Divestment

Bill McKibben is heard to say that he is thrilled to see the "kids" on campuses all over the country taking on the divestiture challenge.

Here is the local press reporting on Sterling College divesting as a way to avert global warming. 

Following up on my last post I want to note what isn't being said to the students who are pushing for divestiture on their respective campuses.

Let's start with the most basic understanding of what a divestment entails. You sell the stock of company X out of your portfolio to another buyer. The net number of shares, or capital position of the underlying company doesn't change. So you haven't done a thing to halt global warming. You have done the least you can do, a symbolic gesture that may feel good, but as I have contended, actually saps the energy and responsibility away from actions that might actually make a difference. 

The professional journal The Chronicle dealt with the issue from the perspective that divestment will not have a negative impact on its member institutions' portfolio performance. 

A letter from a faculty member (music department) in response speaks to the morality of divestment regardless of portfolio performance. 

This august organ says nothing about the underlying issue; what to do about the reduction of our carbon footprint?

As I set forth in the previous blog, production is a by-product of demand. Want to do something about the burning of fossil fuels? Stop consuming them. If one were truly interested in a mass movement that might have an impact, rather than divest (a meaningless gesture) from a consumption group, say auto manufacturers, an organizer would move to reduce sales of the vehicles of consumption. But then that organizer would run headlong into all the vested interests arguing that the economy was saved by the bailout of the auto industry. We are up against the double bind again. 

It gets worse. The colleges that have signed on to divestiture are small and remote and totally dependent on autos and trucks, burning fossil fuels, to get their students hither and yon. If their faculties were alert to the implications of divestment a grand discussion could be joined that would make visible this hypocrisy and the greater problematic (classist and racist) issues of stopping "development" in other places. Maybe some sensitivity could be stimulated for those persons who live in other remote areas of this country, or who are desperately trying to enter the 21st century as developing countries. 

Organizers of divestment movements like to point out the success of actions against South Africa in the attempt to undo apartheid. There was a commonly held agreement that apartheid was an evil practice and by withholding economic activity one could sway the government to alter its behavior. There is no parallel in selling one's stock in a fossil fuel producing firm. 

What is required, and what is feasible, is the changing of the basic patterns of consumption, of these students in particular. When I arrived in Maine to try to develop a model of how a university might create incentives for students to get out of their cars, I was informed that car pooling just wasn't part of the culture of Mainers. We couldn't even get bike sharing started without a fight. When we were students car sharing was normal. Ride to/from boards were posted in student unions all over the country to assist moving students home for the holidays or weekends. No more. On a larger scale students could and should be organized to demand the alternatives be developed. But, they should be schooled in what is practical and affordable. They should be schooled in the real costs of burning fossil fuels (throughputs) so that they can make rationale judgements about what they are willing to spend to secure their energy future. And they should never ask others to do without something they are unwilling to sacrifice for themselves.

Double Bind

"Damned if I do, Damned if I don't." The perfect example of the "double bind". Only in this case the action isn't specified. You can get more specific examples and definitions but for our purposes this example of contradictory language will do. Now what are the actions I want to consider? Lets start with: "We don't save enough." vs "The economy hinges on the consumer returning to the marketplace." How about: "We must stop dependence on foreign oil." vs "The American auto industry failed because the public stopped buying cars." The policy response is "cash for clunkers" a program that hopes to encourage the sale of yet more cars albeit with slightly higher fuel efficiency.

"We are in the middle of the greatest debt destruction in history" vs "We must stimulate the economy by generating trillions of dollars of new debt."

"We are burning too much carbon." vs "Your electric bill rose because the utility argued they couldn't maintain their profit margin on reduced sales."
"There are limits to growth determined by the fixed amount of resources available on earth." vs "If we don't continue to grow we will fail."

What's a body to do? Bateson's theory of the double bind in communication implied that its persistence in language would result in schizophrenia.




I believe there is a sane alternative. The institutions that construct the language in the above examples of the double bind are vast competing forces, struggling for survival in what is clearly an end game for one or more of the opposing points of view. We however are but individuals, who, if we were to become selfish, could abstain from the limits of the duality, and construct a third way.

The objective of our collective school curriculum, from the moment we enter the system, is stated as the development of individuals with the ability to think critically, make decisions based on sound reason, and realize our unique potential. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are tested, shaped, and driven on a path of group think that allows us to be marketed to as a herd. All the while decrying behavior that might allow us to realize our individuality as selfish.

Its time to get selfish, to screen all conflicting points of view from the perspective of "does it work for me". The NYT in a story in april referred to the double bind of college loans. We were all told they were a good investment. It may not work out. When choosing a course of study we have been counseled to specialize, develop a set of marketable skills. It turns out that many "secure" positions are now dead or dying and the ability to be flexible, adaptable, and a generalist is becoming a smart survival skill. When it comes to trusting others with your money maybe investment firms don't have your best interest at heart. The failure of responsible institutions to deliver on their promises of health, wealth, and the pursuit of happiness, is obvious to all.

It would be wonderful if such a screen included an appreciation that what works for you is not achieved at the expense of others. That in itself could be understood as a selfish interest. Stability of the population, the planet, and community you live in, is life affirming.

It is time to construct a personal reality. Now the irony of such a general statement is that if we have learned anything it is that we can't "go it alone". So now we have constructed the ultimate double bind statement, to survive "I" must find my way, within a "COMMUNITY" of fellow travelers. These terms seem to be mutually exclusive. If we accept the possibility of community to be diverse, it can become inclusive.