• Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Previous

Next

Tyranny or Theft? Part 3

June 16, 2011, 3:11 pm

I’ll conclude this three-part post on the sustainability movement and two recent conferences that critiqued it.

Assembling the Pieces

I cited the Enstrom case as a concrete instance of the much larger problem of the moral inflation of the sustainability movement. In the precincts of the higher education, and in education at all levels, sustainability tends to deal in certitudes, and it has very little patience for the unconvinced or the under-enthusiastic. Its proponents sometimes seem to think it is an ethical duty to punish dissenters, and the movement is chock full of sentiments about the obligation to get everyone on board.

Not long ago, Sustainability:  The Journal of Record held a roundtable of campus sustainability activists and asked them about “student engagement.” Sean Miller, director of education for the Earth Day Network, said he would like to see steps “guaranteeing every singled student that goes though the higher education institution has somehow engaged or is knowledgeable about sustainability.”  Kristy Jones, manager of Campus Climate Education & Action for the National Wildlife Federation, thought integrating “the message of sustainability into freshman orientation” would be a good step. Claire Roby, carbon-accounting coordinator for Clean Air-Cool Planet, emphasized the importance of “allowing a nonprofit to interact very closely with students or staff members” as way “to hold campuses accountable.”

There is no mistaking how well-meaning Mr. Miller, Ms. Jones, and Ms. Roby are in saying such things. And it is partly on that score that I found myself on the outskirts of the discussion at Big Footprint.

The analysis there of the movement emphasized its economic and political imperatives. At one level this is largely accurate. The sustainability movement is heir to the disappointments of European socialists and ex-communists. It sprang into existence in 1987 with the report of the UN Commission on Environment and Development, chaired by Norwegian prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland. The connection to land-use planning, the commitment to extra-territorial regulation, and the readiness to by-pass democratic procedure are in the DNA of the sustainability movement. A great deal of its mischief, as in the persistently misleading pronouncements from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, stems from the grounding of the sustainability movement in attitudes far removed from American political and cultural traditions.

But the traction that the movement has gained in the United States doesn’t have much to do with spontaneous admiration for UNESCO bureaucrats or international elites who jet around the world promoting massive transfers of wealth to impoverished nations. Those  ideas eventually find welcome in the minds of students who have worked their way deep inside the concept that they are now “citizens of the world.” The movement’s mass appeal lies elsewhere.

Sustainability is first of all an emotional summons—one that combines elemental fears with hopes of salvation. It draws heavily on Judeo-Christian imagery and a secularized, but not very deeply disguised, Christian narrative of a good creation corrupted by human sin and headed for disaster, which might be staved off through sufficient acts of penitence—like giving up the internal combustion engine, not to mention bottled water and cafeteria trays.

The religious narrative is interwoven with other strands of Western mythology. It isn’t hard to find Rousseau’s imaginary picture of man uncorrected by civilization filtering into the dreams of sustainatopians. The movement expresses a longing for lost innocence, for the “re-enchantment” of nature as one of its proponents puts it, and for an easily captured high ground on which alienation from mass consumerism can be played out as though it had positive content. Somehow we can feel better about ourselves if we believe the world is going to wrack and ruin because of the heedlessness and greed of others.

Stealing Time

Mine is a cultural analysis of sustainability. The movement thrives in higher education because it has connected with generational identity: It is the movement of a self-conscious cohort that finds moral leverage in it against their parents, who are castigated for their wasteful lifestyles. And it thrives because it is a substitute religion that demands a manageable degree of expiation, self-sacrifice, and guilt. The economic and political stuff are the caboose. The engine is belief.

“Thou shalt not steal” is embedded in this movement on both sides. The sustainability adepts see human use of resources as essentially theft—and the depredations of the past must be made good before we can be absolved.

But the movement’s critics see theft as well: theft of property rights and theft of political autonomy. That’s the main thing I took away from the Philadelphia conference, where one of the speakers illustrated the pernicious effects of collectivism by circulating an impressive aerial photograph of Scottsdale, Ariz. On one side of a boundary lay the barren desert of collectively owned tribal land, and on the other the lush and expensively improved holdings of private land owners.

The Eighth Commandment resonates through contemporary life in surprisingly complex ways. It is an edict in universal form, meant to apply to all people at all times. The anthropologist Robin Fox suggests in his new book The Tribal Imagination that the Ten Commandments might be best interpreted as the rules which a formerly nomadic tribal people needed in order to become a settled, civilized people who could live in some degree of amity with their neighbors.

That civilizational challenge remains, perhaps even more complexly demanding in our fluid, multicultural world. Sustainability offers a plaintive version of the idea that we can rid ourselves of these frictions through a more perfect purging of our acquisitiveness. It offers only a fantasy, however, no matter how much it dresses itself up as “scientific consensus.” Higher education at some point will have to shrug it off and get back to the work of seeing the world as it is. When it comes to education, indulging apocalyptic fantasies and dreams of Edenic restoration is just another form of pilfering, even if the students are willing accomplices.

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • chuckkle

    Oy! Again with the cafeteria trays!  If you backtrack into this example you find that someone had the Bright Idea of eliminating cafeteria trays in one dorm on one campus as an experiment.  The food service provider (one of the biggies like Sodexo-Marriott, as I remember) agreed, thinking students would take less food if they had to balance each plate and cup with their hands.  After a few days the trial policy was reversed due to student complaints.  Big Deal!  This was an unsuccessful experiment, backed by a French multinational with annual revenues of 15.3 billion Euros.  Not exactly some evil socialist conspiracy…but Wood will try to scare us with anything he can: sounds like desperation to me.

    Chuck Kleinhans

  • peterwwood

    Not that cafeteria trays matter all that much, but Chuckkle is misinformed.  The tray-less cafeteria policy policy has been adopted and is in force at numerous colleges and universities.   I expect quite a few readers of this blog have had first-hand experience with it.

    Peter Wood

  • chuckkle

    Whoops!  I was misdirected by the colorful example of Yale reverting on its policy by reading about it on the NAS website: 
    http://www.nas.org/polarticles.cfm?doctype_code=Article&doc_id=1007I misremembered, focussed on the most interesting part.  I stand corrected, it seems various schools have adopted the trayless mode.  And it was Aramark (annual revenue $12.3 billion), not Sodexo, who gushed about Big Savings.  So where does Peter Wood stand on the tray issue?  Cleverly balancing his meal with his hands like a gymnastic juggler, or willing to give up his tray only when it is pried from his cold, dead hands?

    Chuck Kleinhans

  • whitakal

    I believe our intrepid interlocutors–Wood and Kleinhans–have fingered the core issue: Did Savage Man find the fruits of the earth ready at hand, or did he have to use a tray? All else hangs (or rests?) on this …

    Wood strikes me as right to point to belief as more central than politics to the sustainability movement in America. I think that the analysis of those beliefs can go a stratum deeper than his blog posts allow. The Sustainatopians, following Rousseau, see our earthly origins as plentiful, a plenty undone by population growth and consumption. The classical liberals see our earthly origins as a “waste,” as Locke put it, requiring human effort (and property) to improve. While they differ in this important way, both Rousseau and Locke agree on one thing: that the human origins are asocial–we start out alone and only through much time and effort (sentiment for Rousseau, contract and law for Locke) do we form society.

    That has always been the sticking point for communitarians, from Marx to the present, who want to reject classical liberalism and look to Rousseau for a vision of society. And I think it generates the longing felt by the Sustainatopians: they don’t just want a pristine earth, they also want a deeply-felt sense of community that overcomes “selfish” notions such as personal rights, including property. It is this longing and the corresponding rejection of core elements of liberal democracy that connect the sustainability movement on campus with the 1960s student movement and the 1970s / 80s environmental movement, not to mention the simultaneous campus-wide embrace of sex and drugs.

    But what Rousseau saw, which his would-be followers usually miss, is that there is no way to enjoy both the supposedly paradisical origins and true human community. Paradise is a paradise of one. If you want community, you need to leave your tree and subject yourself to a small republic with strict legislation and an overbearing moral code (such as Sparta or Geneva). Academia has come to serve as such a “republic” for many struggling dreamers: hence 60s radicals become Calvins–of a leftist stripe–once they get tenure. Pace Wood, Rousseauians can become tyrants, but only in very artificial environments, such as faculty councils or the French General Assembly.

    That said, the campus community is by its nature much too limited and labile to fulfill those longings for true togetherness. What is really needed is a small, closed community grounded in religious belief–such as those Ten Commandments. The Sustainatopians want the fruits of modern thought (personal freedom, technology) along with the tight community of pre-modern religion. Keep waiting for the rapture.

    Keith Whitaker, http://www.wisecounselresearch.org

  • richardtaborgreene

    College is a good place for adolescent religious self righteousness and moral imperialisms to re-cloak in more intellectually viable clothes—-the mental clothing changes while leaving adolescent modes of thought behind.   The world is always filled with idiots who are SURE their ways and view are righter than everyone else’s.   People are their own best revenge so the meanest thing you can do to them is leave them alone with their own delusions and let them torture themselves and their own children with all sorts of “I am righter than everyone else is” -isms.    

    In the 1900s, William and Henry James’ day, the coincidence of 20 year olds willing to sacrifice their all on behalf of a cause benighted and silly, was felt to be “solved” by killing off the weaker ones via military service in “healthy” wars that removed the genetic dregs of mankind in regular bouts of mass killing (yes, the “great” psychologists endorsed eugenics ideas about race cleansing war). So stupid self righteous enthusiasms are not restricted to students—faculties also are found in mid-bigot-izations all the time. Truth is hard to come by in a world of enthusiasm and application is hard to come by in a world of truths. It’s all a big mess-better to be born a bacteria—longer life spans and less worries: now where is my sugar gradient?