Hidden Hands

Hidden Hands of the Institution

Our society is broken and there’s no quick fix available. Since the beginning, the United States’ people have had a healthy distrust for the government. Perhaps this dates back to the oppressive colonial government or further still the religious oppression faced by settlers in Europe. Regardless, skepticism runs deep in the core of the American people. This skepticism is healthy – you can’t allow your government to run unchecked. After all, the government is in theory run by the people. This is the idea behind democracy, behind a republic, behind enlightened ideologies. The consensus should be the guiding framework behind legislation and policy.

Since the 1960s this formerly healthy distrust for all things government has become anything but healthy. In fact, it has become dangerously corrosive. Not waywardly, but for completely understandable causes. Nixon abused his power lost the faith of the people. He was pardoned by his successor, Ford, and faced no punitive action. Vietnam made Americans lose further faith in the government agenda. Reagan pushed the limited government plan to its limits. Remember the nine most terrifying words in the English language? Since the modern media machine took on its current shape, it has done nothing but encourage the parties to toss partisan slander across the aisle at each other. After 9/11 the Patriot Act was an incredible breach of America’s foundational freedoms. After the Great Recession following the multi-trillion dollar housing bubble’s burst in 2008 it became apparent that the wealthy were speculating on the poor and the irresponsible behavior ran straight to the top. Who was convicted? Who was culpable? Was anyone even properly accused? The list is expansive. The amount of events and outcomes that drive the trust of the American people into the ground is staggering. You can’t place the blame on anything but the institutions. In the developing world, the global south, it’s quite common for weak institutions to make social progress impossible, but in the United States? How has making beneficial changes in our society become so difficult?

It is instructive to look at some of the examples of disconnection. Net neutrality, nearly every person wants it, but the government (FCC) continuously pushes an anti-neutrality motive. The people, nearly all people, want the internet to be free, but there’s a fortune to be made in privatizing it. The Tax reform bill of 2017, nearly everyone with a basic understanding of the economy can understand the harmful ramifications of its passing. Lower corporate tax rates? Expand the federal debt? Remove government safeguards? It’s bona fide recklessness. Most deadly of all the government hypocrisies against the will of the American people is environmental policy and climate change adaptation and mitigation. The majority of the American people believe that climate change presents a real threat to everyone, not just in the United States, but everywhere. The majority of politicians deny that there is even a problem. These examples share a common denominator: corporate interest’s encroachment. Money matters have spoiled everything and crippled the trust of the people in all institutions as a result. The corporate invasion of politics is a virus that has spread to all sectors. It has challenged the validity of our foundations and casted just enough doubt to make decisive action impossible.

Decisive action is exactly what is required though, specifically on the environment. The Earth decays more and more every day. I don’t need to paint the entire picture rather point out some key concepts. Warming, sea level, ice loss, permafrost, eutrophication, and acidification – all of these are physical realities of climate change. Food security (crop productivity), vector borne illness, water scarcity, and displacement – all of these social realities will result from the physical. Climate change is a problem of cataclysmic implications. It will bring about the largest humanitarian crisis in the history of humankind. The problem is really very simple; populations rise exponentially as resources shrink, and all while the planet presents more and more opposition to human beings – like the body fighting off an infection. We can’t win divided. We can’t win without rediscovering a consensus. Major changes are required to save this sinking ship.

Distrust in institutions must be subdued. The first hurdles to accomplishing this are the moneyed interests. It is nonetheless an ecological necessity. In our capitalist societal structure money is power. Those with money control the market and the where the market goes. This enables them to manipulate policy. Campaign donation from private interests is the vehicle used to facilitate this. It must end. Money and politics need to be ripped apart from each other like a mother from her child. An unthinkable task I know, but I’ve been hearing this sentiment all my life. If so many people agree then how has there been no progress made in accomplishing this? Money buys politicians and politicians make the policies. Progress on the environment is therefore on the back-burner. The petroleum industry makes more revenue than any organization that would confront it. As long as the only language politics speaks in America is money, no changes can be expected.

Distrust in the government has spread to every other institution. As politics has been widely corrupted by corporate interests, the cynicism has carried over to other incredibly important institutions. Science is the first and foremost institution in need of repair. When it comes to the environment, science has had a tumultuous relationship. Progressivism was guided by environmental science and an early understanding of the effects of pollution and waste. In the mid-20^th century a massive wave of environmentalism gripped the country. Clean air, water, beautification, the EPA, Earth day – all of these found their beginnings in that time period. Science informed the public opinion and the public acted on it. This is precisely the relationship that should occur between science and people. Distrust in the government has carried over to science because science has been corrupted by moneyed interests as well. In order to return to the healthy relationship that we once had with science we must remove, to the best of our ability, all ulterior motives from science. The only guiding principle behind science should be the scientific method. If a scientist makes a claim from an experiment, then that experiment can be repeated by other scientists to assess the results independently. This method is a pillar of civilization. Ecologically friendly decision-making will stem from up-to-date science. Disagreement with the results of an experiment should be substantiated with results and encouraged to improve understanding.

The solution to our ecological calamity is complex and nuanced to the point where science not only needs to be trusted but needs to be heeded as well. We are in crisis and steps needed to be taken yesterday. We must improve our institutions to the point where they can be trusted by the public. We must be certain who our politicians are working for when they take the driver’s seat on environmental legislation.  Confidence in our institutions will guide environmentally healthy decision-making not only at the organizational level but also on the individual level. Ecological forethought should be prioritized to promote sustainability and environmental health. A top-down approach should be employed along with a bottom-up approach. Our institutions should inform us, and guide us, and give us our best chance at success. Our people should be informed and motivated to make change. Both of these approaches acting in unison are critical to any solution. Sadly, these two approaches seldom work in concert. If we expect changes in the ideologies of our people on the environment then we must remove the obstacles to public trust.

The American people must develop an ecological conscience. In order to accomplish this they must be informed with the best knowledge available. This is essential because false facts and pseudo-science often pollute and polarize people. Then those bipolar beliefs promote tribalism among our peoples. Now people are so caught up in the fact that their opposition subscribes to a different belief or identifies on one side of an issue that they are unwilling to even have discourse. Our society has for so long not conducted healthy discourse that we have forgotten how to do it. Since open debate over critical issues is so rare, it has become forgotten. Today nearly every time people see a person on the other side of their beliefs or disagreeing they become offended. This occurs so commonly that people now band together to spread their irrational fears. It is quite insane that people of the entire nation can come together in our culture in shared outrage at a boy being bullied in middle school (something that happens frequently , myself included, not that I condone it) but we can’t come together to save our dying planet.             People must be freed from their worry over the motives of the government in order to develop an ecologically friendly conscience. As the author of The Ecological Life, Jeremey Bendik-Keymer, points out we must ask ourselves how our actions affect the rest of the world, if we support actions against polluters, and do we each individually contribute to the unsustainability of our society? (Bendik-Keymer, 39). Our actions have far deeper implications than we know. Science has done an exceptional job of informing our ecological calculus, but if it is not heeded then it really matters little. Science should not be held up as the end-all be-all decision-making calculator, but it should inform every responsible person’s actions. When I pollute how does it affect the rest of my fellow humans? Am I contributing to the deaths of people on the far side of the world? Do I support the legal reprehension and action against polluters? Pollution is an economic shortcut that has been hurting and killing people since the dawn of the industrial revolution and has been little improved since the inception of industrial capitalism. Air, water, and ground pollution kill millions yearly, but they’re good for business. There is no incentive economic or otherwise to avoid pollution. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. Pollution is good for business because it minimizes disposal costs. Finally, how do the choices we make as consumers contribute to the unsustainability of our society? We are after all tremendous consumers. We are a consumer culture. We have a consumer’s economy. We love to consume. This tremendous consumption produces unfathomable waste and pollution. Worse yet the whole system promotes people ending up stuck on the treadmill of consumption. You go to work and make things for money which you use to buy more things. There is no getting ahead in this system; there is no advancement and no mobility. A highly mobile workforce is part of what made America so capable of the amazing. A moral compass on the environment is the first correction that needs to be made in the development of an ecological society.

If people are to develop an ecological conscience then they will need a model. Author Jeremy Bendik-Kremer suggests that we look to our sacred places for guidance. To him the reverence for sacred places is analogous to what is required as far as perspective on the natural world. He states: “Ecological identification can be central to people’s sense of humanity, and sacred places articulate it.” (Bendik-Keymer, 91). Essentially, when we identify with places as part of who we are we look to protect them. If every person identified as a citizen of the Earth then our environmental problems would be infinitesimal. If every person had the revelry for the forest as they have for the friar then we’d stand a great chance of overcoming our crisis. The problem with this outlook is the duality it promotes. Sacred places currently partake in the dangerous dichotomy of man and god – nature as natural versus nature as a gift from God. Though Bendik-Keymer wants us to look at the way people identify in order to situate them in their ecological place, deifying nature can have adverse implications. Raising up the natural world as equal and giving it full justice leaves no room for human development. If we treat nature as the victim of our actions, then we insulate it from our species, we are essentially promoting its separateness. We cannot be separate. A dialogue must exist. We cannot undo our past actions and we cannot radically change the structure of our society to see all of nature as special. It’s not all special and we need it to survive.

Once we have an ecological conscience, it is important to develop our understanding of the inter-relationship between humans and other organisms. Our actions do indeed affect other humans, but other forms of life. Author Jeremy Bendik-Keymer calls this concept “ecological maturity” (Bendik-Keymer, 122). If humans are to truly begin to live in sync with our partners in the biosphere then we must advance our understanding and carefulness of the other life forms. Ecological conscience will improve our ability to recognize our impacts on the planet and other humans; ecological maturity will improve our ability to recognize our impacts on the remaining life on Earth. Actions that encourage ecological maturity encourage the cooperation of humans and other life. Bendik-Kremer bases our maturity on the following criteria: does it promote balance? Does it bring us closer to our humanity? Does it increase our awareness of our interdependence on other life? Does it respect what is best for other life forms? (Bendik-Keymer, 124-27). According to Bendik-Keymer, not all of the aforementioned criteria are dependent on each other for success (Bendik-Keymer, 127). If one can be successfully achieved then it would imply the acceptance of the others. Basically, if we are further in touch with our humanity it would in theory bring us closer to our wild counterparts and vice versa. The infiltration of hostile interests into American institutions impedes our ability to accomplish any of these criteria.

Author Jeremy Bendik-Keymer points out four main obstacles to our ecological maturity. Firstly, “moral invisibility” plays heavily off of our acceptance of an ecological conscience (Bendik-Keymer, 129). If we learn what is worth moral consideration then we are closer to seeing other life forms as their own entity and not as commodified assets. Secondly, “ecological illiteracy” prevents people from seeing how their actions affect the greater ecosystem (Bendik-Keymer, 130). Aggressive, invasive, ignorant – all of these are characteristic of our relationship with ecology. Education and ecological conscience may be the only remedy for this. Third, “lifestyle rigidity” affects our ability to change or adapt our lifestyles (Bendik-Keymer, 130). We believe that our lives are too fragile to change and we are unwilling to make changes. Our economy is not working for the majority of people, so making wholesale lifestyle changes in our economic climate is a pipe dream. The previous three obstacles are largely influenced by how we understand our relationship with the natural world. Though lifestyle changes are difficult and require great sacrifice relative to our current living standard, they are a choice a person can make. The last obstacle to ecological maturity is “The political block” (Bendik-Keymer, 130).

“The political block” refers to institutional challenges (Bendik-Keymer, 131-32). Governments, economic systems, and economic policies all work in concert to limit the individual. Governments themselves can be corrupt and counter-productive to development. Politicians accepting campaign contributions are just the beginning of the problem. Worldwide there are governments repressing their people for gains. In some places activism is a life-threatening activity, so how can we expect a grass roots environmental movement to take hold? If people are being censored to the point of blind ignorance then they cannot likely even see the environment as an issue. Nobody likes pollution or degradation, but they are lower order concerns when simple survival is a daily challenge. In the United States people are not limited in any direct way. We have a very inadequate understanding of our ecology. We have no consensus on environmental action. Our economic system takes advantage of us. It extracts value from both the land and its resources as well as the people who labor to produce goods and services. It does not put proportionate value back into society. Our exceptionalism has led us further down the path toward economic despotism. Our institutions play a key role in the continued exploitation of the land, the plants, the animals, and the people. These citizens in the ecological community are cogs in an industrial machine. Our political economy is formulated around industrial capitalism. The economic institutions have infiltrated the political institutions. The political institutions have invaded scientific institutions. In one great web our checks and balances have nothing but blurred lines.

The political system should represent the people’s interests not corporate interests. Science should not be warped in order to further an agenda. All science is without a doubt driven by some kind of agenda. The competition our economic system has induced has led to the corporate withholding of scientific findings because they would impact the bottom line. It’s as if a pharmaceutical company had the cure for heart disease the whole time, but withheld it in order to profit off of the disease. That is precisely what is occurring in the petroleum industry today. Climate science appears to be catching up with corporate science. Some oil companies have had evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change since the 1980s! That hasn’t stopped them from drilling, refining, and selling for the greatest profit. Here’s the bottom line on the bottom line: it’s destructive. Where is the humanity of these people? Where is their sense of right and wrong? It’s in their paychecks.

Our institutions are not helping our people. The earth is dying from our neglect. Populations are rising. Resources are slowly but surely running out. Its doom and gloom. It would be hard to look at the development of the United States and miss this. We’ve been great wasters and indulged in excess. Blame cannot be given to only the institutions. People have allowed this to happen. Even against the many naysayers of our system, we have continued to stride onward in search of greater profit. Did the American dream develop as an actual framework of success for the individual, or is it promulgated by our institutions to keep us on the treadmill? We have found a way to justify our many misdeeds with our exceptionalism.

To tie all of this together in a cogent manner is a challenge. It’s almost as if one is looking at a train route map or at a mad conspiracy theorists wall all strung up with yarn connecting this to that. You cannot reform anything, not one single thing, until the government works for the people. You cannot reform the economy without the support of the people. You cannot imagine having an ecologically friendly people while they live in ignorance. It is a topic of great interest in America. How much involvement should the federal government have in the lives of its people? That is a politically charged question that has only subjective and opinion laden answers. You can choose to answer it how you like, but one thing is an absolute certainty: the government should work for its people. Once the barriers to ecological citizenship are removed, and the system works for the benefit of the people, an ecologically astute citizen should develop. We must combat lower order issues and the foundational faults in our systems that prevent prosperity. Sadly, the greatest driver of change in our society or any of is a catalyst. We should only hope that when the awakening happens we are prepared to teach, learn, and act.

 

 

Work Cited

Bendik-Keymer, Jeremy. The Ecological Life. New York: Rowan and Littlefield, 2006. Print.