I've pondered a while how best to answer the questions: Why simplicity? How does living simply solve any problems? Help the poor? Help the environment?
These are, I think, reasonable questions worthy of an answer. The problems I have in answering it are probably mostly my own limitations: Limitations of brain power, understanding, ability to communicate and simply time.
I have reached my positions on this general area of thought as a result of much reading, listening and observation. Reading especially from the Bible, from Wendell Berry and other "secular"(ish) authors/thinkers of his ilk (Edward Abbey, Gene Logsdon, Bill McKibben, etc), as well as anabaptist and other progressive Christian voices, as well as the voices of native peoples and the poor. How does one condense all of this wisdom down to a blog-sized bite?
Bit by bit, I guess. So, to that end, I will try to offer in the coming days some excerpts from others and my own thoughts to address the question: Why Simplicity?
I have tried this once before, but that attempt was a pretty simplistic one. This time, I will endeavor to spend a little more time and thought on it.
First off, I think we might ought to consider problems of scale. Big, Global, Multinational Corporate solutions to problems cause their own problems and these problems are hard to deal with. Sometimes, impossible, at least it seems. Here are some of Wendell Berry's thoughts on this...
The large agribusiness corporations that were mainly national in 1977 are now global, and are replacing the world’s agricultural diversity, which was useful primarily to farmers and local consumers, with bioengineered and patented monocultures that are merely profitable to corporations. The purpose of this now global economy, as Vandana Shiva has rightly said, is to replace “food democracy” with a worldwide “food dictatorship...”
I believe that this contest between industrialism and agrarianism now defines the most fundamental human difference, for it divides not just two nearly opposite concepts of agriculture and land use, but also two nearly opposite ways of understanding ourselves, our fellow creatures, and our world...
Industrialism prescribes an economy that is placeless and displacing. It does not distinguish one place from another. It applies its methods and technologies indiscriminately in the American East and the American West, in the United States and in India. It thus continues the economy of colonialism. The shift of colonial power from European monarchy to global corporation is perhaps the dominant theme of modern history. All along, it has been the same story of the gathering of an exploitive economic power into the hands of a few people who are alien to the places and the people they exploit. Such an economy is bound to destroy locally adapted agrarian economies everywhere it goes, simply because it is too ignorant not to do so...
The industrial “solution” for such systems is to increase the scale of work and trade. It brings Big Ideas, Big Money, and Big Technology into small rural communities, economies, and ecosystems—the brought-in industry and the experts being invariably alien to and contemptuous of the places to which they are brought in. There is never any question of propriety, of adapting the thought or the purpose or the technology to the place. The result is that problems correctable on a small scale are replaced by large-scale problems for which there are no large-scale corrections. Meanwhile, the large-scale enterprise has reduced or destroyed the possibility of small-scale corrections...
In any consideration of agrarianism, this issue of limitation is critical. Agrarian farmers see, accept, and live within their limits. They understand and agree to the proposition that there is “this much and no more...” This is the understanding that induces thrift, family coherence, neighborliness, local economies. Within accepted limits, these become necessities...
This is exactly opposite to the industrial idea that abundance comes from the violation of limits by personal mobility, extractive machinery, long-distance transport, and scientific or technological breakthroughs. If we use up the good possibilities in this place, we will import goods from some other place, or we will go to some other place. If nature releases her wealth too slowly, we will take it by force. If we make the world too toxic for honeybees, some compound brain, Monsanto perhaps, will invent tiny robots that will fly about pollinating flowers and making honey...
This is from an excellent article at Orion and is well worth reading in full. You can find it here.
21 comments:
Big, Global, Multinational Corporate solutions to problems cause their own problems and these problems are hard to deal with. Sometimes, impossible, at least it seems.
Just a note: The same could be said for big, national (or global) government solutions. And virtually for all the same reasons. But liberal Christians seem to heartily embrace the latter while vehemently opposing the former.
"But liberal Christians seem to heartily embrace the latter while vehemently opposing the former."
I would say that's as much of an overstatement as if I were to say that conservatives seem to heartily embrace Big, Global, Multinational Corporate solutions while vehemently opposing government solutions.
I would note that Dan never said that only conservatives support one, or that liberals only support the other.
Then let's put it this way. The "living simply" precept ought to work just as well for government as for corporations. But liberals tend to keep moving power to Washington more and more. For those trying to live simpler, this tendency goes against that precept.
Notably, as in this post, corporations are inevitably mentioned, but government rarely is.
I fear I am going to do the whole multi-posting thing here. First, Dan, I think you might be interested in this blog written by an old school friend of mine. His approach to these and similar issues is different, but parallel, to your own. I think you should check it out, when you have time. Let Jim know I sent you, if you would.
Doug, with all due respect, Dan is not arguing a position in the lines you quote. Rather, he is quoting another. The failure of so many people to understand that the public/private split, the left/right divide is a false dichotomy, a distraction offered by elites who move back and forth between industry and the state apparatus with ease, to distract us from the reality that overweening bureaucratic control - regardless of political label (capitalism or communism) - or its situation (public or private) - is the real threat. It is that very "bigness", a bigness that ignores difference, a bigness that eradicates state boundaries, local traditions, and the benefits of variety that threatens to overwhelm us. Escaping this trap is not easy, precisely because the reach is so long, and the leadership is the same, whether in industry or the state.
I know of few liberals, or leftists, who would argue that an over-large state apparatus is an unmitigated good. Indeed, our current American bureaucracy is quite large, yet constrained by legal limits on action as well as a general apathy toward oversight in the public interest has prolonged a financial stagnation that could have been mitigated and even reversed, regardless of the size of bureaucracy given the task of oversight, without prior commitments to simply allow these semi-private entities to operate outside any effective control.
This isn't some weird, lefty view, either. Thoughtful conservatives recognize this reality and have spoken against it. One could even locate in Burke, the father of modern Anglo-American conservatism, tools to argue this point. We need to discuss the issue at hand without attaching meaningless ideological labels, or accusing ideological opponents of either collusion in the problem or of somehow missing the problem.
Dan, while I applaud much of what you have already written, I think a cautionary note needs to be entered here. In this case I am most definitely NOT referring to you, or your stated attempt to simplify your life. Rather, I am addressing the rising popularity of the attempt to live more simply within the broader society.
A couple years ago, the press revealed that the CEO of Whole Foods, Inc. was a union-buster. In the ensuing controversy, many who had shopped there expressed outrage, yet I for one have to wonder why. The marketing of "organic" agriculture, the mass appeal of living simply obviously would lead to the creation of businesses to profit from it. In the process, the logic of capitalism would certainly lead precisely to what happened.
The struggle, I think, needs to be one not just of living simply, but of encouraging local control. The example of the spike in the price of rice a few years back is a good example. A world-wide staple, the rice market was manipulated at the precise moment its was most needed in parts of the world that depend on it. This would have been unnecessary if there were more local control of staple crops, or Third World countries were not encouraged to move to an agri-business model, growing for export rather than domestic consumption.
Doug...
Then let's put it this way. The "living simply" precept ought to work just as well for government as for corporations.
What "living simply" precept are you speaking of? I certainly believe that Big Gov't can oppress or be unjust just as easily as Big Corporations.
Doug...
But liberals tend to keep moving power to Washington more and more. For those trying to live simpler, this tendency goes against that precept.
I could just as easily say that conservatives tend to keep moving more power to Washington.
You may or may not have noted, but liberals have been objecting to Big Gov't intrusion regularly. We object, for instance, to Big Gov't intrusion in who can and can't get married, in the war on drugs, in our massive military, our massive roadway system and over-dependence on fossil fuels, in our massive penal system, among other areas.
I don't know that liberals "keep moving power to Washington" any more than conservatives have. To be fair, they both have in different areas of interest.
For my part, I'm hesitant to see Big Gov't solutions, BUT, I'm also opposed to supporting a laissez faire/hands off gov't in favor of Big Corporations calling the shots. I support, instead, checks and balances. I support SMART gov't.
To use my favorite easy example: If a gov't prisoner rehab program costs $1 million, but SAVES $2 million, then that is both smarter and smaller gov't, an idea I support. So, for conservatives who would oppose that $1 million program as an example of "wasteful big gov't," I would have to say such a position would be silly, supporting neither smaller gov't nor wisdom.
Does that mean I want to see money thrown willy nilly from taxpayers into program after program? No. I seek a balance. I support programs that are responsible and credible, and oppose programs that are not.
Nothing in a quest for simplicity would suggest I ought to oppose any and all gov't programs, not that I can think of.
Geoffrey...
The struggle, I think, needs to be one not just of living simply, but of encouraging local control.
Point noted and agreed with. I am all about de-centralization of power (with the caveat that there is a place for federal intervention - in human rights violations, for instance. Over environmental concerns, for instance.
The debate should never be about who wants more or less government. The debate should be what kind of society do we wish to be. Right now, the debate is framed in such a way that those with power - corporate interests, including agribusiness, the banks and investment houses - win regardless of which party has control of Congress or the White House.
To insist that the government has no role in our economic life is, in effect to cede power in both private and public life to corporate control. It is also to pretend that corporations are some kind of natural entity, rather than artificial creations that now control their masters.
Simplicity, a preference for smallness and localized control does not negate the reality that we do need federal intervention; it only means the discussion has turned, or is at least turning, in the proper direction.
Yup.
Geoff:
Doug, with all due respect, Dan is not arguing a position in the lines you quote. Rather, he is quoting another.
No, I think those are his words, all of which are in italics before the quote from the Wendell Berry post. Or he could just be summarizing Berry, but either way these are either his words or words he agrees with.
The failure of so many people to understand that the public/private split, the left/right divide is a false dichotomy, a distraction offered by elites who move back and forth between industry and the state apparatus with ease, to distract us from the reality that overweening bureaucratic control - regardless of political label (capitalism or communism) - or its situation (public or private) - is the real threat.
Which is why I'm surprised you aren't a member of the Tea Party, for whom less government intrusion into our lives is the driving force.
I know of few liberals, or leftists, who would argue that an over-large state apparatus is an unmitigated good.
And yet they keep growing it by leaps and bounds. Support for ObamaCare is just the latest example. I don't know how many in this conversation were for it, but the reality is that Democrats (liberals, leftists) were the sole votes for a further consolidation of power in Washington.
And then I see posts about paring down powerful corporations. OK, but I wonder where Berry stood on the health care debate.
To insist that the government has no role in our economic life is, in effect to cede power in both private and public life to corporate control.
Who, other than anarchists, are saying this? Straw man.
Simplicity, a preference for smallness and localized control does not negate the reality that we do need federal intervention; it only means the discussion has turned, or is at least turning, in the proper direction.
Wow, there it is again. Are you sure you aren't a Tea Party guy? :)
Dan:
What "living simply" precept are you speaking of? I certainly believe that Big Gov't can oppress or be unjust just as easily as Big Corporations.
If living simply ("simplicity", in the words of your title) means scaling back corporation, then why not scaling back government? My main point in my first comment was essentially that when I hear liberals talk about scaling back, it's almost always corporations they're talking about, with government getting a scant aside, if that. ("Oh yes, well, that too.") While you certainly believe big government can oppress, I see far, far less of this in your posts; this in particular, and just a passing reference to it in Berry's article. I hear lip service. But as I noted to Geoff, the actions of liberals continually consolidating power in Washington belie any such lip service.
I could just as easily say that conservatives tend to keep moving more power to Washington.
I suppose you could, but your examples fall a bit flat. I can see the case one would make for the war on drugs, but the road system? Really? I can see the case one would make for scaling back the military, but it's a constitutional responsibility of government. That's an example of taking power away from the people? (And I can think of a number of countries who are very grateful for our "massive military".) Over-dependence on fossil fuels is anything at all akin to the freedom-sapping power grab of forcing people to buy something or suffer a penalty?
Republicans may have pulled a little towards Washington on some issues, but they pale in comparison to what Democrats have done. Simply saying both have done it ignores entirely the disparity of scale between the two.
Your favorite easy example strikes a blow to the aforementioned power grab that is ObamaCare. We know that this boondoggle will cost far, far more than its PR suggests. We just have to look at all the countries that have it, who are going bankrupt and are trying to come up with ways to scale it back; countries who, especially in the EU, we (without socialized medicine, I'm just sayin') are going to be bailing out soon. Where's the savings? How much "smarter government" is this?
The thing is, from what I'm seeing, your examples of supposedly intrusive government serve pretty much as a fig leaf. You use them so you can say you're not for all government expansion, but for the really invasive, massive ones, there's little to no peep from you.
But (getting back to my main point) all this is papered over when you talk of limiting only corporations for simplicity's sake. Oh, and government, too. Sort of. I suppose.
Doug...
And then I see posts about paring down powerful corporations.
? What do you mean by "paring down powerful corporations?" I have not mentioned that nor has Berry.
What Berry would suggest and I would agree is that we, the consumers, need to consider changing the way we consume. Given enough support, this could have the effect of "paring down powerful corporations," but it would just be a side effect of what we perceive to choosing a more just, sustainable, simple, apt way of life.
Doug...
And yet they keep growing it by leaps and bounds.
As have conservatives. Your point?
Doug...
If living simply ("simplicity", in the words of your title) means scaling back corporation, then why not scaling back government? My main point in my first comment was essentially that when I hear liberals talk about scaling back, it's almost always corporations they're talking about
To reiterate: I have said nothing about scaling back corporations. I'm speaking of changing our - MY - lifestyle. Scaling back MY life, not corporations.
Where are you getting that I'm speaking of scaling back corporations? I would like to see that, yes, but it would come as a result of a revolution of values in the lives of individuals.
"Which is why I'm surprised you aren't a member of the Tea Party, for whom less government intrusion into our lives is the driving force."
No it isn't. That's what they say it is, but that isn't really their agenda. They're no different than any other meddlesome so-called conservative on social issues. You occasionally seem like a reasonable guy, I'm surprised you've swallowed that BS, Doug. Let's be clear, anyone who thinks that any politician doesn't want power (concentrated in Washington) is an unmitigated idiot who has spent absolutely zero time understanding the history of politics in this country.
Interesting how Doug cannot think outside his tiny little liberal/conservative box. Every comment has to be turned back to the politics of left and right, as if those distinctions really made much difference when we're simply talking about living simply.
Dan says that corporations aren't all that great. Doug says, "Well what about governments?" Both Dan and Geoffrey state clearly that, in Geoffrey's words, "I know of few liberals, or leftists, who would argue that an over-large state apparatus is an unmitigated good. "
And Doug's response is "Well, what about governments?"
And his response, regardless of Dan or Geoffrey's discussion of rational limits of government will be, "Well, what about governments?" because he cannot conceive of any other response.
While Alan has partly managed to address some of what Doug wrote in response, I would just say that he continues to view the lens through what I have quite clearly written is a false set of categories.
This isn't a political issue. Or, rather, it is not an issue for which our current politics is designed. That Doug mentions the Tea Party here tells me a whole lot. I agree with Alan that they are not, at all, what they claim. This is not to say that individuals within the Tea Party movement do not hold these views. Rather, those who actually control the Tea Party - career Washington insiders and those who bankroll them - have a completely different agenda, known as distract and conquer. The Tea Party faithful are, to quote Lenin, useful idiots, tools to be used then discarded. Or better, bought off, as I am quite sure some of the new Tea Party members of Congress are already discovering.
Disengagement first entails setting all the conventional understandings - ideologies and labels - and seeing that the struggle consists in living outside the bounds and bonds of our all-too-narrow ways of living. It is a decision that is threatening to the powers-that-be because, first and foremost, it sees through the facade of how they want us to understand the world; it is a dangerous thing to see clearly, even more dangerous to talk about it.
Geoff:
That Doug mentions the Tea Party here tells me a whole lot. I agree with Alan that they are not, at all, what they claim. This is not to say that individuals within the Tea Party movement do not hold these views. Rather, those who actually control the Tea Party - career Washington insiders and those who bankroll them - have a completely different agenda, known as distract and conquer.
You mean the Republican establishment that, in a number of states, had hissy fits when the TP candidate won the primary?
Wow. Haven't seen this much conspiracy theorizing in a while from someone I'd considered thoughtful.
No, I'm talking about FreedomWorks, Dick Armey, the Koch Brothers - the documented funders of the Tea Party. Describing things that are actually happening, and have been documented numerous times is not discussing a conspiracy.
Anyway, that's a nonsequitur. The point is not who funds and runs the Tea Party, but what it means to live a simple life.
I refuse to repeat myself. I thought my point was clear. If you missed it, please ask me to clarify particular things. Otherwise, I don't have anything to add.
BTW, just to be fair and not paint with too broad a brush, Teabagger Scott Brown is for repealing DADT, so they're not all knee jerk phony conservative wackadoodles.
However, now the teabaggers hate Scott Brown, so ... um ... Yeah.
Update: He voted against it. So at least he's a consistent liar.
Post a Comment