Due Nov 8
The Origins of the Environmental Movement
Led by Prof Henebry
The following two books offer two compelling perspectives on the origins of Ecological thinking. In both cases I’m supplying you with the first section(s) of the book. Skim through and see if you can extract something interesting from each one:
- Adam Rome. The Genius of Earth Day: How a 1970 Teach-in Unexpectedly Made the First Green Generation (New York: Hill and Wang, 2013) link.
- Daniel Belgrad, The Culture of Feedback: Ecological Thinking in Seventies America (University of Chicago Press, 2019): link.
Answer one of the following prompts in the comments below:
- How does the language/logic of 1950-70s ecology differ from or correlate with the language of environmental activists today? When you consider the metaphors used in arguing humans’ obligation to the Earth, do you see greater differences or greater continuities?
- How do Rome and Belgrad differ in their portraits of the early Environmental movement?
- What continuities do you see between the Ecological activism described by Rome and/or Belgrad and the broader New Left as described by Van Gosse?
Environmentalism: Then and Now
Environmental activism in the 1970s did not have the urgency of environmental activism today. This is depicted within the slogan “Give The Earth A Chance” as compared to slogans in modern day environmental acvitism that highlight “saving” the Earth, rather than giving it a chance. Another point of the activism in the 1970s was the problem that was “vanishing open space and spreading pollution”. The past was heavily focused on the beauty of the planet and maintaining open space. However, with today’s industrialization, the goal has changed to revert back to the past and maintain whatever remaining open space is left. A similar parallel can be drawn between the concepts of stopping pollution that was one of the goals of environmental activism back in the day as opposed to the modern understanding of the need to reverse the effects of pollution in order to return to a healthier planet.
Actions taken during the mid-1900s against environmentalism created a network of cause and effect, where the objective for one task led to the outcome of another. This is evidently seen in Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, a book that “warned that the human power to alter nature had become profoundly dangerous.” Following the publication of this book, there was a domino effect leading to President Kennedy investigating pesticide use and the general public engaging in controversy over an unprecedented issue. Tying back to the role of environmental activism today, the language has shifted in the sense that there is now more urgency but less action being taken. To illustrate, many big companies have released promising statements such as neutral or no carbon emissions in the next few decades. Boiled down, these are mere words strung together, and the cause-and-effect aspect from the past is no longer existent. The greater challenge that arises now is how each human interacts with the Earth, as there are more significant differences between the person’s responsibility and detriment to the Earth. Industrialization and modernization have negatively influenced society, but it cannot be fair to discredit their contribution to bringing the world its positive advances today. Environmental activism is ultimately a paradox of stepping forward while brushing off the footprints made along the way – and the first step to tackling the paradox is recognizing this key disparity that must be addressed.
There is a huge contrast in the goals and priorities of the environmentalism movement then and the environmentalism movement now: in the 50s-70s, it was frames as protecting and returning “quality of life”, while today it is the survival of our planet and its people, life itself that is at stake if we do not take action. The language in the 50s-70s was surrounding pollution, suburban sprawl, the loss of land and scenery and the beauty of nature, while now the language of activists is of death and suffering, starting with vulnerable populations and ending in the complete extinction of our race and numerous other species we take down with us in our greed. There are similarities in debates over individual responsibility, while in the 50s-70s it was paying taxes and not polluting, while today it is responsible consumerism, and whether or not it is ethical and strategic to focus on individual action when the real problem is corporations.
In Rome’s perspective of Ecological thinking, I noticed his particularly optimistic attitude towards Earth Day which highlights the attitude in the 60s/70s to incorporate the environmentalists prioritization into the lives of the general public. Meaning that a lot of approaches to increase engagement in environmentalism were focused around creating organizations, enforcing policy, changing taxes, etc. While I think that this approach is admirable, I think that environmentalism today has shifted towards targeting the sources of environmental issues. For example, when thinking of environmentalism today, most people naturally think of referring to CO2 emissions first as opposed different organizations and holidays that reinforce the importance of green sustainability. Additionally, a continuity I noticed was the integration of environmentalism and politics. Rome mentions how environmentalist initiatives have largely been part of a liberal agenda in the 60s in cases such as the Great Society which I think still holds true to this day.
The logic of environmentalism in the 1950s-1970s seemed to focus more on being proactive than fixing the damage that was already done. As a result, there seems to be more positive language used. For example, the slogans “Recycle this book!” and “Stomp out the smog” that were included in Rome’s book both make the goals of reducing waste and preventing air pollution seem possible. There was a large emphasis on the education of the population on the topic. However, in the present day there seems to be a more pessimistic outlook. Now, because of the lack of action being taken, despite having had the scientific knowledge on how to make progress, there is a much more pessimistic outlook. Most people feel it is already to late. There also seems to be a link made between pollution and quality of life made in the past. Rome suggests that Americans and their consumerism had gotten too comfortable. There seemed to be a practice of ignoring the negative environmental problems if they did not affect you, with the assumption that others would take care of it. This differs from the present day, where it seems that this consumerism has progressed to the point where its environmental effects cannot be ignored.
I thought it was interesting, especially in Rome’s piece, to see how political the issue is. While the urgency of the 21st century environmental activism isn’t reflected, the environmental issues are still heavily politicized. It also seems like there were more disputes against environmental issues in the 1950-70s than there are now. While there are some people who still doubt climate change and its effect on the planet, it seems like it was an even more “new” idea and phenomenon that the public needed to grapple with. I also found it interesting to see about the origins of Earth Day and how it some areas, like Ohio, Earth Day was actually an entire week. The 21st century takes environmentalism from this activist idea that is positive and creates a movement that is more widely accepted as life or death.
The overarching striking difference between the sentiment behind environmentalism in the 1950s-70s versus today is the sense of unity derived from this activism. Rome illustrates the importance of Earth Day in creating infrastructure for the environmental movement, allowing issues such as pollution, population growth, nuclear fallout, etc. to be seen as connected issues rather than an overwhelming plethora of unrelated problems. As a result, activists and nonactivists alike had the ability to see the correlations between these hazards, promoting environmental awareness and establishing a more feasible means of combating these issues. While this allowed for crowds in the 60s to come together over a shared care for our planet, environmental activism today fundamentally differs. With social media platforms serving as a primary means of spreading environmentalist messages, there becomes an innate separation between people and the issues they choose to invest their time in. The collaborative nature has been lost on today’s activists, as today’s advocates are constantly trying to solve the issue on their own without employing the strength of connection.
Rome vs. Belgrad: how do they differ?
Ecological Thinking and the New Left
Rome’s prologue, “Give Earth a Chance,” about the historic teach-in in Ann Arbor, Michigan evokes ideas similar to Gosse’s vision of the New Left, but simultaneously breaks down Gosse’s thesis of the interconnected and united Left during the 1960s. The teach-in itself and its quest of “soul-searching,” to break down the problem of environmentalism to its bare bones, is reminiscent of the many discussions of other New Left groups, such as the consciousness-raising of the women’s liberation movement, and as Gosse argues, this process of thinking through a social issue as a group leads to more radical and New Leftist avenues of thought. But at the same time, Rome takes note that many people in the New Left groups were not happy with the environmentalism cause: “The campus black power organization threatened a boycott because the organizers were not devoting enough attention to the problems of the ghetto, while members of Students for a Democratic Society mocked the ‘not so liberal liberalism’ of the featured speakers” (Rome 5). It’s interesting to see how the students in Ann Arbor were struggling to balance the many New Left causes on campus and decide which required the most attention, with many resorting to putting the other radical groups down in order to advocate for their own.
One continuity between Rome’s description of Ecological activism and Gosse’s description of the New Left is the rise of student activists opposing the government on what they believe in. With Van Gosse, the success the Civil Rights Movement saw inspired many students to follow suite. Henceforth, many college students made many organizations, whether on campus or within the world of politics. There, they protested and opposed the government’s ways on a certain situation, including LGBTQ+ rights, right of free speech, and more. The same occurs within. Rome’s work, where students are taking the charge in actively forcing the federal government to enforce better protection of the environment.
Rome’s account of Earth Day and the emerging environmental movement as a whole provides a somewhat complicated connection to Van Gosse’s description of the New Left. The environmental movement of the time does share some similarities to other New Left movements. At its base, much of the movement was made up of young people working together to make liberal reforms to solve a social problem. There was a great saturation of the movement on college campuses, with 1,500 colleges and 10,000 schools holding tech-ins in 1970. That being said, the environmental movement was not as radical as other New Left movements. Both SDS and Black Power groups attacked the movement as not going far enough in inclusivity. Another interesting aspect that Rome brings up is that Earth Day had no precursors. While the “freshness and intensity” of the environmental movement matches other New Left groups, this was the beginning of environmental activism, while other groups had a much longer history. This was not just the revitalization of a previous social movement, it was the creation of a new one.