Story of Stuff

After viewing Annie Leonard's "Story of Stuff," it is hardly surprising that the film generated quite a bit of debate. In a short twenty minutes, Leonard manages to make some huge accusations as well as some stringent points-- all in a cute, child-friendly package. In a sense, Leonard's points can be considered outlandish. However, it seems that she has found her world in such a dire state that people can no longer be placated into believing the environment will fix itself, or will be fixed by minor measures. She seems to deem it necessary to highlight how systemic, global, and huge these problems are, in order to call for a huge, noteworthy change in lifestyle. While a large part of the debate rests on the merits of the film (with such huge claims, how could it not?), more significant debate seems to consider Leonard's implications. More importantly, the debate seems to revolve around the impact Leonard may or may not have on our youth. Indeed, Leonard's claims can be considered faulty. Even Steve Cohen of Columbia's Earth Institute is quick to rebuttal her misleading claims about government spending. While I would argue that she strays from being 100% factual in order to conceptualize a complex problem that needs a great deal of just this conceptualizing, this is probably a moot point. The issue lies not in statistics, but in what exactly she is trying to infer. Indeed, it seems that much of the debate that has arisen was a result of a perceived attack on capitalism itself.

An attack on capitalism, of course, immediately translates into an attack on Americanism itself. Certainly, neither side should be taken as 100% truth. As a society, we rely on capitalism almost as heavily as we do on the earth's resources. While no equivocation between the two can or should be remotely argued, foregoing either would leave us in utter disarray. However, a tenant of capitalism is almost universal acknowledgement of how heavily we rely on it. So much money goes into protecting the status quo, often to the detriment of newer and less profitable green organizations. Perhaps Leonard's perceived anticapitalist sentiment is simply a necessary measure to try and level the playing field. One of the few arguments of its kind, the storyofstuff can be considered a desperate cry for help; a cry to raise awareness from an all-too-aware environmentalist.

The most blatant concern in the debate, ultimately, is the effect on our children. The film was a bit unnerving as a 20 year old college student. It certainly can be considered extreme in light of an elementary-level audience. The articles even reference the students' reactions. A young boy is depicted considering foregoing his legos, worried that they will negatively impact the environment. While it is undeniably a sad picture-- a young boy worried about a simple toy-- it seems to reflect Leonard's point perfectly. We live in a unique time, amongst unfortunate conditions that we must bear the burden of. Leonard's extreme depiction was likely in hopes of creating a resonating point; and resonate she did. Our youth can be seen as a microcosm of ourselves. Perhaps it is necessary that we are made uncomfortable--in ways that seem almost foreign to our society-- if there is hope for any significant change. Perhaps we need our children to be asking themselves these questions. Perhaps they must be forced into a level of discomfort now, if they are to have any hope for a comfortable future.