Monday, March 1, 2010

The roots of my environmentalism

I just re-read the article called, "Life paths into effective environetnal action' by Chawla. I read it again because I remember from the first time I read it that the two groups they choose to study were a group from Kentucky and a group from Norway. I was thinking to myself could they possibly be any different from each other? Were they chosen at random? I'm curious of the validity of this study. But that's just me, I do that all time.

So I am revisiting this article because of the story I attempted to tell Friday night. Please excuse me for not being able to tie sentences or thoughts together that night. It was my first trip out of the house that was not a trip to the hospital in 2 weeks. And the left over drugs were wearing off. But anyways....I was trying to tell the story of a place I used to work for in the summer of 2002. It was called the Norwegian Outdoor Exploration Center.

Here I was introduced to the philosophy and lifestyle of the traditional form of Norwegian "Friluftsliv". "loosely translated as “Free-Air-Life”, an environmental approach embodying the principles of living in harmony with oneself, one’s community and all of Nature." This was something I feel I always had within me, I just did not how to assign words to the feelings.

One part of the article that really hit home with me was when they were defining different categories of sources of commitments. This was pretty upsetting to me, as for me, and I'm sure for many others it can be misrepresented. I would volunteer 40+ hrs a week at various environmental institutions if I could...If I could..the problem is my rent. my life expenses. I can not afford to just volunteer. I used to want to be a lawyer. Just for 7-10 years so I could do it and retire at 40 and volunteer and meaningful places. Obviously that is not the path I choose but I still enjoy the idea. This almost seems as an issue of power and privlidge, who can afford to volunteer? Who can work for free? If I could I would, believe me, I would work for Charles River Watershed, or an organization that educated people on climate change. That would be great, but it is not a reality for me at this point in my life.

I can trace my love for the environment back to a child. Growing up in the Berkshires, I was always outside. My parents started me skiing when I was 4 years old. I was always doing something fun outside. Recently I have had to change my ways of thinking to include finding nature in the city.

2 comments:

  1. I really wish you had part of the whole weekend. This is not an admonishment because it was obvious it took a lot out of you just to be there on Friday night! It's just that your perspective and the points you raise would have been a valuable contribution to the discussion.

    I similarly found some limitations to Chawla's study, some of which she points out herself. One point is how "effective environmental action" is defined. Another is looking only at adult leaders who are reflecting on early influences on their lives from a distance. When two young people - Rebecca and Ashe-Shirley - members of YouthCAN (Climate Action Network) at their high school spoke to us on Sunday, I was struck by how they made little or no mention of early experiences outdoors in their description of what has influenced them to pursue environmental issues. They did, however, point to family and a teacher at their school as major influences.

    In your posting, you say, "One part of the article that really hit home with me was when they were defining different categories of sources of commitments." What about this hit home with you or did you find upsetting? Volunteerism? Can you say more about this?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think the part that maybe upset me was how they were judging people's level of commitment. It seemed like they were discounting my level of commitment because at this particular point in my life I am unable to volunteer...not sure what I was really thinking :) but that is what I think when I re-read it.

    ReplyDelete