Democratic Forest Trusts (PDF)in Watson, Alan; Dean, Liese; Sproull, Janet, comps. 2006. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: Eighth World Wilderness Congress Symposium; 2005 September 30-October 6; Anchorage, AK.Democratic trusts with leadership elected by citizen-members promise to solve many of the problems afflicting both traditional government and corporate ownership of forestlands. This article explores these issues in some depth.Complexity and the Dream of Human Control of Eco-Systems (PDF)in Watson, Alan; Dean, Liese; Sproull, Janet, comps. 2006. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: Eighth World Wilderness Congress Symposium; 2005 September 30-October 6; Anchorage, AK.The title captures it. I then explore the kinds of institutions compatible with both nature and the modern world that are implied from this analysis.Rethinking the Obvious: Modernity and Living Respectfully With Nature (PDF)The Trumpeter: Journal of Ecosophy, Winter, 1997.Modernity is usually considered a wrong turn in terms of respect for and sustaining the environment. I argue the reality is more complex, for modernity has freed us from personal dependence on agriculture, ended the economic value of children, radically reduced the likelihood of large scale wat, and shifted much production to intellectual rather than material capital. This partially decouples society from nature, which gives us important opportunities as well as problems.Towards an Ecocentric Political Economy (PDF)The Trumpeter, Fall, 1996.This paper begins my effort at showing how liberal modernity can be harmonized with an ecocentric perspective on our relationship with the natural world. It is a corrective to much “free market environmental” literature that sacrifices Nature to money as well as to anti-liberal attacks by well-meaning but economically naïve environmentalists.Unexpected Harmonies: Self-Organization in Liberal Modernity and Ecology (PDF)The Trumpeter, Journal of Ecosophy, 10:1, Winter 1993This is my initial paper exploring how what I term ‘evolutionary liberal’ thought can be an important means by which society and nature can be brought into greater harmony. The other Trumpeter papers build on it.Deep Ecology and Liberalism: The Greener Implications of Evolutionary Liberalism (PDF)Review of Politics, Fall, 1996.Liberal thought and deep ecology are usually regarded as mutually exclusive. But the “evolutionary” tradition offers a way to integrate the two through commonalties in the work of David Hume, Michael Polanyi, Arne Naess, and Aldo Leopold, providing a stronger foundation for liberalism while strengthening the case for an ecocentric ethic.(Related subjects: Ecology)Saving Western Towns: A Jeffersonian Green Proposal (PDF)in Writers on the Range, Karl Hess and John Baden, eds., University Press of Colorado, 1998.Developmental pressures in the rural and small town West involve three groups: long term residents, new arrivals, and environmentalists. Today their interests often conflict. This conflict is in part the outcome of institutions which prevent harmonizing competing interests. The concept of developmental trusts, both for rural regions and for small communities offers a means whereby these interests can be harmonized for the benefit of all concerned.(Related subjects: Politics)Social Ecology, Deep Ecology, and Liberalism (PDF)Critical Review, 6: 2-3, 1992.Murray Bookchin is considered a leading radical environmental theorist. However, his analysis is incapable of leading humankind towards a more respectful and sustainable relationship with the natural world. Criticisms of Bookchin from both the deep ecology and evolutionary liberal perspective complement one another, pointing the way towards a better understanding of how modernity relates to the environment.The paper as a whole offers an early discussion of issues that are more clearly addressed in later papers, particularly Deep Ecology and Liberalism (1996) and the three Trumpeter articles in 1997, 1996, and 1993. However, there are other ideas in the article which have not been developed more thoroughly elsewhere.
For me, one of the hardest things about being a Pagan is living in a society where nothing has value in itself. Our world is believed to be made up of things – people occasionally exempted unless they are in the way of a corporation. Some thing is valuable to the degree it can be transformed into something different from what it is or assists us as a tool. A tree is valuable as lumber, or maybe for the pleasure it gives someone who looks at it. The same is true for everything else. For ideologues left and right it holds for people as well, unless, for the right, they are a fetus.
Nothing separates me as a Pagan farther from the mainstream of this culture than its overwhelming disrespect for everything that does not serve the narrow ego.
When I returned to Sebastopol after living away for a time, I immediately noticed the strong emphasis in store windows across town to ‘buy local.’ Buy local even if the prices might be a bit higher and the choices a bit narrower. Some people might be cynical at the motives of these shopkeepers. In some cases their cynicism might be warranted. But that even a narrowly self-interested owner would make this call is a sign some Americans are beginning to think of themselves as more than consumers. Maybe even as citizens.
Our country is deeply sickened by the apotheosis of the consumer as some kind of ideal. But like the emperor’s new clothes, once questioned, its persuasiveness disappears. Who on earth hopes for their children to grow up into satisfied consumers? No decent parent. It is a sign of the degeneracy of the American right wing that after 9-11, George Bush urged everyone to – go shopping.
Mammon, our real national deity, responds that when resources are scarce, we should buy what is cheapest, leaving as much as possible left over for other things. Resources are always scarce. We are surrounded by scarcity. We need to be “efficient,” and we should reward the “efficient” who give us what we want for the least price.
Superficially this is a strong argument. I once believed it myself. But in fact it is a deeply destructive argument, spiritually and economically. From a small truth it weaves a complex falsehood. I’ll start with the economics, where we find the small truth.
Markets enable us to exchange things with each other, at the time each of us preferring the new situation over what we imagine would be the case if our exchange had not been made. It is win-win. When we spend less for something, we have more to spend on something else. This argument is not nothing, but it does not mean nearly as much as it sounds like it does.
The logic of exchange works best when all costs and benefits are experienced by those involved. Ideally we know the costs we are paying for the benefits we expect. Also ideally, the price we pay reflects the total costs we will pay for our new possession.
Let’s see how this plays out when deciding to buy online or locally. I can get something for one price locally, or somewhat less online. What to do? To choose wisely and well we need to see farther than our consumer ideal.
We live in places. These places are networks of human relationships (as well as with the other-than-human, but I am setting that aside for now). A city or town is a kind of social ecology, a network of complicated human relations, only some of which are reflected in dollars and cents. A neighborhood street does far more than assist transportation. Life on the street decreases or increases the rate of crime, the relationships residents have with one another, and the nature of growing up. A vital community has many storefronts and lots of sidewalk traffic. A dismal or dying one does not.
Locally owned businesses make for a more vibrant local economy, give more back in local donations and taxes than chain stores, and on balance help provide more and better jobs to the people who live there. None of these advantages are reflected in the price of what the stores sell.
When I look at something as a consumer, I compare its price at a local store with its price on Amazon, or somewhere else. But when I buy from the local store I am helping maintain my community’s social ecosystem. When I buy from Amazon, I am not. As residents and citizens of our towns and cities, we all benefit from these networks of relationships, most largely invisible to us. If I act only as a consumer, I will always under estimate the benefits from buying locally. The logic of farmers’ markets largely applies to buying other things locally.
What’s that got to do with spirituality, or Paganism? Quite a lot, I think.
Spiritually, buying from this larger perspective recognizes we are anything but isolated egos seeking to serve our ‘preferences.’ As wise people have known for millennia, and as science is demonstrating on even very subtle levels of our lives, we are who we are because of our relations. For example, the New Scientist reports on research showing our behavior is powerfully influenced not only by our friends, but also even by their friends whom we do not know. We are more likely to be depressed if the friends of our friends are depressed! Even if we do not know them. Our world is subtle.
A town in economic collapse, filled with depressed citizens, will tend to make citizens in it who are not depressed, depressed. A prosperous community will work the other way.
I am reminded of the Lakota blessing and reminder I was taught to say when entering a sweat lodge, “mitakuye oyasin” meaning “All My Relations.”
Pagan spirituality seeks harmony with all our relations, whether it be through the sweat lodge, or in seeking to bring ourselves into balance with the Wheel of the Year. This is the opposite of narrow consumerism.
To choose solely as a consumer is to consider something a means to some end other than it itself and ultimately relevant only to me. Things are valuable so far and so long as they serve us. Interpersonally, their only worth is in money terms.
Left unasked is whether everything is in fact a means to my ends? Answering ‘yes’ is the logic that directly undermines anyone who believes value is inherent in the world. “Consumerism” is an acid that eats away the sacredness of our world.



posted February 12, 2009 at 6:57 am
While my own budget generally requires that I purchase wants & needs at the lowest price possible I do try to do at least some of my shopping at local businessess and not only chains. This past Yule I purchased a few items on Etsy. Once a year I try and buy a Pagan title from a brick and mortar shop owned by a Witch instead of from Amazon.
As my monetary situation improves over the next several years (odds are it will take that long to dig out) I intend to gradually transition to a higher percentage of purchases from individually owned store/shops and less to the chains.
Blessings
Mama Kelly
PS Going to the farmer’s market tomorrow to buy eggs that were laid by chickens the next town over
posted February 12, 2009 at 10:55 am
This link is from one of my favorite health gurus who was demanized by Murdoch and Fox News for being a quack.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/02/12/Your-Best-Options-to-Eat-Locally-in-the-Winter-Wherever-You-Live.aspx
In the article/editorial to the link are listed some links to local farmers’ markets. During these economic times, though, people are generally more likely to go wholefood, thinking they’re getting more bang for the buck when they’re really paying more in health care costs ten and twenty years down the road.
Did watch the documentary Walmart: the High Cost for Low Prices on youtube yesterday. Sam Walton was more reputable in the way he conducted business than his children were. Started out as a noble concept with employees owning shares of the company. Now days, fulltime employees nationally require $5billion in government assistance and make an average yearly wage roughly $4k below poverty.
Less than six years ago I spent over four hundred dollars at a local hardware store that went out of business a couple of months after I last went there (could have saved roughly eighty bucks going to a Lowe’s). Felt like quite the fool actually. With hundreds of square feet of mahogany wood sitting in the living room and the garage I can hardly be termed a consumate do-it-yourselfer, but by golee these pagan blogs are so intellectually stimulating I can’t stop putting it off:-)
As consumers, though, few of us feel the responsibility to contribute to our local economy or understand what happens when large retail/wholesale chains run mom and pop operations out of business; yet we have no problem whatsoever condeming corporate welfare. Families can save hundreds (and sometimes thousands) a year in the short term, but in the long run it’s a dooser.
posted February 12, 2009 at 12:08 pm
I agree, In general, “buying locally” is a pretty good rule of thumb.
Some complications arise, however, about just what “local” means.
Take when mom/pop “local” businesses are displaced by national chains. The chain is not “local” in the organizational or economic sense. But “local” townfolk, neighbors and friends, may work for the chain. So buying from the chain does provide some “local” support vis paychecks.
And I sometimes think that foodstuffs are a different situation. Every locality probably cannot support the same assortment of foodstuffs that go together in a more or less balanced diet. So some foodstuffs do have to get transported so folks can eat a balanced diet.
The modern techno-economy has merged the “global” with the “local” so that we cannot tell which is which in a lot of ways anymore.
posted February 12, 2009 at 12:32 pm
I agree with Pitch313 and would like to add to that by saying even ‘local’ goods bought at mom and pop stores are often not local. Where was that cast resin statue you bought at the local metaphysical shop made? I’ll bet my last dollar the sticker on it said India or China.
posted February 12, 2009 at 2:20 pm
If anyone is interested, you can go to http://www.localharvest.org to find out what products are grown/produced nearby.
BUY LESS is an organization that confronts the corporate sponsorship dillema. How many people here have bought something you may have wanted, but didm’t really need, because it was labeled “… a portion of the proceeds will go to…”. Morphing charity into consumerism has been devastating to small not-for-profit organizations because it sort of lulls the public into thinking they’ve already been generous.
In my household, we made the decision several years ago that we would not buy anything brand new unless it was something we really couldn’t buy used from a thriftstore, auction, flea market, etc. Not saying everyone can or should do that, but it works for us.
posted February 13, 2009 at 4:08 am
I’m curious about a couple parts of your post. Why would you say that
“None of these advantages are reflected in the price of what the stores sell”? It seems that insofar as people, through buying local goods, express their preferences for the advantages that local stores bring, they are in fact reflected in the prices of those goods. It creates a niche for people who value the local benefits and a niche for people who don’t.
And for someone who doesn’t find it self-evident, could you explain how you are “helping maintain your community’s social ecosystem” by simply buying from a local store? Could you frame that in a more substantial way please?
Doesn’t your post overlook the possibility that people who share a geographical area might have opposing ideas about the type and scope of the “social ecosystem” they want to live in? How can we make this phrase less empty?
By the way, I greatly respect your work and your personal honesty about your journey. Keep the faith