I'd been recommended the book Endgame by Derrick Jensen a couple of years ago, following a passionate conversation. Finally, I've gotten to read it and my friend's recommendation was spot on for me.
This is not an attempt at a book review, just some thoughts about Derrick Jensen, Endgame and the so-called “Deep Green Resistance” movement in general – which has been accused of being a fascist, and/or misanthropic movement (the accusations seem to use the terms "DGR", "anarcho-primitivist" (or just "primitivist") and "green anarchist" interchangeably). I don't use any of these labels personally, but this accusation still both baffles and upsets me - from what I've read, which is admittedly little. I think it upsets me more because the accusation has come from anarchists - whose ideas I have also shared and with whom I would hope to not be 'arguing'.
I thought Endgame was great - (not at all fascist, and would recommend it - I wouldn't otherwise!) Of course nothing and nobody's perfect but some of the the things that have annoyed other people, from what I've read, are just pointlessly picky. People have moaned about 'Jensen's endless whining about the salmon' - which to me was just somebody doing what writers do: writing passionately about what they know. If it were me writing it might've been the otter - I live in Tarka country. At the risk of summing up before I've ranted though, to those people: please, get some perspective here - there's a world to save! (And if you don't give a shit about that then I don't know how you made it far enough through the book for the salmon repetition to be your only gripe.) I preferred the personal style of writing as I don't enjoy books as much when they're written purely coldly and intellectually. And as I've said before, I don't think that you should have to be that way to be entitled to be heard. (That would be fascistic, no?) As Howard Zinn said of the book: "Derrick Jensen is a rare and original voice of sanity in a chaotic world."
But his originality seems to have offended some folk who have taken it as 'traitorous'. I've read people complain that Jensen doesn't include "an anarchist critique" of his subject matter in the book. He hints at anarchism and the book has a definite anarchist tone, but he doesn't spell it out. Again – perspective? I personally have a fear of labels and maybe Jensen's the same? I hesitate to call myself an anarchist because although it is the closest thing I've found that matches my beliefs, I still like to remain open minded. (And I fear that sadly it will be an open invitation to be ripped apart by the anarchist intellectual elite*.)
Which brings me to the other complaint I've heard - this time I think it was about the book Deep Green Resistance, by Aric McBay, Lierre Kieth and Derrick Jensen. I've heard it said that because they suggest that in some - rare, cases a hierarchical structure of organisation might be adopted - in some cases only (and among others, including consensus) that they are not anarchists and therefore fascists. (I've also read that Jensen's personal, passionate style is a secret method adopted by the far right! Whoa there! Neither do I believe reptiles rule the world! But again, there's lives to save and you're not gonna get emotional? Go back to your ivory towers.) Technically of course, this is true - anarchists are opposed to hierarchical forms of organisation, but this does not make the authors of DGR fascists - not from what they've written in that book anyway. But, to get back to hierarchy - well I've never heard any ordinary patch-ridden anarcho punk complain about Sea Shepherd - far from it. And they get the job done (well after season 3 so I've heard)*. Paul Watson is someone who won't be distracted from his mission by endless debates and his experience has obviously told him that if you're a doer, you're never gonna win any popularity contests - (except with the anarcho punks.)* It is only the intellectual Semantic Pedantics who are offended – those who should be smart enough to know better. But then it makes sense for them to stay within their comfort zone. I particularly like this quote Jensen borrows from one of his friends:
When philosophy dies, action begins.
As for fascism, that's ridiculous. Did these people read either of these books at all? They couldn't be more 'right on'. Read them and see! And misanthropic? Baaadly misunderstood (I hope!) Talking honestly about the state of human life (inflicted by both poverty and riches) and our land base, and the current lack of any fight back (and I don't mean those who have finally lost their rags now that their pensions are in the balance – no offence to them, but I'm talking about the bigger picture.) is badly needed. As is the fact that if we don't do something to try to halt our unsustainable impact on the Earth, many of us will die. Not pleasant a thought to confront, but surely believable unless you are unaware that we don't have endless resources to exploit? Therefore a call for action to try and save the planet and those we share it with seems more human (and higher on any priority list: whatever problem/wrong/oppression you can think of that you'd prefer to fight for – it becomes impossible if we kill ourselves and the planet off. Surely you can't get clearer than that) than some philosophical / intellectual debate (which only ensures it will never get done of course).
Recently I was recommended by someone who commented on here** that I read the Anarchist Federation pamphlet entitled Ecology and Class: Where There's Brass There's Muck. I did and agreed with most of what it had to say. Most of the facts I already knew, but I would definitely recommend the first part about the problems facing us as a 'basic guide' (for want of a better phrase) to the state of the planet.
After that...well I'm undecided. There are a few bits I have issues with so I'll try and explain why. The following quote, from the section entitled 'Primitivism' could be (and seemingly has been) taken the wrong way through lack of further explanation, I think:
Some green anarchists believe humanity has become so corrupted by modern 'civilization' that it is humanity itself (all humans equally, whether they are road sweepers or the heads of corporations) that is responsible for the ecological crisis. They argue the planet would be better off with fewer people living on it, and this view has led to homophobia, racism and support for terrorism by some primitivists.
Okay, so they state 'some'(1) but there are definitely people who have taken this and made it a sweeping generalisation, saying the whole DGR (or whatever you call it) movement is fascist in nature. Fight 'fascism' with fascism, I like it.* And all muslims are terrorists too.*
Which makes me think – and as a bit of an aside - terrorism is a bit like violence in that humans could probably argue for all eternity (not that we have that long) about what exactly constitutes terrorism. My Oxford dictionary merely says:
The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
I don't want to get into that debate here, but it seems that 'terrorist' is the current favourite label for invoking hatred of a group and that if we're talking about taking human life as the worst possible definition, then never is it suggested by either Jensen in Endgame or the others in DGR to do so, or that all humans are to blame for the destruction of the planet - in fact, again, the opposite is true. And Jensen says that 'taking out' one person – ie the heads of the corporations that are more responsible, would be futile as they would immediately be replaced. (Okay so he doesn't say it would be wrong to do so anyway (this is an idea I find challenging, as I mentioned in my recommendation of DGR), but then I never heard anything but support for all the anarchists worldwide who went to fight Franco in fascist Spain - and I'm sure Stuart Christie wasn't the only one of them who wanted to (and tried to) blow him sky high!(2))
Jensen believes that, as industrial civilization is dependent on unsustainable practices (oil dependency, slavery and theft of land and other resources (imports), to name a few) that ultimately it will fail. He believes that the longer this takes "the messier will be the crash" and things will be worse for all life on the planet. As such, he also believes that there will be a reduction in population as we seemingly sleepwalk into catastrophe. Nowhere in the book is he racist or homophobic (and neither are the authors in DGR). Rather, they talk about how it is the poorer southern hemisphere that have suffered the most (and will possibly continue to) for our unsustainable way of life. Jensen also talks about a "class war culture" in western civilisation - and who could deny these facts apart from those who seek to uphold them?
To return to the 'misanthrope' accusation, when Jensen says "The culture as a whole and most of its members are insane" he is talking about the psychological damage that has been done to those members that allow them to continue being exploited by it. He's not blaming ordinary people, or labelling them “corrupted”. One example of a societal mass delusion is that 'the police are here to protect us', when, as many of us know and as Jensen puts so correctly,
“A primary purpose of the police is to enforce the delusions of those with lots of pieces of green paper. Those without the green papers generally buy into these delusions almost as quickly and completely as those with.”
We know many, many, things – from the smallest everyday details to the complex structures of our industrial lives - are crazy, or topsy turvy, but tend to never think seriously about them because what can we do about it (the biggest delusion of them all.)
But if a comedic style's less likely to freak you out, then how about good old Charlie Brooker?:
Just yesterday I read a news story about a new video game installed above urinals to stop patrons getting bored: you control it by sloshing your urine stream left and right. Read that back to yourself and ask if you live in a sane society.
Boredom. Even during a ten second pee. We live in a world where (when we're not working of course) if we're not endlessly watching people who are getting paid to pretend they're someone else on tv, then we're endlessly pretending to be someone else (gotta free humanity from those Templars though.) - I think we've been suffering psychologically for a long time! I also think Ted Kaczynski(3) was right when he said we'll end up like domesticated pets(4) and that this cartoon, by Stuart McMillen(5) should be seen by all. The fact is many people care more about trivial things than they do their own rights. But again, Jensen doesn't blame them:
From birth on...we are individually and collectively enculturated to hate life, hate the natural world, hate the wild, hate wild animals, hate women, hate children, hate our bodies, hate and fear our emotions, hate ourselves. If we did not hate the world, we could not allow it to be destroyed before our eyes. If we did not hate ourselves, we could not allow our homes – and our bodies – to be poisoned.
enculturation – photo by Jed(6)
I do believe most people have varying degrees of self hatred – probably a lot more than they do hatred for the natural world, (that's just out of sight, out of mind) but the cause and effect link that Jensen makes does make sense, so I'm not going to be fussy about the strong wording. 'Our' culture is inescapable.
I have been trying to read another book that the same friend recommended me for many months now but am still a third of the way through. I don't think I'll ever finish it. It is about the bloggers of Iran and how they are breaking the law and speaking out against the oppressive regime they live under. Which would be fine – I just find the western-culture-love-as-rebellion that has been a recurring theme so far too depressing for me to read for long, knowing what the effects are. As Jamie quoted from Soil, Not Oil, a couple of days ago, I don't want them to simply adopt an obsolete, outmoded, unsustainable model of development from us in the west.
Jensen talks about Stockholm Syndrome as one of the psychological effects that people in our culture display (I did too - craply as usual - on my sister's blog a few years back) But one of my favourite quotes of Endgame, I think really sums up both the Stockholm Syndrome-esque symptoms that even those who are opposed to many aspects of capitalism display - and my own frustration at this fact; that allows for every good, simple idea to simply get co-opted – usually via growth. (Naturally-organic growing turned to organic farming for instance, co-ops themselves for another). Anyway, the quote:
What is our solution? Probably the most common chosen solution, which is no solution at all, is to never upset those in power, that is, to use only those tactics deemed acceptable to those in power. The main advantage of pursuing this non-option is that you get to feel good about yourself for “fighting the good fight” against the system of exploitation while not actually putting at risk the benefits you get from this same system. (Have you ever wondered, by the way, why so many more people in the United States support third world rebel groups than participate in similarly open revolt here?)
(The perceived 'benefits' of our domestication here being another symptom of course).
To me Jensen makes a strong case for people – and what truly makes us human, arguing that we have learnt to identify more with the dominant culture than we do our own humanity. That in losing our connection with life – with the land, we have lost the knowledge and security of our true identities. It is the dominant culture that is misanthropic, killing these connections and our connections to one another - and - and I keep repeating myself on this blog, sorry - we all know that if corporations are people, they are sociopaths.
Charlie Brooker sums up society's obsessions in jest:
Fifteen Million Merits, co-written with my wife Konnie Huq and starring Daniel Kaluuya (The Fades) and Jessica Brown-Findlay (Downton Abbey), takes place in a world in which the population is apparently doomed to a life of meaningless toil enlivened only by continual entertainment and distraction courtesy of ominipresent gizmos and screens. So not really sci-fi at all, then. Your sole chance of escape or salvation from this world appears to be a talent contest called Hot Shot, where the judges are played by Julia Davis, the grime MC Bashy, and Rupert Everett.
So not really sci-fi at all then. Indeed. Just very...civilised.
So, industrial civilisation. Why is it so very bad? Well Endgame is 450 pages of explanation, written in a very human way. As such it has its flaws, but to me they are insignificant – especially compared to its overall premise(s in this case!) Aric McBay, author of DGR writes more succinctly about the subject in In The Wake. It's along the same lines as Endgame (only Jensen goes into much more detail - obviously, in 450 pages!) but until you can read it for yourself, here's what McBay writes:
Let me be specific about what I mean by industrial civilization. For many people, the word civilization calls to mind words like “refined, safe, convenient, modern, advanced, polite, enlightened and sophisticated.” Of course, these words are the words that civilized people use to describe themselves. For example, if you look up the word “Christian” in the thesaurus, you will find words like “fair, good, high-principled, honourable, humane, noble, right, virtuous” and other words that Christians might use to describe themselves, but which hardly apply to the Crusades, the Witch-Burnings, or other such atrocities carried out by self-described Christians.
For a more unbiased definition of civilization, we can consider historian Lewis Mumford’s use of the word civilization “to denote the group of institutions that first took form under kingship. Its chief features, constant in varying proportions throughout history, are the centralization of political power, the separation of classes, the lifetime division of labor, the mechanization of production, the magnification of military power, the economic exploitation of the weak, and the universal introduction of slavery and forced labor for both industrial and military purposes.”
Anthropologist Stanley Diamond cuts to the chase, and says simply that “Civilization originates in conquest abroad and repression at home.
By “industrial”, I mean a society that is dependent on machines for the basics of life. A society that needs tractors to grow food, trucks to transport it, factories to synthesize fertilizers, and so on, is an industrial society. A society where people participate in the growing of their own food and other basics by hand would not be industrial.
Related to this, there is another line I dislike from Ecology and Class:
Extreme primitivists believe that the total destruction of civilization is a necessity and the inevitable rapid reduction in human population appears to be a price worth paying.
I'm surprised that an anarchist publication throws tabloid-esque and sensational statements like that around on others' behalf. ”Extremists”? What happened to “radical” - and anyway, every past civilization has eventually fallen - it's the nature of the beast - so it's not really that far fetched an idea. And 'Appears' where? – to whom? (I'd say that civilisation's destruction is 'inevitable' as well as 'necessary' and thus they are both inextricably linked. We need to look for alternative ways to live) This is a sensitive and complex area (hence 450 pages) of our current crisis and cannot be summed up just like that – unless you are trying to discredit someone? I have already quoted Jensen's urging people to action in order to try to avoid a 'messier crash' as civilisation fails in its unsustainability. I've defended Jensen's honest talking about subjects such as this that generally get avoided. I mentioned earlier how I have concluded that all other priorities must logically fall behind that of saving the only habitable world we have. Workers owning factories will not help in the bigger scheme of things... but please read some of the literature before you let one sentence put you off.
It can be difficult to quote Jensen as he builds in layers and I fear that singly, and out of context, his quotes sometimes sound harsh (and that this may be the problem with people taking offence – that maybe they've read a few quotes, but never the whole book) but I'll try here, with a few (each paragraph is a separate quote) and hope it doesn't close your mind to reading Endgame in full:
At some point, probably in the not-too-distant future, there will be far fewer people on this planet. There will be far fewer than the planet could have supported - and did support - prior to us overshooting carrying capacity, because the great stocks of wild foods are gone (or poisoned), the top soil lost in the wind.
My saying this doesn't mean I hate people. Far from it...what I'm proposing, startlingly enough, is that we look honestly at our situation. And our situation is that we have overshot carrying capacity. The question becomes: What are we going to do abut it?
...some ways of reducing population and consumption, while still violent, would consist of reducing the current levels of violence – required and caused by the (often forced) movement of resources from the poor to the rich – and would of course be marked by a reduction in current violence against the natural world. Personally and collectively we may be able to both reduce the amount and soften the character of violence that occurs during this ongoing and perhaps long term shift. Or we may not. But this much is certain: if we do not approach it actively – if we do not talk about our predicament, and what we are going to do abut it – the violence will undoubtedly be far more severe, the privation more extreme...
...When people tell me population is the number one environmental problem we face today, I always respond that population is by no means primary. It's not even secondary or tertiary. First, there's the question of resource consumption I mentioned earlier. Second is the failure to accept limits, of which overpopulation and overconsumption are merely two linked symptoms. Beneath that is our belief we're not animals, that we're separate from the rest of the world, that we're exempt from the negative consequences of our actions, and that we're exempt from death. Beneath these beliefs is a fear and loathing of the body, of the wild and uncontrollable nature of existence itself, and ultimately of death. These fears cause us to convince ourselves not only of the possibility but the desirability of not being animals, of separating ourselves from the world. These fears drive us crazy, and lead us to create and implement insane and destructive economic and social systems.
Our current population levels have only been made possible through large scale agriculture - and thus oil. We will not be able to maintain these practices indefinitely, but I personally get the impression of a gradual shift, but one that gets in motion the sooner the better – for the world population's sake as well as the planet's - because this is preferable to mass natural disasters, caused by all our many 'uninformed tinkerings', that will 'cull' our numbers. You reap what you sow, remember?
This means that we do need to start with working with whatever we've got (and we'll get called hypocrites for it, because some people would rather nothing got done: if we all go and run to the hills, (what sodding hills?) nobly turning our back on the civilised world we oppose then actually we do not have the moral high ground at all as we would be deserting our fellow humans and everything else and leaving it to its fate, just to stay 'true' to our 'beliefs'. Far better to work with what you've got – facebook if that's all there is for you and if that's what you can do to spread ideas. We are diverse and so can our actions be, but what we can't do is hide. Ridiculous.)
Did you hear about the South African DJ? Well his thoughts on labels and 'DGR' are my thoughts exactly:
Finally, I would like to condemn the words “green”, “environmentalism” and “conservation”. The word “green” has been stolen by industrial apologists. Calling an activity “green” now means “less pollution while keeping the economic machine running.” We call this a “greenwashing”. In case you haven’t noticed, we live on a finite planet. Perpetual economic growth is simply not on the cards.
The word “environmentalism” is used by industrial propagandists to dismiss things that scientists say. It is not just environmentalists who say climate change and tar sands are bad. It is scientists, you idiot. Environmentalists use scientific studies as their source of knowledge about ecocide. You civilised people worship science, remember? So I would like the media to stop using the phrase “environmentalists say” to ridicule and undermine scientific information. For the same reason, I would also like them to stop saying “conservationists say”.
I don’t particularly like the moniker “Deep Green Resistance”. You already know why I have come to despise the word “green”. Furthermore, every time that well-dressed industrial apologist Phillipe Cousteau Junior appears on CNN’s “Green Pioneers” to wax lyrical about wind turbines I want to punch the wall.
For a long time I have wondered what I should call myself. I realise that it’s a civilised tendency to always want to label things, but I’m just as much a victim of the pathology as you are. It is also a daily struggle for me to free my mind from the tyranny of civilisation.
I started with the label “anarcho-primitivist”, but then decided this term was begging for racism from capitalists. Then I was a “deep green resister”. Unfortunately, that sounded a bit like an eco-friendly kitchen appliance to me. Then I was a “deep green anarchist”. But today I am an “eco-anarchist”. I like this one. It doesn’t contain the word “green”. I also hate the term “environmental impact”. This phrase is also used by the civilised to make it seem like ecocide is acceptable as long as humans benefit from it in the short term. I reject the assertion that any form or amount of ecocide is acceptable.
I very much doubt I will ever label myself an anarcho primitivist (and neither does Jensen) but I am interested in these ideas and there are some aspects of this belief system that to me are undeniable: that industrial civilisation has been thus far, still is and will forever be, toxic to the minds, bodies and most other components of all life on this planet.
I do not wish to return to being a hunter gatherer (a gatherer some of the time maybe!) but neither do I wish the whole world to become vegan. Having moved around a lot, never owning my own home and with no possibility of doing so (as neither Jamie or I have rich relatives!), I'd love nothing more than to put roots down, to earn the simple satisfaction of building my own small shelter and plant trees (finally the blog title would not be a misnomer!) I don't have a clear vision, (and don't believe it's useful to as we are clearly living 'in the balance' here, much better to remain 'permaculture' - and flexible and diverse) but my hopeful imaginings of a future scenario that survives this mess is one where, as quality of life improves, many techno-addicts would desire that high level of technology less and less often. Because I guess I think, that underneath we are all like this:
It is the child, the subversive part, in all of us who longs for the moment when the weather brings everything to a standstill and we can go out tobogganing, sliding, snowballing or skating.(7)
Before industrial civilisation we were all anarchists – as Colin Ward says:
An anarchist society, a society that organises itself without authority, is always in existence...buried under the wight of the state and its bureaucracy, capitalism and its waste, privilege and religious differences and their superstitious separatism.
Don't we all want to be free really? (Or our children or their children's children at least.) Isn't that what all dependency on external (and usually harmful) things are about? Hmm, endless shopping opportunities and centrally heated screens with rooves or a chance to finally, and fairly, attempt to reach my full potential as a human being? (Whatever that may be!)
If we believe that we can all participate in attempting to halt the destruction of our world then we must believe that we all understand what we are fighting for. As we are not all intellectuals - most of us aren't - then it stands to reason that all these great truths are simple - so why shouldn't they be stated so. A child should be able to make the same plea, in their own language, to save their world, as a scientist in theirs. Our soil, air and water must be our priority if we are going to survive. Industrial civilisation cannot be upheld indefinitely. And so as I've said before, why do we waste so much time arguing about it?
I do not like black and white thinking and there is too much arguing based on the fact that just because you don't agree with every single thing a person or group says or thinks, that there is no merit to be found in it, or that the merit found is somehow discredited or lessened by those ideas that are not accepted. I have recommended lots of books on this blog, but rarely do I agree with absolutely every idea in them. I have been taking this understanding as a given, that surely everyone else does this, but it seems like I could be being very naive...
I'll still end up making flippant, angry remarks in the future no doubt; because the people who care are angry - and the people who care are people. Just people.
* joke/sarcasm. Now I know why Brad Warner does it.
** and Erik, if by any small chance you are still reading, I guess this whole thing is partly for you in the hope that you'll see I'm not in any way a misanthropist or fascist and that if I thought these books were in any way, I'd be recommending people bin them instead.
1 - I am aware that Green Anarchist was infiltrated by the far-right in the nineties, but don't know much about it – and do not believe it automatically renders all 'DGR' ideas as unacceptable.
2 - Christie does state at the end of his book (Granny Made Me An Anarchist) that he's now glad he failed in his attempt.
3 - No, I'm not trying to be controversial and this does not mean that I am a fascist – he just makes some good points in his manifesto – The Land magazine and Crimethinc have some good articles / quotes about him.
4 - Crimethinc say the same in Days of love, Nights of War – thoroughly recommended.
5 - Based on the book Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman
6 - Jed was asked to write a pros and cons of gm crops for his science lesson and this was one of the books he was given (I bet Vandana Shiva's writings weren't handed round) He ended up getting told off because he only wrote a cons list. Good for him. I know, and I said I was open-minded – what a hypocrite! To me though, I am not (though we all are - not in this instance anyway!) The pros of gm crops are simply 'hopes' that have been voiced by the corporations (who stand to make lots of money from their mass adoption) and we have yet to see them solve world hunger, eradicate poor nutrition, etc, etc. Whereas there are already many existing (in the real world and not some shiting sales pitch) cons to be witnessed.
7 - in Notes from Walnut Tree Farm by Roger Deakin
