Individualization of Caring?

Having read a number of his articles, I found Professor Maniates' "trinity of despair" both exponentially useful and an apt summation of his works. An inherent social construct of the environmental movement is the defeatist attitude that many--including myself-- are guilty of adopting. Indeed, if we continue to filter the likelihood for environmental change through our "all or nothing" attitudes, we cannot expect or even hope for change. Professor Maniates clearly urges a shift from the individualization of environmental action. Conversely, he begs us to part ways with the idea of the individualization of caring. The trinity of despair, then, is a simple and effective cue in how to approach environmental change.

The assumption that human nature translates to automatic selfishness is a notion we MUST rid ourselves of. The distinction between self-interest and selfishness that Professor Maniates highlights is important. The idea that people are selfish will only serve as a deterrent against change. As in all other arenas of human nature, some people are selfish and others are not. An overarching theme of Maniates beliefs is that we mustn't concern ourselves with those who are selfish or don't care. The parallel he drew to MLK or Susan B. Anthony was helpful. Harping on the people we don't have on board, rather than the ones we do, will only make our efforts less effective. It is important to realize this first leg of the triangle, as assumptions about human nature can easily begin to dictate our defeatist attitudes.

The second leg of the trinity of despair--environmental strategy-- is even more spot on. The environmental strategy the public (especially the children) are offered is the approach of doing the "easy stuff." Glorifying that which we already are doing-- using energy-efficient light bulbs, turning the water off while we shave, etc-- will get us absolutely nowhere. This is a multi-faceted and hugely hindering problem. If the public are only offered unchallenging and simple options, then they will only practice simple and ineffective options. Likewise, if we continue to pat people on the back for doing things that in reality are not going to provoke change in the significant way huge environmental problems beg, then the idea will be created that we needn't do more. Essentially, it will hinder the likelihood of people ever stepping out of their comfort zones.

The third leg, then, is the one that addresses social change. This rests on the assumption that we can solely achieve change if we get everyone on board. This is unrealistic and leaves us in the proverbial uphill battle. Again, we are brought back to the idea that we cannot focus on those who are not in sync with the environmental movement. Much can be achieved without concentrated or even majority support of an issue. If we sentence ourselves to working within this ideology, we are sentencing ourselves to a limited possibility of change and more importantly, working forever in and against a flawed system.

The fact that well-educated students had adopted these beliefs was striking and disheartening. If the few people that do care are defeatist, there is little hope for those who may need some convincing. In the same way environmental issues beg systemic changes, our own environmental beliefs need some serious readjusting at a fundamental level. I have personally seen the development of such defeatist attitudes. After just one summer at the environmental non-profit that I worked at, the aspects of Maniates' triangle were all too realizable. Passersby scoffed at people trying to make changes at the federal level, either limiting themselves to the individual change they already make (best case scenario, unfortunately) or claiming that expectation of any such change was simply naive. I have further seen examples here on campus. The case we referenced of TDR's tray removal was highly revelatory. Indeed, the "few" made a decision and implemented it for "everyone." As a student, I was not even addressed prior to the change-- an undeniably good thing. This was social change at its best, forcing people into getting on board rather than asking them to and hoping they would. Another sort of hybrid example is the reusable mugs system. While they are not yet mandated on campus, drinks are significantly cheaper if you bring one. This economic incentive represents a change in policy, as pricing is readjusted for everyone who partakes. It leaves room for individual decision, however, by still offering alternatives. This meet-you-halfway idea is useful, I found. However, I cannot speak for the entire student body. Either way, enough people are clearly on board to be making changes. It is clear that the triangle of despair is an unfortunate reality, and with this realization, we must rid ourselves of these beliefs.