On meaning

A four day break from writing has been refreshing, and I am happy to say that there are so many thoughts running through my head that there is plenty to write about for the next few weeks.

I went to the Michigan Social Justice Conference yesterday - there were several fascinating panels and discussions, with issues ranging from divestment and sex trafficking to the power of allies and workers' rights. There was also a workshop on the social justice issues of trash and waste, which Sherri and I were grateful to help with. The keynote speaker was writer and activist Derrick Jensen, whose essays I have been reading in Orion. He has written more than a dozen books and has thought deeply about issues of social injustice and the environment. He talked at length about the root causes of all social justice issues - as I have tried to articulate previously, most all of the problems we face in the world stem from the same moral and ethical deficiencies. One of the key roots he said, was the issue of meaning.

Jensen is influenced highly by Native American cultures and traditions. These cultures had survived for several thousand years in harmony with their environment (let's avoid discussion about the ecologically noble savage here). He talked about how having lived in a place, these people assigned meaning to everything around them, from the trees to the salmon. The meaning that is assigned to these different sides of nature shape our perceptions of what it is that promotes harmony and unity. For example, while walking through a forest, someone who thinks that trees fill a pivotal niche in the environment, by providing habitat for birds and animals, will treat it differently than someone who sees trees as a way to make paper and money. In one case, the broader environment is at the centre of consideration, and in the other case, the economy may be at the centre of consideration.

Jensen mentioned that what organised religion has done (one of them in particular he dislikes) has been to take meaning away from the visceral and tangible to the arcane and unphysical, i.e. god. This, he feels, has led to a meaningless worldly presence, and the domination of nature because of it. In the same way, he feels as if science has had that same domineering quality, which allows us the ability of violence against nature. This is interesting, because it wasn't even a few days ago that I heard on an episode of Being that before the very notion of god existed, only the notion of the other existed. What dominating notions of god and science have done have taken away the nuances of understanding of place and time, and the consequent designation of meaning to them. The constructs of science and many organised religions have embedded in them the notion just two things - right and wrong.

This past year has made me think a lot about place and time and the meaning of everything that surrounds me. Each one of us will assign different meanings to different sides of nature. That is okay. I just hope that there is a convergence of the outcomes resulting from these meanings.

Speaking of meaning, how much this past weekend has meant is immeasurable and beautiful.

It is spring. It is St. Patrick's Day. Don't just wear green.

Did you smell the air today in Ann Arbor? Did you hear the birds going absolutely nuts? For those of you who are not in this area, the air smelled sweet of mud and grass and melting snow and evaporating water. The birds are back in full force, ready to grace a new spring in song and energy. It is spring, the time when white and shades of gray give way to the spectrum of colours, from red to green. It is also St. Patrick's day, a day in which the only right colour for beer is green (eww), and the only right colour for clothing is green, too. Let's unpack this colour, this word. (Shout out to red-head Smitty!)

Much of this blog has been devoted to the understanding of words that we use to describe the environment, our interactions with it, and our interactions amongst ourselves. There are several important ethical assumptions we make when we use words like "developed countries" and "developing countries." I believe in the importance of using words only if you mean them, particularly if there are non-negligible implications of those words. (I hope I don't sound like a sour guy.) The more freely we use words, the more chance we give people to usurp the word to make it mean what they want to. This can lead to very tough situations in which you may be talking to somebody about something, and they may be understanding something completely different. "Green" is one more such word. It has been now used to describe cars and computers, air travel and tourism, extractive industries and new clothes. "Green" has been turned into a fad, just like "sustainable" has. To me, the true essence of the word in normal communication has now been lost. Call me masochistic (A very thoughtful and cool person has called me that. You know who you are =)), but many of the things people advocate aren't green, but are less brown.

I sometimes wonder whether the motive behind action really matters, as long as the desired outcome is achieved. People can decide not to pollute because they don't have to pay clean-up costs, or they may not pollute because they love the environment. But when push comes to shove, what are we willing to compromise on? Well, if something is going to cost money, many people will shy away from it, even though it may be less brown...just like Krista feels. Is the environment something we can compromise on to make the other kind of green?

I hope we can all think about this difficult issues, and not just use words (or dress a certain way, on a certain day) to make ourselves look good or feel good. Let's mean what we say. Maybe then we will mean what we do.

Language

This post is about words, meaning and language. Yesterday, I received an email from someone whose thoughts I value. He raised a couple of issues about my article in The Michigan Daily from the 10th of November, 2010. This post is in no way intended to be an attack on him or anyone who feels the same way he does, absolutely not; the points he raises are legitimate, and I want to address them and provide clarification and context to the article. Hopefully we can have conversations about this.

First, he raises the issue of my usage of words. If you've read the blog, you might have noticed that I have a tendency to use quotation marks around some words, for example words like "developing country." I would like to explain why. In talking to many professors, students and others about concepts and issues "sustainability," people's perceptions about what that word means, or even at a lower level, what the word "environmentalism" means, changes from person to person. Many of the words used do not have set  meanings, leaving them ripe for, for lack of a better word, kidnapping to mean whatever people want the word to mean. It really bugs me how people use the word "sustainable" or "green" in whatever way they choose to use it. But what this means is that definitions are fuzzy, and are constantly evolving. In fact, many of the conversations I've had with various people, from urban planning to natural resources, have revolved around developing a common language that we all can relate to and understand.

On the other hand, you have words that the world has for some reason come to accept, which I have not. In the article from yesterday, in the third to last paragraph, I used quotation marks around "modernization." This may give off the impression that other people use the word incorrectly, that the word doesn't or shouldn't mean what it is generally accepted to mean. Other examples, again, are words and concepts like "developed country," and "developing country." These words are loaded with value judgements, and have been defined by people who wish to place their values on others not like them, particularly in the context of imperialism of all sorts - cultural, economic, etc. I used quotation marks because I don't like how "modernization" is used. I want to point out that if you use "modernization," the average person will say that this means increase in income, owning a TV, car, and computer (necessarily involving trash in the case of the article in the Daily). What some people might also say is that it also relates to changes in social structure. But modernization to the world is absolutely a Western-style modernization. I think there can be other sorts of modernization, like living harmoniously with nature, place and people, without necessarily violently extracting resources from the Earth and leaving degradation behind. That is the modernization I wish to see. This is at some level why I do use quotation marks - to point out that there can be alternate definitions to those widely accepted.

The second issue he raised was about my explanation of sacrifice. I mention that when we sacrifice, we choose to make something sacred. With my no-trash project, I have sacrificed new clothes, and an iPhone. But I would like to think that what I have made sacred are the Earth, people, and natural resources sacred. In her mind, what I am doing is not sacred, and that talking about sacrifice could make people think that I think I am a martyr. I absolutely don't consider myself a martyr, and I hope those reading this blog don't, either. Here is why I talk about sacrifice. An example is worthwhile.If someone has been smoking and realises that it is bad for them, they quit smoking. What they have chosen to do is consider their body sacred, directly, and the bodies of others around them sacred, directly or indirectly. I have absolutely sacrificed things and experiences with trying to live trash-free. Any choice we make involves some sacrifice, what economists would like to call "opportunity costs." I don't like the use of technical jargon for stuff like the Michigan Daily, so I choose to use the word "sacrifice," because at least in this case, it fully encapsulates what I'm trying to get at. Further, it is something we all can relate to. We all, well many people, sacrifice, all the time. I am not insisting that everyone go trash-free, although that would be nice. What I am indirectly saying is that if there is to be any change in our society, sacrifice of all kinds will be a must - sacrifice of coal, sacrifice of rare Earth metals, sacrifice of "convenience," etc.

Lastly, he questions why I chose to talk about philosophy, rather than provide concrete examples of how people can themselves reduce their trash. I think that for any sort of durable change, change which people internalise and think constantly about, there has to be more of a connection than saying, "Don't use plastic bags." Therefore, I chose to explain why I am doing what I am doing. I know everyone doesn't share my philosophy, but I think it is important to explain myself before people make their judgments about what I'm doing.