This week has been extremely busy and, unfortunately, I have not had time to read a complete book this week.
However, I have had time to reflect on the texts I have been working on and evaluating their application, especially as it relates to the work I am doing on campus. I will also attempt to answer some of the questions I posed after last week’s blog post.
I began college as an Environmental Science major before switching to Women’s and Gender Studies my sophomore year. Much of the reason that I switched majors was the ethical gap that I found between a department that claimed that they were looking out for the greater good, and the unwillingness to understand complexities that would contribute to their understanding of what a better future could be.
My sophomore year, I attempted to start a student activist group called Common Ground focusing on environmental justice, particularly as it pertains to environmental racism and sexism. The group arose from a discussion at the Feminist Collective, where we discussed environmental justice. Later, we invited members from environmental groups on campus to participate in creating a group of social justice activists and environmental advocates to find a “common ground” in recognizing the ways that global capitalism and climate change disproportionately negatively affect women of color.
The result was less than productive–environmentalists stuck to their arguments about overpopulation and ethical consumption, and social justice advocates were just beginning to learn about widespread environmental racism. Although we were able to research extensively and create a series of informational posters, the group quickly fell apart. This week, I discussed the failure of this group with a friend of mine who works at the Center for Sustainable Education and was heavily involved with creating Common Ground two years ago. We discussed fundamental beliefs within environmentalism that threaten any real support of environmental justice practices and advocacy, and how our school prioritizes creating change.
This week I also had a project due about the demographics of my home town. In a 2014 survey, the median income in my census tract was over $106,000, and the “Black or African American alone” population was 0%. Over 98% of the residents are registered as white. My public school partakes in a variety of “environmentalist” activities, from growing our own produce, donating compost to local farms, and implementing an extensive recycling system, to building gardens built to clean run-off water and encouraging “ethical” consumption. We were raised to have a strong commitment to the environment and understand our responsibility to future generations in preserving the planet. Our collective commitment to a better future also extended to issues such as marriage equality and equal pay for women–the majority scorned “backwards” ignorance embodied in overt racism, sexism, or homophobia.
However much we may have collectively denied our racism, there were definite distinctions and hierarchies created around worthiness, trustworthiness, and value. These were manifested in interpersonal ways, (“I’m not racist but…”) as well as structural ways (high barriers to entry into “public” resources). When we learned that it is better to buy organic or local, bike instead of use machines, shop at local stores, use reusable materials, and support “earth-friendly” brands, not just for ourselves, but for the COLLECTIVE BENEFIT of the planet, and that to not do so was not just personally unhealthy, but also immoral as it was a direct violence against ourselves and our future, we also learned that certain ways of being are BETTER than others, by virtue of being less harmful and more forward thinking. Following this train of logic, those who were acting and existing more within the “better” ways of being (defined as being more conscientious, thoughtful, and kind) have some level of superiority (usually related to moral character or intelligence) than those who do not participate.
I do not wish to go through each recommendation and point out how the environmental “betters” are problematic. However, the majority of the “betters” 1. include activities (almost entirely) exclusively available to a privileged class (especially economic/geographic/gender/ability privileged) 2. do not challenge capitalist growth-oriented goals/power dynamics/commodification, and 3. do not identify causes of environmental degradation, choosing instead to cause further isolation through individualist environmentalist competition and resentment.
The book I am working on this week introduced me to the term “immanence” which Starhawk defines as “the awareness of the of the world and everything in it as alive, dynamic, interdependent, interacting, and infused with moving energies: a living being, a weaving dance.” This highly spiritual definition translates on a more practical level to me as an understanding that all actions have consequences, and since everything is connected, your consequences often extend far past yourself. Feminism might understand this through the lens of intersectionality–everyone is connected structurally and individually through power dynamics and norms–you cannot separate yourself from your social identities. Luisah Teish, the author of Jambalaya, recognizes that personal health is connected to collective health, and cannot be achieved without racial, gender, sexual, and class liberation. She teaches about spirituality, but also makes it distinct that unlearning racism and other oppressive senses of reality is crucial to truly having a positive investment in your own wellbeing, as well as the wellbeing of your community and the world.
If we are invested in a healthy, just future, we must also be invested in constantly learning what constitutes health and justice.
speakallowed 