So my first question is: where will we find new models for collective action? I see some hope in the proliferation of programs, hosted by think tanks, small non-profits and established training centers, designed to teach people the skills associated with being a political activist. James Hillman says we should look to the "recovery" community, and asks that we consider social activism as a form of self-actualization. Students are demanding a pedagogy that combines environmental politics and science with organizational development, psychology and contemplative disciplines such as yoga and meditation. What ties these developments together is a focus on relationships and process, rather than positions and programs. It relinquishes results in favor of fulfillment. It acknowledges ambiguity and moves psychology from sideshow to center. Is it enough? Should it be fostered? What can we do about it?
The second riddle is encapsulated in the unenviable plight of the Southern intellectual (Southern as defined by the South Commission, a less-industrialized country, courted by the North for resources and markets, and nothing else). He/She knows the value of the natural environment, and has fully incorporated the notions of environmental sensitivity and ecosystem management developed in the North. At the same time, she/he clearly sees the inequities in the global development pattern, and the obvious short-term value, to fellow citizens, in liquidating environmental capital (and the appearance of "justice" inherent in doing the same thing as the North did). And, he/she is a front row witness to the devastation-- in material, social and spiritual terms--caused by the global capital glut in the GATT-deregulated era. Finally, he/she is also unable to dismiss the excruciating irony of the progressive North turning Southward for ethical and spiritual renewal, particularly in relation to humanity's relationship with nature.
He/She is adrift, unable to craft a nationalist outlook, despite the temptation, because nationalism has become a proxy vote for global economic integration. Internationalism is equally suspect, falling either on its historical sword (the last populist internationalist of any repute being Karl Marx), or, in recent years, appearing ineffectual in the face of both resurgent nationalism and the capitulation of internationalist institutions such as the United Nations.
The question I ask is: What are we asking our Southern compatriot to do? Side with the people in a variation on Group of 77, "Third World," South-against-North politics (despite the fact that the governments of the "Third World" have already capitulated)? Become a virtuous "green internationalist" and acquiesce to the historical injustice, and consequent low standard of living, inherent in "unequal development?" Or champion an eco-spiritual renewal that eschews development altogether, despite the clamor of their fellow citizens for the riches of the west?
Please send questions or comments to suscon@well.com