This past week our class enjoyed an insightful video conference with Prof. Maniates of Allegheny College. He presented his "trinity of despair", representing his concern that the environmental movement is less effective than it needs to be. Each corner of the trinity is a disempowering assumption about the human capacity for change and the mechanisms by which change is generated.
The three corners are:
HN = Human Nature (the assumption that people are selfish, only out for themselves.)
ES = Environmental Strategy or Easy Stuff (the assumption that we build social movements by getting people to do the easy stuff first -- asking people to screw in a new energy-efficient light-bulb will get them, in the future, to take more far-reaching actions.)
SC = Social Change (the assumption that we need to get everyone on board to make change happen, and that the only way this will occur is if some kind of large-scale disaster focuses collective attention.)
We will be answering the following questions in this week's discussion:
1. What do you make of Prof. Maniates' "trinity of despair?"
2. Has it helped you think in new or different ways about how to be an effective environmental change agent?
3. Are elements of it bogus?
4. Can you point to any examples of social change or social action that seem to support or that run counter to Prof. Maniates' contentions?
As always, click "comments" to read or join in the discussion! Some folks who beat me here this week posted their comments on this discussion on last week's Lorax post, so make sure to check that one out again as well if you haven't already.
Quote of the Week:
"Give a man a fish, and he can eat for a day. But teach a man how to fish, and he'll be dead of mercury poisoning inside of three years."
- Charles Haas
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Prof. Maniates' trinity is a good approximation of general problems with the environmental movement today. Some of the corners are more accurate than others, and of course it functions much better as a generalization as there are many specific instances where it does not apply.
ReplyDeleteThe first corner seems like basic economics, assuming that all people are rational actors. Every organism in existence is inherently selfish in that the driving purpose of its existence is to ensure that it continues to exist. Humans are unique among organisms for three reasons, however: we have the knowledge that one day we will inevitably cease to exist, we have the capacity to willingly cause another to cease to exist (murder), and we have the capacity to willingly save the lives of other people. Do these things make us more or less "selfish" than other organisms? Not necessarily, but the "trinity of despair" does confound the definition of selfish somewhat. Acting in one's own best interest and acting in the community's self interest are not always mutually exclusive, and one cannot be held accountable for simply giving in to an overriding biological imperative (and frankly the one that ensures the survival of our species).
This somewhat ties in to "easy stuff", in that as rational actors we will at first attempt to take the easiest route to any solution. However any person who uses an LED light or recycles paper isn't labeled an "environmentalist." These activities are becoming commonplace in our society and while it is good they are being encouraged, defining the environmental movement by these actions isn't necessarily a good view of the movement. Again, this is not always the case.
"Social change", however, Maniate's hit directly on the head. It has never in history been necessary to have 100% on board to make anything significant happen. To further overquote anthropologist Margaret Meade, "A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Maniates' made excellent points when he cited Ghandi, MLK Jr., and even Rush Limbaugh as examples of movements that didn't require the participation of 100% of the population. Certainly a small portion can still push forth regulation that inadvertently changes social values and mores that lead to environmental degradation.
This trinity has helped me think in new ways in how to be effective as an agent of environmental change, particular the third corner, "social change." The Rush Limbaugh example really resonated with me - 5 million love him, 50 million hate him, yet he was still able to influence the Republican Revolution of the mid-1990's. Yet as stated other elements of it are just a little bogus, mainly through how the confound conventional definitions of words like selfishness.
There are many examples that support Maniates' contentions. For example, the success of cafe standards in the 1980's supports the second corner, in that it took sweeping regulation to change how cars were produced, and not simply people driving more efficiently (such as sticking to speed limits at all times to maximize gas mileage efficiency). However there are examples that run counter as well. A farmer in Texas who allows his land to be used for wind energy production in exchange for royalties certainly ha a "selfish" economic incentive, but overall contributes to the greening of the economy overall. There's nothing selfish about that.
Maniate's makes some very good points and has certainly altered my perspective of the world slightly, but it must be remembered that like any non-empirical theory, it can only be applied to a selection of situations and not as a universal truth.
The trinity of despair idea really caught my attention, as did some other points in Professor Maniate's discussion. I enjoyed the points leading up to the trinity explanation, about how we should be like Rush. At first, I was thinking to myself, this guy is crazier I thought. But now thinking about it, I definitely see how we should focus on the larger dot, the 33% that are Concerned and the others that are alarmed or cautious. I felt like this was a new, fresh idea, because most of the time I find it hard to stay positive when discussing environmental issues. And then once I regained some optimism, the words "trinity of despair" are let loose. But this to is a positive thought if you think about the thought process. Describing human nature as we do, selfish or at the least self interested make sit seem as if we can only ask small changes in regards to environmental strategy, which makes us believe if "everyone" does these small changes we have a chance.
ReplyDeleteI liked Maniates take that if we change this perception and think of people as willing to make changes, which would still be in their self interested, than those people could make bigger changes and then we wouldn't need everyone to do little things. We could instead focus on policy, or ideas mention in the reading that would fundamental affect the environmental degradation and climate change.
As for social change or action that has been taking place, there are movements that are constantly taking place, like 350.org. Pushing for policy change, although the cap and trade bill didn't do so well. But nonetheless I feel as if there can be tendencies to both arguments and I personally would love to focus on people that already support doing something about it.
And for my last note, I really enjoyed the way in which the discussion was facilitated. I think that his style is unique, enthusiastic and I felt like that was important for making me believe his argument. So more people should take a lesson from him.