What are the social conditions needed for an ecologically sustainable society and how would these conditions affect our levels of well-being in comparison to present levels of well-being?
“It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness”(Marx, 1971:20)
'Despite the 24-fold increase in the size of the global economy over the past century' (CASSE & EjfA, 2010) 1.2 billion people still live on less than a dollar a day and 2.7 billion on less than two dollars a day whilst 20% of the global population consume 80% of the worlds resources (Trapese, 2008). As underdeveloped nations endure poverty, genocide, sweat shop labour, famine and the wars fought for the oil (Greenspan, 2007) needed for the plastics those in the west consume, a minority get to bask in the excess provided by global consumer capitalism. In addition, and as a result, we're facing the greatest humanitarian issue of recent centuries: an ecological crisis that kills thousands daily and threatens the continued survival of our species (Goldring edited by Trapese, 2008). If preventing the crisis entails curbing consumption and consequently accepting a reduction in well-being then for many burying ones head in the sand sounds tempting. Yet what if this assumption is false? What if the opposite is true? Then we'd owe it to ourselves and those globally whose lives are affected daily to find out.
The aim of this essay is to discover the social conditions needed for an ecologically sustainable society as well as discovering how these conditions would affect levels of well-being compared to present levels of well-being. To do this I shall examine the social conditions causing the present ecological crisis with the aim of discovering the conditions required for an ecologicallly sustainable society. I shall then examine our present levels of well being, the social conditions that cause them plus the conditions believed to maximise well being. We can then contrast the similarities and differences between ecologically sustainable social conditions, present conditions and those deemed to maximise well being in order to analyse how an ecologically sustainable society will affect our well-being.
What are the social conditions causing the ecological crisis?
The excessive consumption of the planets resources is clearly a part of the answer. 'Humanity now uses eleven times as much energy, and eight times the weight of material resources every year as it did only a century ago' (CASSE & EJFA, 2010). It is clear that 'the appropriation of materials, energy, and land for human activity has profoundly impacted ecosystems' (ibid) and that an economic system that seeks continuous growth by design is the cause of the ecological crisis.
There is wide-spread consensus that Capitalism is an inherently anti-ecological economic system that by its own logic must expand and thus plunder the natural environment. Fail to expand and an enterprise will be driven out of business or taken over by a competitor. New markets must be pursued, product portfolios developed and ever increasing consumption manipulated 'thus invading more eco-systems, using more resources, and upsetting the interrelations and delicate balances that exist within eco-systems' (McKay, pg 437, 2008). The pursuit of profit maximisation in a system based on ever increasing production views the natural world as nothing more than a resource to be exploited, a commodity to be consumed and a profit to be made. Cancerous, it threatens to devour its host, unless removed.
Whilst it is evident that a capitalist economy is incompatible with the preservation of the natural world and the stability of its eco-systems the root cause of the environmental crisis runs deeper. It is Social Ecologist Murray Bookchin that emphasises the social nature of the ecological crisis. In such classic works as Post-Scarcity Anarchism, The Ecology of Freedom and Towards an Ecological Society he has argued rigorously that humanities domination of nature is the result of domination within humanity itself. He claims that 'man has produced imbalances not only in nature, but, more fundamentally, in his relations with his fellow man and in the very structure of society' (Bookchin, 2004:23). The emergence of hierarchical institutions and market relationships that degrade human beings with 'hunger, material insecurity, class rule, hierarchical domination, patriarchy, ethnic discrimination and competition' (Bookchin, The Future of the Ecology Movement quoted from McKie, 2008) provide the backdrop for human's changing relationship to the natural world. Bookchin elucidates:
'The patriarchal family planted the seed of domination in the nuclear relations of humanity; the classical split in the ancient world between spirit and reality – indeed, between mind and labor – nourished it; the anti-naturalist bias of Christianity tended to its growth. But it was not until organic community relations, feudal or peasant in form, dissolved into market relationships that the planet itself was reduced to a resource for exploitation.' (Bookchin, 2004:24)
All hierarchical insitutions and social relationships, including the state, are put to trial by Bookchin as he examines their incompatibility with the natural world. The state is a hierarchical, centralised, top-down organisation based on the use of coercion and force to maintain the conditions best suited for the capitalist maximisation of profits. The states anti-democratic, centralised nature 'reduces the participation and diversity required to create an ecological society' (McKay, pg 438, 2008) being incapable of respecting the diversity and uniqueness of local conditions and eco-systems. As such the state is just as anti-ecological as capitalism, sharing many of its features and existing ultimately to perpetuate capitalist accumulation. (Bookchin, 2004).
What are the social conditions of an ecologically sustainable society?
If capitalism and the state are anti-ecological political and economic institutions then logically they must be removed in order to create the social conditions needed for an ecologically sustainable society. But if we remove capitalism and the state what would they be replaced with?
“Capitalism had to be replaced by an ecological society based on non-hierarchical relationships, decentralised communities, eco-technologies like solar power, organic agriculture, and humanly scaled industries” (Bookchin, Remaking Society, pp 154 - 5)
It is the critical science of ecology that illuminates the topic of our concern: the integration and harmonisation of man with his natural environment, which when 'carried through to all its implications, leads directly into anarchic areas of social thought' (Bookchin, 2004:21) Despite being strategically demonised by the chaotic hierarchical institutions anarchists seeks to abolish, anarchy, translated from greek means 'without rulers' and presents a decentralised society based on peaceful cooperation, autonomy and participatory direct democracy. Prolific anarchist thinkers such as Peter Kropotkin, Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Errico Malatesta et al can be considered significant forerunners of the modern ecological movement. 'Kropotkin argued “Small is Beautiful” 70 years before E.F. Schumacher coined the phrase' (McKay, 2008: pg435) and Proudhon explained that liberty is the mother of order not the daughter whilst advocating federalism, decentralisation and 'mans close communion with nature' over a hundred years ago (Proudhon, 1969) With its emphasis on eliminating hierarchical social relationships and illegitimate authority in all areas of life, combined with its emphasis on autonomous human scale communities, sustainable localised economies and face-to-face communication anarchist thought presents the essential conditions needed to 'enhance both the level of cooperation and the transformation of individual materialistic values that are necessary to ensure that global resources are not depleted' (Fox, 1986). Bookchin asserts that 'whatever may have been the validity of libertarian and non-libertarian views a few years ago, historical development has rendered virtually all objections to anarchist thought meaningless today' (Bookchin, 2004:29) In addition many anthropologists such as Harold Barclay (1982) have argued that anarchism is mans natural form of society describing it as 'the oldest type of polity and one which has characterized most of human history" whilst Peter Kropotkins classic scientific investigation 'Mutual Aid' proves that co-operation has been an essential factor in human survival and evolution.
Ecological alternatives to the inherently anti-ecological capitalist economy of constant growth and centralised nation state point towards a steady-state economy managed democratically by the workers as well a localised, direct-democracy. Society wide ownership of the means of production and workplace self-management would be a necessary component of an ecologically sustainable economy (McKay, 2008:pg 443). Alongside workplace self-mangement anarchists propose communal self-management, which would entail local communities directly-democratically managing their own affairs which would create a level of empowerment that 'would produce a society which lives with rather than upon, the environment' (McKay, 2008:pg444).
What are our present levels of well being?
There is now vast evidence showing increasing rates of depression in advanced capitalist societies (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2010: 35). Oliver James' popular investigations into well-being in advanced capitalist countries, Britain on the Coach (1998) and Affluenza (2007) highlight how depression rates rise in direct proportion to the degree of income inequality within a society' which is heavily supported by Wilkinson & Pickett (2010). Almost a quarter of Britains suffer serious emotional distress, such as depression and anxiety, and another quarter are on the verge thereof' (James, 2007:52) with 'rates of suicide trebling in Britain since 1970' (James, 1998: pg 29) which has also been accompanied by a notable increase in aggression and impulsive violence, drug and alcohol abuse, plus gambling, anorexia, bulimia and chronic fatique (ibid). America is 'by some margin the most emotionally distressed of all nations' (James, 2007: xviii). There has also been a rise in the narcissistic personality disorder which is characterised by the status anxious, competitive, self interested, manipulative, insecure and materialistic consumer who lives to work to consume (Lasch, 1979) which resonates with Herbert Marcuses One Dimensional Man (1964) and Eric Fromms (1976) 'Marketing' Character. That 'advanced capitalism, as currently organised, creates Low Seratonin Societies' (James, 1998:xi) is echoed by a growing consensus including Levine (2009) who explains that we're being 'psychologically, socially, and spiritually assaulted by a culture which 'creates increasing material expectations, devalues human connectedness, socialises people to be self-absorbed, obliterates self-reliance, alienates people from normal human emotional reactions and sells false hope that creates more pain' (Levine, 2009)
What are the social conditions causing our present levels of well-being?
Capitalism is an economic system based on continuous growth. As Fromm reminds us, 'the socio-economic structure of a society moulds the social character of its members so that they wish to do what they have to do' (Fromm, 1976:133) and in capitalisms' advanced corporate global consumerist stage of development its members have to consume. It's within the mass-production innovated by Fordism that implied the neccessity of a mass consumer society. The advertising journal Printers Ink frankly declared 'that the future of business lay in its ability to manufacture customers as well as products' (cited in Ewen, 1976:53) as the ideology of consumer-culture (Sklair, 2002) emerged to serve it's capitalist rulers, wielding it's most powerful and insidious of tools: The advertisement.
To understand the advertisement and consumer-culture ideology generally, its aims and its methods, is to understand why so many living in affluent countries are depressed. The aim of advertising is to motivate its audience to consume, and because commodity production requires the sale of ever-increasing quantities of ever changing goods, it is essential that needs aren't satisfied. Profit is the bottom line and 'satisfied customers aren't as profitable as discontented ones' (Ewen, 1976:39). According to James (1998) depression is an affect of our sense of social status and depressed people make more upward social comparisons than undepressed people. To become anxious of one's status is to worry that we 'are in danger of failing to conform to the ideals of success laid down by our society and that we may as a result be stripped of dignity and respect' (Botton, 2004: 3-4). By constantly reminding us of what we don't have in comparison to others 'advertising institutionalises envy and it's attendant anxieties' (Lasch, 1979:73) as the consumer is burdened with the impossible task of keeping up with the Jones'. Advertising chips away at everything we are before offering 'something of theirs as a socially more effective substitute' (Ewen,1976:46). By constantly questioning our sense of social status and provoking upward social comparisons advertising achieves its goal in cultivating an insatiable status anxious consumer that it refuses to fulfil.
Advertising and consumer-culture ideology has profoundly shaped the values of those immersed in its discourses exacerbating subjective feelings of alienation and emptiness. Advertisings power comes from being able to work on a 'blank slate' (Jhally, 1987) where 'meanings are spuriously attached to commodities which are then presented as the bridges to fulfilment and happiness' (McCracken, 1988:77) All human values and orientations are targetted and associated with the consumption of commodities, whether it be freedom, success, beauty, revolution, whatever you desire, 'there is a commodity somewhere which guarantees to provide it' (ibid). By doing so advertising replaces our social and cultural values with economic ones whilst presenting consumption as the ultimate value of all. Slater (1997) states that by 'proposing consumption as a prime focus of people's lives virtues were carved out of greed and self-interest thus creating a materialistic, insatiably hedonistic and morally dubious subject' (Slater, 1997:12) thus perpetuating our depression and increasing our sense of alienation. In studies from fourteen countries people who strongly favour the values of 'money, possessions, physical and social appearances, and fame' are far more likely to suffer from depression and loneliness (James, 2007:13).
In order to financially afford the joys experienced in being a consumer of commodities we must first experience ourselves as commodities. To sell ones labour on the market performing roles we resent adds to and entrenches our despair. Eric Fromm explains the alienation felt by what he terms the 'Marketing Character' of consumer society. Having to market ourselves to 'be bought and sold we experience ourselves as commodities, 'and one's value not as “use value” but as “exchange value” ' (Fromm, 1976: 146) which is determined by the market and beyond our control. In alienated activity 'man does not experience himself as the active bearer of his own powers and richness, but as an impoverished “thing”, dependent on powers outside of himself' (Fromm, 1956, pg124). Estranged from his activity he experiences its outcome as something seperated from him, something which is 'standing above and against' him and as a result he 'feels guilty for being himself and for not being himself, for being alive and for being an automaton, for being a person and for being a thing' (Fromm, 1956:205). Exploited, degraded, bored and dependent upon wage labour we live to work to consume. Resources are exhausted, species become extinct, ecosystems fail, depression rates rise and a minority get rich.
What are the social conditions needed to maximise human well-being?
In contrast to the 'having' mode of living endured by the Marketing Character of Consumer society, Fromm (1942/1956/1976) details the characteristics of happiness that are found in the 'being' mode of living and the social conditions conducive to their maximisation:
“The mentally healthy person is the productive and unalienated person; the person who relates himself to the world lovingly, and who uses his reason to grasp reality objectively' who experiences himself as a unique individual entity, and at the same time feels one with his fellow man; who's not subject to irrational authority, and accepts willingly the rational authority of conscience and reason; who is in the process of being born as long as he's alive, and considers the gift of life the most precious chance he has” (Fromm, 1956:275)
In contrast to the alienated activity of selling our labour on the market Fromm discusses non-alienated productive labour where man 'gives his energy to something which has meaning for him, in which he knows what he is doing, has an influence on what is being done, and feels united with, rather than seperated from his fellow man' (Fromm, 1956:321). He emphasises the importance of fulfilling our unique potential through spontaneous productive activity whilst maintaining a loving relatedness to others and the world around us. He describes love as the 'spontaneous affirmation of others, as the union of the individual with others on the basis of the preservation of the individual self' (Fromm, 1942:225). To 'be' is to know that the meaning of life is 'the act of living itself' (Fromm, 1942:226).
A Sane Society according to Fromm is one where 'no man is a means to anothers ends, but always and without exception an end in himself', where man is the centre, and where all economic and political activites are subordinated to the aim of his growth' and 'where acting according to one's conscience is looked upon as a fundamental and necessary quality' (Fromm, 1956:276). Furthermore a Sane Society is one where 'social matters become personal matters' and man is therefore 'an active and responsible participant in the life of society, as well as the master of his own life'. Based on human solidarity it would 'stimulate it's members to relate themselves to each other lovingly' (ibid) thus nourishing all involved with a synergy that creates a whole greater than the sum of its parts . This is only possible according to Fromm with the full and active participation in economic and political life and can only be achieved with 'maximum decentralisation throughout industry and politics' (Fromm, 1976:180). Fromms conclusions would suggest that the conditions most conducive to maximising well-being are, again, those found in the philosophy of anarchism.
There is much support within the tradition of humanistic psychology for Fromms conclusions including that of founding father Abraham Maslow (1971) urging intellectuals to investigate the literature of philosophical anarchism. Critical Psychologist Dennis Fox advocates anarchism as being psychologically healthy referring to Bakans (1966) view that psychological well being comes from striking a balance between agency and communion. He also references Sarasons “anarchist insight” (1971) which claims that 'as the state becomes more powerful, people find it more difficult to fulfill their needs for both personal autonomy and a psychological sense of community' (Fox, 1986) before pointing to significant anarchist intellectuals, Bookchin (1971), Chomsky (1973), and Goodman (in Stoehr, 1980) who 'argue that only in a decentralised society of autonomous face-to-face communities can these often contradictory individual needs be met' (Fox, 1986). Thus it is proposed that anyone looking to create the social conditions needed to maximise human happiness should consider the following:
'Reject capitalism as well as the state and advocate instead the establishment of a decentralised, federated (but stateless) system of small autonomous cooperative commmunities, each directly and democratically managed by the people themselves through the face to face interaction that is possible only in smaller groups.' (Fox, 1986)
'Being' the change we want to see
“Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony” (Gandhi)
When considering the similarities and differences between ecologically sustainable social conditions, present social conditions and the social conditions deemed to maximise human well-being we see that to create an ecologically sustainable society we must simultaneously create a sane society that maximises well-being. By collectively taking the steps needed to solve the ecological crisis we take steps towards social self-determination and fulfilment. By prefiguring the habits and behaviours needed to live sustainably we adopt a mode of being that's conducive to happiness. By 'being' the change - consuming less, working less, living more, connecting with individuals as equals, enjoying the synergy found in solidarity whilst taking collective action to challenge the current hierarchical capitalist system of domination and exploitation that destroys the natural world - we can experience the benefits of living with meaning, the meaning of life being living itself. Thus the answer to the two-fold question presented entails killing two absurdities with one koan: 'Anarchy is Order' and in order for us to survive we must first discover what it means to live.
