I think that these questions pose a really fascinating perspective for looking at environmental issues, and the role that environmental organizations play, whether trying to directly influence industry or target the system that allows industry to thrive. I agree with the rest of the class that colonialism and globalization brought with them a society based in capitalism, and therefore economic greed. The pitfall of environmental organizations is that they have built themselves from their base to fit within this system. By structuring the center of their mission to redefine the way that Americans live, to alter our system at least slightly away from the greeds of capitalism, and building a movement from the grassroots, the mission of these organizations would be better defined to truly ignite a social movement. Once that base layer is created I think the aspects of working in Washington once again hold value, when the influence of these organizations is built through social power, and not the small sums of capital they can muster is an attempt to outplay industry. I think that this movement should be built around and for the needs and voices of frontline communities. Organizations should be working not just to diversify their boards, but to shift their intentions to amplify the voices of frontline communities who are already feeling the impacts of climate change. However, these organizations have begun to assimilate with corporations, in structure and impact, and with that comes fear of losing their power, which is tied to the structures of capitalism and our current political system. Dowie says it best, that these organizations feel as though they cannot alienate their few political allies through radical action. But the truth is that these actions aren't radical, they solely center empathy over capital. They prioritize the health and wellbeing of all human beings, animals, and the Earth over the monetary value allotted to chemicals, minerals, and oil. Shifting the intentions of our society from the wealth of an individual to the prosperity of all people. And that fight must start on the frontline, achieving equity for all within our nation instead of furthering the prosperity of the 1%.
@a_hipp said:
Caroline, the more I thought about more representation or more diverse representation on the boards of environmental organizations, which I also advocated more, the more I wanted to clarify my previous thought. I believe as you do that, this is a critical step, but I think it is dangerous to assume that by 'letting' board members be front-line community members that they will get the same attention in meetings. If you just change up the demographics of the board without an outside party or transparency about what occurs in the meetings, these people can become only token members. Their presence would be to avoid criticism from the media or serve as an argument for the organization's agendas when confronted about having subaltern or local support. I am not sure how to mediate this problem completely. If anyone else has ideas besides a third-party spontaneous review of board operations, please chime in.
I totally agree- to jump off your clarification, I too think that more diverse representation would have incredible potential to be done unethically and un-impactfully. The only way I can think to really combat this is by having truly representative board groups. In my understanding, board members are the highest power in organizations and I am optimistic that putting people in that type of position of power would eventually end positively. I think all underrepresented demographics of people that are in positions of power (in all industries) have fought hard and dealt with the issues that you named. It can be done.
A third-party spontaneous review of board operations also makes a lot of sense to me. I'm not entirely sure however that even that board would be checked and insured to be ethical and just. I suppose though that it would be formed from scratch most likely, and therefore an equal starting ground, whereas infiltrating board groups would take time.
It really comes down to me as just a need for genuine desire to create change from these organizations. It can't be done half-assed or just due to social pressure from the outside. Whether thats realistic anytime soon however, I am skeptical.
How to be diverse but without POCs become token members: Maybe just by not being ethnocentric, raicist, or an asshole (sorry)? The fact that we need a thrid-party reviewing operations to have a decent inclusion of those people in the front-line sounds so scary (and brings lots of questions of who are the memebers of that thrid-party, what would they be looking for to make it more "fire" than what it is, etc.). I know where you are coming from tho, we live in societies historically racist and ethnocentric, but it just frustrates me that we still need to discuss this. If we are going to work within the system, at least give leadership positions to those who know what is going on in the field, have knowledge, and first hand experience. I just really believe white people should really start giving those spaces but also do not leave "diversity" or "justice" on their shoulders, white people can be followers to...
We don't live in a society "historically" racist and ethnocentric, we live is a society that is currently racist and ethnocentric. While of course ideally that wouldn't be the case and we could just propose- don't be "ethnocentric, racist, or an asshole," thats just not realistic at the current moment. Lots of current, "successful" people in positions of power are all of those things. I think its a really cool thought experiment of like how do we really work with what we've got if we tried to make these changes to these organizations tomorrow?
That's a really great point about "giving those spaces but also do not leave "diversity" or "justice" on their shoulders." That's a super important idea.
I think that you both making really important and interesting points. I agree with Julieta that the idea that we would need a third party member or committee to review the actions and direction of a board is rather disheartening, but I think that Caroline you bring up a really important point that that might just be where we are at as a society right now. But I believe that another alternative to either of these options is just proposing that these boards be far more transparent with their supporters. If we are talking about environmental organizations, the majority have a large basis of active supporters and volunteers, donating money and staying informed. If every board meeting was in some way transcribed, and publicized, or put in some sort of format for the public to comment, then maybe their supporters could act as this sort of third party. While people and our society in general are still racist, ethnocentric, and filled with assholes, and a large number of environmentalists supporting these groups are bound to fall under at least one of those categories, I think that this could be an opportunity to bring new ideas and experiences into these conversations that happen behind closed doors. I think that transparency can solve a lot of issues, and create an honest conversation. If all parties involved agree to hold a set of central values, then the rest of the community can work to hold those in power to those values, and hopefully further develop the mission of the group as they continue to grow. This might be out of reach for current large scale environmental organizations. But it is a way I see for growing grassroots organizations to continue to hold themselves and each other responsible, especially when those groups are attempting to do their part in tackling such wide-scale and complex issues such as environmental injustice and racism.
@cara said:
Enviromental injustices and human rights abuses have often been justified by the argument of it being a direct result of human nature. While I don’t think humans are inherent anti-atruism, nor do i think cooperation and mutualism are necessarily antithetical to our biological makeup, to some extent, it is irrelevant either way. Whichever inherent property we assign to humans, there are plenty of examples of the opposite. For the most part, I do not believe humans are confined to their biological makeup. Of course we cannot live without food or water, so in that way we have a biological restrictions on certain bodily capacities. However, I think humans transcend most “human natures” they are assigned, are become a product of social and cultural codes. In the documentary Awake, as well as elaborated on by mateo today, we saw a societal structure different from the one we all live in. There was no homelessness, malnutrition, federal or state law enforcement, violence etc. This is a model we can look to when violence, for example, is justified as “natural human behavior.”
I agree with you in that humans are not confined to their 'human nature.' I do however have a hard time believing that these different societal structures you mentioned become difficult to scale. I think there is something to be said about humans, and most animals for that matter, to be more focused on their own and their families well being. In a society that has millions of families, come from different backgrounds, live in different places, I believe it would be truly difficult to have everyone lookout for each other to avoid such things as malnutrition and homelessness. I think in these societies where everyone does cooperate for 'the common good' of all people everyone looks on one another as family, which I do not necessarily see scalable to a society as large as somewhere like the US.
I agree that it's essential to think about scale when discussing these issues. But I think that once again, the points that Joshua made in our opening questions are really important, in questioning whether or not it is the size of our nation, but the mentality that we as a society have created due to the weight of capitalism. I don't think that its a crazy thought to live in a nation as large as the United States and still hold empathy for all of your fellow citizens, or simply fellow humans. And I think that the fate of the environmental movement is fully dependent on our ability to unify in order to protect each other, whether or not you personally are being impacted by the effects of climate change. I don't think that you need to see someone as your family member in order to help them fight systemic injustices that have led to homelessness, starvation, and toxic poisoning. You can really just see that people are being harmed for no other reason other than the fact that our system has failed to protect the health of the public, and that therefore that system should change.
@a_hipp said:
Caroline, the more I thought about more representation or more diverse representation on the boards of environmental organizations, which I also advocated more, the more I wanted to clarify my previous thought. I believe as you do that, this is a critical step, but I think it is dangerous to assume that by 'letting' board members be front-line community members that they will get the same attention in meetings. If you just change up the demographics of the board without an outside party or transparency about what occurs in the meetings, these people can become only token members. Their presence would be to avoid criticism from the media or serve as an argument for the organization's agendas when confronted about having subaltern or local support. I am not sure how to mediate this problem completely. If anyone else has ideas besides a third-party spontaneous review of board operations, please chime in.
I totally agree- to jump off your clarification, I too think that more diverse representation would have incredible potential to be done unethically and un-impactfully. The only way I can think to really combat this is by having truly representative board groups. In my understanding, board members are the highest power in organizations and I am optimistic that putting people in that type of position of power would eventually end positively. I think all underrepresented demographics of people that are in positions of power (in all industries) have fought hard and dealt with the issues that you named. It can be done.
A third-party spontaneous review of board operations also makes a lot of sense to me. I'm not entirely sure however that even that board would be checked and insured to be ethical and just. I suppose though that it would be formed from scratch most likely, and therefore an equal starting ground, whereas infiltrating board groups would take time.
It really comes down to me as just a need for genuine desire to create change from these organizations. It can't be done half-assed or just due to social pressure from the outside. Whether thats realistic anytime soon however, I am skeptical.
How to be diverse but without POCs become token members: Maybe just by not being ethnocentric, raicist, or an asshole (sorry)? The fact that we need a thrid-party reviewing operations to have a decent inclusion of those people in the front-line sounds so scary (and brings lots of questions of who are the memebers of that thrid-party, what would they be looking for to make it more "fire" than what it is, etc.). I know where you are coming from tho, we live in societies historically racist and ethnocentric, but it just frustrates me that we still need to discuss this. If we are going to work within the system, at least give leadership positions to those who know what is going on in the field, have knowledge, and first hand experience. I just really believe white people should really start giving those spaces but also do not leave "diversity" or "justice" on their shoulders, white people can be followers to...
We don't live in a society "historically" racist and ethnocentric, we live is a society that is currently racist and ethnocentric. While of course ideally that wouldn't be the case and we could just propose- don't be "ethnocentric, racist, or an asshole," thats just not realistic at the current moment. Lots of current, "successful" people in positions of power are all of those things. I think its a really cool thought experiment of like how do we really work with what we've got if we tried to make these changes to these organizations tomorrow?
That's a really great point about "giving those spaces but also do not leave "diversity" or "justice" on their shoulders." That's a super important idea.
I think that you both making really important and interesting points. I agree with Julieta that the idea that we would need a third party member or committee to review the actions and direction of a board is rather disheartening, but I think that Caroline you bring up a really important point that that might just be where we are at as a society right now. But I believe that another alternative to either of these options is just proposing that these boards be far more transparent with their supporters. If we are talking about environmental organizations, the majority have a large basis of active supporters and volunteers, donating money and staying informed. If every board meeting was in some way transcribed, and publicized, or put in some sort of format for the public to comment, then maybe their supporters could act as this sort of third party. While people and our society in general are still racist, ethnocentric, and filled with assholes, and a large number of environmentalists supporting these groups are bound to fall under at least one of those categories, I think that this could be an opportunity to bring new ideas and experiences into these conversations that happen behind closed doors. I think that transparency can solve a lot of issues, and create an honest conversation. If all parties involved agree to hold a set of central values, then the rest of the community can work to hold those in power to those values, and hopefully further develop the mission of the group as they continue to grow. This might be out of reach for current large scale environmental organizations. But it is a way I see for growing grassroots organizations to continue to hold themselves and each other responsible, especially when those groups are attempting to do their part in tackling such wide-scale and complex issues such as environmental injustice and racism.
Oh believe me I very much know our societies are still racist and ethnocentric. Nevertheless, these organizations and hierarchies were built on the history of colonization, slavery, etc. how then can we tink that putting POCs there could make it change? I do think it can make it better, but still far away from changing the structures of inequality these organizations are built upon. Is like the whole discussion on how to be anti-racists at CC, it is impossible if we are still the institution that we are (occupaing native land, investing in imperialist oil companies, etc.). That is why I find it frustrating sometimes when we focus on this top level solutions instead of how looking at the bottom of the iceberg. I appreciate your positivity in beliving thath the system can change from within tho, I guess I just do not share it.
@a_hipp this is a really cool play on the "third-party" idea. I totally agree- transparency is SO important. The public can absolutely be that third-party and it is such a great concept because losing public support is a huge threat to these NGO's. It also solves another problem of getting the public more invested and much more passionate about the cause (doing more than just paying a $25 membership fee every year).
@ccstein said:
I think that you both making really important and interesting points. I agree with Julieta that the idea that we would need a third party member or committee to review the actions and direction of a board is rather disheartening, but I think that Caroline you bring up a really important point that that might just be where we are at as a society right now. But I believe that another alternative to either of these options is just proposing that these boards be far more transparent with their supporters. If we are talking about environmental organizations, the majority have a large basis of active supporters and volunteers, donating money and staying informed. If every board meeting was in some way transcribed, and publicized, or put in some sort of format for the public to comment, then maybe their supporters could act as this sort of third party. While people and our society in general are still racist, ethnocentric, and filled with assholes, and a large number of environmentalists supporting these groups are bound to fall under at least one of those categories, I think that this could be an opportunity to bring new ideas and experiences into these conversations that happen behind closed doors. I think that transparency can solve a lot of issues, and create an honest conversation. If all parties involved agree to hold a set of central values, then the rest of the community can work to hold those in power to those values, and hopefully further develop the mission of the group as they continue to grow. This might be out of reach for current large scale environmental organizations. But it is a way I see for growing grassroots organizations to continue to hold themselves and each other responsible, especially when those groups are attempting to do their part in tackling such wide-scale and complex issues such as environmental injustice and racism.
I will say though I do think that bringing people with different backgrounds and different beliefs together, and giving them power (ex: on board groups), would absolutely make a change. Whether it's enough change, or the change that I would like to see, I think its impossible to do that without some alterations occurring. I think that it's past due and these organizations have a moral and logical obligation to make such changes. In the most recent set of readings, it discusses the lack of indigenous representation at many of the meetings... theres two ways organizations could approach representation 1) just tokenizing the indigenous people and doing it to take some pictures and check a box, or 2) actually understanding the value in indigenous perspective. The readings talked about how many of the NGO critics (both inside and out of the organizations) were advanced enough to understand that the second option is critical. While it wasn't the people most powerful in organizations or even a high enough volume of people, that is the sort of thing that gives me hope and optimism that positive changes can occur.
@Julieta Are there other alternative suggestions you have? Or anybody? I agree, it's a super frustrating really unclear path- I just can't think of viable, better changes.
@Julieta said:
Oh believe me I very much know our societies are still racist and ethnocentric. Nevertheless, these organizations and hierarchies were built on the history of colonization, slavery, etc. how then can we tink that putting POCs there could make it change? I do think it can make it better, but still far away from changing the structures of inequality these organizations are built upon. Is like the whole discussion on how to be anti-racists at CC, it is impossible if we are still the institution that we are (occupaing native land, investing in imperialist oil companies, etc.). That is why I find it frustrating sometimes when we focus on this top level solutions instead of how looking at the bottom of the iceberg. I appreciate your positivity in beliving thath the system can change from within tho, I guess I just do not share it.
@caroline22 said:
I will say though I do think that bringing people with different backgrounds and different beliefs together, and giving them power (ex: on board groups), would absolutely make a change. Whether it's enough change, or the change that I would like to see, I think its impossible to do that without some alterations occurring. I think that it's past due and these organizations have a moral and logical obligation to make such changes. In the most recent set of readings, it discusses the lack of indigenous representation at many of the meetings... theres two ways organizations could approach representation 1) just tokenizing the indigenous people and doing it to take some pictures and check a box, or 2) actually understanding the value in indigenous perspective. The readings talked about how many of the NGO critics (both inside and out of the organizations) were advanced enough to understand that the second option is critical. While it wasn't the people most powerful in organizations or even a high enough volume of people, that is the sort of thing that gives me hope and optimism that positive changes can occur.
@Julieta Are there other alternative suggestions you have? Or anybody? I agree, it's a super frustrating really unclear path- I just can't think of viable, better changes.
@Julieta said:
Oh believe me I very much know our societies are still racist and ethnocentric. Nevertheless, these organizations and hierarchies were built on the history of colonization, slavery, etc. how then can we tink that putting POCs there could make it change? I do think it can make it better, but still far away from changing the structures of inequality these organizations are built upon. Is like the whole discussion on how to be anti-racists at CC, it is impossible if we are still the institution that we are (occupaing native land, investing in imperialist oil companies, etc.). That is why I find it frustrating sometimes when we focus on this top level solutions instead of how looking at the bottom of the iceberg. I appreciate your positivity in beliving thath the system can change from within tho, I guess I just do not share it.
@Julieta I completely agree that are flaws are within the very fabric of our society, and that therefore starting at the top doesn't do much to really affect the root of this issue. I guess that's why I proposed the idea of transparency and community engagement as a means for board accountability. It felt like a way to further promote grassroots organizations and their missions to further the environmental movement in a more equitable way, and representing the real concerns of frontline communities. If these organizations were held accountable for every one of their actions, because they had to publish them with the immediate response of the public being eminent, maybe they would work harder to actually represent just action, and truly incorporate the voices of marginalized communities. But I think that your point is really valid, diversifying a board often does just lead to tokenization and empty actions.
I think that colonialism and imperialism can definitely be to blame for most of our environmental problems today. This class has made me think a lot more about the roles that environmental organizations should play. I think a successful environmental organization could be a balance between grassroots organizations and ones that are wealthy enough to be considered an elite influence. Grassroots organizations don't make large negative impacts typically and large wealthy orgs have the means to create change quickly. I also think environmental organizations, especially large ones, have an obligation to support and protect on the ground activists that they are not currently upholding.
It seems like so many of today's issues have ties to colonialism that aren't well know. I have taken a lot of classes that addressed colonialism or were specifically about it but I never really processed how much of an impact it had on the environment. I think studying long term impacts of colonialism should be a part of US history classes, I heard about what happened to indigenous people and how their cultures and communities were impacted but not much about how this impacted the world. This culture of globalization and development has been the norm for hundreds of years. A cultural change would be the best for the world but realistically I don't see it happening soon.
Comments
I think that these questions pose a really fascinating perspective for looking at environmental issues, and the role that environmental organizations play, whether trying to directly influence industry or target the system that allows industry to thrive. I agree with the rest of the class that colonialism and globalization brought with them a society based in capitalism, and therefore economic greed. The pitfall of environmental organizations is that they have built themselves from their base to fit within this system. By structuring the center of their mission to redefine the way that Americans live, to alter our system at least slightly away from the greeds of capitalism, and building a movement from the grassroots, the mission of these organizations would be better defined to truly ignite a social movement. Once that base layer is created I think the aspects of working in Washington once again hold value, when the influence of these organizations is built through social power, and not the small sums of capital they can muster is an attempt to outplay industry. I think that this movement should be built around and for the needs and voices of frontline communities. Organizations should be working not just to diversify their boards, but to shift their intentions to amplify the voices of frontline communities who are already feeling the impacts of climate change. However, these organizations have begun to assimilate with corporations, in structure and impact, and with that comes fear of losing their power, which is tied to the structures of capitalism and our current political system. Dowie says it best, that these organizations feel as though they cannot alienate their few political allies through radical action. But the truth is that these actions aren't radical, they solely center empathy over capital. They prioritize the health and wellbeing of all human beings, animals, and the Earth over the monetary value allotted to chemicals, minerals, and oil. Shifting the intentions of our society from the wealth of an individual to the prosperity of all people. And that fight must start on the frontline, achieving equity for all within our nation instead of furthering the prosperity of the 1%.
I think that you both making really important and interesting points. I agree with Julieta that the idea that we would need a third party member or committee to review the actions and direction of a board is rather disheartening, but I think that Caroline you bring up a really important point that that might just be where we are at as a society right now. But I believe that another alternative to either of these options is just proposing that these boards be far more transparent with their supporters. If we are talking about environmental organizations, the majority have a large basis of active supporters and volunteers, donating money and staying informed. If every board meeting was in some way transcribed, and publicized, or put in some sort of format for the public to comment, then maybe their supporters could act as this sort of third party. While people and our society in general are still racist, ethnocentric, and filled with assholes, and a large number of environmentalists supporting these groups are bound to fall under at least one of those categories, I think that this could be an opportunity to bring new ideas and experiences into these conversations that happen behind closed doors. I think that transparency can solve a lot of issues, and create an honest conversation. If all parties involved agree to hold a set of central values, then the rest of the community can work to hold those in power to those values, and hopefully further develop the mission of the group as they continue to grow. This might be out of reach for current large scale environmental organizations. But it is a way I see for growing grassroots organizations to continue to hold themselves and each other responsible, especially when those groups are attempting to do their part in tackling such wide-scale and complex issues such as environmental injustice and racism.
I agree that it's essential to think about scale when discussing these issues. But I think that once again, the points that Joshua made in our opening questions are really important, in questioning whether or not it is the size of our nation, but the mentality that we as a society have created due to the weight of capitalism. I don't think that its a crazy thought to live in a nation as large as the United States and still hold empathy for all of your fellow citizens, or simply fellow humans. And I think that the fate of the environmental movement is fully dependent on our ability to unify in order to protect each other, whether or not you personally are being impacted by the effects of climate change. I don't think that you need to see someone as your family member in order to help them fight systemic injustices that have led to homelessness, starvation, and toxic poisoning. You can really just see that people are being harmed for no other reason other than the fact that our system has failed to protect the health of the public, and that therefore that system should change.
Oh believe me I very much know our societies are still racist and ethnocentric. Nevertheless, these organizations and hierarchies were built on the history of colonization, slavery, etc. how then can we tink that putting POCs there could make it change? I do think it can make it better, but still far away from changing the structures of inequality these organizations are built upon. Is like the whole discussion on how to be anti-racists at CC, it is impossible if we are still the institution that we are (occupaing native land, investing in imperialist oil companies, etc.). That is why I find it frustrating sometimes when we focus on this top level solutions instead of how looking at the bottom of the iceberg. I appreciate your positivity in beliving thath the system can change from within tho, I guess I just do not share it.
@a_hipp this is a really cool play on the "third-party" idea. I totally agree- transparency is SO important. The public can absolutely be that third-party and it is such a great concept because losing public support is a huge threat to these NGO's. It also solves another problem of getting the public more invested and much more passionate about the cause (doing more than just paying a $25 membership fee every year).
I will say though I do think that bringing people with different backgrounds and different beliefs together, and giving them power (ex: on board groups), would absolutely make a change. Whether it's enough change, or the change that I would like to see, I think its impossible to do that without some alterations occurring. I think that it's past due and these organizations have a moral and logical obligation to make such changes. In the most recent set of readings, it discusses the lack of indigenous representation at many of the meetings... theres two ways organizations could approach representation 1) just tokenizing the indigenous people and doing it to take some pictures and check a box, or 2) actually understanding the value in indigenous perspective. The readings talked about how many of the NGO critics (both inside and out of the organizations) were advanced enough to understand that the second option is critical. While it wasn't the people most powerful in organizations or even a high enough volume of people, that is the sort of thing that gives me hope and optimism that positive changes can occur.
@Julieta Are there other alternative suggestions you have? Or anybody? I agree, it's a super frustrating really unclear path- I just can't think of viable, better changes.
@Julieta I completely agree that are flaws are within the very fabric of our society, and that therefore starting at the top doesn't do much to really affect the root of this issue. I guess that's why I proposed the idea of transparency and community engagement as a means for board accountability. It felt like a way to further promote grassroots organizations and their missions to further the environmental movement in a more equitable way, and representing the real concerns of frontline communities. If these organizations were held accountable for every one of their actions, because they had to publish them with the immediate response of the public being eminent, maybe they would work harder to actually represent just action, and truly incorporate the voices of marginalized communities. But I think that your point is really valid, diversifying a board often does just lead to tokenization and empty actions.
I think that colonialism and imperialism can definitely be to blame for most of our environmental problems today. This class has made me think a lot more about the roles that environmental organizations should play. I think a successful environmental organization could be a balance between grassroots organizations and ones that are wealthy enough to be considered an elite influence. Grassroots organizations don't make large negative impacts typically and large wealthy orgs have the means to create change quickly. I also think environmental organizations, especially large ones, have an obligation to support and protect on the ground activists that they are not currently upholding.
It seems like so many of today's issues have ties to colonialism that aren't well know. I have taken a lot of classes that addressed colonialism or were specifically about it but I never really processed how much of an impact it had on the environment. I think studying long term impacts of colonialism should be a part of US history classes, I heard about what happened to indigenous people and how their cultures and communities were impacted but not much about how this impacted the world. This culture of globalization and development has been the norm for hundreds of years. A cultural change would be the best for the world but realistically I don't see it happening soon.