When I read the article Bioregional Thinking by Robert L. Thayer Jr., I was deeply offended and upset by the author's handling of the topic. While I find the concepts which drive him to write this piece incredibly interesting, I feel that Thayer does a poor job of conveying his ideas, due in part to his first humanistic theories in his introduction in which he attempts to disguise his own opinions about the human condition as fact by creating short, concise sentences that he refuses to fortify with any other opinions or commonly held facts. He also states that we, as humans, are currently struggling to answer fundamental questions about our own existence, but instead of saying that our current methods do not give us the insight we seek and then presenting us with a better solution, he decides to gain the respect of his readers by attacking modern psychology. He rudely proclaims that a modern psychological "approach has failed," without expanding on the reasons why this occurs (Seattle Arts Ecology, 27). In my opinion, if one cannot begin to answer these three questions after exploring sections of their life through someone else's eyes, which is the particular way Thayer criticizes, it is the fault of the individual for their inability to fully remove themselves from their experiences and certainly no fault of the method itself. Thayer further offends by pointedly referring to Descartes' thesis of Dualism, the belief in the mind and body existing as separate immaterial and material entities respectively, the "Cartesian assumption," and further insults by neglecting to produce his reasoning as to why he believes this to be untrue (SAC, 27). Considering the vast and extremely provable differences of understanding, perspective, and the concept of Self (or lack of) between creatures who are beings-in-themselves and beings-for-themselves, I thus far see no reason why the mind and body should not be considered separate entities, the mind of course being present when an organism becomes acutely aware of its own consciousness. Instead of swaying his readers or presumably trying to teach them the base ideas and origins of the concepts he plans to present in this article, Thayer makes brash statements about humankind, the government, transnational corporations, and the horrors of technology and globalization without ever explaining or offering irrefutable examples to lend credence to his beliefs. He decides instead to employ a poor analogy of our society as natives, willing to trade everything for worthless items of little consequence, simply because they are new to our eyes.
Not only does Thayer introduce his article with brash points with absolutely no evidence, such as “Governments and transnational corporations expect us to substitute a shallow awareness of the globe [for the places we call home,]" which is his personal opinion stated in manner factual enough so as not to provoke questions or arguments, and is solely intended to bias the reader from the beginning (Seattle Arts Ecology, 27). Though, as most of his introduction is spent criticizing modern psychology, the main message of his article does not even appear in whole until page three.
I also think that using his choice of the three integral questions of human condition in conjunction with the 'homelessness' of the post-modern man is somewhat naive. As evidenced by a number of historical texts, man has always felt out of place in his surroundings. Humankind's need for technological advancement has always progressed faster than our ability to incorporate and change with it. Most of our celebrated works of literature, such as Rand’s Anthem, Huxley’s Brave New World, and Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 explore the theme of the lone individual seeking to return to a Golden Age in which they believe that humans did not struggle with problems of their own invention or lie to their fellow man or fight among themselves in greed or hate. Though nostalgia for the past is a noble sentiment, both the authors who have expressed this desire as well as many of our literary icons naively believe these actions and emotions are a byproduct of the times they live in. Ironically, it's man's desire to achieve the impossible which fuels the need to progress at such a rapid pace, for if our progress destroyed our supposed ideal hunter gather existence, our technology must still be imperfect and so we continue to work towards an ideal life that we never actually had.
Also, as interesting as the concept of Bioregionalism is in terms of diversity of both environment and culture, as well as how these answers are key to ourselves as individuals and as a community, I feel that Thayer’s final statement that the answer to our cultural and environmental problems, not to mention our fundamental existential quandaries are best solved by connecting with and remaining rooted to one’s “reasonably scaled, naturally bounded, ecologically defined territory” and community (SAC, 30). While I believe that truly knowing and loving one’s surroundings is integral to one’s well being, the ideal, freethinking society of local businessesmen, ecologists, architects, environmentalists, farmers, sociologists, politicians, scientists and artists of all types, if confined and defined by a certain geographic and cultural area, would not be able to flourish and grow. Without the globalization that Thayer so obviously opposes throughout his writing, art, free thought, and scientific breakthrough among other things would come to a standstill. Without the sharing of knowledge and innovation that our now globally connected world provides, all creative thought would come to a stand still. Fundamentally speaking, if one yearns to return to a time when the rivers ran with milk and honey, this may sound ideal; however, we have tasted the forbidden fruit of professions and methods of thought which are not necessary to our immediate survival or even necessary once the community has stabilized. In fact, by essentially voluntarily isolating a Bioregion from the technological advances and ever widening scope of globalization, the creative members which previously defined the cultural aspect of the area and differentiated one Bioregion from the next, would disappear due to lack of inspiration from outside sources such as inspiration incensed by cultural unrest throughout the globe, or their professions would be rendered obsolete by sheer lack of necessity. Structured and confined Bioregional communities would take away the very reason we have developed our separate regional cultures in the first place! While ideal on paper, I believe that Thayer should have ended his work with how we need to maintain and encourage these differences as a community because tending to the needs of our homes and communities is the first step in learning how to take care of ourselves.
Without a community that is financially wealthy enough to provide the physical necessities we typically take for granted in urban American life (such as clean water and food, shelter, clean health practices, community, common courtesy, and the forty hour work day) there would be no time for a local citizen to involve oneself with what would, under those circumstances, be considered no more than trivial pursuits peripheral to survival, such as artistic movements or the revolutionizing of regional agriculture. Indeed, without the support of corporations like Microsoft or Boeing, whether knowingly or simply because of the wealth that streams through the city from their revenues, employees, or even their tourist draw, many of the local businesses, as well as liberal art communities, would not have the leisure time or the financial resources to concern themselves with anything except a constant paycheck. It is only societies and communities that are able to afford, and therefore look beyond, their basic needs that are at liberty to complain about the current system.
Why does Thayer refuse to include local corporations into his assessment of bioregionalism? Throughout his article, he constantly vilifies large scale economic operations as mind numbing and equates them with the loss of identity and community. While I firmly believe that progress is regress and that corporations generally should be looked down upon, my mind was changed when I thought about the inner workings of
I have found that much of the patronage of both the arts and sciences stems from private individuals who have earned their money through these corporations. No matter whether one decides to research the donor list in a theater, opera house, art collection, concert hall, or benefactor list in a public area, the support and involvement of the members and companies that Thayer so obviously despises is undeniable. The surplus of money they have earned over the years funnels directly into the funding and patronage of the artistic and scientific institutions and talented individuals in their cities. Without the surplus of money and free time (in which to learn about and support the various activities) these companies afford their workers, these groups and institutions would not have the financial support they currently maintain to grow or perhaps even survive.. While Thayer argues that we have been “homogenized by consumer culture,” I would counter with the fact these ‘promoters of consumer culture’ are one of the best advertisers of local and cultural events as well (SAC, 29). In such a close knit working environment, news of shows, gallery openings, auctions, restaurants, festivals, and performances are constantly being passed along by word of mouth. It only takes one employee to rave about a new show for the recommendation to be spread to hundreds, if not thousands of employees who are interested in attending. A community of well educated, financially stable, and locally interested people are exactly what the arts, sciences, and local companies need to provide the money, interest, and personal advertisement for their unique talents in any given Bioregion.
Also, many of the large corporations have generously decided to match all non-profit donations given by their employees in kind and without question. For example, should an employee donate 2,500 dollars to any given non-profit/arts related association, the company would also donate 2,500, doubling the original sum. This is not a requirement of being a corporation, it is a choice made by those in charge to fund local organizations which matter to the community and to their employees. In our bioregion, the companies truly care about our city. Many of the biggest ones, Microsoft, Boeing, and Starbucks, have strong roots in our city’s culture and realize that furthering arts, sciences, and humanities learning contributes to the well being of their workers, a better, increasingly supportive and grateful community, as well as a better educated and cultured new generation of Seattleites.
Many of these large business firms also support local artists and museum collections by borrowing or purchasing visual works to prominently display in their many buildings. Even in this way alone, they are able to impact thousands of local visual artists by providing a portion of their income, as well as encouraging a potential fan base by displaying the art where thousands of employees can admire it and perhaps decide to purchase or commission their own piece from the artist.
Funding of the arts and sciences aside, the companies here in Seattle rally around the community by organizing book, clothes, and food drives, charity events, community service days and activities which range from teaching ESL classes to coaching local sporting teams to spending time maintaining historical buildings around the city. As Thayer accurately points out, “people who take care of places, one place at a time are the key to the future of humanity” (SAC, 30).
These individuals obviously work in large scale technological and financial epicenters with thousands of peers and a tendency to support globalization (as Thayer so constantly reminds us), but I do not understand why this is an adequate reason to overlook the completely voluntary and charitable contributions of the corporations as a whole or the time, money and energy donated by the individuals who work there. It is they who have been the catalyst for the rapid growth of all the types of cultural, artistic, architectural, and agricultural programs that Thayer strongly promotes in his article. Unfortunately, Thayer is blind to the contributions of the stereotypical cultural/community nemesis and goes on to conclude that the vast Bioregional growth of culture and community is occurring “in reaction to a globally shallow, consumer-driven, technologically saturated world […] where the Bioregion offers a predisposition to a graceful human life on earth” (SAC, 29). While these people and companies do promote their own product, just as any business, local or global, must do in order to survive financially, these corporations have done everything to promote the city, its people, and its culture to an enormous and typically unconventional degree. Here in Seattle, these companies are not brainwashing us or blinding us to the true soul of our city; they are the very heart of our Bioregion, pushing the cultural boundaries through hard work, dedication, patronage, volunteering, and community building, and I am appalled that Thayer does not give them the credit they deserve for everything they have done and continue to do to define and nurture our community.
No comments:
Post a Comment