Reflections on an argument

Well, let's just say Professor Maniates got into my head. I have been mulling this all around quite a bit, even arguing with friends about it regularly. First off, I was totally convinced. I mean, the Trinity makes a whole lot of sense and I can see its truths in my own life; the way I have come to have a negative view of human nature and the way I've been convinced that my daily actions can somehow lead to big change. I recognize and agree that this is historically, and presently untrue. I accept that, and I accept that the environmental movement needs some rewiring, some of which is happening as we speak. But here's what I think is missing from Maniates' analysis (although it is not missing from his actions and the systems he has put in place at his university- i just think it belongs in the trinity); though most current actions on the small scale leaves the system of degredation in place, intelligent, well thought-0ut, system-oriented small scale individual action CAN make a significant impact.

So agreed, social change does not come about by getting everyone on board, and easy stuff based on small individual acts won't make the big change, and yes we need to change our perception of human nature, but we also need to change the perception of small individual acts. Not all small scale acts are a waste of our time- even Maniates gave an example to defend this. His students' actions to implement a composting system at school is, compared to the larger problem, a small scale act based on individuals; it was one university system changed by one student. Is that not small scale individualized action? It is. But it's also well thought out, creative, and focused on changing systems. So I suppose the argument comes down to this: small scale ndividualized action is only negative when it follows the routine of the current "green" fad (eating organic, changing lightbulbs, etc). However, it can be incredibly positive if it follows a different path, a system-oriented path, focusing on small impacts that change larger (though still somewhat small compared to the scale of the problem) systems.

In conclusion, the trinity should be a trinity-plus-one (not sure what the technical term is for that). The plus-one should be "GF: or 'Green' fad actions;" the idea of what an individual action entails must be changed. An individual action for the environment is not changing a lightbulb. But that doesn't mean individuals can't make a difference. Individual action framed around system-oriented change can remind people that yes, individual actions can make a difference (as Maniates says, it takes a small group of people to create social change), but only if their focus is like that of Maniates' student who, through an individual act, changed a small, but significant system. This helps empower individuals, while changing the perception of individual action.