The Obsolescence of Environmentalism

By Rod Bearup

The job now is to realize that we can no longer afford to simply address the parts when the problem lies within the whole.
Possibly the most damaging event in the short history of environmentalism was when, during the 1988 election campaigns, the Republicans began declaring themselves environmentalists. With this act of guile, they contorted environmentalism into a patriotic shibboleth to be invoked by everyone from the likes of Pat Robertson to the CEO of Dow Chemical. This amounted to nothing less than an immediate dilution of everything the environmental movement had accomplished in the previous three decades.
Once twisted, the wordspinners found it easy to give environmentalism's meaning another turn. In the public's mind, environmentalism now symbolizes an assault on the phantasmal American Way of Life. Regardless of specifics, environmental issues today are reflexively reduced to hollow, two-valued arguments pitting jobs against the environment, progress against stagnation, economic health against a few sentimental, reactionary aesthetes. Within this current vacuum of substantive public debate, the environmental movement is faced with a pressing need for self-examination.
We have heard widespread reports of the decline of national environmental organizations. And locally we have fared not much better. Grand Traverse region's grassroots organization, Northern Michigan Environmental Action Council (NMEAC), has experienced the same decline in support, credibility and effectiveness. But, as we are often reminded, it is at the grassroots level that things get done. And this is the importance of a group like NMEAC. We now have an opportunity, through NMEAC, to take a lead in encouraging dialogue to reevaluate the role of environmentalism in the community.
I'd like to seed such a dialogue by looking further into the concept of environmentalism.
Given that its meaning has been so thoroughly abused, perhaps an evaluation should begin with the word itself. Irishman Aneurin Bevan offers insight into the value of such a semantic exercise, "[We must be on] guard against the old words, for the words persist when the reality that lay behind them has changed. It is inherent in our intellectual activity that we seek to imprison reality in our description of it. Soon, long before we realize it, it is we who become prisoners of the description."
It is important to recognize that words encode a record of their past usage. The word environmentalism includes how the concept has historically translated into action. Therefore, to gain an understanding of its present meaning, it is instructive to revisit environmentalism's roots.
Recall, for instance, the nature of concerns in the 1960s, '70s, and early '80s. They consisted primarily of point-source pollution such as: DDT; Love Canal; Three Mile Island; ubiquitous smoke stacks belching black clouds; or dead, oozing, flammable waterways. Each of these represented pollution of a clear and present danger. The debates of the day were not whether the problems existed, but by what means they could be resolved.
Given the nature of point-source pollution, science and technology could provide the physical cures. Because of its visible prominence public awareness was easily stimulated. And, most importantly, due to the fact that neither side of the debate was really in favor of pollution, a political response was possible. For its role in this process, environmentalism became known foremost as a political tool to produce public policy reform.
Though point-source pollution persists, once the most visible abuses had been reduced, environmentalism's focus gradually made a natural transition to the next tier of concerns. This level of problems proved significantly different in overall character from the past, consisting of long-term, cumulative degradation: relentless global overpopulation; endangered species; resource depletion; inappropriate development and land use; and overconsumption. However regrettable, in this "rational" world, each of these issues is arguably not a clear and present danger. Given that they are gradual, incremental, and pervasive the public cannot be shocked into awareness. And, insofar as these problems are not visibly in our backyards, they are out of sight, out of mind.
More troubling, however, is the fact that this second tier of problems is brought to us by popular demand. Their origins are deeply rooted in the way we conduct our private lives (a demand for asphalt results in an asphalt plant). Their causes are woven into the fabric of our everyday habits and decisions. Solutions to the first tier of environmental problems offered no real threat to our way of life. Hence, those solutions enjoyed adequate public support. However, considering that the current environmental focus has everything to do with how we live, there can be little surprise over the public vilification of environmentalism today. Those politicians are right, environmentalism truly does represent a threat to the American Way of Life. In consequence, it should be even less surprising that further public policy reform is politically infeasible.
We need to acknowledge that environmentalism has come to symbolize two different things. While the environmentalist sees it as an altruistic effort for the common good, it is now popularly perceived (rightly or wrongly) as an obstructive, self-righteous, special interest. Whether at a town meeting, one-on-one, or in the media, communication cannot occur in this absence of common understanding. Since sound decision-making directly relies on good communication, the use of the word environmentalism impedes, possibly precludes, the process. Furthermore, as long as the public, upon whose support environmentalism depends, perceives the environmental movement's agenda as Something Else, no matter what that is, then support will never be given.
If we examine environmentalism from the perspective of the environmentalist, another problem of the word's usage becomes evident. Ludwig Wittgenstein explained, "[L]anguage is not only a vehicle of thought, but also the driverto a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail." When we use the word environmentalism, it is a symbol or metaphor which includes a given set of assumptions encoded within the word's meaning. These assumptions, and hence the word, guide the environmentalist in thought and action relative to how environmentalism is employed as a tool.
Environmentalism's assumptions include both root cultural thinking and thinking specific to environmentalism itself, for example: political/technical/scientific solutions based on global economics; for every new problem, there is a solution (unlimited progress); environmentalism is a special interest activity; reliance on expert analysis and management; a global (Save the Earth) perspective; a focus on specific issues (a mall, a golf course, a source of pollution, an endangered species, the rain forest); and any given problem exists because of the action of others.
It is not my intent here to debate the merits of these assumptions, but to suggest that they represent a narrow and ultimately futile array of approaches to addressing ecological problems. Recognizing again that these assumptions are rooted within both cultural values and within the institution of environmentalism, resistance to change is inherently immense. Therefore, by the simple act of using the word environmentalism, the environmentalist's thinking and resultant activities are, and will most likely continue to be, predicated upon a relatively narrow set of options.
If, in Bevan's words, we are to be on guard against this old word -- environmentalism -- I believe it is time for us to ask ourselves if there are any constructive alternatives.
In the spirit of encouraging dialogue, I'd like to propose an alternative to the practice of environmentalism in our community.
Consider the implications of a complete make-over of NMEAC. We could start by taking "environmental" out of its name; say we call it Voice Of Traverse (VOT). Then we could rethink its mission, maybe "an association of concerned citizens promoting the long-term health, safety and welfare of the bioregion."
And what could VOT do?
The first thing Voice of Traverse could do is continue its former indispensable role as a community watchdog for ecological health. It could conduct business as usual except for jettisoning the label "environmentalism" in all its contexts. This would not be an attempt to confuse or defuse the "opposition," but to afford VOT an opportunity to see itself and be seen as something of its own making.
A second thing VOT could do is to broaden its place in the community. By diversifying its role, VOT has an opportunity to increase public support and release itself from its former image as a special interest. For example VOT could be a community clearinghouse serving as a guide to information on things like healthy local businesses and products, home schooling, current local issues, alternative ways of living, community supported agriculture, alternative health care, and free or low cost amusement. Each of these things promote a healthier ecology.
And a third thing VOT could do is carry forward with community education. In February NMEAC sponsored a panel discussion in which about forty members of the community participated. The subject matter could have been any of a hundred topics. What was important though was the discovery taking place. People shared their concerns and experiences. And they departed a little different than when they came.
Short of hardship, I think the only way people will discover the needs of our place will be through sharing and dialogue. Through forums like that in February we may come to share thoughts such as: there are no quick, easy ways to work toward a healthy ecology. We might discover that the more we share an identity with our community, the better we will care for it. We might discover ways in common with others to refashion our private lives. Maybe these new ways could increase the quality of our lives as well as the quality of our community.
We could also learn less abstract things in these forums. We could learn how to start a community garden, or how to promote good land use and zoning laws, how to cook basic foods well. We could also learn how to insulate our homes, care for our cars, or how to sew and knit, or keep a household budget. These things also promote a healthier ecology.
The debate here has not been about the value of environmental action. It has been about ecological health. It has been about how the needs of the community can best be served. Merely because things change, NMEAC has lost respect, support and effectiveness because it is now perceived as an environmental specialist. Mere environmentalism has become obsolete.
The job now is to realize that we can no longer afford to simply address the parts when the problem lies within the whole. What we are after is not solely about stopping someone else from messing up our place, but about our private lives and the strength of our community. That is where the real work is.

Rod Bearup homesteads in Benzie County with his wife, Sarah Bearup-Neal.

Back to the Index