Category: Uncategorized (Page 6 of 19)

I’ve always understood hope to be a passive act. I’ve thought of it simply as “hoping for the best,” something that you thought about while you took no concrete actions towards whatever it is you mean by, ‘the best.’ This weeks readings challenged that conception, and really made me examine the ways that I have been thinking and conceptualizing hope.

Rebecca Solnit wrote in her article “Grounds for Hope,” that hope is “the belief that what we do matters even though how and when it may matter, who and what it may impact, are not things we can know beforehand.” She writes about hope not as something that we think about while we wait for things to work out, but rather knowing that the work that we are doing matters. The work that we are doing will lead to a better future, whatever future we can imagine for ourselves is possible.

This reading was placed directly in contrast with the reading “The Limits of Utopia,” by China Miéville in a really brilliant way. Miéville writes of the dangers of utopia and dystopia, and the dangers of allowing either view of the future to cloud our view of the present and of the work that must be done. “The Limits of Utopia,” begins with the line “dystopias infect official reports.” Miéville is arguing that the view that we have allowed to be shaped for us by mass media, a media often more concerned with making money for the most sensational images it can imagine. He argues that by allowing ourselves to be taken in by these stories, we are forcing ourselves into boxes that restrain what we conceptualize as realistic actions. We cannot allow our perception of realistic actions to be defined by a faulty reality.

This is the essential argument behind Solnit’s piece as well. She writes that “your opponents would love you to believe that it’s hopeless, that you have no power.” People love to paint horrifying pictures of the future. It’s compelling, it’s impossible to look away from. The problem with those pictures, though, is that they are so damn hard to look away from. We cannot be distracted from the reality that we are living through by dystopias that our opponents would like for us to believe. We must have hope. We must have action.

Solnit, R. (2017). Grounds For Hope. Tikkun, 32(1), 30-39. doi:10.1215/08879982-3769066

Rebecca Solnit provided me with a helpful framework for finding hope in a challenging and disappointing world. For her, hope is not about absolute optimism and trust but rather recognizing that in the world that surrounds us there is both hope and damage. This dichotomy or intersectional approach carries through her piece, Grounds for Hope. The now is an “extraordinary time” but also a “nightmarish time.” How is that so? It works out that understanding hope, as defined by Solnit, is accepting the threats to our privacy posed by major tech companies and to our environment exacerbated by climate change. Despite this darkness, we have to appreciate and find hope in the social justice movements that were established and did spread positivity and equality. These movements are examples of finding hope today. They did not ignore the cynicism and challenges that surround us but instead rooted themselves in it in order to grow from it.

As a lover of the environment and someone educated about climate change, it is often easy to lose hope while watching the people around you show no care or intent on providing for a better earth. It becomes easy as an environmentalist to take on the optimistic or pessimistic approach outlined by Solnit. Either to ignore the problems in the world and push one’s own agenda forward or alternatively, to accept your reality and do nothing. Hope situates one in the middle, where critical thinking and common sense exist. In this position, acting is still possible and acting effectively is possible.

Memory plays an important role in hope. Solnit suggests that the way in which we think about the past and tell of the past can change our view of hope in the present. If we remember the past as filled with failure and disappointment, then we cannot recognize the ways in which things have changed or possibly improved. She gives an example of the times when gay bars were raided because being gay was illegal. In order to move towards a future of marriage equality and justice for all sexual preferences, we must recognize the improvement from these times.

Such a mindset is necessary for our activism project. We can easily recognize a past in which divestment was rejected and ignored by the Duke University administration. Or we can remember a time in which people spoke our, conversation begun, and we were given answers. Since the administration claimed there was a lack of conversation among students about divestment and the affects of divestment were unknown, we as a new curious activist group rose naturally and other universities have pursued such a path. This is the change that we must recognize to continue holding hope.

Sources:

Solnit, R. (2017). Grounds For Hope. Tikkun, 32(1), 30-39. doi:10.1215/08879982-3769066

A common theme from this past week’s discussions and readings was the idea of hope. In the context of climate change, “hope” is usually not the first word to come to mind. Often, scientists and civilians alike, associate climate change with words and phrases like “catastrophic,” “we’re doomed,” or “If we don’t act now, we’re all screwed.” While yes, climate change is arguably the most pressing matter our world faces today, it is good to look at it through a lens of hope. In the words of China Miéville from his piece “The Limits of Utopia,” “we need hope as without an alternative how can we make change?” I think that’s a great line because its true, if we are looking at our issues like they are set in stone, how can we expect to fix them? That applies to almost everything in life, whether it be climate change, your job, relationship, you name it.

Another thing that stood out to me from Miéville’s piece was the idea that many people believe we have to pick between either a climate catastrophe or another financial catastrophe. Unfortunately, many people would rather see the world self-destruct right in front of them instead of watching their wage drop. Impractical, but unfortunately that’s the way the world runs today. As an economics and environmental science major, I inspire and feel like it is my job to prevent both from happening. And yes, contrary to popular belief, I do believe that is attainable. There is plenty of hope in a world full of environmental  wrongdoers. For example, the idea of “Conservation funds” and “Sustainable investments” are becoming more and more popular by the day. Goldman Sachs, arguably the worlds largest financial influencer, opened up a sector dedicated entirely to environmental and socially conscious investments. The list goes on and on. I guess if you were to get anything from this post is that the idea of “hope” that we preached these past couple of days is something you should actually have, not think you have. While its easy to look at all of our issues with a frustrated and cynical mindset, it’s better to take a deep breath and do what you can knowing that its all going to be ok.

Hope is vital when it comes to spurring action in any situation, including environmentalism. Without hope, there would be no incentive to take measures, as they would only feel pointless. And in a time where fossil fuel corporations, capitalism, the Trump administration, and climate change deniers seem to have a firm grip on policy, our efforts can feel futile.

I think it boils down to the question we briefly covered at the end of our last class: are Americans, particularly environmentalists, hopeful? Do we still believe that our future is bright? I believe the answer is yes. In fact, I believe one can argue that hope has become stronger after Trump was elected president. Just look at the American people’s response after Trump announced that the United States would pull out of the Paris Agreement. In the days after the statement, more than 1000 companies and institutions, including more than a dozen Fortune 500 businesses, over 200 cities and even states committed to the Paris Agreement. In fact, the most ironic moment for Trump following his speech that included the infamous quote “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris”, came when the mayor of Pittsburgh quickly retaliated, noting that Hillary Clinton received 80 % of the vote in the city, and Pittsburgh pledged to the Paris Agreement.

Protest in Chicago days after Trump announced the US would be pulling out from the Paris Agreement. Link: https://www.thenation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/chicago-climate-rally-trump-ap-img.jpg

This is only one of countless of examples showing that there is hope in our society. Social movements are still going strong, research in the field is still being conducted, and companies, institutions and grassroots groups are still exploring how to become greener, all of this despite the steps taken backwards by our current administration. And our persistence is because of hope; we believe we can make change even though the conditions are especially hard in today’s society, and we believe there is a future after Trump’s presidency that will present a greater opportunity.

As someone interested in environmental justice, I often see two types of discourse: academic and practical. Academics delve into abstract ideas and look at the big picture; they discuss countries, populations, the whole world as a unit. They theorize about what we — humans — must do, and they’re able to generate ideas and solutions at the scale of entire economies and cultures. And we need this sort of thinking because we have to dream big if we’re going to solve big problems; limiting our imaginations only limits what we’re able to create and accomplish.

But the danger of academic discourse is that it risks losing sight of the reality faced by the average person. I’m a highly educated individual with a vested interest in learning about these subjects, and even I have trouble getting through some of the dense, abstract writings I’ve encountered from environmental theorists. The problem isn’t that these writers are out of touch; it’s that they don’t realize that they need to present their ideas in ways that are accessible and relatable to non-academics.

On the other hand, practical discourse — by activists, nonprofits, teachers, community members — has the ability to cut through the noise and connect to individuals on a personal level. A good example of the benefits and drawbacks this is a politician giving a speech to their constituents: they speak directly to the people about problems and solutions that affect them directly, but they play it safe and avoid anything that would be perceived as drastic, extreme, radical, or otherwise too difficult and challenging to actually implement. Practical changemakers can sometimes be limited by realism — or, more often, fear. Radical change is difficult and frightening, and breaking out of one’s comfortable mindset and beginning to recognize and question the status quo is never easy. It’s fine to speak in hypotheticals, but when it comes to actually enacting change… it’s more easily said than done.

But we have to have both of these practices if we want to be able to actually take action on large-scale, status quo-altering problems. Our task must be to strike the right balance between big dreams and relatable, achievable actions. We have to be brave and ambitious enough to question institutions as absolute as capitalism, our system of government, societal expectations, and our cultural landscape — but we also have to approach these fixtures from an angle that unites people in hope and excitement rather than fear and visions of the apocalypse. Without the power of everyone acting together for a common cause, it is unlikely that anything meaningful will be accomplished before it is too late.

There is an important caveat to this vision: by the very nature of the structure of our society, there will be opposing clans in this struggle. China Miéville writes,

Rather than touting togetherness, we fight best by embracing our not-togetherness. The fact that there are sides. Famously, we approach a tipping point. Rather than hoping for cohesion, our best hope lies in conflict. Our aim, an aspect of our utopianism, should be this strategy of tension.

However, as Karl Marx has perhaps most famously discussed, those that are suffering and oppressed outnumber their oppressors by the hundreds — the people that will be at the forefront of the fight to stop climate change are more numerous than those that would cut down trees and destroy oceans and ecosystems if they thought they could make a profit. If these people — the downtrodden, the working class, the victims, the poor and forgotten, or even just those who care a great deal — can mobilize and realize the power of collectivity and solidarity, no oil company or real estate developer can stand in their way. This sentiment is everywhere in academic and activist circles, so I’ll close out with a few of my favorite examples:

To quote a popular (although incorrrect) paraphrase of the conclusion of Marx’s Communist Manifesto, “Workers of the World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!”

And from Rebecca Solnit:

“… power comes from the shadows and the margins, that our hope is in the dark around the edges, not the limelight of center stage. Our hope and often our power. “

“Together we are very powerful, and we have a seldom-told, seldom-remembered history of victories and transformations that can give us confidence that yes, we can change the world because we have many times before.”

References:

Marx, K. and Engel, F. (1848). Communist Manifesto. Moscow: Progress Publishers, pp.14-27.

Miéville, C. (2015, August 1). The Limits of Utopia. Retrieved from http://salvage.zone/in-print/the-limits-of-utopia/

Solnit, R. (2017). Grounds for Hope. Tikkun 32(1), 30-39. doi: 10.1215/08879982-3769066

Both the talk by Catherine Flowers as well as Annie Leonard’s piece in Tools for Grassroots Activists: Best Practices for Success in the Environmental Movement, share a common theme in that activism is hard work and requires a lot of dedication and putting one’s mind and soul into the effort.

Activism does not necessarily need to stem from a large group but rather from a small group of dedicated individuals, who are willing to go 100% for the cause. This is shown through the 350 movement in which Bill Mckibbin and a group of high schoolers decided to take on the problem of climate change by calling for a decrease of CO₂ in the atmosphere from 400ppm to 350 ppm. Despite the impracticality of this task, they were able to make a difference and make a statement that drove world leaders to action.

Likewise, Catherine Flowers was able to take a stance on the issue of rural policy and environmental justice and health in her hometown and make a change by gathering samples, collecting resources, and doing her own research. She fought for not only the impoverished community in her home town of Alabama but also all of the impoverished communities across the United States.

Both of these acts of activism despite being so different in nature and implementation greatly speak to my heart. Activism is not easy, yet it is necessary for change. It is always easier to continue with what has already been implemented as opposed to starting something new and taking a stand against the wrong in the world. However if we want to be able to stand tall when we die and be able to look our children in the eye with confidence, the motto by which we should live is: How can this action impact 7 generations to come. If the answer is positive, then by all means go for it!

I thought that Catherine Flowers was super badass! She is so incredibly humble and laid back for someone who is as accomplished and acclaimed as she is. A lot of what she said resonated a lot with me because I spent the summer teaching in Conetoe, NC, which is an extremely rural and impoverished town in Eastern NC. She discussed the lack of policy for Americans living in poverty in rural areas. Most of our welfare efforts and policies tend to be focused on urban areas. I definitely witnessed this in Conetoe, where many of the kids I taught lived in trailers and other poorly built housing structures. She talked about the racial disparities and inequalities that are so widespread through these rural areas, and that was also quite evident in Conetoe. Conetoe was about a 10 minute drive from Tarboro, a small town that had a lot of wealthier white families. There was a clear line between the end of the wealthier suburbs of Tarboro, which was filled with charming old Southern houses with white picket fences, and the poor neighborhoods of Conetoe. She also talked about climate refugees, specially citing some communities in LA on the coast. Princeville, a town slightly east of Conetoe that is also quite poor, was devastated by floods from Hurricane Matthew, and that caused many people to be displaced from their homes as well.

There was one thing that Catherine said that I did not quite agree with on all fronts. She said that she didn’t think there should be a push to move people into cities. She said people who are living in rural areas are there because they want to stay there. However, I have mixed feelings about this. It’s obviously not my place as a white, upper middle class girl who grew up in very white, upper middle class suburban neighborhood to form any sound judgement on this matter. However, the director of the Conetoe Family Life Center (the education organization that I worked for) did have a differing opinion, and I do think that he had the experience to back up his opinion. His name is Dr. Garrie Moore, and in the past couple years, he and Reverend Joyner have completely transformed the town of Conetoe through their Family Life Center. Conetoe was a food dessert with poor health rates and no summer or after school opportunities for children. The CFLC has drastically helped change all of this through its garden and education programs. Dr. Moore has spent much of his life in eastern NC, in both more rural areas like Conetoe and more urban areas like Greenville (a city about 25 min from Conetoe). For the past year, he has been ardently working on a vision of his to start a charter boarding school in Greenville. He secured a location for it and has been trying to attain funds to hire top notch teachers. Once he establishes this school, he wants to move kids from Conetoe to this boarding school in Greenville. Why? Because he is ADAMANT that the rural community of Conetoe has nothing to offer for these kids. He told me time and time again that the urban setting of Greenville offered so much more for them in terms of both health infrastructure and opportunities. He said it is so hard for children in Conetoe to stay motivated to continue their education and pursue a meaningful career. He frequently referenced one of the kids who went through the CFLC as a kid but then shot and killed a man a few years after graduating high school. I know that it is heartbreaking for him to see good kids go through his program but then not have any opportunities because of the rural environment that they live in. And after spending a summer with some of these kids, I wholeheartedly agree with him. I know that Catherine said that we need to change the infrastructure of these rural communities, but in order to have them offer the same opportunities and benefits as urban areas, we really will ultimately just end up converting them to cities (which I feel like Catherine is against, since she valued the historical importance of rural settings). Rural areas need improvements in education, housing infrastructure, medical/health centers, and food options. Also, rural areas are not as sustainable as cities. Catherine said that her family all lives in the city but still owns their historically owned land, but no one is living on it. When we are running out of arable land to use to house and feed our growing populations, it seems problematic to me to hold on to land for sentimental value.

I’m definitely way beyond word count, but I do want to emphasize that I did love her lecture despite having a few qualms with her beliefs on rural environments! I thought that what she said about climate gentrification was extremely interesting and concerning — I had not really heard about it before, and I think it is problematic that more people aren’t talking about it because it seems like something that we really need to fight. I also really liked her idea that anytime we act, we should look at how it would impact seven generations from now. Lastly, I loved that she said we need to find something to hold onto to give us hope, “even if it’s your dog”. I think that remaining positive/hopeful is one of the best things you can do for yourself in any situation, but especially within the context of environmentalism.

Eeek! I just realized I forgot to do last week’s blog post on mapping! Being in Australia for 10 days threw me off my blogging game, I promise I will not miss another one! Here is my mapping one:

I thought that the presentation on GIS/mapping as a ~radical tool for activists~ was pretty awesome!! I have to say, I went into the presentation with a supreme negative bias. I took an intro to GIS class in the very Carolina Hall that they talked about, and I HATED it. I loved my professor and I loved my TA, but I just despised ArcMap and QGIS. QGIS always crashed at the worst possible moment for me (i.e. every time I was almost finished with a quiz but had also been woefully remiss in saving my work), and I was in the GIS lab from 3 pm – 12 am on one afternoon georectifying images of of Wake county circa 1950. It was dreadful.

HOWEVER, my perspective on GIS and mapping was positively changed after the mapping for social movements presentation. First of all, I didn’t know there were so many applications of mapping. Maps can be used as representation, as communication tools, as a universal science. There are so many different forms of GIS that I had no idea existed, despite taking a class on it. Critical GIS, feminist GIS, participatory GIS, the list goes on. They also said a few bold statements that really made me think maps were pretty cool. They said “Maps never need to be considered finished” – This made me feel like maps are one big adventure that you can just continue to add on to as you keep exploring. They also said, “All maps are sort of fictions… map to make the truths that we want or find useful. Map to call the world we want into being” and “Maps = storytelling platforms”. These statements were particularly interesting to me because I actually work on a storytelling campaign. I work for an education organization called My Name My Story, and we recently launched a storytelling campaign called “Voices”, that aims to showcase the raw beauty of the human narrative through short videos. It has absolutely nothing to do with mapping, but after hearing this presentation, I have been trying to figure out if/how we could incorporate mapping into our campaign because I just think the idea of maps as a storytelling platform is so fresh and unique. I’m also trying to figure out how I can use maps for my algae farm. Potentially mapping all of the algae farms as we expand! I’m also really excited to map the Greenpeace social movements for our class project. I remember my UNC environmental advisor telling me that GIS is the future of environmentalism. He said that GIS can be applied in so many different environmental health contexts, and that is why I decided to take the intro to GIS class. I just hope that the renewed excitement I have for GIS after seeing this presentation doesn’t become once again deflated when I actually begin to take a stab at the computer mapping software again!

Coming from a small rural community, when I heard Catherine Flowers discuss the issues that Lowndes County in Alabama faced, and some of the solutions that people have offered her, I was appalled.

        The impact on rural living is something that is well documented when it comes to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. People living in these rural areas have to drive farther to get the items essential for survival; therefore, they find themselves driving much more than people in the city, which means they are larger contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. However, one of the interesting aspects of Catherine Flowers discussion that infuriated me was when she met with a politician who stated that it would be easier to move everyone away from the rural countryside and put them into cities. I found this statement to be truly galling because of the lack of insight into what the lifestyle means to most people living in rural communities. My family has farmed almonds for over 100 years in the Sacramento Valley, and all of what we do is tied to our rural roots. If someone dared to try and remove us from where we have lived for over 100 years, I do not think we would listen and would remain where we were, planted as firmly as our trees.

        The other aspect of the talk that I found interesting was the rediscovery of hookworms in the United States. Hookworm was thought to be eliminated with the invention of proper sewage and treatment facilities. Despite that being the claim, it was rebuked when Catherine Flowers went into Lowndes County and discovered that hookworm was able to survive in places where raw sewage was found. The discovery of hookworm is a fascinating juxtaposition of what the United States “claims” and what is happening. When one hears of hookworms, they conjure up images of third world countries that do not have the infrastructure to be able to remove all of their waste. The United States has one of the most expansive and advanced sewage treatment facilities in the world but overlooks the rural communities having the access to them. I thought that the phrase “rural justice” was fitting because of the findings that Catherine Flowers and others discovered shed a light on the way that rural communities are thought about and how they have been left behind cities. What gives me hope for the justice of rural communities are activists like Catherine Flowers who voice their discoveries and refuse to accept the notion that rural communities will remain secondhand citizens.

Unfortunately I wasn’t in class for our discussion on Wednesday, but I was really inspired by our conversation with Catherine Flowers. The idea she presented that most caught my attention was that of rural justice. I am from a rural area, and coming to Duke has been an interesting challenge for me. Interesting because when I was in Lander all I wanted to do was get out of Lander, and get away from a culture that I saw as repressive and, in many ways, backwards. I saw coming to Duke as coming to the light. I would come to Duke, and everything would be better, everything would be perfect.

But of course, everything is not perfect. Every place has their problems, and every place has things and ideas that you as an individual won’t agree with. But Catherine’s talk really made me re-examine the relationship that I have with my hometown. Being at Duke has made me love my hometown, but I often describe myself as “loving the town, less than loving the people.” And I would argue it’s really easy to fall into those patterns of thinking. To disagree with the ideas and ways of thinking that dominate in a place, and to write off that place altogether. But it’s important to think of the ways in which our rural communities are struggling, and how those struggles inform the ideas and identities that form within communities.

When I was looking up information about rural justice, I came across some interesting finds. According to this article from the National Committee For Responsive Philanthropy “since 1970, the jail population in rural counties has expanded sevenfold – twice as fast as urban counties.” When you look at maps of oil drilling in the United States it is overwhelmingly located in rural areas. And anyone from a rural area has heard about the “rural brain drain” sweeping the country.

It’s easy to look down on small town America. It’s much harder to consider the systems that are shaping these areas and figure out what isn’t working.