1 of 13
Rebecca Vickers
PVS-101
Dr. Gandolfo
7/09/10
Earthism: Communities and Local Economies
In her book In Search of the Good Life, Rebecca Todd Peters introduces her
readers to Earthism, a resistant theory of globalization. Central to the Earthists’
perspective is their definition of sustainability. Peters summarizes that Earthists view
sustainability “as a value that seeks to eliminate poverty and conflict, hunger and
homelessness, the extinction of species, and the pollution of our planet through care for
creation.”1 For Earthists, sustainability is not simply about the environment. Although
preservation of the environment is a crucial aspect of their concept of sustainability, it is
not the only topic of which they are concerned. Earthists insist that social and economic
sustainability must be sought, as well. For Earthists, environmental sustainability and
social justice are inseparable. Social justice is necessary for a healthy society, and a
healthy society is necessary for the maintenance of a healthy earth. Likewise, a healthy
earth is vital for the preservation of a healthy society.
Earthists attack the current dominant economic worldview, accusing it of neither
caring for the earth nor providing social justice. Their theory is constructed in opposition
to the dominant neoliberal values and practices. They criticize the value of radical
individualism, insisting on the interdependence of all of life, and propose an alternative
worldview based on the value of community. Their solutions to environmental
degradation and poverty are fashioned around the central concept of community.
1
Rebecca Todd Peters, In Search of the Good Life: The Ethics of Globalization (New York: Continuum,
2004), 132.
2 of 13
Earthism seeks structural change but also offers ways in which communities and
individuals can begin to combat neoliberalism through personal choices made in their
everyday lives.
As scientists learn more about the interdependence of the ecosystem, humans are
becoming more aware of our place in that system and our dependence on the resources of
the earth. The health and well being of humanity is dependent upon the health of the
earth. As Sally McFague says, “The earth is not simply the ‘environment,’ a scenic
backdrop on which the human drama takes place; rather, it is what has made us who we
are and what sustains our every second of existence.”2 As citizens of this earth, we must
discard the anthropocentric view of the world, which dominates current thought. Earthist
Leonardo Boff declares that the ultimate root of the ecological crisis is the disruption of
universal connectedness. He says, “The worst has indeed happened: human beings have
become separated from the cosmic community and have forgotten the web of
interdependencies” and, indeed, we have.3 We must reject this flawed worldview and
begin to see the health of the earth and all beings within it as crucial to our survival.
Earthists believe we must not only preserve the earth because of our dependence
upon it, but also because, as part of creation, it possesses its own intrinsic value. This
view is based upon the belief in a Creator God and argues that we, as part of creation,
should value all other living and non-living members of creation. Many Earthist authors
are Christians and look to God’s declaration in Genesis that his creation was “good” as
proof of the value inherent in all of creation. Earthists fight for ecological justice because
2
3
Leonardo Boff, Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1997), 5.
Ibid., 69.
3 of 13
“humanity is only one aspect of creation and all of creation is interdependent.”4
However, their struggle for justice does not stop there.5
Earthists demand that “ecological justice has to go hand in hand with social
justice.”6 Their belief that all of creation possesses inherent value extends not only to
nature but to every human being, as well. For Earthists, “All lives are integral to earth.
All share in the integrity of creation. All belong to the Community of Life.”7 However,
the current dominant economic worldview, neoliberalism, is pillaging the earth and
depriving many humans of the ability to seek out a living. The earth and the poor are
both victims of this system, which values the accumulation of wealth above all else. Boff
writes, “The very same logic of the prevailing system of accumulation and social
organization that leads to the exploitation of workers also leads to the pillaging of whole
nations and ultimately to the plundering of nature.”8 The environmental crisis and
poverty are intimately linked, because they are both the result of the dominant economic
mindset driven by greed.
McFague asserts that the current economic world order is based on human greed
rather than human need.9 Earthists argue that prioritizing greed over need has
precipitated the current crises of environmental destruction and global poverty. Even
neoliberal attempts at curbing world poverty have been destructive. John B. Cobb writes,
The saints of the economistic age are the selfless experts and technocrats who
devote their lives to the economic advancement of others, especially the poor.
4
Peters, In Search of the Good Life, 111.
John B. Cobb, Jr., The Earthist Challenge to Economism: A Theological Critique of the World Bank (New
York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1999), 1-9.
6
Sally McFague, Life Abundant: Rethinking Theology and Economy for a Planet in Peril (Mineapolis,
MN: Fortress Press, 2001), 101.
7
Larry Rasmussen, Earth Community, Earth Ethics (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1996), 36.
8
Boff, Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor, 116-117.
9
McFague, Life Abundant, 99.
5
4 of 13
They, also, are inflicting horrors on the world out of their sanctity and
professionalism. They are further disempowering and impoverishing the poor out
of their conviction that only so can they save them from their poverty.10
He and other Earthists argue that a shift in the morality of those who ascribe to
neoliberalism (or economism as Cobb names it) is not necessary. A shift in ideology is
necessary. Many neoliberals seek to solve the problems of poverty and environmental
degradation (Peters labels these “developmentalists”). The World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund spearhead programs aimed at sustainable development in
less developed nations. However, according to Earthists, the principles upon which this
development is based are flawed. Those seeking a solution to these problems under the
ideology of neoliberalism promote development from above by the globalizing forces of
all-powerful institutions like the World Bank and the IMF.
Earthists promote the opposite: “development” from below. They maintain that
the dominant models of development diminish local power instead of empowering the
local communities, as they should. Globalization and the neo-classical economic model
promise prosperity but have not delivered. Boff declares, “The utopia of improving the
human condition has worsened the quality of life. The dream of unlimited growth has
brought about the underdevelopment of two-thirds of humankind.” 11 This conundrum is
why Earthists propose the opposite approach. Instead of globalization and unlimited
growth, Earthists promote the value of community and believe that the solution to
poverty and the environmental crisis lies in a focus on local communities.12
10
Boff, Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor, 8.
Charles L. Harper, Environment and Society: Human Perspectives on Environmental Issues (Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2008), 173-85.
12
Rasmussen, Earth Community, Earth Ethics, 127-131.
11
5 of 13
The Earthist perspective offers an alternative to the radical individualism and
greed, which inform the dominant economic model. Their “alternative vision tries to
increase local economic self-reliance within a framework of community responsibility
and ecological balance.”13 Rather than the concept of “sustainable development”
proposed by neoliberals, Earthists advocate for “sustainable community” or “ecological
economics” in which there is a focus on “the well-being of the community, not as in neoclassical economics, fulfilling the insatiable desires of individuals.”14 Ecological
economics involves a localizing of the economy, centered on communities. Its
underlying principles are sustainability and distributive justice. It is not based on “the
allocation of resources among competing individuals.”15
These sustainable communities put the survival of the community above
individual greed. Local resources are distributed equally among the members of a
community, avoiding the immense inequalities present in the world today. In addition,
communities with localized economies are more aware of their environment and their
dependence upon limited local resources. Because of this heightened awareness, they are
more likely to implement sustainable practices that will conserve their local resources for
the community’s future generations. This, at least, is the ideal that Earthists strive for.
They believe that “local economies are far more likely to produce stable and satisfied
communities and to protect nature than any system based on a theoretically constant
expansion of production and consumption.”16 They believe that small communities
13
Ibid., 131.
McFague, Life Abundant, 99.
15
Ibid., 100
16
Jerry Mander and Edward Goldsmith, eds., The Case Against the Global Economy and for a Turn
Toward the Local, (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1996), 391-92.
14
6 of 13
would make more responsible economic decisions than the international institutions that
currently implement global economic policy.17
Earthists essentially want to democratize economics by placing the power in the
hands of numerous communities instead of in the hands of a few controlling
organizations. Thus far, those organizations have not had much success at reducing
environmental degradation and poverty. As Wendell Berry suggests, we must consider
“the likelihood that humans are not intelligent enough to work on the scale that our
technological abilities tempt us to.”18 Earthists propose that we try a different tactic, by
tackling economies on a smaller scale within communities, one that we will likely have
more success controlling.
One primary way that these communities would create a local economy is through
the concept of: local production, from local resources, for local consumption. This
closed-loop economy would promote self-sufficient communities. Earthists acknowledge
that, of course, communities could not produce everything locally and would trade for
any goods they could not produce themselves. However, self-sufficiency would be the
goal that communities would aim for.
One community in the global South is already practicing this form of a selfsufficient local economy. The Zapatista rebellion in Chiapas Mexico has staged a
political rebellion in which they have struck out on their own, claimed a piece of land in
Chiapas for themselves, and developed a self-sufficient local economy. “They keep alive
their own life-support systems based on self-reliance and mutual help, informal networks
for direct exchange of goods, services and information” and are governed by collective
17
Cobb, The Earthist Challenge to Economism, 1-9.
Wendell Berry, “Conserving Communities,” in The Case Against the Global Economy, eds. Jerry Mander
and Edward Goldsmith (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1996), 411.
18
7 of 13
leadership.19 Like the Earthist ideology, the Zapatistas formed in opposition to the
dominant economic models of “development” that are ravaging their lands and people.
In many ways, the community formed by the Zapatista Army of National Liberation
(EZLN) reflects the ideal Earthist community. The EZLN, like Earthism, envisions a
different kind of development that approaches development from the bottom-up rather
than top-down. The Zapatistas focus on “local land and the health of communities and
societies tied more closely to self-reliance…low-impact agriculture, sustainable energy
use, environmental balance within locality and region, and community economic, social,
and political accountability.”20 These are all key aspects of the kind of communities
Earthists propose. While Earthists offer many ways of shifting toward localized
economies that can be implemented in more developed nations, many of their proposals
are more difficult to implement in areas where people in poverty don’t have the luxury of
choice. However, the Zapatistas embody many of the Earthist-proposed solutions, which
can be put into action in less developed nations.21
One primary way in which Earthists propose change for communities in the twothirds world is to change current practices of food production and distribution. “Chronic
hunger is not caused by too many people or too little food…problems of hunger are
caused by the way food is distributed.”22 Although the theory behind international free
trade assumes that “products will naturally flow from the places where they can be best
produced to the places where they are most needed,” that is not the reality.23 The reality
is that products flow from the places where they can be most cheaply produced to the
Gustavo Esteva, “Basta!,” The Ecologist, vol. 24, no. 3, (May/June 1994): 84.
Rasmussen, Earth Community, Earth Ethics, 131.
21
Esteva, “Basta!,” 82-85.
22
Harper, Environment and Society, 175.
23
Wendell Berry, “Conserving Communities,” 411
19
20
8 of 13
places with the most money. Therefore, nations in the global South use their most fertile
agricultural land to produce food to be shipped North to the wealthier nations rather than
using their resources to feed their own people.
World markets…organized by large corporations with the support of government
subsidies…displace and disadvantage small producers and workers in many
nations. Such huge markets work very well for the people with money, but not
well at all for those who have little money, or who are pushed out of jobs or off
their land in the process.24
This is why Earthists propose, instead, producing agriculture for local consumption.
Agriculture organized by communities for communities would employ members of the
community, likely under more favorable conditions than agricultural workers currently
have under the supervision of profit-driven corporations. It would also cut down on the
environmentally destructive and often unnecessary transportation of goods across the
globe.
Experts believe that there is enough fertile land to provide food for the world even
if the current corporate farming practices are abandoned for more local production.
Environmentalists advocate for “more labor-intensive traditional agricultural practices”
and believe the world’s population could still be fed using the more sustainable
techniques of low-impact agriculture.25 This form of farming would require more labor,
and therefore, provide more employment for members in a community. Many
communities in the global South could combat hunger and unemployment by farming
using sustainable practices and producing food primarily for local consumption, as the
24
25
Harper, Environment and Society, 177.
Ibid., 182-85.
9 of 13
Zapatista community in Chiapas is already doing. However, under the current system,
less developed nations are still dependent upon the international market and subject to the
destructive practices of transnational corporations. Because of these conditions, the
EZLN had to form their community by staging a political rebellion. Earthists
acknowledge the necessity for bringing about changes to make conditions more favorable
for forming local economies so communities do not have to stage rebellions each time
they wish to form local economies.26
While Earthists suggest a number of ways to bring about the shift towards
community-minded local economies, chief among them is this necessity for structural
change.
Give a man a fish and he will be without hunger for a day. Teach a man to fish,
and he will never be hungry. Yet the ability to fish will not keep someone from
starving if he or she lacks the authority to prevent overfishing or to stop the
pollution that can destroy the fishes’ spawning grounds.27
Earthists acknowledge that communities cannot be strong if they do not have authority.
Communities need “sufficient authority to make the rules that can ensure their future.”28
Earthists believe that community authority must be strengthened by national and
international policies in order bring about any lasting change.
One place in which Earthists see a need for national policy to change is in
government expenditures. Instead of spending money on environmentally destructive
projects, money should be spent on projects that will strengthen local communities.
26
Ibid., 173-85.
David Morris, “Communities: Building Authority, Responsibility, and Capacity,” in The Case Against
the Global Economy, eds. Jerry Mander and Edward Goldsmith (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1996),
437.
28
Ibid., 436.
27
10 of 13
Rather than investing in endless highway additions and improvements that encourage
long-distance travel and transportation that increases pollution, Earthists suggest
spending that money, instead, on improving local transportation, such as bicycle trails
and sidewalks and more eco-friendly public transportation. Another way to spend money
more wisely would be to transfer subsidies from industrial agricultural corporations to
small family farms to “encourage smaller-scale, diversified agriculture.”29 To get
citizens more involved in community decision-making, funds could be directed toward
the creation of public meeting places, such as town halls.
Earthists propose changes to international policies, as well. Helena NorbergHodge argues that “in today’s climate of unfettered ‘free’ trade, some government
regulation is clearly necessary, and citizens need to insist that governments be allowed to
protect their interests.”30 Earthists advocate increased tarrifs instead of the current freetrade policies in order to build local economies and prevent needless trade for goods that
are available locally. These changes would encourage people to buy local products,
decreasing pollution and making local economies more viable. A more radical change
that Earthists suggest is the possibility of a switch to local rather than national currencies
which would allow communities to opt out of participation in the international economy.
All of these policy changes would shift government support from large corporations and
worldwide trade practices to more localized operations.31
However, local communities do not have to wait on the government to bring
about change. Individuals and communities can begin implementing grassroots
Helena Norberg-Hodge, “Shifting Direction: From Global Deendence to Local Interdependence,” in The
Case Against the Global Economy, eds. Jerry Mander and Edward Goldsmith (San Francisco: Sierra Club
Books, 1996), 399.
30
Ibid., 400.
31
Ibid., 393-406.
29
11 of 13
initiatives locally, and many have already begun to do this. Many individuals have begun
choosing to buy local products over those produced across the globe and have even begun
campaigns to encourage their neighbors to do the same. Through choosing to “buylocal,” individuals support producers within their community and protest against the
environmentally destructive practices of many companies who ship their goods across the
nation. Another idea is the sharing of certain goods in common within communities such
as “tool lending libraries.” Communities participating in “libraries” of this kind agree to
share items in common rather than each individual needlessly purchasing these tools only
for personal use. One of the most popular and well-known initiatives is Community
Supported Agriculture, in which individuals own shares in a local farm. Members
receive produce from the farm regularly and agree to pay even if crops fail. In this way,
farmers and consumers share the risks, and small farmers are not economically ruined by
a poor season.32
Another way that individuals can begin to bring about change is by making
ethical consumer choices. We in the “developed” world consume and discard with no
thought of where our goods have come from or where they will go after we are finished
with them. Earthists critique this irresponsible consumerism and call upon those with the
ability to alter their buying habits. Individuals have become distanced from the ways in
which their goods are produced: who labors to make these goods and under what
conditions, and what resources of the earth are used in their creation. As consumers, we
must take it upon ourselves to know the answers to these questions and purchase products
accordingly. An Earthist reorganizing of our economy and production practices would
alter this distance and lack of knowledge but, until then, those with the luxury to choose
32
Mander, The Case Against the Global Economy, 391-445.
12 of 13
between products should make ethical purchases based on what is best for the whole of
creation.33
Those with the luxury may also choose voluntary simplicity as a way of life.
Mother Teresa is often quoted as having commissioned humans to “live simply that
others may simply live.” Living simply and refusing to participate in the widespread
practice of over-consumption is a personal choice that may not have far-reaching
consequences. However, this practice is representative of the way of living that would be
required in sustainable communities and demonstrates that it can, indeed, be done.
Leonardo Boff wrote, “It is not only the poor and oppressed who must be
liberated but all human beings, rich and poor, because all are oppressed by a paradigmabuse of the Earth, consumerism, denial of otherness, and of the inherent value of each
being—that enslaves us all.” 34 This is what Earthists seek to combat: the dominant
worldview that “enslaves us all.” They offer a new paradigm, in which the Community
of the Earth is valued above the individual and solutions to the world’s problems are
confronted, engaged, and solved within community.
Not only does this new perspective offer healing for the earth and those in
poverty, it also promises fulfillment for all humans participating in community. Through
the changes proposed by Earthists, individuals will rediscover “the deep psychological
benefits—the joy—of being embedded in community.”35 Earthists believe that human
beings are fundamentally social. “We come into being in and through relationships and
33
Ibid., 391-445.
Boff, Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor, 113.
35
Helena Norberg-Hodge, “Shifting Direction,” 406.
34
13 of 13
have no identity apart from them.”36 Our need for relationship with others is satisfied in
community. Earthists believe that social and ecological justice are also satisfied in
community. “A community economy is not an economy in which well-placed persons
can make a ‘killing.’ It is an economy whose aim is generosity and a well-distributed and
safe-guarded abundance.”37 Life in sustainable communities would be very different for
the affluent. This lifestyle would require sacrifice, especially on the part of the privileged
in wealthy nations. It would be based on the principle of consuming enough rather than
consuming as much as we can get our hands on. However, as Boff affirms, it is a
lifestyle that would offer liberation for the rich, the poor, and the earth.
36
Herman E. Daly and John B. Cobb, Jr., For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy toward
Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future (Boston: Beacon Press, 1989), 161.
37
Wendell Berry, “Conserving Communities,” 415.