Changing Your Mind in Late Capitalism

Tim Weiskel

Changing Our Minds

      It is not what we are forbidden to think, but rather what it doesn't occur to us to think, that limits our alternatives for the future. Nowhere is this problem more apparent than in the challenge Americans must now confront in reformulating the meaning of the "American Dream." Until we can learn to redefine the American dream as something that can overcome and displace the mindless consumerism of our current culture, we will have slim hope for survival on a planet driven to endless resource wars.

      In short, we need to act now to change our minds. We need to reverse the logic and direction of consumer culture, and we must learn to stand in solidarity with those who are protecting the earth and its resources from accelerated consumption. It is not only the current White House that has failed to understand the warnings of the Pentagon. It is the American public as well. The avenue of recruitment to the White House requires a constant and repeated affirmation of the politics of perpetual growth. But Americans continue to elect this hollow version of the American dream only because they lack the imagination to define a more powerful and compelling vision of learning to live sustainably on this precious and precarious planet.

      Without such a vision, and a life-long dedication to make it a reality, the prospects for our survival in the coming century and beyond are not very hopeful. The Chinese have a saying: "If you do not change course, you will probably end up where you are headed." This is a sobering truism. Clearly, if we wish to survive, consumer culture must change its course. Moreover, in this effort our contemporary "leaders" will be of little use. It is citizens who must stop, think and then learn to take the lead, for when the people lead, the leaders will follow.

      Yet simply declaring the need for populist leadership in such matters does not achieve anything concrete.  In fact, popular beliefs may prove to be one of the biggest obstacles we face in moving toward a sustainable society.  In the Western world our fundamental belief systems are deeply implicated in our misperception of the natural world and our appropriate role within it.  It is perhaps useful to review our circumstances, our beliefs and the kinds of transformations of these beliefs that will be required if we wish to survive much longer in the ecosystem.

While "Angels Weep..." [1]

Our Circumstance:

       We live on the third planet from the sun, our closest star. As stars go, it is not a very big one. Nor is the planet, for that matter. Even with gadgets of our own making it can be circled in an hour or so. It's a pretty small place to call home in the vastness of all that we have come to know as creation.

       Yet home it is; and an extremely vulnerable one at that. Most of the planet is covered with water, some of which periodically turns to ice in the high latitudes as solar radiation and the planet's orbital trajectory vary over time. Moreover, the planet is enclosed in an improbable envelope of gases whose precise proportions -- essential for our existence -- can only be maintained through the continuous metabolism of countless life-forms on or near its surface. Species, populations and communities of these life-forms co-evolve over time in response to the alternate rhythms of ice and warmth and the variation of habitat created by drifting continental plates, changing sea levels, and shifting regional climates.

       Humans are a recent arrival in the community of life-forms, prospering during the inter-glacial periods only over the last million years of a three billion year continuum -- that is, in roughly the last 0.03% of life's unfolding drama. Moreover, it now seems probable that we will not endure any longer than many of the other transient life-forms that have left traces of their bones or behavior in the sands and sediments of time. The capacity for intelligence which humans possess may not prove to be an adaptive trait in the long run, especially since human intelligence is frequently deployed to kill fellow humans or extinguish other life-supporting organisms crucial for long term human survival.

       In biological terms humans provide no essential functions for the survival of other large communities of life-forms -- save, perhaps, for our own domesticated animals, plants and parasites. If we disappear it is probable that wheat, rice, cattle, camels and the common cold virus will not survive in their current forms for very long. But the vast majority of the earth's organisms can do perfectly well, indeed perhaps thrive even better, without us or our biological associates.

Our Beliefs:

       None of this is news. Common sense and a junior high school education can impress this much upon our minds. Yet the curious fact is that we refuse to believe it. We continue to strut and prance about with a sense of supreme self-importance as if all creation were put in place for our benefit. As the zoologist David Ehrenfeld has observed, in spite of what science has revealed about our place in the universe "we still believe that the force of gravity exists in order to make it easier for us to sit down."

       From where does such arrogance come? How can our beliefs be so far out of touch with our knowledge? How can we maintain such an inflated sense of personal, collective and species self-importance?

       The answer, in part, is that Western religious traditions have generated and sustained this petty arrogance. A culture's religious beliefs are constructed from what that group has come to believe in religiously. Ever since the advent of cereal agriculture and with increasing intensity since the emergence of humanist thought stemming from the European Renaissance, Western cultures have come to believe religiously in their own power, importance and capacity to dominate and control nature.

       Some religious groups have transcribed and elaborated creation myths which serve to ennoble and authorize this illusion of domination. In these myths a supreme and omnipotent God figure (usually portrayed as male) is said to have created humankind and enjoined this species to be "fruitful and multiply" and "subdue" the earth. Moreover, it is often a feature of these traditions that selected human groups come to feel entitled, empowered or specially ordained by such a God to be his "chosen people." Through their actions and history, it is believed, this God allegedly manifested his intent for the planet as a whole. In short, human groups created God in their own image and generated divine narratives that accorded themselves privileged status in the whole of creation.

       If the monumental arrogance of such belief systems seems parochial and silly in our day, they are none-the-less understandable in the historical context in which they emerged. For well over 90% of human history, of course, the notion of humans conquering nature or subduing it was patently absurd. As a foraging species, humankind could only survive by developing a complex understanding of mutual respect and reciprocity with a broad range of other life-forms. We know little of their religious beliefs, but among human communities prior to sedentary agriculture there is little evidence of belief in human dominance over nature.

       With the advent of urban-organized cereal agriculture, however, the illusion of human control over nature appeared at least partially plausible and rapidly became widespread. Selective plant breeding, animal domestication and irrigation technology made it possible to capture large volumes of solar energy and accumulate multi-annual foodstuff surpluses. Simultaneously, the heightened ecological vulnerability of agro-ecosystems and the appearance of new forms of virulent disease caused sporadic crop blight and disease epidemics. These phenomena, in turn, made surplus foodstuff accumulation an absolute necessity for the continued survival of villages, towns, and cities. Access to arable land and a tractable labor force constituted the only assurance of continuous surplus, and the control of both these elements of production became the object of organized social activity.

       Competition for land and labor often took the form of open conflict and warfare, leading to the development of idea systems that valued conquest and subordination and inscribed these metaphors in the underlying structure of belief in agricultural communities. Hierarchy, power, control and domination were all real-life experiences for agricultural peoples, locked in the struggle to control land and labor. It is, thus, hardly surprising that these metaphors came to characterize the beliefs that these communities held to religiously in an attempt to understand their world and conceptualize their position within it.

       The illusion of control over nature received further emphatic support in recent Western history from the experience of European overseas expansion since the Renaissance. In the brief period of a few centuries, European peoples expanded upon vast and thinly peopled regions of the world, carrying with them their crops, animals, weeds, pests and diseases. These associated "biological allies" devastated native flora, fauna and human populations in large portions of the world, and western Europeans succeeded in establishing "neo-Europes" in regions of North and South America, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. As "white-settler" societies these groups often perceived themselves as "frontier societies," for it was along the frontiers of interaction with native species that these cultures experienced their self-defining moments of successful domination.

       Perhaps even more important, the history of this expansion has led Western cultures and the westernized elites in Third World countries to believe in the illusion of unlimited growth. The industrial revolution and discovery of fossil energy sources further sustained the belief in infinite growth. Having expanded upon the things of nature, modern mankind has come to believe that expansion is in the nature of things. This is not so, of course, but we are only now just beginning to discover that this cherished belief is a potentially fatal illusion.

Our Task:

       We need to change our habits of mind and action in the very near future. Furthermore, this promises to be a struggle. Abandoning the belief in growth will be difficult enough in the Western world, but it is likely to be even more difficult in the Third World because the dream of an expanding economy seems to be all that political leaders currently have to hold out as hopeful for the burgeoning populations of these regions. Any serious effort to question the economics of perpetual growth raises the ugly and disconcerting question of resource distribution and consumption. Political leaders are reluctant to address this embarrassing issue and prefer to stoke the fires of expanding Third World economic growth instead of the more difficult but necessary task of designing durable systems of steady-state economics.

       Mounting evidence concerning the role of humans in natural ecosystems indicates that the world ecosystem cannot long endure a wide-scale replication of the resource-depleting patterns of recent Western growth. Indeed, the science of ecology is suggesting that many other of our religiously held beliefs -- like the belief in perpetual economic growth -- are in fact colossal illusions. We cannot meaningfully subdue nature for very long. There are no permanent frontiers in an ecosystem. Unrestrained growth on a small planet is simply not possible. Human domination of nature is an oxymoron, for our "control" of nature can only be achieved by understanding its laws and subordinating ourselves to them.

       Most of our received theological formulations are pitifully out of touch with this current ecological understanding. In fact many religious leaders, like many politicians, actively resist the insights of ecology, for these ideas entail a fundamental reformulation of both liberal public policy and humanist belief in our contemporary world. Clearly there is much work for theologians to undertake in re-examining the received tradition.

       Yet even more than this will be needed because science itself has become the cornerstone of modern mankind's religiously held belief in human control. In our era, this kind of arrogant science, like the self-important religious traditions of the past, must be questioned by a new, ecumenical theology of creation and a realistic understanding of human agency. If we are going to survive as a species, we need now to develop a radical sense of humility and subordination to a re-sanctified and holy nature. Nevertheless, because modern science and technology often engender and sustain the powerful illusion of control, we are in danger -- as Shakespeare observed -- of being most ignorant of what we are most assured.

       Political leaders are equally guilty of the arrogant illusions that have characterized religious traditions and scientific endeavors alike. "Drest in a little brief authority" elected politicians have come to think that they are in charge of the world. In the public policy they formulate they play fantastic tricks with the world's resources for the reputed benefit of groups that elected them. But what of those who cannot vote for parliamentarians? What of future human generations? What about other species? It is no wonder that angels weep.

       The time has come for contemporary theologians to re-state some simple truths: we did not create the world; we cannot control it. Instead, we must learn in full humility to live with all other creatures within its limits. As it was once made clear to Job, it is not by our wisdom that the hawk soars and spreads his wings toward the south. Indeed, we are only beginning to discover the precious intricacy and fragility of the life webs laid down billions of years before we appeared. Realization of these simple truths could lead to a fundamental reformulation of public policy and our collective beliefs, both of which will be required for our survival as a species. Scientists, politicians and religious communities alike sorely need what theologians must now provide -- a positive vocabulary of human limit in a sanctified and sustainable creation. In short, we all stand in need of a theology for a small planet.

       It may be argued that devoting ourselves to questions of belief at this point is highly irrelevant to the fate of humankind.   Religious beliefs, so the argument goes, are quaint vestiges of previous worldviews, but they have little to do with the fate of nations, species or the planet at large.   While this might be the case for any particular set of beliefs, it is manifestly not true concerning religious beliefs as a whole.  Indeed, it can be argued that in the contemporary world public affairs are increasingly driven by contending forms of religious fundamentalism, even in putatively secular societies.

      To understand why this is true we need to adopt a broader vision of religious belief than can be defined by any one religious tradition. From an anthropologist’s point of view a society’s religious beliefs can be said to consist of those things which it believes in religiously.  Thus, it is not the “shape” or specific components of any particular belief system that define it as religious.  Rather, it is the quality of blind faith -- the devoted, unquestioning, and fully committed belief that characterizes a society’s religion.  In this regard it is apparent that the Western world is in the grips of a major new form of secular fundamentalism that can be described as “techno-scientific salvationism.” [2]   This represents the most pervasive and extensive form of religious belief in the modern world today.  Combined with a wide-spread sense of “exceptionalism” -- something which has been part of Western culture’s sense of self ever since the Hebrew self-portrayal  as the “chosen people” – our blind faith is that “thanks to science” we can dominate and control nature, turning it to our purposes, shaping it to our ends. 

What Can Be Done:

        College and university students can and should make a significant contribution to challenging this secular fundamentalism -- along with all other religious fundamentalisms -- that threaten the sustainability of the human prospect.   They need not -- in fact must not -- wait for their instructors to lead the way.  There are strong institutional reasons for the persistent lethargy and blindness on the part of the professional classes.  After all, as Noam Chomsky has pointed out for nearly fifty years, this intellectual class has a pronounced interest in the current state of affairs.   Would you expect useful insight about necessary change to emerge from those who are the primary beneficiaries of the status quo? One does not customarily find zealots and reformers amongst the high priests.

         There are, however, notable exceptions that can and should provide enormous inspiration for the task students now face in recapturing their education and redirecting it toward the goal of human survival.    In particular, students should learn more about the inspirational work of Henry Kendall.  A Nobel Laureate in Physics, Professor Kendall recognized that humanity was headed down the road to rapid self-destruction with nuclear weapons.  With his awarded gift from the Nobel Prize and his own resources he set out to found the “Union of Concerned Scientists” (UCS).  While its initial concern was with the development and spread of nuclear weapons, the UCS has, under Henry Kendall’s vision, the UCS emerged as a major public voice on environmental issues.  In 1992 Professor Kendall organized more than 100 Nobel Laureates to sign a collective document entitled the “World Scientists Warning to Humanity” which stated in unequivocal terms: [3]

“…human beings and the natural world are on a collision course.  Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on both the environment and our critical resources.  If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society….Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about.”

      Other examples are available from non-scientists.  Indeed, the leading religious leaders of our generation have long struggled for the kind of insight that is now so sorely needed to guide higher education.  The Reverend William Sloane Coffin, Jr. inspired many the Vietnam era to realize that they had to take hold of their own education and made sense of it in a way that could benefit the entire human community.  In 2003 the Yale Class of 1968 recognized his life-long achievements and honored him with the title “Permanent Chaplain” at their reunion. [4]    In 1968 – President George W. Bush’s Senior Year in Yale College – the number of American soldiers killed in Vietnam hit its highest figure ever.  The Reverend Coffin was among those who recognized the fundamental injustice of that war and went to trial and was convicted for aiding and counseling those who chose to resist the military draft.  In subsequent years he spearheaded the anti-nuclear movement as head of “Sane Freeze,” and he became one of the nations leading spokesman for rational environmental public policy.

      Following in the tradition of these and other inspirational figures, undergraduates at Harvard need now to take their environmental education into their own hands.  You cannot wait for the majority of your elders in pompous and endless committee deliberations to come to a recognition of the obvious.  You need to act now. 

      To begin with you could launch a number of efforts to initiate, support and sustain a public discussion of the need to move the public metaphor beyond growth toward that of sustainability.  Indefinite growth on a finite planet is not possible, yet virtually all public figures and every candidate for public office continues to spout the ideology of perpetual growth  -- often coupled with one or another variant of techno-scientific fundamentalism.  This ideology needs to be countered and refuted in the public sphere in a steady and cumulative fashion.  Harvard undergraduates can begin now to launch this effort by seeking to

·        Create an annual, “named” lecture series devoted to the unfolding global environmental problems and values.  If Harvard undergraduates could spend just 1/10^th the amount of time and effort in recognizing and rewarding work in this field that they do for the “Hasty Pudding” awards, the nation would take notice.

·        Request meaningful curricular reform to include required undergraduate courses in basic ecological literacy with emphasis upon the implicit values.  It is absolutely inexcusable for anyone to be able to receive an undergraduate degree while remaining ecologically illiterate, yet Harvard graduates hundreds – perhaps thousands – illiterates in this realm each year.

·        Edit, produce and publish an annual “Harvard Green Book” (2005, 2006, etc.) as a CD/DVD for wide-spread distribution.  This could include Gazette-like summaries of the major research done at Harvard by faculty AND students on environmental values questions. It also include regular updates on the “greening of Harvard” initiative and a profile of the Allston Campus’s environmental initiatives.   It could include as well any key documents published for that year – both nationally and internationally.  In addition, it should include video clips of key interviews, speeches or talks and conversations with environmentally significant people who come through Harvard each year to be heard.  The CD/DVD should be designed to “point” as well to the publicly accessible on-line database on environment and public policy. (See below).

·        Design, implement and sustain a permanent public archive of audio/video and documentary material on Harvard and the environment.  Prototypes for this exist. [5]    What is needed is undergraduate interest, expertise in computer technology and a commitment to transforming environmental education. Substantial funding for this kind of effort should be available if a three or four year trial could be launched to prove its worth.  This online facility should be developed as the permanent repository and substantiating database behind the annual Harvard Green Books.  

·        etc., etc.

     Harvard undergraduates should recognize the power that they possess as well as the urgency of undertaking this work and translate that combined vision into executing some concrete projects that would be of benefit to themselves and to all undergraduates for years to come. The stakes have never been higher.