Written by Greta Hyland
Environmentalism is a dirty word in this town. Hell, it’s a dirty word in the state. But it doesn’t need to be. When one digs to the heart of environmentalism, the dueling sides have more in common that meets the eye. Who wants to breathe dirty air, drink contaminated water or see their favorite recreational spots ruined? No one that I know of.
When asked why I subscribe to an environmental ethic, my answer is: because it’s the right thing to do. I believe it matters because I believe people matter. I believe it matters because I love my kids. I believe it matters because I love to be healthy; I love to hike, bike, run, camp and climb, and those places matter to me. Because those places have value to me, I naturally want them protected and available for use. I also want these things for other people, as well. When it is phrased this way, it is hard to say it doesn’t matter. So why do we argue about it? Because often ideology and sadly, religion, tend to get in the way.
It has been famously asserted that politics is a blood sport. We laugh in acknowledgement of this when we are not personally affected by it, but when we are, we see how tragic and devastating it can be. The weapon used in politics is ideology and it is waged through the use of story. The problem with ideological battles, however, is that they do not leave gruesome, bloody corpses in the aftermath – or if they do, they are far away and removed from our reality. It is a problem not to see the damage our belief in ideological stories, and consequent actions, inflict. It’s a problem because when the battle is impersonal, the people affected cease to be real. Because of this, our conscience is never pricked. Perhaps if blood and gore were left in its wake we would think carefully before engaging in it. We might see that in ideological battles, good ideas get undermined or twisted into distorted half versions of what they started as – and as a result we become blind to the people diminished and undermined by them.
One of those ideological battles is over the environment. While the environment should be cared for, it is people getting hurt in the absence of that care, and it is people getting hurt in the struggle to either provide it or deny it. Though its beginning was one of unanimous appeal, it has turned into one of the most divisive and hotly debated issues of our time. But the battle is not really about the environment, it is about stubborn ideological fears played out through overly simplistic stories told in half-truths. What is a real concern with real consequences has been bastardized into something it is not, and to truly understand how, one must understand the box it has been placed in.
The Nigerian author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie warned of an inherent danger in believing in a single story about people by stating, “The consequence of the single story is that it robs people of their dignity. It makes our recognition of our equal humanity difficult. It emphasizes how we are different rather than how we are similar.” She pre-empted this statement by saying that the single story creates stereotypes and no matter how true the stereotypes may be, they are incomplete. The danger, she states, lies in the single story becoming the only story. It is largely done to undermine or belittle another group with a different worldview or divergent values. If someone can get a single story to stick, it is what the people will recall when the subject is brought up. For example, when you think of illegal immigrants, does Mexican immediately come to mind? Is it possible that illegal immigrant is the only story of Mexican people? If the media shared a fuller narrative of Mexicans that gave them depth, value and experiences you could relate to, would it change your perception of them? This article is not about immigration, but it is about the trap of allowing a flat, negative story that shapes our perceptions and consequent actions toward others and how it impacts our ability to address the important issues of our time.
There are two divergent groups of people in the U.S. duking it out right now: environmentalists and Christians. The single negative story of both groups could be summed up as fanatic and hypocrite. Of course, there are reasons for these single stories: there are fanatical environmentalists and there are hypocritical Christians, but is that all they are? If you know someone in either group, would you sum them up with one of those words, or would you explain how they are good people who hold a view you disagree with? Or if you are in one of those groups, how would you respond to someone summing you up in a single negative word? Would you not want to explain that there is so much more to it than that? Would you want to defend yourself? The answer is probably yes, but often we either do not get that chance or we don’t even try, and instead we shout more angry, stereotypical comments at each other because we have been offended or hurt by someone’s negative single story of us. Or, we pull out our ideological, impersonal weapons and start swinging. And the battle of getting nowhere rages on.
There is not only dignity in both groups but also similarities between the two. Where environmentalism and religion coincide is in the moral imperative to care for others. Environmentalism, at its core, is concerned with the welfare of people. When scientists first warned of climate change, they warned, “A great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on it is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated.” That is an inherent call to care based on science. There are certainly those who argue for the value of inanimate things and non-human life forms; but overall, the concern is for life. Christians hold the same value for life. The entire belief of Christianity is wrapped up in the love for God and love for others. 1 Corinthians 13:13 says, “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love!” That is an inherent call to care based on religion.
While springing from two different sources, the end goal is the same. When either of these two groups betrays their values, the single story comes up. But while both sides can be fanatical and hypocritical, the common ground is fertile. Whether we like it or not, the moral imperative to care for life is a hard one to argue with. Everyone cares for life. It is how we go about caring for it that gets messy. Martin Luther King once said, “Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge, which is power; religion gives man wisdom, which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals.” While environmentalism uses science, the appeal is a moral one. It is that moral ground that offers the shared goal with Christianity and which holds the most promise.
The ageless question that Aristotle posed in ethics, “How should a human being lead his life?” is still relevant today and is not just a religious one. It may, however, have more to do with our stories than we would like to believe. The Bible is a narrative full of stories; it would be wrong to sum up an entire group of people based on just one story from it, just as much as it is wrong to cherry pick one story from it to use against others. Likewise, environmentalism has a narrative filled with stories. A single story does not adequately represent the movement and all the people who subscribe to it, nor does choosing one story from it suffice for all people across all spectrums of belief. As Robert McKee stated, “Values, the positive and negative charges of life, are at the soul of the art of storytelling. They can shape a perception of what’s worth living for, what’s worth dying for, what’s foolish to pursue, and the meaning of justice and truth.” Stories can give a fuller meaning and depth to the essential values of life and to how we interact with each other. We have a choice in what stories to believe and whether or not to accept a single story or a multitude of them. It is an issue of being either open-minded or closed-minded. Being open to varied, deeper and richer stories enhances our humanity and our connectedness to others. That choice will largely determine how we act, respond and perceive others and, inevitably, how others will see and respond to us. Lastly, they will determine our ability to fix and address problems and crises affecting our country in a meaningful and effective manner.
Environmental issues come up in Southern Utah, too. While there is typically not a clear-cut answer that is black and white, it takes people open to the issue to find real answers. When the environment is brought up, let’s listen and read with an open mind and not shut the entire discussion down because of that one dirty word. Let’s instead find common ground and bring that word back to the neutral place it belongs. More environmental discussions are coming.
