Endgame
I'm reading something really challenging right now (and really anger-making).
It's Derrick Jensen's Endgame Volume One: the Problem of Civilization. I'm not in the habit of writing about books before I finish them (heck - I'm barely in the habit of writing about books once I have finished them...), but this one is taking a while and requires a lot of thought along the way.
Jensen contends, as far as I can tell, that civilization is inherently violent and ecologically unsustainable. Sounds crazy - especially to a committed urbanite such as myself. But I'm coming around to his way of thinking.
I just thought I'd throw out this idea of his, and see if any of you have any comments. Is his contention silly? Obvious? Let me know.
posted by Andreus @ 5:45 PM
2 Comments:
At 6:44 PM,
Max said…
I'd like to read this book... and although I don't know what his definition of civilization is exactly I could argue, and have thought, that human civilization is violent and ecologically unsustainable.
That said, I'm divided as to how you use the term inherent. I think that elements of human society and human evolution can be read as, in many ways, a concerted 'rising' above beyond things that may be inherent to social'nature' or human habit etc.
What sort of framework is Jensen working with? Is it evolutionary? Does he use economic terms? How does this 'end game' metaphor work?
At 4:43 PM,
Andreus said…
This is what I've gleaned about his definition of civilization:
Civilization, according to Jensen, is the Historical mode of human living (as opposed to the prehistorical). It is human organization that involves the Civitas, the City. It is 6000ish years old.
He argues that as soon as you're collecting people into a permanent settlement that is using its land in such a way that that settlement depends on others for food, you have a problem. Then you're getting food from others through a (probably coercive) structure: you're taking it, or you're forcing people physically or through a perceived "economic" need (which involves an idea of "private property") to provide you with it.
The adjunct of this is that City dwellers (and, of course, these ancient Civitates could have had a population of as little as a couple thousand...) are removed from their food source, and thus from the natural world in general. This separation leads, apparently...after 6000 years, to a culture that expresses an underlying hatred of the natural, the body, etc..
Jensen would argue that there is a violence inherent in an "economic" system that creates "private property" and commodifies natural abundance. Those who don't believe in the idea that this is "your" apple tree will be made to believe it by the police should they choose to "steal" an apple. There is no opting out of this arbitrary "economics".
As your options for hunting and gathering are limited by others' conceptions of property (as well as the reduction of your habitat as it is deforested to build homes...and nowadays paved over or dammed up...), you are forced by your hunger and need for a habitat to beat 'em or join 'em. The catch is, the "civilized" are the ones with the police & the army. So you probably won't beat 'em.
This structure then maps on to colonial/imperialist situations. You convince the third-world farmer who has farmed and hunted enough for his family for a thousand years that he's impoverished because he has no money. You tell him he can't hunt this or that any more (or you ruin the population of a species), and you pollute the river that feeds his crops. The you tell him that you'll give him money if he grows a cash crop: indigo, tobacco, whatever...which of course means he really is impoverished now (you can't feed your family indigo & tobacco). It only takes a generation or two for people to completely buy into the system (and to forget how their grandparents lived).
Let me know if that clears things up.
Post a Comment
<< Home