We cannot rely on the institutions that once made piecemeal and
incremental reform possible. The only
route left is to disconnect as thoroughly as possible from the consumer society
and engage in acts of civil disobedience and obstruction. The more we sever ourselves from the
addictions of fossil fuel and the consumer society, the more we begin to create
a new paradigm for community . . .
We must stop being afraid. We
have to turn our backs for good on the Democrats, no matter what ghoulish
candidate Republicans offer up for president.
All the public disputes between candidates in the election cycle are a
carnival act. On the issues that matter,
there is no disagreement among the Republicans and Democrats. We have to defy all formal systems of power. We have to create monastic enclaves where we
can retain and nurture the values being rapidly destroyed by the wider
corporate culture and build the mechanisms of self-sufficiency that will allow
us to survive.[1]
– Chris Hedges
The older tension in human affairs between conservative and liberal
based on social orientation is being replaced with the tension between
developers and ecologists based on orientation toward the natural world. This new tension is becoming the primary
tension in human affairs.
So too the political tension between empires and the colonies is being
replaced by an economic tension between village peoples of the world with their
organic modes of agriculture and the transnational corporations with their
industrial agriculture.
This new alignment should not be taken as if the ecology movement were
a New Left movement or a new liberalism.
For the ecology movement has moved the entire basis of the division into
a new context. It is no longer a
division based on political party or social class or ethnic group. It is a division based on the human as one of
the components within the larger community of the planet Earth.[2]
–
Thomas Berry
+++++
We are
slowly awakening to the realization of our profound alienation from the basic
sources of life. Since the dawn of urban
civilization and the agricultural base that made it possible some 10,000 years
ago, and with astonishing acceleration since the rise of industrial
civilization a mere 200 years ago, humans have been altering the life systems
of the planet. In the past, the scale of
human intervention was such that any resulting harms were limited in scope. That is no longer true, and it hasn’t been
true for some time.
Globalization,
dominated by transnational corporations, now rapidly threatens the possibility
of life that has flourished on this planet for some 3.4 billion years. At the very least, the extractive economy at
the heart of globalization is severely stressing the life systems and
diminishing the quality of life on the planet.
Humans have altered the chemical composition of land, sea, and air,
creating levels of toxicity that cannot be absorbed and altering Earth’s
climate. We are exhausting nonrenewable
resources, such as fossil fuel, as well as renewable resources such as topsoil
and fisheries. We are living in the
midst of the “Great Dying,” the largest extinction of species experienced since
life began.
We have
entered into what cultural historian Thomas Berry names “the terminal phase of
the Cenozoic Era.”[3] Our generation is experiencing a transition
to a new geological age on the order of the last major glaciation, what James
Knustler characterizes as “the long emergency.”
North Americans are witnessing the first signs of the shift: severe weather events, drought, wildfires,
crop failure, collapse of fisheries, and wars to secure access to diminishing
fossil fuel reserves. Other parts of the
world already are experiencing food riots, malnutrition, hunger, and lack of
access to clean water.
The Great
Recession of 2008 is the harbinger of a new normal in economic life. The prospect of endless economic growth is
dead. We are finally bumping up against
the reality of a finite planet that can only bear so much exploitation. The “American Way of Life” was never sustainable
in North America, much less for the rest of the world. It was a function of the soon-to-end
“Petroleum Interlude” and, even if it were not, we don’t have two extra planets
to spare so that the rest of the human population can enjoy the American lifestyle.
The
consequences of our alienation from nature are almost unimaginable, precisely
because they are planetary in scale, but they are increasingly hard to
avoid. For a long time, we were able to
benefit “here” from our exploitation of people and places “over there.” Now, we are running out of places “over
there,” and the level of devastation unleashed by the extractive economy can no
longer be contained within the areas of immediate degradation. We are learning the hard way that Earth
really is a single, diverse, complex, interrelated, self-reflective organism.
Through the human Earth creature,
the universe has evolved conscious awareness.
We are now responsible for the direction of the ongoing evolutionary
trajectory of the planet. Whether or not
it continues to be creative of increasingly diverse, complex, conscious life
remains to be seen. What will we
choose?
+++++
It is with
respect to this question that a new divide opens up in our political life. The answer turns on whether or not we accept
that humans must conform to the patterns of renewal intrinsic to the life
systems of the planet. Will we continue
the anthropocentric trajectory of civilization culminating in the domination of
Earth by transnational corporations, or will we return to a geocentric or even
cosmos-centric culture recovering a sense of human presence to Earth in
mutually life-giving ways?
This is the
deeper question that neither of the two major political parties governing the Pax Americana is prepared to acknowledge. This is because the parties are actually
proxies for the transnational corporations benefitting (at least, for the very short term in geological time) from
avoidance of the question. In all
fairness, however, the whole thrust of Western culture in its economic,
political, intellectual, and religious institutions serves to justify the
ascendency of the human over nature, if not the corporation over the planet, as
the very epitome of “progress.” Allowing
this question even to come to awareness threatens an intolerable degree of
cognitive dissonance.
Thomas
Berry describes our dilemma well.
Here we find that we are dealing with a
profound reversal in our perspective on ourselves and on the universe about
us. This is not a change simply in some
specific aspect of our ethical conduct.
Nor is it merely a modification of our existing cultural context. What is demanded of us now is to change
attitudes that are so deeply bound into our basic cultural patterns that they
seem to us an imperative of the very nature of our being, a dictate of our genetic
coding as a species . . .
The norm for radically restructuring
our cultural coding forces us back to the more fundamental species coding,
which ties us into the larger complex of Earth codings. In this larger context we find the imperative
to make the basic changes now required of us.
We cannot obliterate the continuities of history, nor can we move into
the future without guidance from existing cultural forms. Yet, somehow we must reach even further back,
to where our human genetic coding connects us with the other species codings of
the larger Earth community. Only then
can we overcome the limitations of the anthropocentrism that binds us.[4]
This is not
a matter of some specific aspect of ethical conduct: whether or not to allow
abortion under certain circumstances.
This is not a modification of our existing cultural context: extending the institution of marriage to
include same-sex couples. The corporate
culture can comprehend such changes within its overall project of global
domination. This is why Chris Hedges can
dismiss electoral politics in the United States as a diverting
entertainment. That is how it is meant to function.
What cannot, must not, be
comprehended by the corporate culture is the idea that humans were made for the
Earth, and not Earth for humans. On this
point, Barack Obama and John Roberts can readily agree. It is
no longer a division based on political party or social class or ethnic
group. It is a division based on the human
as one of the components within the larger community of the planet Earth.
+++++
From where,
then, is our help to come? It will come,
I think, from the “monastic enclaves” to which Chris Hedges refers. And those enclaves are emerging from a
process of conversion: a profound
psychic reorientation of the human to her place within the cosmos as Earth
creature.
The human
transition to a new geological age will require a new psyche and a new
culture. This will, no doubt, be a
painful and difficult evolution. It will
be a process of trial and error.
Already, however, the cognitive dissonance has become great enough to
precipitate a break with the established order.
We can no longer accept the status quo in the face of our suffering
Earth. The breaking of our heart opens
the possibility of a new way of being human.
Along with
the fear and even despair that accompanies recognition of the dire consequences
of our alienation from nature, there arises a deep longing for
reconnection. The awakening of this
desire initiates a kind of conversion if our desire for wholeness is stronger
than our fear of change. The truth is
that we desperately want to be at home in the world again – the real world, not
the fantasy world of corporate culture in which anywhere can be exploited
because we are rooted nowhere.
Our
rootlessness is making us sick, and some of us know it. It is cutting us off from the vital energies
and consolations that come from knowing who
we are and where we are. Authentic creativity and care derive from a
sense of place. We can return home again. We were made for Earth.
As physical resources become less available,
psychic energy must support the human project in a special manner. This situation brings us to a new reliance on
powers within the universe and also to experience of the deeper self. The universe must be experienced as the Great
Self. Each is fulfilled in the
other: the Great Self is fulfilled in
the individual self, the individual self is fulfilled in the Great Self. Alienation is overcome as soon as we
experience this surge of energy from the source that has brought the universe
through the centuries. New fields of
energy become available to support the human venture. These new energies find expression and
support in celebration. For in the end
the universe can only be explained in terms of celebration. It is all an exuberant expression of
existence itself.[5]
The energy
to address the ecological crisis must come from our celebration of a new mystique of the universe. We must come to appreciate that all elements
of the universe are alive with a capacity for self-organization, individual
spontaneity, and profound communion. Our
fulfillment as human beings is intimately related to the well being of the
whole Earth community, and vice-versa.
This
appreciation, however, is not abstract or theoretical. It is a lived experience that requires
careful attention to our relationship to specific places and the patterns of
relationship that sustain life in those places over time. Even the “Earth community” is an
abstraction. I am not at home in the
“world,” except insofar as I am at home in this valley, this watershed,
perhaps, at most, this bioregion.
This is why
Hedges’ allusion to “monastic enclaves” is so apt. Many monastics take a vow of stability,
promising to remain in a particular place for the rest of their lives. It is understood that holiness – wholeness – requires
rootedness and the wisdom derived from knowledge of how to live well in accord
with the requirements of a particular place.
These requirements will be quite different depending upon the
place.
One cannot live well anywhere. One can only live well here. Despite the utility of
standardization, the allure of cosmopolitanism, and the rewards accruing to
social and occupational mobility, life can not be sustained without the wisdom
acquired through a long apprenticeship of learning the limits, requirements,
and possibilities inherent in a given place.
A new
national or international program imposed from above will not resolve the
ecological crisis. That is the hubris
that got us into the crisis in the first place.
The ecological crisis will be resolved as people “drop out” of the
global consumer culture and rediscover their home. Sustainability will emerge as new “monastic
enclaves” create local economies, local cultures, and local energy sources
congruent with the local ecology. Health,
too, is local.
At the same
time, however, these local cultures of ecological renewal will of necessity
need to be cultures of resistance vis-à-vis the dominant corporate
culture. It is no longer a division based on political party or social class or
ethnic group. It is a division based on
the human as one of the components within the larger community of the planet
Earth. The dominant corporate
culture will continue to colonize and exploit everywhere, and so will seek to
crush any attempts to become at home somewhere.
In the end,
the only thing that will save us is falling in love. If you love your home, your family, your
community, you will make all manner of sacrifices to save it. You will cultivate the spiritual disciplines
and the moral virtues necessary to sustain you in the struggle to preserve what
is worth loving. The invitation of the
ecological crisis is to widen the circle of love to include the whole Earth
community, and to exercise the creativity and attention required to discover
loves’ unique requirements in the place where we live.
And then,
do whatever love demands.
2 comments:
I am wrestling with this, John. How to live? But certainly, yes, to love.
Thank you.
Yes, how to live. I'm not sure I have the practical knowledge and inner resources to live well in the way I think necessary; that is the extent of my alienation. But I live in hope that others do and will, and I can do my small part to lift them up.
Post a Comment