What did you think Charlie? What did I think?

I saw Suzuki speak last week at University? I’ve seen him speak before and read some of his books and watched him on TV. A man of the 1970’s. Part of the optimistic idealistic generation. A popular voice of the first ecological generation. He has achieved so much! A great orator and a professional thorn in the side, champion of forest and First Peoples, hero to me and many others. Icon.<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–> But also such a part of the elite of the North American education system. Accepted by dominant broadcasting channels. He thumps the lectern in outrage!!! When will they stop this?!! when will they do that?!! A clear moral voice. <!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–> <!–[endif]–>But I ask what about power dynamics in all this? In what he says? What of colonisation? Us, being a part of, and beneficiary of ,the colonial practices that we condemn? Power and practice? What about the language we use, the institutions we adhere to? The buried unconscious metaphysical constructs frame our language, thinking, feeling (?), actions, protests, and destructive behaviours….<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–> <!–[endif]–>Let me ask – who benefits from what you say? What are the (effective) functions of your works? TV channels, middle class people all around the world exercising power (over governments, policies, language, environments, goods, species and services and other people) whilst asking what they are doing about it…….? <!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–> <!–[endif]–>I salute you. I do . You started and carried out something that is SO valuable. <!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–> <!–[endif]–>And then there’s Clive Hamilton who has become perhaps the main focal point in Australia for matters to do with …..climate change, consumerism, alternative economics, conservation…<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–> <!–[endif]–>I have also seen Hamilton speak, read his books and reviewed Growth Fetish (2003) <!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–> <!–[endif]–>Ok heres the guts…It’s OK for David Suzuki to be saying these things but times, and the field and experiences have moved on…its 20, 30, 40 years later now. There has been time to critically reflect upon these issues & the theoretical frameworks we use.Hamilton promises so much, but on deeper interrogation is disappointing and then even angering. His analysis avoids discourse analysis, sociology, and social ecology. He displays some very naive conceptions of affluence, worker power and seems to be completely unversed in issues of power in general. He seems unversed in systems thinking, new or non-standard ecological and environmental theory.He advocating ‘down-shifting’. The dangerous naivety of it. What about the down-sides of this? I know - I’ve lived it. His obsession with materiality, but his analysis is essentially materialist. Why disapprove of computers, cars, and mobile phones as ‘things’. Aren’t they about connecting!Consume less? We need fewer ‘things’. We are too wealthy?All of us? ‘Problems of economics have been solved’ He says!Meanwhile he has employment as researcher in Cambridge UK…or another Uni here in Australia. Benefiting from power structures, being part of a mobile , consuming, elite (see Bauman).<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–> <!–[endif]–>

Why does this frustrate me so much? Because Hamilton has become one of Australia’s most prominent voices in this field – a field that is gaining in importance again. It’s almost as if we want to hear these narrow familiar stories of that are clichéd, naive, puritanical, moralising, archetypal, apocalyptic, generalised ….But why?

<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–> <!–[endif]–>