April 1980 RAIN PageS The hoopla about a new "Earth Day" will alter very little in our grotesque imbalance with nature if it leaves the patriarchal family, the multinational corporation, the bureaucratic and centralized political structure, ele property system, and the prevailing technocratic rationality untouched. seemed that the ecology movement might well begin to focus its efforts on changing the basic structure of our anti-ecological society, not merely on providing more palatable techniques for perpetuating it or institutional cosmetics for concealing its irremediable diseases. The rise of the anti-nuke alliances based on a decentralized network of affinity groups, on a directly democratic decision-making process, and on direct :letion seemed to support this hope. The problem that faced the movement seemed primarily one of selfeducation and public education- the need to fully understand the meaning of the affinity group structure as a lasting, family-type form, the full implications of direct democracy, the concept of direct actIOn as more than a " strategy" but as a deeply rooted sensibility, an outlook that expresses the fact that !'v l'ryollc had the right to take direct cOlltrol of society and of her or his everyday life. lronical\y, the opening of the eighties, so rich in its promise of sweeping changes in values and consciousness, has also seen the emergence of a new opportunism, one that threatens to reduce the ecology movement to a mere cosmetic for the present society. Many self-styled "founders" of the anti-nuke alliances (one thinks here especially of the Clamshell Alliance) have become what Andrew Kopkind has described as " managerial radicals" - the manipulators of a political consensus that operates withill the system in the very name of opposing it. The " managerial radical" is not a very new phenomenon. Jerry Brown, like the Kennedy dynasty, has practiced the art in the political field for years. What is striking about the current crop is the extent to which "managerial radicals" come from important radical social movements of the sixties and, more significantly, from the ecology movement of the se:?venties. The radicals and idealists of the 1930s required decades to reach the middle-aged cynicism needed for capitulation , and they had the honesty to admit it in public. Former members of SDS and ecology action groups capitulate in their late youth or early maturity- and write their " embittered" biographies at 25,30, or 35 years of age, spiced with rationalizations for their surrender to the status quo. Tom Hayden hardly requires much criticism, as his arguments against direct action at Seabrook last fall attest. Perhaps worse is the emergence of Barry Commoner's "Citizen's Party," of new financial institutions like MUSE (Musicians United for Safe Energy), and the " Voluntary Simplicity" ce:?lebration of a dual society of swinging, jeans-clad high-brow elitists from the middle classes and the conventionally dad, consumer-oriented low-brow underdogs from the working classes, a dual society generated by the corporate-financed " think tanks" of the Stanford Research Institute. In all of these cases, the radical implications of a decentralized society based on alternate technologies and closely knit communities are shrewdly placed in the service of a technocratic sensibility, of " managerial radicals," and opportunistic careerists. The grave danger he.re lies in the failure of many idealistic individuals to deal with major social issues on their own terms-to recognize the blatant incompatibilities of goals that remain in deep-seated conflict with each other, goals that cannot possibly coexist without delivenng the ecology movement to its wQrst enemies. More often than not, these enemies are its " leaders" and "founders" who have tnI'd to manipulate It to conform with the very system and ideologil'S that block any social or ecological reconciliation in the form of an ecological society. The lure of "influence," of "mainstream politics," of "effectiveness" strikingly exemplifies tne lack of coherence and consciousness that afflicts the ecology movement today. Affinity groups, direct democracy, and direct action are not likely to be palatable-or, for that matter, even comprehensible-to millions of people who live as soloists in discotheques and singles bars. Tragically, these millions have surrendered their SOCial power, indeed, their very personalities, to politicians and bu reaucrats who live in a nexus of obedience and command in which they are nomlally expected to play subordinate roles. Yet tlris is precisely tire immedinte cause of the ecological crisis o.f our time- acause that has its historic roots in the market society that engulfs us. To ask powerless people to regain power over their lives is even more im portant than to add a complicated, often incomprehensible, and costly solar collector to their houses. Until they regam a new sense of power over their lives, until they create their own system of self.manageml'Dt to oppose th~ present system of hierarchical management, until they develop new ecological values to replace cu rrent domineering values-a process which solar collectors, wind macilines, and French-intensive gardens can /adU tate but never replace-nothing they change in society will yield a new balance with the natural world. Obviously, powerless people will not eagerly accept affinity groups, direct democracy, and direct action in the normal course of events. That they harbor basic impulses which make them very susceptible to these forms and activities- a fact which always surprises the " managerial radical" in periods of crisis and confrontation-represents a potential that has yet to be fully rL'alized and furnished With intellectual coherence through painstaking education and repeated examples. It was precisely this education and example that certain feminist and anti-nukt' groups began to provide. What is so incredibly regressive about the technical thrust and electoral politics of environmental technocrats and " managerial radi cals" today is that they recreate in the name of "soft energy paths," a specious "decentralization," and inherently hIerarchical partytype structures the worst forms and habits that foster passivity, obedience and vulnerability to the mass media in the American public. The:? spectatonal politics promoted by Brown, Hayden, Commoner, the damshell " founders" like Wasserman and Lovejoy, together with recent huge demonstrations in Washington and New York City breed masses, 1I0t citIzens-the manipulated objects of mass media whether it is used by Exxon or by the CED (Campaign fo r Economic Democracy), the Citizen's Party, and MUSE. Ecology is being used against an ecological sensibility, ecological forms of organization, and ecological practices to "win" large constituenCies, 1I0t to edu cate t/ll!m . The fe;I r of " isolation," of " futility," of "ineffectiveness" yields a new kind of isolation, futility and cont.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz