Privilege, Justice, and Sustainability

Over at My Moxie Life, Jacqueline writes about Why Food Isn’t My Politics (also mentioned at The Interdependent Web). She writes about how she and her family became vegetarian and…

Three years after that we moved to an intentional community in Missouri for a year. We, again wanted to experience living as lightly on the earth, community, and a back to the land ideal. It was while living with 70 other people from all walks of life that I began to shift my ideas about food…

What I began to realize was that food is only a choice for those who have the financial privilege to make that choice. It is an economics thing. If you come from a lower economic background or a definitive cultural background you will have food ideas around that. You MAY choose to break out of those ideas, but often, in the circumstances you CAN’T. You eat what is offered, and if you are lucky you are grateful.

It was the white middle and upper middle class kids that were offensively food oriented. THEY were making the RIGHT moral choice and they let you know in no uncertain terms that they were better because of it. Well, that screams of economic superiority, a bit of racism, and holier then thou attitudes.

These were CONSTANT conversations at East Wind while I was there and because of that tension and my wanting to understand where everyone was coming from I chose that food was something to be thankful for in whatever form it takes.

Education and poverty were more important to me then what someone served me at dinner.

So, we moved back to San Francisco omnivores… and have stayed that way.

I started to comment over at her blog, but the comment got a bit long so I thought I would post it here. I completely hear this idea that often liberals or other do-gooding folks go around being like, “Gosh, look at us. Shopping at Whole Foods, getting our vegetarian, local, organic food while we cruise around in our Prius. Golly, we are sure doing good by the world. Too bad there are those other people who are ruining the planet!” I know these people. I try not to be one. Probably I don’t always succeed.

So first, I want to affirm Jacqueline’s struggles with this issue and say that such struggles resonate with my experience (perhaps, um, too closely….). Yet, I think there are two important additional things to consider here.

First, I think we need to be careful not to set up a false dichotomy between “food politics”, and other (race and class or education) politics. Being attentive to the ways that our diet impacts the world around us - the natural world, humans, and other animals - is one important way to seek to live out our convictions related to compassion for suffering, non-violence, environmental justice, and human rights. Vegetarianism isn’t just all about saving the animals/lessening their suffering. It is also about trying to live more sustainably so that future humans have an earth to live on, and it is about being attentive to the ways that meat consumption, violence, the meat packing industry, immigration, race, class, food shortages, food riots, global warming, etc. are all related. Vegetarianism or veganism is, of course, not only way to address such concerns. But, I don’t see our food choices (to the extent that we have choices about our diet) as separate from bigger questions about justice, environment, class, etc.

Secondly, I struggle with the idea that if everyone/poor people/lots of people can’t do _________ (fill the blank with an attempt to be more sustainable/attempt at social justice activity), then it is a privileged thing to do and we are being too privileged/spoiled/snobby if we do this thing. I feel like this would apply to most volunteering, many if not most home energy efficiency measures, to many forms of education (expensive colleges/any colleges/many forms of homeschooling/private schools, etc.), buying organic/locally grown food, having the time and energy to grow a garden, driving a hybrid car, etc. The problem seems not to be that by doing these things (such as being vegetarian) we are not attending to the real problems like race or education, but rather that often our attitudes about our various “do-gooding” activities (like being vegetarian) are problematic.

The problem could thus be framed as the attitude that “We are doing the right thing (as privileged, liberals) while they (poor, others) are not,” rather then the problem being framed as the particular action we are taking (in the case of Jacqueline’s post, vegetarianism). If we look at it like this, the solution would not to be to stop doing action X, but to change our attitudes about action X.

For me, it is all about finding a balance between calling on each other and calling on ourselves to live as sustainably and justly as we can, while at the same time, being understanding that we can only do what we can do. I find it challenging, with vegetarianism, but also issues like hyper-consumerism, sexism, racism, classism, etc. to know how to best challenge my fellow humans try to live justly and more sustainably, while at the same time acknowledging the wide range of limitations to what each of us can do as individuals, families, communities, and countries. Certainly, to some extent, I believe all of us are called to call to humanity to be more just, more loving, less violent, and to live more sustainably, and to live out these principles in our own lives. But how much is too much calling? And how are we to do it without infringing too much on individual prerogatives, given that we cannot all do it all? And, are there different standards for calling upon fellow Unitarian Universalists, than, say, the general public?

Thanks to the post at Moxie Life for helping me to continue to grapple with some of these questions.

The Simple Living Guide - Book Review

So I cover simple living and increased simplicity a lot here, and I wanted to suggest one of my favorite books for getting inspired to live more simply and save money. It is The Simple Living Guide by Janet Luhrs.  I wish so much that there was a newer version of it - it came out in 1997 so it is a little dated in some ways.  Still - I have, for a very long time, wanted to save more money and live a life that is less driven by getting things done and one that is more focused on living life right now and enjoying those things that are important to me. I think a lot of time the right book comes along at the right time in our lives, and for me, this book was it. It provides lots of ideas - some about being just a little more simple and some that are about pretty drastic changes. This is not likely a book that people who want to live very radically simple lives would find valuable. This is for folks who still want electricity, maybe a car, some nice “things,” and so on. I found it very readable with lots of ideas, and also a very exciting philosophy - driving home the idea that we lose sight of the point of life - that for most people, it doesn’t make sense to work a lot, to get lots of money, to get a bigger house and lots of stuff. Rather, we can be more content (and have a lighter environmental impact) by working only as much as we need to in order to meet the needs that are basic and the needs that are most important to us. Thus, if having a nice car is important, save for that and cut down on expensive clothes. It encourages you to thin of life in terms of tradeoffs. If I work 50 hours a week, I can have a big house, but much less time to live in it or be with family. Is this worth it. It also helps to counter conventional wisdom about the kind of money it takes to live a “decent” life. This was big for me.  I loved the idea that it is not unreasonable to consider living on $40,000 with two children (okay, not in Boston) and not feel deprived. I know that lots of people live on much less than that, but the idea here was that you can live on much less than you think you can and not feel poor or deprived. It challenges assumptions and offers new way to think about things. The book did not come across as preachy to me. I think you can take from it what is helpful in your life - it is like a sourcebook or reference book. Take what works for you and leave the rest.

I won’t review here, but I also really liked Simplify Your Life.

Can Polyester Save the World?

No, this is not an attempt to become Beauty Tips for Ministers II. I’m filing an update on my New Year’s Resolution not to buy clothes for a year. And I am on day sixty-something of this, having bought my last piece of clothing December 21. I was thrilled and renewed in my determination when I read this article at the New York Times - Can Polyester Save the World?

The article writes about the new trend of “fast fashion” where clothes are so cheap, they can be bought in larger quantities and just discarded when they go out of style or start to show signs of wear. Three of the stores named in the article are were three of my favorite places to buy clothes - H&M, Old Navy, and Target. Yikes. The problem is, of course, is that buying more, cheap clothes is not so good for the environment when multiplied by millions of people doing it. As the article points out

…clothes — and fast clothes in particular — are a large and worsening source of the carbon emissions that contribute to global warming, because of how they are both produced and cared for, concludes a new report from researchers at Cambridge University titled “Well Dressed?”

And all of this helps me remember why I am not buying clothes for a year.  First, because I don’t need to.  I’ve amassed a collection that I need to learn how to work with and not get clothes just because it is fun. Which brings me to point number two is that I bought clothes just for fun, and I really craved them.  More made me want more. I didn’t like that. And three, this is an attempt to save money, although I realize that I really didn’t spend that much on them.  So while it saves some, it is mostly turning out to be a good exercise in discipline and anti-consumerism. It reminds me a lot of my transition to vegetarianism - it got easier with time, and each time I rejected meat I felt sort of accomplished and more content with my decision.  And much faster than with vegetarianism, the “I really might not stick to this” type of temptation has faded.

So that is the update.  No clothes so far with about ten months to go. It feels good.

May a Curse Fall Upon The House of Pottery Barn: Trying to Want Less

I wrote this a long time ago and left it in my drafts folder. It is a good time to revive it given that I have gone the first 13 days of the new year with no clothing purchases, even after walking through and H&M AND a Target. Between now and the start of classes in a few weeks, I will be cleaning out the closets (er, I mean the basement piled high with boxes of useless stuff) and working on my resolution to get less, want less.

I’m sure others out there must have a love/hate relationship with the Pottery Barn catalog that comes to your house with all sorts of adorable furniture and trinkets and wooden tables and perfect looking homes that look NOTHING like my home. If it is not Pottery Barn, I bet a lot of you have some sort of magazine that comes to your house that you love, yet hate. J. Crew? Car World? Book of the Month Club?

One of the things that Elaine St. James, simplicity guru, suggests is that you cancel magazine subscriptions because it just makes you feel inadequate. Partialy true. Yet, I also love looking at magazines (subscriptions and shopping ones).

In the Pottery Barn magazine, there are no piles of misc. stuff in the corner. There is not cat hair covering every imaginable surface. There are not the shelves from IKEA that your husband LOVES and that make the living room look sort of like a Sweedish utility closet. No dirty towels, cat throw-up, or accumulated dishes. I know, I know. Pottery Barn is not real, Elizabeth, just like the women in the magazines with the flat stomachs and airbrushed faces are not real. But that does not seem to matter to my little psyche that longs for a Pottery Barn world in my own apartment, yet at the same time knows that I am being tricked by The Man who makes lots of money off of poor little graduate students longing for the organized world of oak shelves with matching baskets and beautifully placed picture frames.

Be it resolved that I will appreciate my lovely Pottery Barn magazines, but never ever even consider buying something so amazingly overpriced and just enjoy the decorating ideas and remind myself that no normal person’s house should look like a Pottery Barn magazine. Just like I regularly resolve to remind myself that there is SUPPOSED to be a bump on my stomach and it is not supposed to be flat like the women in magazines who do not eat enough and exercize too much.

Amen.

No More Clothes In the New Year

Well, internet access in Germany has been a big of a “back-to-the-1990s” experience. But we found out McDonald’s has wi-fi so I am back in the blogging business. As promised, this year will bring more posts with a focus on living more simply, exciting vegetarian/vegan recipes and tips (that I’ve been practicing with here in Germany), and ongoing reflections on Unitarian Universalism.

Today, I start with living more simply and a breathtaking announcement: I have resolved to buy no new clothes for the next year. This might not seem like a big deal to some of you, but it is to me and here are the reasons.

First, this saves money. I won’t say how much I have spent on clothes in the last year – I don’t think it would be considered extravagant by most Americans, but certainly it would be if I think about the salaries of my friends in Nicaragua. Living in the Boston area is very expensive as it is, and W. and I would love to buy a house or condo in the next five years, so every little bit counts.

Second, this contributes less to resource usage and a more simple life. It might not be a huge reduction in the scheme of the world, but is anything we do by ourselves a huge reduction? It’s about doing what we can and hoping that others are doing their part too.

Mostly, for me, this is about letting go of worldly attachments. I’ve always loved buying clothes, but also always had this sense that it was money that I didn’t have to spend and that it was sort of vein. Who am I to get so much joy from spending as much on an outfit as my friends in Nicaragua make in a month? It is a small gesture of solidarity with those who do not have the luxury of going to the mall (or Target) for fun. There are so many needs in the world, and new clothes for me shouldn’t be high on my list.

There is such an emphasis in our culture of getting “stuff” to make ourselves feel better. I feel like my desire for an going rotation of new clothes (even if they are relatively cheap or even used) is a luxury that I’ve always allowed myself, justifying it by telling myself that I buy things on sale, don’t spend nearly as much as some friends, and it is one of my few indulgences…but I have always felt how superfluous it is and how I don’t like how much enjoyment I get from getting more and new “stuff.”

I will make an exception to get a dress for the wedding of my sister-in-law in July. And it does not apply to a limited amount of accessories – I need a pair of boots, will need socks, underwear, and I need a coat. But, buy saving money overall, I can afford to buy the more expensive fair-trade, organically produced versions of the few accessories I will get.

I’ll write a monthly reflection on the year with no more clothes. I welcome don’t-buy-clothes buddies who want to join me. Or don’t buy _______ (whatever it is that you’ve decided to give up for reasons of $, simplicity, or solidarity).

So far, after four days, so good. Not a single textile purchase, even after walking past my beloved H&M in Luxembourg City.

I could keep living generally the way I wanted.

This, my friends, is why we are probably just not going to have a planet that is inhabitable by 6 billion humans for many more generations. Perhaps middle class Americans don’t really care much since the people who die or suffer greatly will probably be either from so-called developing countries, or will be poor or minority, like those folks down in New Orleans and surrounding areas.

So, the following quote: “Ambitious as it sounded, it was, amazingly, not excessive. I could keep living generally the way I wanted,” comes from “The Energy Diet,” an article in The New York Times written by Andrew Postman. He writes about how he cut down on his CO2 usage. Which is nice. Truly. But the point is of the article is that it can be EASY, and you can keep your cool flat screen TV and light bulbs that you like. You, TOO, can cut your emissions with very little effort and - bada-bang, bada-boom - you’ve done your part, by golly.

The thing is that easy stuff will not cut it. I don’t want to discourage small changes, because all changes help to slow down the deaths of millions of people. SLOW DOWN. Get it? It is still happening and will just get worse unless we start calling for RADICAL CHANGE very very soon - like yesterday. There will be more tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, and destruction of the environment that results in D-E-A-T-H. I’m not trying to be nasty, but I feel like there is the sense like, “Oh, gosh. We’ll lose some of the rainforest. Or a glacier. They are really so lovely. That’s too bad.” But see, when glaciers melt, that raises the ocean levels and FLOODS places where people are living. This is not about the lovely oceans and beautiful forests. We are dealing with many many human lives. Not in the future, but NOW. People are dying NOW because of pollution, weather, etc. caused by our un-care of the environment. I just find it so frustrating that people are so chill about the whole thing. In many ways, it isn’t their fault. Mr. Gore (and so many others who have had the potential to call for radical change) failed to call for what is REALLY needed. At the risk of offending people, or asking too much, he settled. Maybe this is part of a grand strategy and soon part II will come out that will point out that by the time everyone figures out how to use new, energy efficient light bulbs it will be too late… but I’m not holding my breath.

I know this is an usually sarcastic post. But I just get so frustrated with the articles like “The Energy Diet” that somehow portray that if we all just do a little, it will all be okay. The thing is, that is just wrong. We all need to do A LOT. I am including myself in this. I am not an environmental diva, okay? I need to do more. But at least I’m not patting myself on the back for that which I do DO, and thinking that it will really save the planet. Someone needs to build on Al Gore’s very nice first step and somehow convey the seriousness of the issue. Hey, wouldn’t it be nice if political leaders could do that? Like the president? Or, governors or something? Instead, they leave that up to “those nutty environmentalists” who are just trying to scare everyone into supporting their special interest hippie tree hugging stuff.

p.s. Apologies for fewer bloggings these days. School has begun. Church has reactivated after the summer down time. Ph.D. applications are coming due. But I promise more is to come in the future, including statistics and sources so you realize all my huffing and puffing is not just hot air rantings. One good source that I have found is The World Watch Institute. And, perhaps read the report The Death of Environmentalism. Very helpful in realizing the ways that the environmentalism movement has done a bad job so far, despite great intentions.

How many globes do you use?

So I did a sermon on the seventh principle last Sunday and on Wednesday went to a Green Church presentation at the Unitarian Universalist Church in Kingston, MA. I’m excited to see all the energy and enthusiasm around saving the planet. Although I still get the sense that there is not an understanding of how serious and urgent the situation is… and I feel like I am not doing a good job of conveying this in conversation nor in my sermons (another one coming up on Friday). I’m going to try to do a series of things on my blog that really presents the situation systematically and helps folks (as well as encourages me more) to understand what it is we need to do/can do. I think the showings of An Inconvenient Truth at various parishes will be great, but as I will post on soon, there are some serious gaps in the movie that I think folks need to be aware of.

For today, calculate your footprint. www.myfootprint.org How many earths would we need if everyone on the planet lived like you do? Even given my almost-vegan diet, I still scored 3.6 planets. I think this is because I drive a lot (to church, and due to health issues, walking very much is not much of an option), and I fly too much (home to family in Ohio/Kentucky). And I eat too much processed food. Although, it didn’t take into account my recycling, the amount of heat we use, or steps toward energy efficiency. Still, even with that, I can’t imagine I would get down to less than three planets. Sigh. Gotta work harder on that. Less processed foods! More T riding! Less cheese!

Selfish Reasons to be a Vegetarian - Let Us Count the Ways

My best friend from college writes to me in an email:

Okay, EG, for class I am going to do a persuasive speech on meat reduction. I want to find some ways to appeal directly to people’s self interest, not their generosity. Any chance you can put this question on the blog and see what comes up?

 

Example of self interest: being a vegetarian will save you money because tofu is cheaper.

Okay meat-reducers and vegetarians out there, what are the selfish arguments for people to be vegetarian or reduce meat and animal products? Extra points if you have citations or statistics.

A Slower and Simpler Life (?)

We had an adult education class at our church this year called Living Simply and Sustainably. It was a big hit because everyone seemed to need to find ways to live simply and sustainably, while at the same time not be so preoccupied and overwhelmed with it all. You want to live simply, so you wash and dry clothes rather than let them hang dry. Faster, simpler, yet less sustainable. You want to get back in touch with slow eating and simple foods, so you try cooking, which ends up taking 2 hours a night to make, eat, cleanup. More simple in a way. More complex in a way. So many trade-offs. I feel like “I’m really quite busy” is the mantra of my life and I hate it. I get sooo annoyed with those people that run around “Oh, I’m so busy! Oh! I have so much to do.” Yet, when I make my lists (I love making lists) of everything I would like to get to, it seems like if I only do the starred things on my list (that is the MOST important) I never really get to the other stuff like finishing painting the living room (it is half-green, half-dirty-white), selling books I no longer want, knitting, writing for fun (not for class), or things like getting my lost credit card replaced or cooking (instead of eating out or getting pre-made stuff…). And, I might note, I do not have children. I really don’t see how anyone finds time to take care of children AND work AND have a life. Granted, I think a lot of parents might say that the children are their lives, but geesh — you have to have time to at least clean, which I really struggle with even with our four kitties. I’m not complaining, but rather just thinking about how this happens. I don’t do lots of extra curricular stuff. I do not have lots of hobbies or friends to keep me busy. We take care of foster kittens which is the only “optional” thing that I think we could cut. Other stuff — work, minimal reading, keeping up with email, cleaning at least sometimes before it gets utterly gross, eating — can really not go. W. and I sometimes wonder if we are doing something wrong. I don’t want an immaculate house, or lots of stuff or money. Just a minimally clean house, things that don’t fall apart, decent food (a can of soup will not cut it for me like it will for W.) Others struggle with this? Do you have ideas about how to deal with this? How can we make our lives slower, simpler, richer, less rushed? I feel like it is almost a cliched question, but still quite pertinent. A seminarian friend of mine started taking a day of rest, a real Sabbath, last year and she spoke very highly of it. That could be a possibility. W. told me today to just get used to it, be at peace with it, go one step at a time and accept it as a part of life. True to some extent, but to another, I just don’t like it that this happens. There must be a way to stop it. Or not…..

UFETA Ad In UU World

I am a UFETA member and was happy to see this ad in the UU World. I don’t know if I am a huge proponent of the “specisim” angle for vegetarian and veganism, but nonetheless I am happy to see the issue raised a denominational level. The environmental impact of animal product consumption alone should be enough to convince anyone that animal product reduction or doing away with meat, leather, milk, eggs, etc. is a good idea. If you throw in the miserable lives that farmed animals live, lives of absolute horror (imagine subjecting a dog to that?) then there is a good arguement, I think. Of course, we all pick our battles and no one can do everything. But transitioning to vegetarianism is one really good way to make the world a better place, something that we all struggle with (or at least many of us I think). I’ll do a couple posts on this over the summer - yummy recipies, great alternative products, more information. For now, here is the ad.