Subscribe to RSS.
Become a Fan on Facebook
Follow on Twitter (Named #1 in US 4 Green)
Subscribe to Free Weekly E-Newsletter
Get on Elephant
Do Not “Forget Shorter Showers”: Why Personal Change Does Equal Environmental Change.
“WOULD ANY SANE PERSON think dumpster diving would have stopped Hitler, or that composting would have ended slavery or brought about the eight-hour workday, or that chopping wood and carrying water would have gotten people out of Tsarist prisons, or that dancing naked around a fire would have helped put in place the Voting Rights Act of 1957 or the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Then why now, with all the world at stake, do so many people retreat into these entirely personal “solutions.”
Derrick Jensen discusses the current difficulties of environmentalism and outlines a possible solution to influencing change. In his article, “Forget Shorter Showers: Why Personal Change Does Not Equal Political Change,” Jensen claims that the small lifestyle changes (shorter showers, recycling, limited consumption) have virtually no impact on the greater solution. Instead, it is the responsibility of politicians to make the shift to social and environmental responsibility.
“I want to be clear. I’m not saying we shouldn’t live simply. I live reasonably simply myself, but I don’t pretend that not buying much (or not driving much, or not having kids) is a powerful political act, or that it’s deeply revolutionary. It’s not. Personal change doesn’t equal social change.”
“The third problem is that it accepts capitalism’s redefinition of us from citizens to consumers. By accepting this redefinition, we reduce our potential forms of resistance to consuming and not consuming. Citizens have a much wider range of available resistance tactics, including voting, not voting, running for office, pamphleting, boycotting, organizing, lobbying, protesting, and, when a government becomes destructive of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we have the right to alter or abolish it.
Derrick Jensen is an activist and the author of many books, most recently What We Leave Behind and Songs of the Dead.
Forget Shorter Showers: Why Personal Change Does Not Equal Political Change” was published in the July/August 2009 issue of Orion magazine.”
This criticism of individual power is demoralizing and wrong. Change rarely begins with the government. It takes far too much time for any legislation to become active and when it is finally implemented, the policy is only a guideline for behavior. Additionally, the government lives within the deep pockets of big business. How can we expect change to come from a body willing to be influenced by another entity?
If we are really intent on making a statement and sparking change, we need to disrupt the economic flow. The little things (your decision to buy recycled toilet-paper or start riding your bike to work) send the loudest message. Every small decision you make effect the bottom line of corporations. If they see that consumers are no longer willing to impact the environment by driving high-emissions vehicles, they will change. Believe me when I say that the Prius was not created because Toyota has a soft spot for the environment. Businesses react to the demands of consumers.
So flex your influential muscles and mindfully exercise your power to choose!
Having read this article in its entirety in the current issue of Orion Magazine, this is a deeply flawed and stunningly incomplete critique of what is a well reasoned and well articulated article.
Jensen is not disparaging of individual change, nor is he suggesting that we not make individual changes, but that the current focus on shifting individual consumption patterns in order to influence the state of the world is bound to fail.
His central argument is that, in the face of the monumental challenges we are currently faced with, simply deciding to 'go green' is no substitute for political engagement. Especially when the overwhelming use of water (from which the headline comes) is by industry and agriculture, and the overwhelming majority of waste is produced by industry (and not, as we are led to believe, by individual consumers and municipalities).
Further, Jensen certainly does not 'criticize individual power' – in fact, he is a strong proponent of it – merely suggesting that political change comes, not surprisingly, by engaging with politics as opposed to purchasing recycled toilet paper.
There is nothing compelling or empowering at all in the author's comments that:
"Change rarely comes from the government. It takes far too much time for any legislation to become active and when it is finally implemented, the policy is only a guideline for behavior. Additionally, the government lives within the deep pockets of big business. How can we expect change to come from a body willing to be influenced by another entity?"
WTF? According to Thomas Jefferson:
"The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object."
And WHO is not 'influenced by another entity'? To suggest we should not expect change from a 'body' willing to be influenced by another entity is one short step back from suggesting that autocracy is more useful than democracy.
Cynicism about the current state of government negates the immense potential inherent in a democracy when citizens engage meaningfully and consistently with the political process – rather than throwing their hands in the air and declaring that 'it's all too hard'.
Political engagement gave you Obama. Revolution gave you the United States of America.
Jensen is opening an important discussion about the nature of democracy and stating, loudly and uncompromisingly, that driving a hybrid car, recycling or taking shorter showers, is a far cry from the Boston Tea Party this nation and the world at large seems to be in need of.
[...] more: "Forget Shorter Showers: Why Personal Change Does Not Equal … Related [...]
cameron–
I appreciate the additional detail and clarification. Perhaps the most helpful thing this discussion does for us is to remind us that personal change is not sufficient, we also need to be politically active. (This is a point that has been made before on this site.) Nevertheless, I think Elise has a valid critique to make. The point is captured in contrast to your claim:
Jensen certainly does not 'criticize individual power' – in fact, he is a strong proponent of it – merely suggesting that political change comes, not surprisingly, by engaging with politics as opposed to purchasing recycled toilet paper.
The point is that, apparently, Jensen sees personal change in opposition to social or political change. In fact, in the quoted portion of this post, Jensen states, "Personal change doesn’t equal social change." On the one hand, of course it doesn't: the person is a part of the society. But, on the other hand, of course it does! Society is made up of persons. If those people, in some widespread or critical way change their lifestyles, habits, preferences, etc. then society does in fact change. This is what is sometimes called the "zeitgeist" or the spirit of the times. And as we have frequently discussed here at elephant, the only reason politicians act is because they feel pressure from the people. So if the people are clearly and decisively moving in a certain direction, then that will influence what happens at the political level.
This means that our personal lifestyle changes have to be coordinated with political action. It's not one or the other, but both. The social or political revolution is a tipping-point that emerges from a critical mass of individuals making their own personal changes.
The deeper point, it seems to me, is that Jensen appears happy to compartmentalize our personal decisions and detach these from our social, communal, or political actions. I am personally quite opposed to this way of thinking. The fact is that the future we seek is one that integrates personal needs, desires, and preferences with the good of humanity, the good of our neighbors, our society, our planet, etc. In other words, our actions have to be deeply integrated, not compartmentalized. They must be personal as well as political. That's the nature of the revolution I am seeking. This means reforming my consumer habits, my interpersonal relations, my home and my work as well as becoming politically active.