing the broad movement for social
and environmental justice as an immune system that fights to protect
that which threatens humanity is a nice way to think about how small
and seemingly disparate components can act together to protect and
perpetuate life on earth. Anecdotal examples of highly effective
pedagogical tools – such as the Spaceship Earth exercise –
demonstrate ways to spread the message of how cradle-to-grave human
material culture goes against the closed-loop system that is the
Earth. These chapters may help to raise consciousness that
sustainability aims could be achieved more effectively if we listen to
lessons from biological and ecological systems.
While there is beauty and hope in the message, Hawken’s discussion
begs a lot of questions about the prospect of many unconnected groups
across the movement to “remake the world” though their individual
actions. He argues against ideology and a top-down approach while
arguing for bottom-up, democratic changes. He cites many examples of
successful actions across organization type, size, and funding level.
What is the ideology or ideologies of this movement? Where does
ideology fit in Hawken’s description of grassroots and democratic
actions? How does it compare to the unknown force that breathes life
into systems of molecules?
What happens when agendas and organizations compete for attention and
resources? What happens when those with very deep pockets and power
set an agenda for action? How are disputes regarding what is best for
the planet resolved?

----------------------------
Beavan’s description of starting the project because he wanted to
figure out how to change his own life first is priceless. I want to
read the book to hear more about specific challenges to the individual
trying to live such a lifestyle within an American urban culture. How
can those of us who work toward sustainability make more changes in
our own lives?

[Emilie Dubois]

John,

Melucci echoes your concluding concern in chapter 9 where he argues
that today's societies are "without centres" and traditional models of
revolution are little more than ineffectual relics. Successful recent
movements gain ground when operating in relatively autonomous, non-
traditional structures. Change, he argues, "cannot be separated from
individual action; direct and personal investment becomes the
condition and resource for intervention in the system" (pg. 164).
Though difficult to penetrate at a first reading, Melucci's emphasis
on the importance of informational capital is key (I think) to working
towards some solutions to the course-long problem you reiterate.
Research that looks at the ways groups have successfully structured
public discourse is imperative to understand how dominant narratives
either persist or change. How can we design reflexive research to
account for the plurality and challenges of collective life? Are his
analyses of the rise of altruistic action and the quest for
spirituality useful orienting motivators worth considering in the
context of this movement?

On May 2, 4:35 pm, John Petroff <jtpetr...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Tom Laidley]

People should be skeptical of the 'no-impact' narrative, because it's largely bullshit. You can't look at household energy expenditure without any context, and boy what a context- an island with some of the most advanced infrastructure in the world, inhabited by nearly two million other people, with every conceivable need (or luxury) within a half hour walk. Does the enormous amount of building materials necessary to house this guy and his family count? Or the extensive water provisioning and sewage system (hey, no toilet paper is great, but there's still the matter of the effluent)?

I think it's great that his purported aim is to blunt the deafening cacophony of utterly smug and self-righteous rhetorical approaches of many on the left. But words and intentions don't mean much when the end result is basically- and of course I didn't read the entire book, so perhaps I'm mistaken- 'See, you too can make large impacts and maybe be happier in the end!' Am I getting an advance from a publishing company to do this? Is Beavan going to buy me a condo in Greenwich village, so that I don't need a car, and might feasibly get everything I need within walking distance? Is he going to subsidize the massive increase in my costs of living (though the metro-West Boston suburbs are excellent training grounds for that)?

I think the PR blurb is utterly hilarious- why, they made it happen right in the heart of Manhattan! Wow, no shit, really? I'd have thought it would be easier having zero (or near zero, because as my point about infrastructure is meant to illustrate, being a human being who takes advantage of really good things like chlorinated water and modern home-building technologies means you can never be have no impact) emissions in rural Arizona!

On Paul Hawken...great, I admire his sanguine attitude, because there is a place for that. But I think he loses me when he starts talking about a hypothesis that has a tenuous link to what he's talking about, and then implies that philanthropical overtures by Warren Buffet and others are supposedly OK alternatives to models of governance and regulation of capital. To bring up a point Luka was making...uh yeah, excellent point, divorcing this from ideology isn't optimism, it's delusion.

[Gemma]

What is the intention of the green movement? Paul Hawken states that it is “first the Golden Rule; second is the sacredness of all life” (186). He claims that no one person can represent the movement because it is constantly changing and is too large to encompass under one title. While I appreciate his connection to the Axial Age, each major reference falls under the influence of one major leader calling their people to a specific belief system. I do not think you can equate the creation of an NGO to the creation of any of the major religions. I’m even doubtful that NGO’s can initiate a movement that could be called a “spiritual awakening” (184). Do NGO’s have the power to form a different kind of awakening, especially when they have completely different goals? Also, how many citizens do you need to create the kind of change Hawken calls for? How many people and NGO’s will it really take to completely overcome corporations and institutions? There are such a large number already that won’t the creation of more just add to the fragmentation? How can we discover that we are a “global family” if Hawken won’t even concede to the idea that there should be a concision of goals or that there is an underlying ideology?

[Hyemi]

One of this week’s readings, Colin Beavan’s “No Impact Man,” was most
fascinating for me. This book deals with the issue of the environment
like other articles. Specifically, the author details his attempt to
change his lifestyle in order to not cause any negative impact on the
environment for one whole year. Beavan tries to live without creating
various wastes, like garbage, carbon, electricity, and even toilet
paper. His attempt and ultimate success seem extreme. I thought that
this kind of lifestyle was impossible. What indeed does Beavan want
readers to get out of this book? Does he, by flaunting his superior
environmentally friendly consciousness and its prominent practices,
expect his readers to change their lifystyles? As he connotes
directly and indirectly in his book, he seems to attempt to show how
he and his family struggled to change their lifestyles and
consciousness from inaction to action.

His one-year lifestyle experiment has a lot of implications for me.
First of all, he makes me think of the danger of self-superiority as
an eco-practitioner. Environmental practitioners or activists can
easily position themselves as superior preachers. Beavan says, “I
made the mistake of thinking that condemning other people’s misdeeds
somehow made me virtuous. I’d become, I realized, a member of that
class of liberals who allowed themselves to glide by on way too few
political gestures and lifestyle concessions and then spent the rest
of their energy feeling superior to other people who supposedly don’t
do as much” (6). The world vision of environmental sustainability
requires collective actions and endeavors to change the existing
cultural modes. In order to reach a collective goal, I think there
should not be any conflict, dichotomy, or separations among
individuals. The superiority of environmental practitioners or
activists can be a kind of obstacle to this goal. Instead, people
should focus on helping others in order to profoundly understand
environmental situations.

Second, I am impressed by Beavan’s confession of his inaction
regarding problematic environmental situations. He says, “I was
worried sick about something and doing nothing about it. I wasn’t sick
of the world. I was sick of myself. I was sick of my comfortable and
easy pretension of helplessness” (10). This realization of himself is
further developed into the decision to, “align with my (Beavan)
values” (11). I am similarly worried about myself, my family, my
comfort, and my life in regards to how it is affected by environmental
problems rather than worried about the world, even though I appear as
an eco friendly individual. So, I am reluctant to change or do drastic
action for the environment, because this change requires me to give up
things that are valuable to me. Beavan reminds me of how selfish I
am.

Beavan succesfully presents his values in a way that makes readers,
including myself, realize that he is right. He does this by describing
his personal process to become a real environmental practicioner, not
just preaching them. He shows that he is not different from other
individuals who are not willing to act for the environment. So, he
tells us that anyone can change their lifestyles and consciousness
such as he did, and put their thoughts into action.

[Margaret Lister]

Firstly, I heartily agree with Shan. I'm in the middle of writing a paper on Heidegger, and Hawkin and Beavan were refreshing breaks. 

Secondly, I agree with Tom. There is no way anyone can live in Manhattan and be no-impact. This reinforces the point that major structural changes are needed on an institutional scale for a society to live sustainably. I'm more intrigued by this guy in Texas: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/garden/10texas.html or the family in the book Possum Living. At the same time, I can't talk too much dirt on Beavan-- he embodies many of the same dilemmas I find myself facing. I think the most important message in the book is how hard it is to transition from our usual comfortable lifestyles, but how necessary it is to do so.

I enjoyed Hawken's description of "the movement" in Blessed Unrest. I studied and witnessed many of the injustices done by the IMF and the World Bank while I was in Nepal. Development, as he suggests, must take on a very different meaning if it is to be just and sustainable. I've never thought about the movement in terms of a unified or even connected group, as he does. I see more similarities between the people in the movement than the movement(s?) itself. I do agree that ideologies are merely a palliative for society at large, but at the same time I think there is something fundamentally necessary in a societal palliative. We've read all semester about people who are aware and have the opportunity to make change in their community, but just don't. Maybe this relates back to the DSP and its role as a palliative. Society as a whole needs something big and important (and preferably easy and optomistic) to believe in. I don't know if the movement knows or is capturing that.

[Noel Munoz]

Alberto Melucci states that, "Transforming one's life entails a radical reassessment of one's approach to reality, a withdrawal from the dominant logic of representation of the social." (p. 172) Throughout the semester we have been reading articles that deal with rethinking the way we live and the way we think about our relationship with nature. This quote from the Melucci reading really stood out to me because it brings to attention how in order to create any real change it will have to begin by first understanding what we have been doing wrong. I think Beavan does a great job of realizing this when he realizes that his lack of acting has actually done nothing. For those who are constantly complaining about how things are going so wrong this Melucci quote should be read and then re-read. Until action is taken their will be no change. Although Beavan's experiment seems nearly impossible to accomplish I applaud him for even attempting such an endeavor. He is taking Melucci's words to heart and radically reassessing his approach to life. I think that if any of these social and environmental movements want to become the real change, they will need to ask there members to really look at how they live now and think about what types of changes will really make the biggest differences.