Lost Tool of the Environmentalist: FURY
When I think of a person who embodies the progressive power of fury, I think of the great Malcolm X, that furious populist street preacher whose rage-fueled sermons demanded the immediate cessation to the marginalization of his people. Imagine the arrival of the modern Eco-Malcolm, demanding an immediate switch away from the fossil-fuel based economies that marginalize not only entire continents but threaten our collective future. Do you think this person would be greeted with open arms by the intellectual elite who drive the U.S. environmental movement? No. He would be instantly marginalized, cast aside by the hyper-sensitive and politically correct, laughed off the stage in two seconds flat without regard for the billions who desperately need such a leader to save them from near-term ruin.
The U.S. environmental movement, to a sad degree, has been co-opted by a highly partisan (HUGE mistake) “landed gentry†who, armed with viable business models, seem more concerned with maintaining their prestige, their “popularity†among a slice of the population that is not growing despite the current media infatuation than doing real good. Even sadder is that they don’t see this, don’t understand it when a minority among them dissent, cry foul when these faux-elite criticize the more vehement members, put down calls for real, immediate progress (“incremental change is more acceptable and realistic†), heap scorn upon third parties whose platforms and efforts mirror their own. There are no radicals among them, not a soul who will lead the fight for Lester Brown’s united “wartime†effort, nor lead a popular uprising to demand, not request, immediate and profound changes.
Fury? There is no room for fury. There is no room for any real, strong, righteous emotions that may threaten the elite’s place within popular culture. Rocking the boat now would upset the fiscal projections of newly minted eco-empires. Losing the Earth is one thing, but losing advertising revenue is an entirely different issue altogether.
I’m calling you out. You know who you are. My words tear, just a bit, at what is left of the idealism that propelled you to give a damn in the first place. You fear fear. You despise fury. You’ve become the enemy and while it used to, it no longer keeps you up at night. History will show that you did nothing, that you effectively sat on your hands, your efforts never reaching beyond your beloved choir/demographic. You have been lulled to sleep by the accolades of a too-small band, your marching orders lost.
Fear not, your replacements have arrived.
Step aside.
++
The most significant book you’ve read or I will buy it back from you at full purchase price: Lester Brown’s Plan B 2.0Â Trust me on this one, just order it. You’ll thank me later.
Tags: Politics, Ruminations
I’ve seen plenty of environmentalists whose speech is full of righteous fury. Unfortunately, I’ve never yet seen one who is able to maintain that fury and simultaneously come across as coherent and thoughtful, or really anything other than a nutcase.
Your analogy to Mr. X breaks down, and the particular way that it breaks down points to one of the serious challenges to promoting environmental awareness: The inequities of racial segregation are there for all to see. Even the apologists, who live in denial, had a hard time avoiding seeing that which was in front of their face. The places with the worst offenses were, naturally, the places where the injustice was most visitble and obvious.
Unfortunately, the opposite is true for our movement. America is responsible for more environmental rape than any other country, yet our own wilderness and ecosystem is less badly damaged than that in much of the rest of the world. Even where the ecosystem damage is local, it takes a trained eye and an open mind to see it, because the signs are not obvious, and because most of the population has been conditioned to see things through the filter of civilization, in which environmental atrocities are simply progress, and taken for granted.
For a environmentalist to speak up with righteous fury about the wrongs done to the planet in the current social context would be akin to Malcom X delivering his speeches in the mid-nineteenth century rather than the mid-twentieth. He would be pointing to injustices that most of his contemporaries simply could not see, because the filters of their social conditioning were so strong. Such a speaker would sound like a nut and be treated accordingly. Which is exactly what has happened to such people, in my experience. Though none of them have been lynched, so far as I know.
As usual, nice points to consider. Thanks. Let me use the old ‘quote’ method to get back to your main issues -
GE: “Unfortunately, I’ve never yet seen one who is able to maintain that fury and simultaneously come across as coherent and thoughtful, or really anything other than a nutcase.”
This is exactly why I think Malcolm is such a great example. He was one who ably and coherently sustained his passions.
GE: “The inequities of racial segregation are there for all to see. Even the apologists, who live in denial, had a hard time avoiding seeing that which was in front of their face.”
Here is where I’m being most idealistic/naive and you call me out on it correctly. That is, I believe that the effects of climate change are quite apparent for anyone to see, so long as they are willing to open their eyes. However, if one takes the view of, say, Lester Brown or Geoffrey Sachs, there are many economic adjustments that can be made irrespective of the ‘reality’ of global warming that would benefit all living creatures, economically (where applicable), environmentally and otherwise. This gets us into new territory, however. Perhaps another post down the road?
GE: ” . . . most of the population has been conditioned to see things through the filter of civilization, in which environmental atrocities are simply progress, and taken for granted.”
You are correct. This is why it would behoove us to look at the solutions more broadly, and not focus our message/pitch solely upon environmental concerns. I know this is dangerous territory/heresy, but I’m speaking only of how we market the message, not our actions. Back to Sachs and Brown - we can do a whole lot of good that makes sense to everyone, without mentioning the climate change scenario. A basic example taken from the current excerpt of Plan B 2.0: Planting trees to protect riverbanks. The trees are worth three times as much standing as they are as lumber. Most any municipality/government when faced with such data will choose to leave the trees and compensate the farmer/landowner accordingly. Presto! We make economic sense, upgrade the local environment and it doesn’t matter whether or not anyone ‘believes’ in climate change (okay, it does matter and quite a lot but I’m talking about localized solutions by any means necessary. If it takes a little wool pulling, so be it - the trees are saved.) What does this have to do with fury? Nothing at all. Fury is only part of the toolkit, remember. When shifting to a different arena or situation, as we’ve done in the course of this exchange, we must utilize different tactics. At no point do I maintain the fear or fury are anything more than marginal implements - but we mustn’t discard ANY advantages.
And now, to the meat of the matter:
GE: “For a environmentalist to speak up with righteous fury about the wrongs done to the planet in the current social context would be akin to Malcom X delivering his speeches in the mid-nineteenth century rather than the mid-twentieth. He would be pointing to injustices that most of his contemporaries simply could not see, because the filters of their social conditioning were so strong. Such a speaker would sound like a nut and be treated accordingly.”
Now, this is a vital statement. It’s so vital because it points out so clearly what holds some of us back from being more vocal. Do you not think that Malcolm had his predecessors? Do you not think that they were treated just as you say? Certainly, the pre-civil rights movement black leaders, dating back to the first slaves, were persecuted by the majority of society, but they were heralded as heroes for their bravery by their peers and they created the template for resistance which MLK Jr, Malcolm X and so many others utilized. It was never important to them if they sounded like a nut to the white majority. What was important was that they bolstered the spirit of their contemporaries, that they kept the revolution alive. If we are to be cowed by the possibility of losing “status” within our own movement, that is a grim sign that the movement has already calcified, has already devolved into little more than a popularity contest, a method for people to carve commercial opportunities for themselves at the expense of the greater good (I’m not against making a living, but if one must soften one’s stance for fear of losing ‘customers’, then there is a problem). No, there is always a need for the staunch crusader, for the person who has the rare gift of, as you so well put it, ‘coherent fury’. Where is that person? Dunno. It isn’t me. It isn’t anyone I know. Is it Monbiot? Seems he’s hated by as many progressive environmentalists as conservative industrialists.
I ask the question as we need leaders of all types. Hell, of any type. Let’s not be picky . . .someone, ANYONE, step up to the plate already!
(P.S. A leader is someone who at all times puts the goals of the movement in front of his/her political or personal agendas)