Page 14 RAIN October 1979 - - - ----- - -------- ----- --- - Adams Morgan, an inner city, integrated neighborhood of Washington, D. C., was the setting in the mid '70s for some experiments in small scale food production, waste recycling and town meetings. Karl Hess tells of his participation in these projects in his book, Community Technology (1979, $2.95 from Harper Colophon Books, New York, NY). The following excerpts are from a review of the book by David Morris, a 12year resident of Adams Morgan and co-director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance in Washington, D. C. The book has become a focus ofa larger dialogue between the myth making of appropriate technology and the political realities of neighborhood self-reliance. David's comments about the book draw our attention to the need for more critical evaluation of the purposes of neighborhood technology by the people involved. These projects must be analyzed within the larger context of community needs and political power; only then can an honest appraisal of their success be made. The complete text of the book review can be found in the May/June issue of Self-Reliance available from ILSR, 1717 18th St. N. W., Washington, DC 20009, $8/yr. - PC by David Morris The strength of the appropriate technology movement derives from its enthusiasm and sense of positive purpose. Citizenship is based on production. Community technology encourages self-reliance, self-confidence, and craftsmanship. Its message is clear: one person can make a difference. The household can be productive. The neighborhood can serve the major needs of its population. The city can meet many of the remaining requirements for the good life. This movement is a worthy antidote to those who spend a considerable effort to prove to us that little can be done on the small scale. That is the scholarship of paralysis, for, by assuming that everything must be changed in order to change anything, by ascribing to the forces arrayed against them both omniscience and omnipotence, the critics of small-scale endeavors encourage passivity and cynicism. However, when exaggerated and isolated, optimism can easily slip into romanticism and idealism. Karl Hess's Community Technology presents us with a classic case. He antici- ·pates this major criticism in the first chapter: "Much of the criticism levelled against this book will call it 'unrealistic' dreaming." To anticipate criticism is not, of course, to answer or deflect it. Just as the scholarship of "realism" can paralyze us, the romanticism of idealism can disillusion us. It can lead to small gasps of effort followed by disappointment, bitterness and retrospective cynicism. Romantic idealism takes three forms. First, it exaggerates and distorts history, oversimplifying and misleading readers. Second, it is extremely personalist, ignoring the large context that circumscribes and influences any local activities. Finally, and possibly most important, it ignores the central issue of power and institution building, giving us the message that getting from here to there is nothing more than convincing our neighbors to lend a hand. Exaggeration We need myths. They give us a vision and a sense of solidarity. Adams Morgan residents hoisted the neighborhood flag up the centrally located flagpole and created the myth of political independence. Ernest Callenbach's book Ecotopia gives us the myth of solidarity among all the peoples of the Pacific North-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz