As a longtime subscriber to Adbusters, I have been pleasantly surprised by the recent success they have had in their organization of the Occupy Wallstreet movement, which (despite a pause today) has spread to protests in many countries all over the world, from London (Population: 10 million) to my hometown of Petoskey (population 7,000). Since the protests began, many people have come to view the Canadian magazine in new ways, with its supporters seeing it as a rallying point for social rights, and its detractors attacking it as anti-capitalist propaganda. While many of our classmates have written very astute links between the movement and Marshall’s view of our progression toward socialism and our changing relation with perceived social rights, I think the organization’s more humble beginnings are also an interesting study for another paradigm conflict between a Lockian definition of property and Leopold’s land ethics.
Founded in 1989 by Kalle Lasn and Bill Schmalz in Vancouver, Adbusters was largely the product of its founders realizing a difficulty whose salience we have all learned in class: getting people of similar opinions to effectively organize for their common interests. Specifically, the two were frustrated by an ad campaign sponsored by a conglomeration of Canadian logging interests. Along with many environmentalists, the two attacked the “Forests Forever” campaign as an example of “greenwashing”: the use of pleasant images and misleading statements to falsely define the logger’s activities as eco-friendly. In particular, this campaign featured happy children and happy employees interacting with a forest, while a calm narrator described how reseeding efforts implemented by the industry ensured that the environment was being cared for.
To Kalle and Bill, this was unacceptable, because it was tantamount to a government endorsement of Lockian land ethics, which dictate that humans are entitled to remove resources from nature as their property, so long as regard is given toward their replenishment and fair distribution. In their eyes, the devils were in the details; the ads failed to consider the costs of environmental degradation and diversity loss and the inadequacy of such “tree farms” to support life. When they attempted to air a counter-ad campaign encouraging bio diversity and ethical responsibility to such areas, it was rejected by the Canadian Broadcast Corporation (who had agreed to run “Forests Forever”) as too controversial.
It was then that they realized that in order for them to introduce more ethical land policy, they would have to attract like minded people and deliver a cohesive message; they would have to form Adbusters into a credible organization which could challenge its established rival. Since then, the issues addressed by Adbusters have expanded to other social critiques on issues like consumerism and inadequate healthcare, culminating in its ongoing Wallstreet protest.
To date, Adbusters has been famous for its use of both advertising campaigns and traditional protests to combat perceived social deficiencies with some success, but never have they been more visible and salient than now. My question for my classmates is this: will this strategy work for attacking such an entrenched and esteemed establishment such as Wall Street or is the financial industry too well organized and supported to fall for the same traps which have hindered logging interests?
In an effort to apply Bohman’s concepts in a real world context, I’m left with feelings of optimism and skepticism. He raises an important question as to how we can interact on a global sphere when we do no share the same goals or values, and thus, cannot come to an agreement on subsequent actions to deploy. This is underscored by the inability to trace the forces that affect a nation. When one nation’s decisions indubitably affect others, how do you provide transparency and accountability? How do you overcome these obstacles to reach general consensus in a just fashion to enable global decision-making and avoid domination? This point seems increasingly more problematic in regard to environmental issues. However, the relationship between nations and even continents is nothing new. It is not new that one nation’s security will influence emigration to another, or trade policies will influence another’s economic fluidity. Bohman acknowledges the extreme ideological variety across the globe and anticipatory conflict when approaching upcoming issues, especially along varying levels of development and forms of government. Despite the seemingly narrow projections of reaching systematic, global interdependence without domination, Bohman describes a new definition of democracy that can be applied on the global scale. Although we have created international bodies that attempt to mediate international issues such as the United Nations or the International Monetary Fund, Bohman describes a sort of global social contract where every nation is of equal footing in making decisions and challenging those of others. In this social space, we can imagine that nations get out what they put in. They may contest and demand the actions they define as just and have a space to introduce new ideas. This system does demand some oversight, but still has high prospects for deliberating global issues such as climate change. Only until we reach this setting of transnational polity deliberation without domination take place, however, it is still up to each entity and its people to bring forward genuine ideas of justice. Although Bohman’s concepts bring enlightening prospects to global interactions, it is uncertain whether nations will willingly address issues of grave importance such as climate change.
The Take is a film released in 2004 by Avi Lewis and Naomi Klein. This movie highlights Klein and Lewis’ belief in the ill-affects of capitalism and globalization by focusing on a group of factory workers who “took back” their factory after the financial crisis in Argentina closed its doors. I think this is an interesting comparison because this movie really captures people who are being “dominated” in the sense that Bohman alludes to in his essay. Bohman defines this domination as “rule by another, one who is able to prescribe the terms of cooperation” (9). This is exactly what happened to these people in Argentina. The Argentine government headed by Carlos Menem in the 1990s followed IMF instructions and pegged the Argentinian Peso to the United States dollar amid growing concerns of hyperinflation. While this resulted in a strengthening of the Argentinian Peso, this mean’t that the exports the country was producing became comparatively much more expensive. This directly affected the efforts of the workers in this factory because as they products were increasing in price all around the world, they saw a steady decline in profits. This reduction in export manufacturing hurt the Argentinian GDP immensely and combined with a growing sovereign debt, the federal government made the decision in collusion with the IMF’s advice to un-peg the Argentian Peso to the United States Dollar. This proved a disaster for the Argentian economy as the greatly devalued peso mean’t wealth fleeing out of the country and the banks literally bording their doors, not allowing citizens to remove their cash. All in all, the currency was devalued some 36%. One can see how these workers felt “dominated” as they were forced to play by rules in which they did not negotiate. They did not have any deliberative recourse in dealing with the IMF and the pegging of their currency to the dollar. While it could be argued that globalization has done a lot of good for humanity, there are certainly many shortcomings with regards to the average citizens power on the world stage.
When we were discussing Bohman in class today, I thought back to Leopold and the place of humans in the environment. Leopold argues that humans are part of nature, not above it. In fact, humans are not even at the top of his pyramid, but in the middle. This is contrary to the view that humans have usually held about being superior to and even outside of the natural system. Leopold stresses the “All ethics so far evolved rest upon a single premise: that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts. His instincts prompt him to compete for his place in that community, but his ethics prompt him also to cooperate” (203-204). Leopold’s land ethic includes soil, plants, and animals as a community. Bohman’s article stresses the interdependence of the world as globalization has progressed. Now people can affect each other, even if they never meet. Actions such as pollution affect the entire world. In this way, the entire world is an interdependent system. Leopold’s definition of community expands to include the natural world, and Bohman’s community includes people around the globe. Bohman also stresses that global interdependence differs from the traditional views of democracy as a social contract. The social contract is individual people (“I”s) coming together to form a community (a “we”). Bohman says in global interdependence there is no “we” because the cooperation is non-voluntary. People are not be able to join together because they do not necessarily have a shared goal or shared ideals. Because of this diversity, nations need to be able to see their actions from the views of others. By viewing themselves from outside as “you,” and not just “we” domination is less likely. This outside view would also be helpful for understanding the environmental system, especially since animals and plants voice their own interests.
“…particularly under the impact of economic recession, the claims of the poor in the United States today are being weakened by a resurgence of the rhetoric of contract” (Fraser Gordon 64). After watching the Republican Presidential debate it seems clear to me that the perception of welfare in terms of “getting something for nothing” is still a widely held belief, particularly on one side of the aisle (GOP). Michelle Bachmann said that “Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society has not worked, and it’s put us into the modern welfare state…” She articulated what many of her GOP counterparts believe, that programs such as social security and medicare are failed government forays impeding on the rights of United States citizens. They hold that the coercive nature of these government programs are intolerable. Moreover, Ron Paul at a Republican Presidential debate earlier this year yearned for a return to the days when churches and charities would pay for the healthcare of those who couldn’t afford it, not the federal government. This encapsulates how the majority of the GOP view social programs, they see them as charity, and as Fraser and Gordon describe, “charity came to appear a pure, unilateral gift, on which the recipient had no claim and for which the donor had no obligation” (59). By defining these social programs as charity and not as the rights people are entitled to as citizens of the United States of America, the GOP is able to curtail the obligatory nature of said benefits and relegate them to optional. Some of the candidates have also agreed with Governor Rick Scott’s plan to drug test the people of Florida who are receiving welfare benefits. This concurs with Fraser and Gordon’s notion that “recipients of public assistance have often found their civil rights curtailed” (62). While the majority of Americans may accept social programs (Washington Post poll found Americans favored universal healthcare over the current employer based system 2-1) the Republican Presidential debates highlight the fact that the discourse on this issue still remains lively.
In South Africa, there is a war going on between poachers and wild game preservation advocates; one side violently poaching these animals for their horns, the other trying to prevent the over-poaching of these animals.
http://cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2011/11/14/curnow-safrica-rhino-war.cnn.html
While everything seems to be for a good cause (after all, aren’t we just being responsible for our human actions), but I think it may be intersting to ask: why do people want to save them? Would Leopold say, saving the Rhinos restore/bring the balance back to the nature in South Africa? While he wouldn’t oppose one or two rhinos being poached (maybe not for the same reasons, but for survival), I do think that perhaps obliteration of a whole specie would speak as a reason to see the poaching as an overuse and exploitation of land and members of nature.
Guha may see the war against poaching as a part of Deep Ecology movement, and maybe an unfair assessment of poachers on part of the anti-poacher advocates and wild game sympathizers. After all, what encourages poaching on these animals are economic motivations, and although they are illegal activities, perhaps the issue of poaching is speaking for an underlying economic issue between first worlds, second world and third worlds. Guha may say the scientists and sympathizers can afford to sympathize, while the poachers are merely trying to make a living in what way they can-by exploiting nature.
Naess might see poaching as a consequence of industrialized worlds corruption of nature. For instance, he may say that before there was a natural balance between nature and people; a cycle of sustainable development of land by people. However, because the economy has demands for rhino horns, people see it as an alternative to living in harmony with nature.
In all, whether it is driven by economic/political/personal reasons, I feel like people are responsible for preventing some species from going extinct, especially if human activities caused it in the first place. Some environmental movements and activities are I think beneficial, whether or not they have an ulterior motives benefiting people.
Guha’s four critiques in their most basic conceptual form are descriptive of the diehard American environmentalist. As a double major in PitE (Environmental Studies) and Poli Sci, I feel I have a pretty comprehensive understanding of environmental sentiment in the U.S. and have investigated the various paths the movement has taken since its uprising in the ‘70s. From a universal perspective, Guha’s idea of the “deep ecologist’ does in fact describe many forerunners in the movement, however, it is not fair to make these assessments regarding the efforts of the nation as a whole. Although I agree with some of Guha’s most basic points, specifically the shift from anthropocentrism to biocentrism, he provides a different interpretation for the intent of these strategies in employing environmental stewardship. While Guha finds the shift to biocentrism useless to understanding American’s hand in environmental degradation, it is symbolic in of itself. It is important to lead the movement with an eye toward the integrity of nature, as Leopold would condone. Although this does not provide a “tangible connection” to how our lifestyle and political/economic structures inflict consequence on the environment, it is important to instill some sense of responsibility and value to the environment to be able to instigate change in lifestyles and institutional structures. If the American citizenry cannot assign some kind of importance to the biotic world, then little to no attention will be paid to the connections between their actions and environmental degradation.
Perhaps a possible source of Guha’s criticism of American “deep ecologists” is itself reason to legitimize my distaste for how he generates his argument. It seems as though Guha is making an overarching point that American “deep ecologists” or those pioneering a superficial environmental movement form their sentiment toward nature from a shortsighted, inconsiderate perspective. Specifically, that they (we) think of environmental issues in solely an American context, forgetting to do a “shoe swapping” of circumstances where we think of how other nations/cultures value and interact with the environment and which issues they see as problematic. From Guha’s Third World perspective, he is accurate in lending criticism, but neglects to consider the political and ideological flux in the U.S. where stirring environmental consideration is at times trendy and others risky. After all, I’m not sure any nation, Third World or First, has a sufficient approach to saving the planet.
I read an article in the New York Times, “One Secret Buffet Gets to Keep” (below is link for those interested). This article details an odd rule that Mr. Buffet has utilized to conceal his investments from the public. Essentially, he “…received special permission from the S.E.C. to keep secret his investment in I.B.M”. This rule, as the article goes on to explain, is “meant to protect the investor…not the public” because disclosing the investment could increase the potential of shares rising too much, which could be detrimental to the investors’ goal. The article made me think of Dewey. Many think that his definition of public is far too broad. However, I think that his definition is sound and reasonable. He defines public to be anything that has indirect consequences and affects others who are not directly involved in the decision making process. While this definition may be broad, as this example shows, clearly a broad definition of public is needed. With Mr. Buffet’s estimated $10 billion share in IBM, this could have serious consequences for the public. However, a rule meant to protect the public is essential being ignored and the public was only made aware of Buffet’s investment at his discretion.
Additionally, even when the rule is implemented properly, it is still largely benefitting the wealthy, not the public. The rule is meant to do multiple things, one of which is to inform investors “…where big wheels are moving their money”. This rule has likely contributed to the dramatic up and down swings of the markets, swings that have wiped out the life savings of many Americans. Thus, it is clear that Dewey’s broad definition of public needs to be adopted. Anything that can have such serious consequences for the financial well-being of many Americans needs to be regulated and the public should be put before the investor, even if that investor is Warren Buffet.
“Most of today’s decision makers will be dead beore the planet feels the heavier effects of acid precipitation, global warming, ozone depletion, or widespread desertification and species loss. Most of the young voters of today will still be alive. Most of the young voters of today will still be alive…those who have the most to lose…were the harshest critics of the planet’s present management.”
This quote from the Our Common Future speaks directly to people our age, those who are beginning to realize the impact our political and economic decisions have on the Earth that we’ll need to survive in our future. It can be extremely frustrating knowing that many of our policy makers are out-of-touch with what will be our reality. In reality, this cannot be completely blamed on politicians. While our political system does have an immense focus on economic growth, the interests of the major players in industries which directly effect our resources also have heavy political sway. Their interests are clearly monetary gain, and we reap the benefits of their increased production through increased consumption/employment/economic growth, etc. However, I believe our generation has a deeper understanding that our resources are limited, and moreover that we are running out of them.
The biggest problem I see for the future of the sustainability movement is its politicization. For many conservatives the issue of sustainability is one in the same as environmentalism. Many conservatives are simply ignoring the facts about the depletion of oil, fresh water, and soil; not to mention overpopulation, climate change, and poverty (all issues raised in Our Common Future. The fact that we are consuming so much at such a fast rate, more than our Earth can supply, is not a political issue at heart. It is a problem of lifestyle and inequitable distribution of economic goods. We are fortunate to have been born in a country which can provide far more than our needs require, but to ignore that the majority of our planet’s population is not in this position is dangerous. I say dangerous because those who ignore our depleting resources, ignore the needs of those living abroad, and vote for politicians who do not see a need to change our consumption habits will drive the U.S. and the world into a dangerous global environment. If we continue living the way that we do, I do not suspect that the next major global military conflict will be over enemies’ development of nuclear weapons or something of that nature, but over resources. That is an ugly future for this country and for the world.
So what needs to be done to avoid such a future? I think one quote from Our Common Future is something that should be engrained in the minds of every single citizen and politician in this country, “We are now forced to concern ourselves with the impacts of ecological stress-degradation of soils, water regimes, atmosphere, and forests-upon our economic prospects.” Everyone must realize that we simply cannot sustain our economic growth through the consumption of resources such as we have. Aldo Leopold suggests that we must take on a new consciousness for the land, a “land ethic.” I believe this is truly what needs to happen in order to avert an international scramble for resources, international political cooperation to develop more sustainable habits will not be enough. Real changes must be made to the way we think about consuming resources, the lives we live are unsustainable, each of us has a share in this responsibility. Without changing the way we think about the use of natural resources, we will continue to think about them in the sense that they are lifestyle-giving, not life-giving. This, of course, is a major change in the way we live our lives, the way we view the world, and the actual quality of life we have; but our options are limited. The development of the industrialized nations has already had an enormous impact on the Earth, we cannot turn back the block, so it is time that we learn to live with the cards we were dealt. It will not be an easy change for us to make, but in order to prevent a global crisis, it is a change that is necessary.
In light of the recent Bohman reading, the Great Lakes Water Compact provides an excellent opportunity to test the practicality of Bohman’s assertions. In particular, Bohman’s point that social contract democracy is no longer applies in a global setting stands out in the Olson reading.
Olson makes a strong case against a problematic 2005 Compact. Of the various defects mentioned in Olson’s critique, his mentioning of Riparian Rights and Climate Change neglect reflects his position that policy makers lack a proper “internal view”—an fault that will result in many laws inadequately contending with the “known unknown” and “unknown unknown” consequences that will follow the enacting of the GLWC. To remedy this, Olson continually advises the GLWC convention to revisit the Compact to ensure that it accounts for commercial, local, and international possibilities. Yet, as hard-hitting as his critique is, Olson proves Bohman right: Olson’s critique does not call for a nation-wide discussion, thereby excluding the nation from properly participating, let alone the world.
To address the exclusive structure of the GLWC, I make an inclusive inquiry open to the class: What would Bohman do?
Democracy: Ideas and Institutions 