Robertson's comment about the all-encompassing systems of nature, especially of the forest, bring back memories from childhood, of growing up in the golden hills and oak dense forests of Northern California's dry climate and also images of my summer times in the state of Washington, the Evergreen State, where thousands upon thousands upon thousands of Douglas Firs and other northern climate trees thicken the hillsides and valleys. I remember hiking up snoqualmie pass with my grandfather and uncles, enjoying the smell of pine, the sound of rapids in the river, and the buzz of the honeybee. It is hard to believe such an environment is constantly changing and evolving. And that it is our job to sheperd it to sustain it. This is not only a daunting task but it is the only way for us to survive into the future. We must realize the issues of Carrying Capacity and seek long lasting ways to be one with our environment and introduce jobs that will change our industries to work in unison with nature. If we don't, the beauty of the forest and the emotions I feel when looking back at those summer memories, will mean nothing.
"The third 'E' represents equity, that is, social equity or equality (Edwards 2005, 23). Equity includes freedom from unhealthy living conditions and equal access to food, water, employment, education, and healthcare. Equity means providing opportunities for all not just a privileged few, to grow and flourish in their own way." (Robertson 2014, 6)
This is where 'Sustainability' fails its readers. It makes a priori claims without proving the theoretical realism with observable experience. Furthermore, the book is careless with language. This part of my blog will be dedicated to the absurdity of the statement above. First, I will start off by reciting Black's Law Dictionary's definition of Equity: Fairness; Impartiality; evenhanded dealing; 2, The body of principles constituting what is fair and right; natural law. (Garner 1996, 272) This definition requires further explanation. First of all, the book subtly puts a political bias into its language when it synonymizes equity and social equity with equality. According to the definition of equality, for instance, is the right to be equal in power, achievement, or excllence (Oxford English Dictionary). This creates a subtle semantic divide between the two concepts, especially in practice. For example, an Equity Court does not determine whether someone is being paid the same for the same job. Rather, they decide whether the conditions of the job allow for an equality in pay. This distinction is taken for granted in Robertson's book. In fact, she discusses Social Equity as equal to equity which is equal to equality. This type of non sequitur argument over generalizes the implications she sets forward to present. One example of this is the fact that social equality has a different definition than social equity. Despite her lack of contextual and semantic analysis, Robertson also loses focus when she discusses the "privileged few" in terms of equality. This sort of social critical theory has little place in her analysis because it contains polarizing dialectics that do not represent the unity that should be involved in arguments for sustainability. Hence, instead of saying not just for the privileged few, she could say "Equity means providing opportunities for all" so "that they may grow and flourish in their own way". It isn't that hard to not push for a political side in discourse if you wish to respect everyone. Because when you don't, you provide impetus for your readers to demonize certain people and become less critically aware individuals, instead descending into the marshes of justice as ideological singularity.
"The chemist Ellen Swallow developed the concept of human ecology, an approach in which humans are not seperate from nature or managers of nature; they are part of nature and work within it." (Robertson 2014, 12)
Although I can agree with Swallow's argument, again, Robertson isn't sensitive with her language. In fact, she makes it seem as though Swallow was the first to realize this when, in fact, many Christians who believed they were given "dominion over the land and sea" also believed in the same concepts. In fact, they inextricably tied the movement of other planets and the sun to their own bodies in such a way that there was a singularity of essence in the universe (i.e. the pre-cartesian worldview of Embodied Cognition). I don't understand how someone who claims that everyone should have a broad understanding of many different disciplines would be insensitive to historical reality. The natural world was a part of the body, the soul, and the heavens. This idea stems from ancient Greece and it carried over up until the Enlightenment. Robertson should be aware of this and be more sensitive with her verb usage. Instead of saying developed, she could've easily said "re-introduced", which reflects historical reality and is more consciously aware of the language used in her narrative. This would give students a more realistic image of ideas and how they can be used to change the world, in my honest opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment