Holy Sustainable Living Batman, It's Scott Russell Sanders!
Scott Sanders is a notable writer and english professor who has taken on the task of writing "A Conservationist Manifesto"and I believe the objective of the book is to inspire and inform a technologically insulated public to preserve the earth's natural majesty. To summarize the work (so far) Mr Sanders borrows heavily from the sustainable living/homesteading genre and advocates for a more local scene, plenty of organic gardens, and social programs. He also suggests, in reference to stewardship, that ideas that divert from the secular are convoluted and damaging to the environment. I tend to disagree, "The LORD God placed the man in the Garden of Eden to tend and watch over it." (Genesis 2:15). Now, I understand why in the modern world its fun to rag on the Bible since Christian fundamentalists have hijacked it to find credibility for their cornucopian life styles and they would give anything to have legitimacy to stone somebody, but come on can't we leave the ancient text of a people alone? Perhaps it is solely the fundamentalists that he is referring to, *deep breath* any way I digress. He goes further to reeducate us on the meaning of certain key words that often get misused in the American parlance when discussing environmental and political policies such as economy, which actually means "management of a household" instead of solely about currency. He does this to illustrate a point that the people who designed english were creating a vocabulary that would show their environmental respect, such as the Iroquois did, I'm not so sure about that, but interesting all the same.
If I could be so bold as to give my opinion on this book it be that I don't believe he is successful in his objective to inspire me to weep at a sunset then go sort my recycling. I too am from Bloomington and have played witness to all of the local points he is making. Additionally I also worship at the temple of sustainability and advocate hard for a more natural life style (please don't hold the chicken poop on the bottom of my shoes, from my free range flock, against me). However, the flowery construction of his book is condescending at worst and just plain boring at best, I get it Walt Whitman is a big influence. It also feels like he's being a little too nostalgic for a utopian past that was never there. I wish he would instead use himself as an example of sustainable living such as Barbara Kingsolver did in "Animal, Vegetable, Miracle" perhaps I'm speaking too soon and he will later on. I was inspired to refab my great grandparent's home and live along side livestock while letting go of packaged foods as a direct result of reading about others finding happiness living "the simpler life"not by being guilted into not driving because I am a party to the destruction of the natural world. I get what he's saying and I do agree with him I just think that "A Conservationist Manifesto" is an all natural alternative to Ambien.
(Ooooh was that too mean, Sorry! And I promised myself I wasn't going to be too cynical this time, oh well maybe next time.)
I Have to agree with the ideas that you are discussing in your post. Sanders' objective through his book seems to almost go over the heads of its' readers with ideas that transcend individual action. I think that he used the chapter defining words to emphasize the changes that have gone on in society--especially with regard to our priorities. The words become tailored to our specific needs and take precedent over their actual definition. In similar fashion our economic priorities take precedent over the environment, prompting Sanders to state something along the lines of telling us that we need to get back the the basics of the language to become more in tune with our world. Overall, I agree with your perspective on Sanders and believe that the ideas he discusses go way over the head of the common individual, thus forcing us to take his ideas truly seriously.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all you have to say Martha. His entire book is nostalgic and annoying. I found myself wondering as well why he didn't turn his book into an example of his personal sustainability.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your points and always like to hear your insights. You really put your personality into your journal entries (I am struggling to break out of my academic writing style) and I always enjoy reading your articles. I am interested in hearing more of your thoughts about the events in Bloomington which Sanders wrote about. How would you have approached writing about the dispute between the environmentalists and those trying to build the apartment complex?
ReplyDeleteThanks everyone, so glad you're all so agreeable. To respond to a few points:
ReplyDeleteErik, I don't think a writer should "talk over other's heads" that type of style is more about the writer feeling important than actually getting his point across. It doesn't aid in credibility to not be understood.
Amanda, getting your personality in your writing is all about not thinking about the "right way" to write. The incidents that Sanders is referring to was when a young woman and her gang decided to chain themselves in a tree, Dolphin was her name. A side point was that her father is an environmental attorney so who knows if she was put up to it by her parents. Regardless, I supported her. It is always so disheartening when ever the dense deciduous forest is violated in our area. Then everybody goes around and complains about all the deer, but their habitat has been removed. I turn around and say they (people that were in favor of "urban development") are getting theirs because the houses and apartments that have been built are of far less quality and have to pay an arm load to pay for their cooling because they got rid of their shade and they have horrible problems with erosion. *deep cleansing breath* However, Dolphin was alone, an oddity, and no one not even Mr Sanders demanded the city to preserve our forest. I was in high school so youth made me feel even more inept to deal with the situation. I only hope we learned our lesson and will all work to replant was has been destroyed.
Okay, so obviously I'm a little late for the discussion. But - I disagree, with all of you, apparently ;)
ReplyDeleteI didn't feel he was 'ragging on the bible' at all, in fact just the opposite. He was framing his argument heavily in ethics and spirituality. What he DOES claim is that many Christian practices have, in fact, chosen to accept the interpretation of God's call for humans to be subdue to earth and its creatures as an excuse to give little or no consideration to caring for the environment. You can't really argue that that has been the Christian mentality, especially in this country, for a long time. Evangelical Christians have only recently begun coming around to the idea that you don't have to be an earth worshiping pagan hippie to pick up trash in state parks and plant more trees.
But, like you said/implied - not all Christians are fundamentalists. Not all Christians think that to subdue the earth means to completely disregard its needs and limitations. But, he's talking about the vast number of Christians who, in the past and present, have thought of the balance of life in this way.
I'm also saddened by how so many people in class simply laughed at the idea that we might stop and actually wonder at nature.. Someone might actually weep at a sunset. I mean, we sit in front of our TVs and watch documentaries like Food Inc. or An Inconvenient Truth, and at times we cry at those - how is that any less pathetic sounding than crying at the awe inspiring beauty of nature? I mean.. just sayin'.