Due Oct 1
The Origins of the Environmental Movement
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?
Historical shifts in the language, logic and metaphors of the movement
⤹Click the reply button just below.
The language of ecology in the 1950s–70s has a lot in common with how environmental activists talk about the environment today. One of the main ideas Belgrad discusses is that humans are connected to nature and that our actions can affect the larger environment.
I think there are more similarities than differences between the environmental ideas of the past and today. Environmental activists today still talk about how everything in nature is connected. For example, when people talk about climate change, they explain how human actions can affect animals, plants, oceans, and even other people. The language is different because today we talk more about things like climate change, pollution, and biodiversity, but the basic idea is still similar. Both perspectives show that humans are a part of nature instead of being completely separate from it.
I also think the metaphors used by environmental activists have stayed pretty consistent. Both older and modern environmental movements use the idea of the Earth as a connected system. Belgrad shows how ecological thinking encouraged people to rethink the relationship between humans and nature. Instead of seeing nature as something humans should completely control, people began to see the importance of understanding how natural systems work and how humans fit into them. That idea still plays a major role in environmental activism today.
The language and logic of Sixties environmentalism and the environmental justice movements of today differed greatly, though more in style than in substance. The main through-line of these differences, however, remains consistent – the sense of urgency applied to the rhetoric and means used in pursuing environmental justice. This makes sense, given that there exists a sixty-year gap between now and the Sixties, and therefore sixty more years of carbon emissions and research into the ongoing climate crisis.
In terms of language, the rhetoric of Sixties environmentalism largely focused on a more cool, collected sense of “municipal housekeeping,” rooted in the ideas of a “‘qualitative liberalism’ dedicated to bettering the quality of people’s lives and opportunities” (Rome 29, 11). This “qualitative liberalism” focused less on an urgent sense of a “climate crisis” or “Earth dying,” and more on integrating humanity and its environmental practices with an ecosystem characterized as a “single sentient and intelligent being named ‘Gaia’” (Belgrad 17). Whereas modern rhetoric characterizes the environmental movement as an urgent movement against an existential threat to the current model of human civilization, Sixties environmentalism’s rhetoric largely focused on moderate, yet actionable, methods of fixing pollution, improving quality of life (especially in cities), and generally working on what Rome quoted Kenneth Galbraith as “the problem of social balance” (Rome 11).
The actual methods employed by Sixties environmentalists were similarly less urgent, and thus more diverse in their methodology. Compared to modern environmentalism that seeks to highlight the urgency of the climate crisis through bold acts of, for example, civil disobedience or mass marches, Sixties environmentalism focused more on a slower-paced campaign of education and the rallying of popular support for specific reforms, which became especially amplified on Earth Day. As Rome states, approximately “1,500 colleges and 10,000 schools held teach-ins” in 1970, along with other organizations like churches and municipalities. Petitions on specific environmental topics, e.g. blocking supersonic rail in Seattle, netted hundreds of thousands of signatures. Clean water groups coalesced into a “coalition of almost forty labor, municipal, and conservation groups” (Rome 30). Additionally, the environmental movement employed more abstract theory to justify their goals, such as systems theory and what Belgrad called the “complex feedback loops” of a “new ecology,” which called for humanity to self-correct its effects on the environment (Belgrad 2). Overall, both the rhetoric and methods of the environmentalist movements of the Sixties had a lesser sense of global emergency to them, with a greater emphasis and focus on the day-to-day issues of an America that did not yet have organizations like the EPA or laws like the Clean Air Act.
The language of the 1950s- 70s environmentalist movement differs most significantly from the language of today through the words that they used to describe themselves. For example, both texts talked largely about “Ecology” and less about “Environmentalism”. The second text defined Ecology as something that includes environmentalism but isn’t limited to it, something that thinks more widely about the world than environmentalism. I found this interesting because you will seldom find an environmentalist today who refers to themselves as an ecologist, and I thought it represented the differences between the movements. Additionally, I found that in the first text, a lot of the reasoning behind environmentalism was based on a patriotic feeling. For example, they talked about wanting to protect America “the Beautiful”, and how that was tied into environmentalism and conservationism. This differs from rhetoric by environmentalists today because I would argue environmentalists today are more focused on a global perspective, with sayings like “there’s no Planet B.” Finally, there were some similarities between the language of then and the language of now. For example, in the first passage, environmentalists were being accused of being “alarmists,” something that right-wing pundits still accuse environmentalists and climate scientists of being today.
The major similarity between the eco-activists of the 1970s and those of today lies in the discourse of unavoidable feedback and existence. According to both parties, the violation of natural processes results in an inevitable and catastrophic backlash, the collapse of the 1970s Malthusian type corresponds to the contemporary fear of the Earth climat tipping point. Nevertheless, metaphors of obligation are significantly different. While rejecting the standardization of work according to Taylorism, the 1970s movement viewed nature as an intelligent and intersubjective entity with blurred boundaries and defined obligation as the creation of qualitative harmony with nature. On the other hand, the contemporary environmentalists have moved away from this countercultural spiritism, switching the language from spiritual tuning to climate justice and technological regulation. Nature is no longer perceived as a living creature but as a mechanism which needs careful quantifying and budgeting.
Differences between Rome’s and Belgrade’s accounts of the early movement
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Rome and Belgrade’s accounts of the environmentalist movement were strikingly different, each being interesting in their own way. Rome’s account is very much like the one that I have seen in history books, stating the environmentalist movement came as a result of people finally realizing they were destroying the planet, and Rachel Carson’s book bringing awareness to that. Later on in the account, when Women and young people were mentioned, it complicated my understanding of the movement, as I was interested to learn about counterculture environmentalism, and how environmentalism became an escape from traditional gender norms. That was interesting to learn about how influential the movement was, as I had originally thought environmentalism came as an afterthought to the other movements, but that isn’t the case. However, Rome’s account details a reactionary approach to the movement, as humans scramble for change after having already industrialized and created unsustainable habits. Belgrade’s account, was incredibly different and gave an interesting approach I had never thought about. Belgrade highlighted the connection between technology and the environmentalist movement, as there seems to be this “feedback cycle” which grew human consciousness of the movement. It was difficult for me to understand most of this approach, but I found it interesting how it took a more proactive approach to the moment, and relied on philosophy and technology to understand what efficiency and environmentalism were in a scientific perspective. Rome’s approach has more of a sociopolitical approach, highlighting how environmentalism progressed through the democratic movement in the ’60s. The scientific approach by Belgrade had some interesting points which stood out to me – like how music can be utilized to connect with sentient nature, how different styles of government and leadership can be applied with this approach (tyranny, central authority, democracy), and Cybernetics in the life sciences. A lot of these scientific innovations are still being practiced today and I see a similar viewpoint existing with the growth of Robotics and mechanization, SpaceX, and the growing anti-AI movement with an environmentalist perspective.
The accounts of Rome and Belgrade are very different in how they speak about Earth Day and environmental awareness. While Rome’s piece takes a very tradition approach to a movement, Belgrade tackles the topic in a slightly untraditional way. Rome’s piece is similar to a lot of the we’ve read so far. It talks about the movement and includes context from the time period that is relevant and helps contextualize what was going on during the time period. He mentions the news coverage during the time and specific news sources, including the New York Times. Additionally, he talks about the groups that very fighting for the cause and money raised they raised to fund the movement. In his writing we see student groups that were apart of the effort along with other environmentalist groups, and Rome identifies the beginning of the environmentalist movement. Belgrade takes a different approach when talking about ecology. He strays away from talking about the movement and groups involved and instead focuses on the science and philosophy that is also involved in ecology. Instead of mentioning groups and news coverage, the reading uses evidence from readings that also prioritize the science and theory. The contrast between Rome and Belgrade’s readings demonstrates how entirely different approaches can be taken to address the same issue at a similar time.
Rome and Belgrad present the early environmental movement from very different angles. Rome focuses on environmentalism as a political and social movement that came together around Earth Day in 1970. He argues that before Earth Day, concerns about pollution, pesticides, wilderness, population growth, and other issues were often separate, but Earth Day helped unite them into the idea of a larger “environmental crisis.” He also emphasizes organizing, teach-ins, public activism, and the way Earth Day inspired people to build lasting environmental institutions. Belgrad, however, is more interested in the intellectual and cultural side of ecology. He describes “ecological thinking” as a worldview based on feedback, interdependence, diversity, and the idea that humans exist within larger natural systems rather than above them.For Belgrad, environmentalism was only one expression of this much broader shift, which also influenced ideas about society, democracy, art, and even human identity. Rome therefore shows how environmentalism became an organized movement, while Belgrad explains the deeper way ecological ideas challenged traditional beliefs about control, progress, and humanity’s relationship with nature. Together, the two readings suggest that the rise of environmentalism was both a political movement and a major change in how Americans understood their place in the world.
Adam Rome and Daniel Belgrad make different comparisons of the early Environmental movement because they focus on different aspects of how environmentalism developed. Rome depicts the movement as something that was still fragmented and unorganized before Earth Day 1970, because it had different groups working separately on issues like pollution, wildlife, wilderness, and nuclear fallout. He argues that Earth Day helped create the movement by bringing these different activists together under a common environmental cause. Rome also emphasizes the enormous variety of people involved, including scientists, students, middle-class women, politicians, labor leaders, and people with very different political perspectives. For example, the University of Michigan teach-in included both Republican and socialist perspectives and even debates about whether environmentalism would distract from the Vietnam War, civil rights, or women’s liberation.
Continuities between Ecological activism and the broader New Left
⤹Click the reply button just below.
A continuity that is seen between the Ecological activism described by Belgrad and the broader New Left as described by Van Gosse is the new understanding of efficiency that is created from these movements. Belgrad says, “The ecological idea of efficiency contradicted the conclusions of social Darwinism and Taylorism concerning the nature of progress and the value of diversity. In ecological systems, higher rates of efficiency are associated with greater complexity, not greater simplicity. Rather than standardization (the “one” best way) and the elimination of the superfluous, ecological thinking values of diversity and inclusivity. Diversity enables more forms of interdependency and greater resilience.” Although Belgrad is talking about the environmental movement in this quote, this change in understanding of efficiency that he is talking about in this specific movement is seen through the broader New Left that is described by Van Gosse. The New Left would argue that there is more than just “one way” for society to function. Many people from different backgrounds participated in creating change and had a great impact on society. Both the environmental movement and the broader New Left are similar as they challenged traditional ideas and systems.