Discuss: Forget Shorter Showers

On the subject of technology I think it’s important to understand the difference between what Lewis Mumford called “polytechnic” and “monotechnic” approaches. Derrick and Aric McBay wrote about this in “What We Leave Behind”. I’ll post the excerpt below.

—-

“The brilliant writer, thinker, and historian Lewis Mumford described differences between what he called ‘polytechnic’ and ‘monotechnic’ approaches.  Polytechnic approaches involve using many different technologies to meet human needs.  Monotechnic approaches, on the other hand, prioritize technology for the sake of technology, to the exclusion of other options, regardless of the impacts on human beings or the planet.  Mumford’s favorite example of the monotechnic approach was the automobile, because automobile-based transportation systems thrive at great human and ecological cost, and grow at the expense of other modes of transport like walking or bicycling.

“It would be fair to say that agriculture is the first example of a truly monotechnic approach; an approach that set a pattern for all of civilization’s future technologies. If that’s confusing, think about what agriculture is: you take a piece of land and destroy all visible plant and animal life on it; use plows to destroy the structures of the soil underneath; replace them all with one monocultural species; repeat. As Lierre Keith writes, ‘Agriculture is carnivorous: what it eats is ecosystems, and it swallows them whole.’”

“Agriculture is monotechnic in the sense that it eliminates biological diversity, to be sure, but there’s much more to it. Indigenous societies are generally quite mobile, and can move to make use ot the many different foods available in different seasons in healthy ecosystems. The same goes for other material gathered or hunted, such as firewood, furs, or medicinal plants. Though early agricultural societies certainly gathered food initially, it doesn’t take long to deplete what is available around a village, which would have made those societies even more dependent on agriculture. Agriculture also eliminated many of the birth control methods that were intrinsic to hunter-gatherer life.  That, along with other changes, like the ability to replace breast-feeding in young children with foods made from stored grains, led to a trend toward constant population growth that worsened local ecological destruction. Agriculture grew at the expense of technologies, skills and social structures used by indigenous peoples.” pg.341 WWLB

It seems to me that the title of Derrick Jensen’s commentary says it all.  “Forget Shorter Showers” doesn’t say, “Personal life change is not enough.”  It says “FORGET personal change.”  It says personal change doesn’t REALLY matter.

Oh yes it does, Mr. Jensen, because taking a shorter shower means I am controlling one thing that I clearly can control not focusing on what I can’t control.

Your “answer” still views the world mechanistically.  Where is its spiritual component?

Our present “industrial economy” can only exist because of who we, individually, and what we, as a society, are.  As Anne Wilson Schaef so eloquently expressed it way back in 1987, society has become an addict.  And, as all of us in recovery know, addiction is an ultimately deadly disease.

Yes, political action was neccessary to overthrow Tsarist Russia, just as it was to overthrow its more modern rendition, the USSR.  And it will be needed to overthrow Putin.  The question is, “WHICH political action?” 

Is it the political action that is actually RE-action or is it the political action that supports and is a part of the ground swell flowing up from personal change?

One of the ways that many of my friends assuage their consciences is to be active at the macro level.  Instead of making a difference at the local level where they could make a difference (as is done in the transition movement), they focus on Washington and even higher.  Fifteen people willing to commit their time, energy and mindfulness could take over and utterly change my town of 7,500 people.  And that could serve as the fulcrum to change our county of almost 200,000.

Instead, when not “participating” in national and international campaigns, many sit on their backsides OR provide the pop off valve for much energy that, if contained, would otherwise have resulted in change.

The huge energy of the industrial economy’s shadow is available to change that economy.  Personal change is the first step.  LOCAL change is the second.

How many of the self styled activists actually take an active part in the governance of their local communities?

I appreciated the article as it refocused me to the real need to continue to work to effect change beyond our individual selves. While it remains a daunting task, real sustainability cannot be achieved through our own minor advances in conservation but requires a cultural and business shift away from greed.

I don’t always agree with Derrick Jensen, but I have great respect for him because he takes on things others back away from (e.g. his other provocative essay “Beyond Hope).  By making us think and engage with the uncomfortable, he carries the collective conversation further along.

As ever, the way out of our societal malaise is not either/or, but both/and.  That is, we need to act on the personal AND the collective, political levels. We need to work on ourselves AND on changing our structures institutions to be more life-giving.

I hold that simple living is a deeply political act, downright subversive in our time, even if the household doing is not politically motivated.  Simple living IS the vision of the kind of society we could move toward!  Not to mention, those who have reduced needs and commitment likely have more time to engage at the civic level.

Jensen’s writing hints at fomenting The Revolution, but in what I’ve read he always stops short of actually calling for it.  What would he have us do?  My belief is that our top two activist priorities for reform must be broad and rather unsexy: 1) revoke corporate personhood, and 2) institute instant runoff voting, to give voters more true choice without the spoiler effect.

Thanks to Orion for all the excellent writers they publish.

It is obvious from some of the later comments that I was not clear about my criticism of Jenkins.  It is really from the fact that he tells us that he wants more activism and protest. I agree with that.  However, he does not tell us what he would have in place of the current technological materialistic capitalism.

Without a solution to that problem, he will never have more than a small number of people who agree.  Mass movements need to be based on creating something new, not just on tearing down what exists.

My response to Derrick’s article was, right on!  We do have to move out of the “individual solution” and back to the “collective/social solution.”  The problem is, however, very complex.  We are stuck in an industrial global society with inhabitants that take all of the industrial infrastructure for granted.  But, to say that industry is not to blame, that individuals are essentially responsible for the products of industry (re: Joel’s comments) is very naive. 

A history lesson is very much needed.  The ordinary individual did not create the consumer.  The industrial revolution did!  Through a complex process that eroded people’s sense of themselves within community, their social animal nature was essentially destroyed. In order to survive, what was one of the most horrific changes in Western culture, the individual consumer was born.  This weak legged individual found times very hard in England & the rest of Europe.  But with all of the natural resources at their feet, the American individual soared to the greatest hedonistic heights.  Even though many today would not admit to feeling hurt by the industrial revolution (IR), I have to say that the it was one of the bloodiest revolutions ever “fought.” 

To understand more clearly I would strong suggest reading:

“The Condition of the Working Class in England” by Frederick Engels - this masterpiece describes in great detail what was really going on during the mid 19th century - the heyday of the IR. 

“Industry & Empire” by E. J. Hobsbawn for some enlightening history about the IR.

“The Great Transformation: The Political & Economic Origins of Our Time” by Karl Polanyi for some very enlightening Western economic history (not at all boring economic literature).

Read:  “Constructing the Self, Constructing America” by Philip Cushman, in which he talks of how psychology & the advertising industry collude to create consumer hunger.  He has also some VERY interesting articles on the politics of consumption & what he calls “the empty self.”

What Joel is buying into is industry’s own dictum, that they only produce what consumers want. The notion of supply & demand is one of the biggest myths ever!  But you do have to have a more than b&w vision to see this.

If we stop buying gas guzzling cars industry will start producing non gas guzzling cars.  One would think that the individual is voting with their dollars.  BUT, the individual is still buying cars!  And they will certainly produce fuel efficient behemoths for you to aspire to owning.  Industry will continue to dictate how you should construct your lives.

Individualism is consumerism!  One cannot exist without the other.

What Derrick Jensen is saying/alluding to is: we need to regroup as a species, rediscover our innate social animalness, & work TOGETHER to create more systemic change.  One example he didn’t use was women getting the vote.  Can you imagine one woman at a time, going against the male establishment (& religion) to change how women are perceived?

The problem, as I see it, is that I don’t think people will come together and fight against industry & capitalism - a few maybe, but that will not be enough. Unfortunately, my prediction is that there will have to be a crisis huge enough to precipitate the change that is needed.  One of the theories about why our ancestors switched from being gatherer/hunters to domesticating the land/animals was because of climatic changes (a mini ice age) - that food sources were not so readily available.  So here we are, at another pivotal climatic moment, and we may have to make yet another monumental change - when food (or energy) sources are not so readliy available.

Revoke corporate personhood. Absolutely! And there are some places, including towns in Maine, that have done it. To me, this is a most elegant, if extremely difficult, solution (one solution among others, not THE solution as so much needs to be done). And it is not new. Richard Grossman has been working on this for many years now. Other solutions include rebuilding our local, community economies by creating structures, enterprises, and projects that provide input, investment (of time, energy, and $) to businesses and others community members want to see succeed. Almost every night on the local news there’s an item about how small communities and even cities are being forced to lay off firefighters, police, social service workers, teachers, and others whose services and skills are still desperately needed but there’s no more $ to pay them. This is the perfect opportunity to bring in community currency. If everyone (or most) workers in a community or county were paid a percentage of their salary in community currency, if businesses providing needed goods and services would accept it for the same percentage of goods/services (which they could do because it would get paid back out to workers and other local suppliers), we could begin to solve the problems we face due to a lack of federal dollars. Towns did this in the Great Depression. Communities around the country and world are doing it today, though most aren’t on such a large scale as I’m proposing. It would work and I don’t understand why, whenever I bring this up people don’t get it. Some do, of course, but a project on the scale I’m proposing needs more than one or two “zealots” to get it off the ground. It needs broad-based community support and active community participation. There are many other types of projects and models that could be used in this manner if only more of us would begin thinking and acting outside of the proverbial box.

I agree with the basic premise of Jensen’s article, that what we do as individuals isn’t going to change the world - until or unless it begins to impact large corporations and those who benefit from the current, unsustainable, destructive economy. This, to me, is the biggest disconnect in my life. And it contributes, I think, to inertia, and to denial. People want to believe that what we do not only matters but has the power to change. People also want to believe that we have plenty of time or that those who predict such a dire future, a future that is coming sooner than most believed possible even a short five years ago, are wrong. I’d love to think that climate change deniers are right, but I know they aren’t.

There are individuals and there is the “system”. And there is a huge barrier between the two. The question is how can individuals destroy the barrier enough to transform the system? I used to believe that we do have such power as individuals. I no longer do. However that does not absolve me from acting responsibly with regard to how I live my life. What I know is that once we wake up and begin to act and change things in the places where we live then the barriers will begin to come down. But I don’t see that happening either. And I read about small communities or neighborhoods in larger cities that are beginning this process, even having some success, and I wonder, how could something like that happen where I live? And I doubt, right now anyway given the politics, the economics, the blinders, the preconceived notions of local people here, whether such things like Transition (in another article in this issue of Orion) would find enough supporters willing to take the time and energy needed to actually bring it to reality. I’m not even sure the majority of people here actually believe climate change is real or that humans have anything to do with it. I say this because of the responses I get whenever I write about climate change or the economy or politics or the rampant development - at least four new housing developments within less than 17 miles of my home. Despite the so-called recession, despite all the unsold, already-built homes, despite the vacant box stores, and so on. Who is going to build on these recently cleared acres? If there’s a housing glut why can’t the community say “no more”? The fact is, we don’t have that right. We can say “no” and we’re taken to court and forced to allow it. Private land, private capital, private profits are all that matter. This must change and it must not be considered anti-american to make this change. These new developments (with no homes yet) used to be woods and habitat for bear, deer, moose, birds, turkeys, and other creatures now rendered homeless. Where are they supposed to go? This is the country I live in and it’s being destroyed as I type these words. I have no power to stop it. My opinion doesn’t matter. And the animals have no voice.

I’m not pessimistic (all of the time). I believe that great changes can happen in a short period of time if the will and the means are there. And if the will is strong enough we can force the means through. There are times when I believe only a violent revolution will do the trick, but in my heart I know that is not the solution. It is just frustration and anger speaking. In my heart I know the way to the revolution must be through love and compassion and an iron will. But for this to work we need masses of people to agree and to be willing to do more than take shorter showers and recycle. And disconnecting from the system isn’t easy when we are beholden to the system for the means to pay rent or mortgage, buy food and other necessities. Only those who don’t need to earn money or who have no debt can afford to separate themselves enough to take such a radical stand. I have little patience with those who don’t understand this and who don’t have compassion for people, myself included, in this situation. We need to find a way to care for each other, to support each other in more than thoughts, if we expect people with families to take such risks. On the other hand, if enough of us took the risks anyway (and I have no idea how many is “enough”) then I believe there would be safety in numbers.

To Lorraine typing as I was typing. I totally agree with your comments about “consumers”. For years I have hated being referred to as a consumer when I’m really a person or a citizen or an individual. We were not born consumers. Consumers were created by industry. We were born human beings, a part of Earth, one of many species here. We were born with an innate connection to and dependence on the natural world and the ability to participate and communicate with and within this world. As consumers we reject this connection and become separate, and sad. Then we consume to assuage the sadness. It doesn’t work.