Plan C

Toward a beauty-centric education

Sandra B. Lubarsky

 

The two statements I hear most often whenever I bring up the subject of beauty are "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and "Beauty is only skin deep."

Beauty, in other words, is subjective and superficial. End of discussion.

But until about the seventeenth century, most people thought that beauty was objectively present in things. In the East and the West, beauty was associated with holiness — and with the harmony and patterns of wholeness. The Buddha's friend and first disciple, Ananda, once remarked to his master that, "Half the holy life, O master, is friendship with the beautiful, association with the beautiful, communion with the beautiful." To this, the Buddha replied, "Say not so, Ananda, say not so. It is not half the holy life. It is the whole of the holy life."

For Westerners, beauty existed in the world because of God: God was understood as being both perfectly beautiful and the reason for all created beauty. The work of God was the kosmos, literally, the order of things, in contrast to primordial chaos. Now, the word "cosmos" has been claimed by the beauty industry: a cosmetologist is someone who puts your face in order. Likewise, the word "aesthetics" now refers to the art of manicure, facials, and eyebrow shaping. But the word literally means "to feel" — its opposite is anaesthetic.

For many reasons, beauty has lost its status as elemental to the structure of the universe. Our dominant value system today is one in which money and material goods are most coveted. We live in a world in which "time is money" and in which attention to detail and to the demands of beauty is considered unnecessary extravagance. Science tells us that beauty isn't objectively real because it can't be weighed or measured. In a scientifically oriented world, we are trained to seek clear definitions before we enter into sustained inquiry, but one of beauty's most notorious deficiencies is that it seems to be resistant to definition. Many feminists as well have happily washed their hands of beauty, having experienced the demeaning effects of beauty on women. In a world of genocide and ecological decline, many artists have felt that beauty is hardly adequate to the psychological and political landscape of modernity.

Any effort to teach about sustainability presupposes the resurrection of the natural world and its value. The shift from nature as machine to nature as organism must also include a shift from beauty as a subjective value, only in the eye of the beholder, to beauty as the value that clothes life itself. This is a dramatic shift, since we have practically lost our language for beauty and our confidence in speaking of it. But beauty is intrinsic to an ecological paradigm. Life is not value-neutral; to be alive is to embody intrinsic value.

While life and beauty are not one and the same, they dance cheek to cheek. In a rhythm of reciprocity, beauty enhances life and life reaches toward beauty. Life that runs away with itself, as in the unchecked growth of cancer cells, is self-destructive; it is life against life. Life that exists in harmony, coherence, and balance (all words associated with beauty) with other life is life-promoting. This is life that wears the mantle of beauty. We have called it by the name of health, too, and of wholeness, words that are in kinship.

If we endeavor to mould a civilization in which wholeness, coherence, relationality, and feeling are central concerns, in which refining and enlarging our sensitivities to the life that surrounds us and is in us, then beauty must be embraced as a guiding principle — not an aside or an "also" — but as a core aspect of inquiry in our educational systems.

Teaching about sustainability, then, requires more than teaching about ecosystem relations, biological processes, and policy development. Sustainable education involves teaching strategies for life affirmation. Such an approach moves us away from excessive dependence on what has become the standard goal and tool of modern education, critical thinking — which also has its philosophical home in a mechanistic worldview in which knowledge is the detached examination of parts. When critical thinking is our primary tool for understanding the world, we must wonder how we can avoid the mess on the shop floor — the motors, flywheels, screws, and gaskets lying helter-skelter after the lesson in taking the world apart. Education that is beauty-centric will not neglect to study the parts, but it will not mistake the part for the whole or the whole for a mere collocation of parts. Such wholeness is an aspect of both an ecological worldview and a beauty-centric education.

Wes Jackson, who runs the Land Institute in Kansas, often shows his audiences a photo of an old oil tank, rusting away in the middle of a farmer's field. For him, that tank is a symbol of the kind of farming that he is against — farming that depends on oil rather than renewable energy. But the tank is not only an image of unsustainable farming practices; it is also an image of ugliness. There is a relationship between sustainability and beauty, and we need to begin to speak that relationship in order to give emotional honesty to our ecological work. If we do not say, "This tank is ugly, and so are these buildings, and this land use," we continue to be yoked to the mechanistic worldview which deprived the intellect of an emotional life.

The psychotherapist James Hillman has posed the sorts of aesthetic questions that must be added to our educational agendas. "What is the cost," he asks, "to physical well-being and psychological balance of careless design, of cheap dyes, inane sounds, structures, and spaces? To pass a day in an office under direct glaring light, in bad chairs, victim of the constant monotonous hum of machine noise … among artificial plants … and then, at day's end, to enter the traffic system … fast food, project housing — what does this cost? What does it cost in absenteeism, in sexual obsession … overeating and short attention span, in pharmaceutical remedies and gigantic escapism industries of wasteful shopping, chemical dependency, etc? Could the causes of major social, political, and economic issues of our time also be found in the repression of beauty?"

For the past two hundred years it must be admitted that we have failed beauty. We have allowed it to remain in the background of almost every human endeavor. And in failing beauty we have become a culture that cannot distinguish between longing and craving. Perhaps worst of all, we have made way for a singular value system — economism. What has been left empty by the death of beauty has been filled by relentless acquisitiveness. Indeed, until beauty becomes part of the foreground of our cultural life, we will not see a successful shift to an ecological paradigm.

If beauty is a core dimension of life, then to diminish it and belittle it is to diminish and belittle our own lives. Allowing beauty to play a role in the kind of education that we offer, encouraging our students to contribute to the beauty of the world, is, I believe, one of our most important strategies for sustaining the world.

Sandra B. Lubarsky is founding director of a masters program on sustainable communities at Northern Arizona University (http://home.nau.edu/sus), where she is also professor of religious studies.  She has written on religion and the environment, pluralism, and process thought and is currently at work on a manuscript on "Beauty and Sustainability."  She can be reached at Sandra.Lubarsky@nau.edu.

This essay first appeared at http://www.ecoliteracy.org.

Breeders of the world unite..

Nick Kettles

Statistics damn statistics. 

Without them they’re would be no environment debate. 

They set the parameters of where we’re at, and where we’re heading, and, at the same time, their ability to objectify the beauty of human relationships as a series of mathematical formula is simply spectacular.

At no time has this been more clearly illustrated, than in the environment movement’s very own bête noire, the debate about population growth and its impact on climate change.

The facts are in. 

Today, there are nearly 7 billion people and rising. It's estimated by 2050, there will be upwards of  9 billion. The UK's Optimum Population Trust estimates the world's sustainable population is 5 billion. 

According to the Earth Policy Institute's Lester Brown, Population growth, "contributes to water shortages, cropland conversion to non-farm uses, traffic congestion, more garbage, overfishing, crowding in national parks, a growing dependence on imported oil, and other conditions that diminish the quality of our daily lives."

Join the dots: More people equals more carbon CONSUMPTION.  Less babies less carbon CONSUMPTION.  People who have them are selfish, so stop having them.  

Indeed, a recent study at Oregon State University has concluded that in the US, the carbon footprint of having an extra child, is almost 20 times more important than any other actions a couple might take in their entire lives: things like driving a high mileage car, recycling, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs. Moreover, they conclude, the long term carbon footprint of a every child born  - along with all its descendants – is likely to have more than 160 times the impact of a child born in Bangladesh.

So, there you have it. 

Children, like commodities, carry their own carbon rating, and therefore parents should, where possible, think before they make their purchase decision.

However, based on logic like this, for those of us who are already parents, there’s little place to go.   

The chances of breeders like me ever achieving the same moral high ground as eco-heroes such as Cameron Diaz, who claims she may never have children, on the grounds the planet doesn’t need anymore, or the woman who actually decided to have herself sterilised to ensure she would not overburden the planet any further, are slim indeed.

My partner and my carbon rating will remain lumped alongside Hummer drivers, Lear Jet riders, and other eco-criminals, while my daughters, and in particular my second daughter, will inherit the carbon debt burden our hasty decision to expand our circle of love has created.

Who ever said mathematics wasn’t an emotional subject?

But, is this narrow view truly representative? 

This debate is possibly wider and more complex still. 

Of course, it’s is true that the world cannot sustain a larger population at business as usual levels of consumption and waste, but by the same token, taking a ‘Round Up Ready’ approach to population control does nothing to address the economic system which impoverishes the third world in the first place.

One reason why people in the developing world may have more children is that a lack of sanitation and general healthcare means they die in greater numbers.  Children are part of the workforce in some countries and not to have them means not to have enough hands on the farm.  In short it’s cash not copulation we should be controlling. 

Of course, Oregon University’s statisticians neglect to say what happens if someone in a Western country adopts a homeless Bangladeshi child, to help them relieve the burden of over-population.  Presumably, some kind of carbon credit or trading scheme will be on offer to assuage the impact of bringing up this child in the bosom of the capitalist West.

Like I said, it’s complex.

And, while not having children to save the planet is a noble act, it assumes, that we are already doomed.  There is little we can do, because that’s what climate science tells us. 

Based on what we know about human potential, this is a fair assessment, however, based on what we don’t yet know about human potential, it risks condemning the current and future generation of children hopeless to effect change. Thankfully human potential is not like oil: it doesn’t have a peak point where it starts to run out.  We may not have found the resilience, courage, creativity, and resourcefulness to create the world anew, but future generations might, if we are willing to instil these qualities in them. 

Maybe developed countries actually needs more parents who conceive children, for the purpose of instilling strong values in a new generation who may yet, change the world,  and not those who have children because they forgot to use contraception, got drunk, wanted a house from the government, or to please their parents eager to be grandparents.

Oh, yes, and then there’s those countries like France who are not ashamed to say children are our future.  Compared with the rest of the developed world, they recognise their declining birth-rate means they will soon face problems paying for the pensions and care of their ageing population.  France’s unofficial ‘third child policy’, implicit in their tax system, guarantees exponential tax breaks for larger families. 

Shoring up a system doomed to bust anyway, or ensuring a big enough labour pool to take over all those beloved but at risk, artisanale Boulangeries, Charcuteries, and Cafés which lovers of sustainability believe should be at the heart of every community?

And while it may appear that adoption is the middle way solution, excluding our right to procreate, also denies fundamental choices, which remain intrinsically political.

I applaud Cameron Diaz, for speaking out about her choice possibly not to have children, and right that she should, but she has no less moral fibre in my mind, than my wife’s decision to have our children awake and naturally, because she wished to affirm her ability, which she shares with every other woman on the planet, to give birth free of the control of male dominated obstetrics. 

Which is greater?  Neither.  Both rightly assert a woman’s right to choose – the same choice that has been suppressed by the same forces of progress which delivered this sorry mess we’re in, in the first place.

While statistics often paint a bleaker picture of what’s possible, the human spirit is far stronger and deserves a chance to fully show itself.  This can only truly happen if we recognise that the continuity of our race is really about human connection, and especially the sharing of wisdom and love from one generation to another.  This more than anything needs to be at the heart of a sustainable society.

And for those who rightfully assert your right not to be parents, on environmental grounds, feel free to step in and enjoy the role of being extended family to some children in your community. 

Will a barefoot politician please step forth?

Nick Kettles

It’s quite possible the Copenhagen Climate Change summit is doomed to failure before it has even begun but not for the reasons everyone expects. 

Copenhagen will fail for the simple reason that none of the delegates from the 192 countries represented will truly be able to represent the interests of the earth.  Even if the delegates are genuinely concerned about climate change, their overriding and narrow objective will continue to be how to leverage as little negative economic impact on their own country as possible.

The fact remains that having a concern about the facts of climate change, doesn’t always translate into a deep and lasting concern for the continuity of all life on earth.

It’s true that intellectual discourse can provide the basis for a deeper awareness of our intimate connection with nature, as Ray Anderson, CEO of Interface Carpets, eco-epiphany clearly shows.  Ray Anderson claims the impact of reading Paul Hawken’s “The Ecology of Commerce” literally felt like a “spear to the chest” and awoke him to the urgent need to set his company on a new course toward sustainability.

But there is no guarantee that it will always be so.

Abstract concepts based on data sets and statistical analysis, are just too easy to disconnect from the world they represent.  If scientific facts could emotionally move politicians sufficiently to take decisive action, then they would have already taken such action a decade ago. 

What kind of action might the delegates at Copenhagen take if they felt as deeply about the planet as the indigenous tribes people, who met in Anchorage earlier in 2009, to make their own declaration on climate change?

“We reaffirm the unbreakable and sacred connection between land, air, water, oceans, forests, sea ice, plants, animals and our human communities as the material and spiritual basis for our existence.”

Of course we hear of Obama and Gordon Brown ‘growing their own’ in the gardens of the White House, and 10 Downing Street, but just how often do they actually get on their knees and get their own hands dirty to till the soil?  Or harvest the fruit of their labour with their own hands, and then prepare it for their family to eat? 

What’s more likely is that they are like the vast majority of the human race, who environment writer David Nicholson Lord suggests spends less than one day in a lifetime in sensory contact with Nature.  If this is the case, then it’s likely these forays into the garden, are little more than PR exercises designed to mollify the green lobby they hope will keep them elected.

Politicians, mostly male, middle class, wearing their immaculately groomed uniform of suit and tie spend most of their time disconnected from the earth, gathered around synthetically made conference tables, sitting on pump chairs, in largely synthetic environments, where the air, according to German Chemist, Michael Braungart, co-founder of cradle to cradle design, is likely to be more toxic than a smog filled city.

Will the conference centre in Copenhagen be any different, or are we more likely to get more sick solutions from men in sick buildings? 

The fact is that we desperately need our politicians and leaders to get out more.  We desperately need them to forge a deeper and more authentic relationship with the earth, because it’s clear that when they do, they act decisively. 

It’s claimed that after camping in the open air in Yosemite Valley with naturalist John Muir, in 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt was more receptive to addressing the state mismanagement of the valley and rampant exploitation of the valley's resources.  Snow fell on them the night they camped there near Glacier Point.  It was, according to President Roosevelt, the greatest day of his life:  “There can be nothing in the world more beautiful than the Yosemite, the groves of the giant sequoias and redwoods, the Canyon of the Colorado, the Canyon of the Yellowstone, the Three Tetons; and our people should see to it that they are preserved for their children and their children's children forever, with their majestic beauty all unmarred.”

Being emotionally moved by nature’s beauty, can awaken the same instincts to nurture and protect that we might feel for an infant or a child.  This is the kind of instinct that is infinitely harder to deny, than the rationale of hard science.

Living in mud huts and wearing hemp trousers is not my personal vision of what a sustainable society might or should look like, but when it comes to our world leaders and Copenhagen delegates, this might not be a bad thing in helping them develop a more authentic relationship with the earth.

What kind of discussions might unfold when if Barack, Gordon and other members of the G8, gathered round the camp fire they’ve made themselves? 

An end to oil as soon as humanly possible?  The radical transformation of urban landscapes into green sustainable cities? The possibility that we might frame our sense of well-being, by the depth of our relationship to the earth and all its creatures?

What chance an eco-epiphany at Copenhagen?  Will a bare footed politician please step forth to lead the way?

Nick Kettles is a freelance writer and co-founder of Plan C.