SB: Re: Re: A destructive perspective from Wendell Berry (long)

[Strawnet@aol.com]

I wanted to respond to some of the very interesting reactions to the 
Wendell Berry piece. I realized that if you aren't familiar with Berry 
and where he's coming from, this little piece may seem disturbing and 
unfounded.  Derek raised some excellent questions that I want to address, 
and though I shouldn't be spending this much time at the moment doing 
this, I feel compelled because these are important issues that I hope we 
can reach some clarity about. When I read the piece I posted to the list, 
I had recently read Berry's newest book, Life Is A Miracle and just 
finished reading a powerful article in the Winter issue of Orion magazine 
entitled "The Idea of a Local Economy."  I would highly recommend this 
article for its depth of explanation of why we can't adequately deal with 
ecology without dealing with the disfunctions of the current economic 
system. It's from that perspective that I found what he had written to be 
both so powerful and important. 

I knew when I sent this that there was an aspect of it that was fairly 
harsh and for a number of people, not totally applicable, and as Derek 
points out, much of the discussion on this list is outside the realm of 
what Berry is so critical of in his essay. What differentiates them in my 
view is their ability to maintain a course that is aimed at creating real 
change in those systems, rather than just doing what feels good - which 
is often just to rail against them, and their proponents in anger, fear, 
or frustration, cementing the antagonism and bypassing more compassionate 
and constructive solutions.  I always am hesitant to offer pieces that 
are very critical of those of us who are trying to do the right thing, 
because I usually feel that we start with a couple of strikes against us 
in this system.  But I also have seen and occasionally participated in 
too many activities that have been ultimately destructive and 
counterproductive though carried out for all the right reasons.

Let me try to explain where I think we may be interpretting Berry 
differently.

>Although I agree with much in your introduction, I thought the Wendell 
>Berry piece that you posted was irresponsibly inaccurate and 
>advocates a stance that is antithetical and destructive to sustainability.

> >The Refuge is also under threat because we have no
>> energy policy, no agricultural policy, and no forestry policy that
>> is not  keyed to consumption rather than conservation. Why do we
>> not have better  policies? Because there is no organized public
>>demand.
>>
>> For this, I think, the conservationists must bear a generous
>> portion of  the blame.

>There is no justification given for this absurd assertion, and no 
>rational defense of it is possible (although irrational defenses 
>abound).  Conservationists have been pushing for rational energy, 
>agricultural and forestry policies during my entire life.  I think it 
>is part of a large-scale campaign, largely intentional, but sometimes 
>simply naive and confused, to discredit conservation and 
>conservationists, with the goal of decreasing their influence, and 
>allowing things like oil drilling and clear-cutting anywhere, 
>anytime.

Believe me neither Wendell Berry nor I are advocates or apologists for 
the folks who have such narrow and short-sighted, selfish agendas. But I 
don't think Berry is saying that conservationists have not been pushing 
for rational energy, agricultural and forestry policies, rather that 
their approach has been largely ineffective because they so often have 
viewed and portrayed the groups mentioned such as farmers (Berry has been 
living and working on a family farm for much of his adult life), 
ranchers, loggers and other land-users as the enemy. I added builders and 
developers to his list for obvious reasons.  And I have been guilty of 
this myself and still am embarrassed to think of some of the things that 
I have said and written over the years about these groups.  What Berry is 
getting at, I believe, is that we have not sought partnerships with these 
people where they could have been created, where there were opportunities 
to demonstrate that what we as conservationists are advocating is fully 
in their long-term self-interest, but instead have villified them at the 
same time we ate the food, wore the clothes, built our own houses using 
the products of their efforts. And as I have spent more time at this 
business of trying to sort these issues out and trying to get at the ways 
that we might create real and lasting solutions, I gain more respect for 
what farmers and ranchers and even loggers at least at one time used to 
know about the land and the places where they live and work. This isn't 
universal but I am often shocked to see how little many environmentalists 
know about where they live, their own watersheds, plants, animals, the 
local natural history or geology, the basis of their local economy, etc.

The tragedy that people like Berry have helped me to see is that as 
conservationists, we have done little to intervene in the destruction of 
the viability of small family farms, of ranches that follow more 
sustainable land use practices and don't overgraze their land, and until 
very recently with the advent of the certified lumber movement, of more 
sustainable logging operations. And this remains true as many of us have 
seen as the best efforts to do more sustainable development are 
automatically opposed by environmentalists, and criticized unmercifully 
for every goal that hasn't been totally met, whether unavoidable or not.  
It is only the past few years that there has been any real growth in 
interest in things like community supported agriculture, or supporting 
local economies by working overtly against the big chains, whether food 
stores, lumber yards, or Walmarts. 

Berry points out that we had people living on the land, people with a 
real and vested interest in its health, who were connected in a very 
direct and real way with the place in which they lived.  They were 
strongly influenced by the government, by the lending institutions that 
they became dependent upon, and the ag-industry to shift to 
non-sustainable practices that proved to be bad for the land and 
ultimately bad for the farmers themselves. And though many of us felt 
that these industrial agricultural practices were wrong, or destructive 
or even dangerous, I don't remember organizations like the Sierra Club or 
any of the other "wilderness conservation" groups weighing in on these 
issues.  They weren't "wilderness" issues or "nature" issues. 

People like Wes Jackson, who has stayed in one place for decades proving 
that there are much more sustainable ways to create agricultural systems, 
or Merv Wilkinson at Wildwood, a sustainable woodlot on Vancouver Island, 
BC who has spent the last 60 years proving that it is possible to 
selectively log an old-growth forest, taking out the annual growth of the 
forest every year for 60 years and still have an old growth forest 
standing there - these people are rarities and though some of them 
wouldn't call themselves environmentalists or conservationists, they 
represent a very different and very embedded-in-place approach to 
conservation and environmental protection - one that values at a deep 
level the productivity and importance of these activities as the basis 
for constructive use of land and resources.

I think this is the basis for Berry's assertion that conservationists 
share a large part of the blame for the lack of sane policies.  That is a 
harsh judgement.  But I think it is also a valuable one, because my hope 
is that if we can see that, it can be a catalyst for the real changes 
that must take place which includes a revaluing of the work of 
sustainable land-use. This will ultimately include taking back the 
control from corporations and from governments of our rights to healthy 
local economies tied to our neighborhoods and our communities - our 
places. Berry makes the point in his piece on local economy that only 
when there is local community self-sufficiency can we safely and 
healthfully talk about exporting what we produce.  He quotes Albert 
Schweitzer talking about this relationship in Africa, which is connected 
directly to issues such as deforestation, "Whenever the timber trade is 
good, permanent famine reigns in the Ogowe region because the villagers 
abandon their farms to fell as many trees as possible."  Berry stresses 
that the problem is in the system that has as a goal "as many...as 
possible."  As conservationists, it seems to me that we have only 
recently begun to address these issues in a comprehensive way.

>Bertrand Russell once pointed out that if you accept a falacy, you 
>can prove anything.  This is standard technique in essays like 
>Berry's.  So rather than argue against every errant point, I will 
>comment on a few.
>
>>> I made a sort of vow to myself some time ago that I wouldn't 
>support any
>more efforts of wilderness preservation that were unrelated to 
>efforts to
>preserve economic landscapes and their human economies.  <<
>
>Is Berry saying that he will only try to preserve wilderness if at 
>the same time we try to preserve our current economic landscape of 
>excessive consumption, greed and unsustainable lifestyles?  If so, 
>then any attempts at preservation will be overwhelmed.  Or is he 
>saying that some attention needs to be payed to economic issues.  If 
>so, then he hasn't been paying attention to the fact that most 
>conservation organizations have explicitly addressed this question in 
>most of their proposals for quite some time.  Meanwhile, the economic 
>advocacy position, which cries out that we must open the forests and 
>wildernesses for lumber cutting and oil drilling in order to provide 
>jobs, ignores the fact that these jobs are generally short term. 
>They do not sustain communities, but rather foster boom and bust 
>cycles, along with a migrant labor force, where many workers must 
>repeatedly move to a new exploitation site if they want to keep 
>working.  Is this the economic model that Berry endorses?

I realize here too that Berry's brief statements on some of these things 
could be read as Derek has interpretted them.  But Berry is saying 
exactly the opposite - that our policies in fact are based on consumption 
- not conservation, and that to create policies that will sustain, they 
must also work for the local (not global) economy.  I'm not sure how much 
Berry knows about the ways that economics have been entering the realm of 
environmental and conservation advocacy, but I'm sure he would be highly 
supportive of much of it.  But he is questioning things on a fairly deep 
level - let me quote from his Local Economy article:

"Unsurprisingly, among people who wish to preserve things other than 
money - for instance every region's native capacity to produce essential 
goods - there is a growing perception that the global "free market" 
economy is inherently an enemy to the natural world, to human health, and 
freedom, to industrial workers, and to farmers and others in the land-use 
economies; and furthermore, that it is inherently an enemy to good work 
and good economic practice.
...Aware of industrialism's potential for destruction, as well as the 
considerable political danger of great concentrations of wealth and power 
in industrial corporations, American leaders developed, and for a while 
used, the means of limiting and restraining such concentrations, and of 
somewhat equitably distributing wealth and property.  The means were: 
laws against trusts and monopolies, the principle of collective 
bargaining, the concept of one-hundred-percent parity between the 
land-using and the manufacturing economies, and the progressive income 
tax.  And to protect domestic producers and production capacities it is 
possible for governments to impose tariffs on cheap imported goods.  
These means are justified by the government's obligation to protect the 
lives and livelihoods, and freedoms of its citizens.  There is, then, no 
necessity or inevitability requiring our government to sacrifice the 
livelihoods of our small farmers, small business people, and workers, 
along with our domestic economic independence to the global "free 
market." But now all of these means are either weakened or in disuse. The 
global economy is intended as a means of subverting them."

Berry goes on to point out that since the government has defaulted on its 
responsibility to protect us against the "total  economy" (he defines 
"total economy" as "one in which everything - "life forms," for instance, 
or the "right to pollute" - is "private property" and has a price and is 
for sale"), and since we are in danger of losing our economic security 
and our freedom, the means of defending ourselves "lies in the form of a 
venerable principle: powers not excercised by government return to the 
people. If the government does not propose to protect the lives, 
livelihoods, and freedoms of its people, then the people must think about 
protecting themselves." 

To conclude, Berry says that Schweitzer's description of the colonial 
economy of the Ogowe region in Africa is in principle not different from 
the rural economy now in Kentucky or Iowa or Wyoming (and I would add in 
Alaska).  "A total economy for all practical purposes is a total 
government. The "free trade, " which from the standpoint of the corporate 
economy brings "unprecedented economic growth," from the standpoint of 
the land its local populations, and ultimately from the standpoint of the 
cities, is destruction and slavery. Without prosperous local economies, 
the people have no power and the land no voice."

I think Berry understands very well the points that Derek is making and 
would not argue against them. 

>>> I can't look at the crisis of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge except as 
>the result of
>a radical failure of the conservation movement over the last fifty or 
>so
>years:  its refusal to see that conservation as we have known it is 
>not
>an adequate response to an economy that is inherently wasteful and
>destructive; its apparent belief that nature or wildness can be 
>preserved
>merely by preserving wilderness; its inability to connect wilderness
>conservation with soil conservation or energy conservation or any 
>form of
>frugality...<<
>
>While being a conservationist doesn't guarantee any personal virtues, 
>the movement in general, and the majority of the individuals in it, 
>have been far more aware and critical of the waste in our economy 
>than the norm for our society.  The links between wilderness 
>preservation and soil and energy conservation are endemic to 
>conservation thinking and publications.  The overwhelming majority of 
>conservationists have chosen a lifestyle significantly more frugal 
>than their surrounding society.  And yet most recognize that just 
>being a little more frugal doesn't "get them off the hook."  Most of 
>us struggle with the contradictions of our beliefs and our 
>consumption, and continue striving to make a greater contribution, 
>while consuming less.  I wasn't alive 50 years ago, but I see these 
>questions addressed in the writings of conservationists from fifty 
>and 100 years ago.
>
>He asserts, with no evidence or justification, that conservationists 
>are not supporting local farmers, eating local products, nor 
>attempting to minimize fuel used in transportation of materials. 
>Whereas, in truth, those topics come up almost every day on this and 
>other green discussion lists as well as elsewhere.
>
>Berry uses an argument technique often called "straw men."  He 
>inaccurately defines his foe (conservationists), then discredits the 
>false image that he has created, and assigns this discredit to a 
>group that is very different in make-up and action than what he 
>describes.  This is common.  It is convenient to blame those who are 
>doing something about the problem, and blame them for not doing 
>enough.  It is common to say that those doing the most to solve a 
>problem are most guilty for it not being solved.
>
>Common, but irrational.  People and institutions who are increasing 
>the problem, and blocking the efforts of the people trying to solve 
>it, must bear a bigger part of the responsibility for our problems 
>than those striving to solve them.  Berry says that our problems stem 
>largely from  conservationists who are not sufficiently pure, green, 
>nor global enough in their thinking.  Those who are doing nothing, or 
>worse, those who promote the problems, he does not address at all. 
>Curious, isn't it.
>
>I am not sure what Berry's motivations were in writing the essay, but 
>the result is destructive to sustainability, rather than productive. 
>I am confident that David's goal is promote sustainability, and to 
>encourage us to think about the our weaknesses and contradictions, as 
>part of the process of improving ourselves and our efforts toward 
>sustainability.  Stimulating thought and debate is part of that 
>process.  But I find David's writings much more interesting and 
>thought provoking than this Berry essay.

I think Berry is not saying that our thinking is not pure or green or 
global enough, but rather that it hasn't been local enough and that we 
have not attended well to the needs of the people who's lives are 
directly intertwined with the land.  I must admit that I find myself in 
agreement with almost everything Derek says here AND still find myself 
affected by Berry's position.  And the only rational way that I can find 
to understand this for myself is to see that while there have been many 
brilliant writers on these subjects going as far back as Derek mentions, 
the leadership of this movement has often been much less than stellar, 
the efforts to get a handle on these incredibly complex and interrelated 
issues usually quite fragmented.  And yet I also know and deeply 
appreciate the progress that has and is being made: the way in which this 
movement is emerging into what seems to me to be a rapidly maturing state 
of heightened effectiveness.  And part of that, as again Derek very 
thoughtfully points out, is evident in the quality of the discourse that 
takes place among groups of people like those who inhabit this listserve 
and the greenbuilding listserve and countless groups and organizations 
and communities scattered around the world.  And in fact, it is the 
willingness of each of us to speak our truth, and do so in a constructive 
way, as Derek and others have done here, that gives me the greatest hope. 
 My motivation for sharing Berry's piece was my sense that there has been 
and still in many sectors continues to be separations between us along 
lines that are often created by the limits of our ability to understand 
each others' positions - whether within this movement or between it and 
the groups that we are trying to influence. But this is exactly the 
process by which we can escape the more common outcome, which is creating 
enemies or adversaries where we might find friends and allies. And that 
is the most central and important point that resonated with me in Berry's 
position.

Thank you all once again for the opportunity to engage in this process. 
And sorry for using up so much bandwidth.

David Eisenberg

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, send a message to:
   <strawbale-unsubscribe@crest.org>

or for the digest to:
   <strawbale-digest-unsubscribe@crest.org>

Please send any list administration questions to
strawbale-owner@crest.org