Creating A "Green Future": The American Revolution, Consumer Action, and "Ecological Intelligence," Part 2 of 6

/

Part One --- Part Two --- Part Three Part Four --- Part Five --- Part Six

People launch revolutions because they want something different (and, presumably, something better). But desire for something different/better coalesces into revolution only if large numbers of people share the same goal.

As important, they need to believe that they can trust one another even if they are separated by great distance and don’t know each other personally.

That’s because revolutions are group efforts: Resistance only pays off when large numbers of people are involved, but those individuals need to be able to work together, and they can only do that if they share some other commonality.

That was difficult in North America because for most of the colonial period, Virginians thoughts of themselves as Virginians, and people in Vermont thought of themselves as Vermonters.  They didn’t think of themselves as “Americans.”

Their other identity was as citizens of the British empire, but that meant that most people looked toward England for commonality, rather than in or toward North America.

Well, you say, they shared an aversion to taxes and oppression. Yes, they did  -- eventually. But only after they’d begun to contemplate revolution. At that point, they began to talk about taxes and oppression as a way to express what had already become a shared goal.

In other words, their political beliefs --- their ideology --- became a justification, not a cause. Moreover, theories about taxation and rhetoric about oppression were most useful to people like Thomas Jefferson. He was wealthy and exceptionally well-educated, and read political philosophy, and, as important, discussed it with people like John Adams, who was also wealthy and exceptionally well-educated.

But the vast majority of colonists were neither wealthy nor particularly well-educated. So political theory wasn’t going to get far with them.

Instead, that vast majority needed some other way to speak to the need for change at the outset. They needed to have some kind of shared language or shared material culture. And the way the colonial rebels “spoke” to one another was through consumer goods; or, more accurately, the decision to stop using consumer goods. (Today, we’d call that a boycott, but the term “boycott” only entered the English language more than a century later.)

Next time: Historians’ analysis of consumer action and the American revolution.

Creating A "Green" Future: The American Revolution, Consumer Action, and "Ecological Intelligence," Part 1

/

Part One --- Part Two --- Part Three Part Four --- Part Five --- Part Six

About two months ago, I read Daniel Goleman’s new book Ecological Intelligence. It’s terrific and I recommend it.

Among other things, he examines the ways in which consumer behavior can function as the catalyst for substantive, indeed, profound, ecological change.

One part of his argument is this: Thanks to the powers of digitization, it’s possible to track the “ecological life cycle” of any good --- ham, shoes, mascara, flooring, etc. --- and to inform consumers of that good’s life cycle, so that consumers can make point-of-sale decisions about whether to use Brand X or Brand Y, depending on its ecological history. (This life cycle history, by the way, is known as a Life Cycle Assessment.)

He argues that consumers will act ecologically when they have ready access to information; “ready” in this case meaning at the point of sale: while standing in the grocery or furniture store thinking about making the purchase. (Again, I'm simplifying a more complex argument.)

I was curious to know what other readers thought, so I went to Amazon. At the time (again, this was a couple of months ago), the only review consisted of the following:

Goleman's narrow view of ecological intelligence is limited to how to be a better consumer. He does not address the fundamental questions of our culture's core beliefs about our place as individuals in the greater ecosystem.

If you're looking for fresh ideas on expanding beyond relating to the world as a marketplace, you will probably be disappointed.

My reaction was “Gee, that guy doesn’t know much about history.” Because if he did, he’d know that the American revolution was fueled in large part by consumer-based action.

“Huh?” you say. “Consumer action? I thought the American revolution was about taxes and representation. What’s consumer action got to do with it?” Almost everything. Sure, taxes, representation, and Parliament’s excessive intrusion into colonial life helped fuel the revolution, but so did the colonists’ understanding of their actions as consumers.

Next time: Revolution, American and otherwise

Audience Participation Time: What Does the Word "Meat" Mean to You?

/

Anyone up for a little audience participation here? (And yes, I’m prepared to be completely mortified if no one responds.) I

just realized that the working title of my new book may not make any sense. The working title  is Carnivore Nation: Meat and the Making of Modern America. (We hot-shit writers refer to the titles of works-in-progress as “working” titles.) (What? You didn’t know I was a hot-shit writer? What’s the matter with you?) (I’m kidding.)

It’s not perfect (the word “nation” as part of a book title is on the verge of becoming a limp cliche), but it’s not bad.

In fact, given the book’s theme and content, it’s a good description: I’m using the production, processing, and consumption of “meat” to examine the fundamental conflicts that Americans experienced as they shifted from an agrarian to an industrial economy, and from a rural nation to an urban one. It will cover the period from 1870 to the present, and will look at beef, pork, and poultry.

But today, it occurred to me that “meat” may not be the most appropriate word choice. So after my long-winded introduction (and if you’re a regular, you know I’m prone to windy), here’s my question:

What does the word “meat” mean to you? If you saw that title, would you assume the book was about beef? And only beef? Or would you assume or expect that the word “meat” includes the three major flesh categories: beef, pork, and poultry?

Any and all comments are welcome and appreciated. (As they always are!) And if you’ve got ideas for a new title, let’s hear ‘em.

The Moment Writers Live For: Attraction Becomes Passion

/

As regular readers have noticed, the blogging is slooooow at the moment. Slow. Because I’m deep into the new book and it’s hard to work on it and muster the creative energy necessary for the blog.

Truth be told, I’ve finally landed in the place I always know I’ll find (and that I’m guessing every writer lives for): The moment when frustration and confusion give way to clarity; when interest and attraction become . . . passion.

This is my fourth book and it’s always like this. I come up with the book idea. Think it through. Decide it’s viable. Spend months and months and months (and yes, it takes that long) wading through (literally) millions of words of primary and secondary materials, teaching myself the basics of the topic.

Next comes the getting-off-the-ground process: An even longer slog in which I gather unto myself my newly accumlated knowledge and begin writing.

Or try to. “Slog” hardly describes it. Trying to match that research to words is, at first, like wandering through the murkiest, most pestilential, swampiest swamp imaginable. The journey makes the hobbits’ trek in Lord of the Rings seem like a backyard romp. I wonder if I’ll ever find the other side. Wonder if I’ll ever make sense of the material.

And then . . .  Finally!

The moment I long for (and, truth be told, know will come eventually): I reach the edge of the swamp. I understand the research. I’ve found my “characters” (because although it’s non-fiction, I’m dealing with human beings). I know my theme and my argument.

What had been a getting-to-know-you series of dates turns into all-consuming passion and I’m hooked. No. I’m intoxicated and all I want to do is write so that I can tell the rest of the world about this amazing piece of human history.

So. At the moment, I’m . . . in love. Devoured by my “work.” And blogging is slow.

Wait. “Work”? This is . . . work? Give me more!

You Didn't Think He'd "Lose" the Election, Did You?

/

No one seriously thought Ahmadinejad would allow Moussavi to "win," right? I mean --- Moussavi was never going to be allowed to win. Never.

This is one of the moments when imagination fails. "Imagination" as in: It's impossible for me to imagine the misery of living in a repressive society, one where I would have no rights, at least not as we Americans know them, and could only express opposition at the risk of death.

So --- am spending this particular Sunday feeling particularly grateful that I am who I am, living where I do, and praying, in my atheistic way, for the millions of human beings who may never know the extraordinary pleasure of personal and intellectual freedom.