Populist Discourse

Deforestation.

Desertification.

Biodiversity Utilization.

Climate change.

These are the topics of environmental issues that surround the modern day ecological concern, as addressed in Adger et Al’s “Advancing a political ecology of global environmental discourses.”

Populist discourse.

Is probably the most abused, politically empirical system of worthless opinions compiled into a platform of nonsense.

The perfect example of that political jargon is Cezar Chavez’ closing speech of his ’06 campaign.

Summarized in this link: http://umvod.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/jensen-chavez1.pdf

So what are some characteristics of a largely populist debate?

-There is always an evil, like big brother or the wealthy elite. There has to be a small group of someones that the larger group can blame.

-It touches on national leaders or religious subdivisions, reaching to a higher, stronger—more well known being or power.

-There are only two sides to each situation: the perfect outcome and the absolute disaster. There is no median, no gray areas- just black and white.

-And it is largely democratic- wanting to benefit the majority versus the minority but never having an exact recipe for the desired outcome.

In fact, the majority of debates that contain political stimulation rely on methods such as populist discourse in order to gain favor from the public.

In reference to the environmental issues stated earlier, a populist discourse is the absolute worst point of view to take onto the matter.

Populists create victims of average farmers and land owners. And although arguably true, there is no benefit in categorically grouping those who make money and those who don’t. farmers, in our economy simply cant be given more. A capitalist economy thrives on the backs of the workingmen. And although morally the argument is questionable, that’s just the way things are. Populist discourse creates two VERY separate standings: the poor and the rich,

Another downfall is the cosmic proportion of those affected. Deforestation affects EVERYONE. Yes, it may be that somehow in a very small but significant way, myself or you are affected by the deforestation of virgin lands. It would be ideal if EVERYONE who was affected pitched in for change, but the reality is that only a number are affected and the problem cannot be rooted to a certain group if it effects everyone.

The worst cause of a populist discourse is that the overworked farmer becomes the targeted audience, he becomes the noble man of the land. Instead of asking the rich for tributary help, populists command that the farmer must embody his power as a common individual and strive with his brothers and implicitly get richer.

Nature and "Wilderness"

Being raised in Siberia, Russia, I have a different standing about the ethical attitude towards nature.

But before I explain a cultural relationship similar to Cronon’s essay, first allow me to expand on civil measures of my home city.

Let’s take Tucson for example, which has a very strict zoning policy similar to the majority of larger cities in America. Part of the zoning regulations (City of Tucson Code) requires that 80% of the desert terrain remain untouched due to the booming economy and the immature spending of local construction companies. Some areas are completely gated, forbidding the tampering of land and exploiting indigenous fauna.

In America, strict laws are instituted to ensure that wildlife and nature persists. But in my city, Irkutsk, there are no laws or federal regulation that protect the surrounding flora and fauna; it is dependent on the cultural and ethical teaching of the civilians to protect it.

Culturally, the Russian outlook towards nature is “use it as you must”, but when larger projects call for native material, the contractor will generally outsource from a neighboring country (soviet union remains). Generally everyone in Russia owns a summerhouse that is located far from the city, clustered together with other similar-use homes. It is like every working town has a vacation town right next to it. Oftentimes, you’ll even find the same neighbors. It is moreover a cultural attitude towards the natural way of life: you work and survive in a booming industrial capital but you live within nature, miles away from the city, tucked into the most remote woodland. And there is where the ethical values of human involvement play. That is where your vacation, celebration, camps, leisure and luxury reside.

A typical russian dacha (summerhouse).

I am lucky to study in America.

 But when I think of my home, I do not picture a city, roads, skyscrapers or smog, I generally think of never-ending forests, ice-cold lakes and the nurturing wilderness around me.

The Security Umbrella of Consumption- A Culture of Capitalism

Apart from the “American dream”, the social standard within the states relies on the premise of happiness. The pursuit of happiness has become the accumulation of goods in order to socially establish oneself as a successful individual.

 This culture of capitalism emerged around the end of the 19th century, where the marketing concept, as part of a consumer experience, came into play. Sut Jhally, in his commentary of the “Advertising and the end of the World” claimed that the advertising culture dominated the outstanding values of the American society. Normal arrangements between the consumer and the product no longer held, a drive for desire, eroticism and love became the newfound values in goods. Consumers believed in the magical powers of material items to bring them wealth, happiness, love, attraction—incredible powers. The public consciousness revolved around the desire of identity, falsely associated with accumulated goods.

The social values of life changed. “…change in spiritual and intellectual values from an emphasis on such values as thrift, modesty and moderation towards a value system that encourages spending and ostentatious display”(18, Robbins).

 The culture of capitalism flourished. The immense accumulation of commodities altered the society to work in immediately responsive stages: production, distribution and consumption. The government reaped benefits from a consumer based culture, and thereby instituted higher wages in turn of more buying power. Higher wages provided an incentive to work more, work harder—creating an overworked, over stimulated society. The culture became entirely based on accumulation: the capitalist‘s accumulation of profit, the laborer’s accumulation of wages, and the consumer’s accumulation of goods.

 But apart from the obvious strategies that marketing promotes, the religious efforts for commodity accumulation that the government encourages, and the over stimulated society that we reside in, the most frightening aspect is our individual value. What is our society, but just a bunch of individuals acting on their own? Advertising talks to us as individuals, about our own fantasies, pleasures and comforts. The same billboard, the same message can be viewed by a hundred people who view it a hundred different ways. And that’s the unfortunate outcome. Our society has become a capitalist culture due to the individual’s value. We expect a level of service when we walk into a store, we expect advertisements to appeal to us, we expect recognition for our solitary work—we are more concerned with our own accomplishments than our bands, our families.

 We are in a culture that discouraged packs, unions, groups, and generosity. Our government has created a society of greedy individuals, coming together based on material accumulation. And we fell for the security umbrella of consumer culture due to our own selfishness and falsely appropriated self worth. And because of our own privileged viewpoint we look past the issues that don’t concern us directly—poverty, healthcare, housing, homeless, and the environment.

Link to Advertising and the End of the World:

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8gM0Q58iP0

And an interesting read:

>http://news.ucsc.edu/2008/04/2121.html