| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
|
|
<
< | Re-drafting in progress |
>
> | Ready for grading |
| | Conspicuous Consumption and the Environmental Movement |
| | Premise: if we accept, for argument’s sake, that Veblen’s thesis in The Theory of the Leisure Class is correct, how can the environmental movement hope to survive in a world of conspicuous consumption? |
|
<
< | The Rise and Trvialization of Environmentalism |
>
> | The Rise and Trivialization of Environmentalism |
| | Although the environmental movement has existed in one form or another for the past 150 years, it historically has been a primarily fringe movement. While at times certain issues would capture popular attention, those issues inevitably faded from public consciousness. |
| | Conspicuous Shaming |
|
<
< | One strategy environmentalists have recently tried to adopt to promote their goals is conspicuous shaming: that is, working on a global scale to achieve environmentalism by pointing out how much the United States lags behind when it comes to sustainability. In a way, this strategy also plays on conspicuous consumption: “all of the other wealthy nations have time and resources to spare for this issue; why don’t you?” |
>
> | One strategy environmentalists have recently tried to use to achieve change is conspicuous shaming: that is, working on a global scale to achieve environmentalism by pointing out how much the United States lags behind when it comes to sustainability. In a way, this strategy also plays on conspicuous consumption: “all of the other wealthy nations have time and resources to spare for this issue; why don’t you?” |
| | |
|
<
< | Certainly there is an appeal to this argument. If conspicuous consumption motivates people, why not nations? What are nations, after all, but a collection of people? And research (into, for instance, sustainable energy sources) expends a lot of time and money that could go elsewhere. |
>
> | Certainly there is an appeal to this argument. If conspicuous consumption motivates people, why not nations? What are nations, after all, but a collection of people? And research (into, for instance, sustainable energy sources) expends a lot of time and money. |
| | |
|
<
< | The nation certainly engages in conspicuous consumption in other political arenas: war. But war has some advantages over environmentalism. For one thing, the competition can be publicly “won”. Part of the reason the Iraq war has become increasingly unpopular is due to the belief that it cannot be won. Similarly, the war on global warming can also not ever truly be won: the battle must be constantly fought, sacrifices must be continuously made. |
>
> | The nation certainly has engaged in conspicuous consumption in other political arenas, such as war. But certain aspects of war make it a more successful vehicle for conspicuous consumption than environmentalism. For one thing, the competition of resources can result in a public “winner”. In fact, it is when wars aren't (or can't be) won that public enthusiasm for that avenue of conspicuous consumption fades. Part of the reason the Iraq war has become increasingly unpopular is due to the belief that it cannot be won. Similarly, the war on global warming can also not ever truly be won: the battle must be constantly fought, sacrifices must be continuously made. |
| | Reliance on Individuals |
| | So What Do We Do? |
|
<
< | There is no good answer for how to save the environmental movement in the face of conspicuous consumption. That is not to say that is impossible. Paradigms shift. Just because conspicuous consumption is how the world is currently organized doesn’t mean that it can never change (after all, Veblen doesn’t believe conspicuous consumption was born with Man). But a paradigm shift won’t be easy, and it is far from assured. The best that environmentalists can now hope for is that understanding the problem will someday lead them to a solution. |
>
> | There is no good answer for how to save the environmental movement in the face of conspicuous consumption. That is not to say that is impossible. Paradigms shift. Just because conspicuous consumption is how the world is currently organized doesn’t mean that it can never change (after all, even Veblen doesn’t believe conspicuous consumption was born with Man (10)). But a paradigm shift won’t be easy, and it is far from assured. The best that environmentalists can now hope for is that understanding the problem will someday lead them to a solution. |
| | |