Environmentalists frequently lament the lack of environmental conscience in those whose lives they deem ""unsustainable""—""How can they be so selfish?"" we ask. This is the battle being fought today. A division of ""us"" vs. ""them"" occurs, and the ""others"" are frequently chastised as reckless and irresponsible. ""This is their fault!"" it often goes. I will argue, however, that a socially just and effective environmentalism—something the movement's founders envisioned—is incommensurable with this division.
There have been many calls for environmentalism to broaden its focus to include issues of social and environmental justice, and to see these as inextricably linked to ‘saving the planet.' The Earth Day events put on by UW-Madison's Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies granted a ripe opportunity to reflect on these calls as found in the words of the movement's founders. In his opening speech, UW-Madison's Gregg Mitman related Gaylord Nelson's vision of a ""decent environment in its broadest and deepest sense."" Nelson referred not only to a commitment to preserving nature's wildness, but also to eliminating the environmental harm faced by poor inner-city communities confined to inadequate living conditions. Nelson's advocacy for ""conserving urban resources as well as natural resources"" continues to carry much pertinence for environmentalism today, with growing recognition that different groups are differentially affected by environmental degradation and the policies sought to curb it. We cannot be environmentalists without an awareness of the social context in which environmental degradation takes place.
If we adopt this socially conscious view of environmentalism—which I think we must—we accept the challenge of broadening our view to see environmental degradation as existing within, and being the result of, a system of constraints and influences. We don't, for instance, ignorantly criticize the ""unwillingness"" of poor inner-city families to buy organic food without taking into account cultural, systematic and financial barriers that prevent this from happening. I doubt many socially aware individuals would disagree with me on this. Yet we frequently fail to extend this understanding to individuals whom we see as having more privilege. Somehow, a higher socioeconomic status tells us that the person, the ""you"" we identify at the helm, is exempt from other forms of systematic influence.
To make my point here, we must ask: Who is the ""you"" we are criticizing? To go into this question, take a look at yourself. Ask yourself the question, ""Who am I?"" In this investigation we will see that the self—the ""I""—we all frequently refer to is mostly an illusion. When I look hard, I see that the person I think myself to be is overwhelmingly the result of my genes and my environment, nature and nurture. Most of us fully accept this in many aspects of scientific investigation—the question is not ""nature vs. nurture vs. self."" It is simply ""nature vs. nurture."" Where are ""you"" in there? I maintain that ""you"" are there to a far lesser extent than you have thought.
When I see this all very clearly, then I realize that by patting my ""self"" on the back for recycling and criticizing my neighbor for driving a Hummer, for instance, both become meaningless. For whom am I congratulating and whom am I criticizing? Instead of accusing my neighbor of being an idiot—drawing from my recent investigation of myself—I will wonder why things have come to be the way they are for my neighbor. In this question, I seek not to blame the will of my neighbor but aim instead to understand the influences that have produced the person who lives next to me—a person who doesn't care for much beyond herself.
A socially just and effective environmental movement is based on a larger vision rooted in understanding. We are the result of our environment, and thus ""we"" as a self-gratifying entity are meaningless and destructive. ""Look at how green I am!"" is the wrong way to go, serving only to further cement ""us"" and ""them"" in a self-righteous pattern of division.
This article is an argument for compassionate social action. When we learn why we are the ways in which we are, we learn a lot about why ""they"" are who they are. The point is not to deny reckless and extremely harmful behavior—as evidenced by our current environmental crisis, these certainly exist. The point is that it is mostly meaningless to blame ""them"" for acting the way they do. Instead, we should hold community and compassion as environmentalist values. We can seek more effective change when we stop reinforcing false divisions between people and realize our common humanity. Only by letting go of ourselves can a full movement grow and can the seeds of change be planted.
Gregory Reeb is a senior majoring in philosophy and analysis of complex systems. Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
