[SustainableTompkins] The Political Economy of Relocalization

[Simon St.Laurent]

northsheep at juno.com wrote:
> While ruminating this hot, sweaty end of summer morning on the fantasy
> world of political assumptions that much of the relocalization movement
> seems mired in, and how I would address that problem, I ran across the
> latest Dale Allen Pfeiffer essay. This paragraph seems to articulate some
> of my concerns:

Thanks for bringing this essay and these concerns up, though the link to 
the full essay seems to have disappeared in my copy.  I have to say that 
it strikes me as looking for radicalism in a place where radicalism 
isn't inherently part of the story.

Relocalization certainly appeals to some groups of radicals.

At the same time, however, it also appeals to a lot of people for very 
different reasons.  Many of those people's concerns about the means of 
production aren't particularly radical - they just want to know where 
their food comes from.  Many of them also see an opportunity to reduce 
their impact on the earth, and help rebuild community.  Some of them are 
still quite thoroughly consumers, and a fair proportion of them I'd even 
call conservative.

> "I have said elsewhere (Mountain Sentinel Vol. 1, No. 4) that we must
> recognize that relocalization is a radical idea. It is radical because it
> seeks to replace the dominant system with one that is more healthy and
> equitable for all. And whenever a radical movement rises to threaten the
> dominant system, it must fight for its survival or be crushed ruthlessly.

Relocalization doesn't seem like a particularly large threat to the 
dominant system.  Perhaps it is a threat to globalization, but it is 
hardly a threat to capitalism.

> So far, relocalization has posed no threat to the dominant system. Where
> it is happening at all, it is marginalized. Most people are not even
> aware of it, and it holds little appeal to them. They prefer to shop at
> Walmart, drive their SUVs and yak on their cell phones. 

Relocalization is just getting started as any kind of mass movement, and 
even then it largely relies on the promise of better quality food to 
find a large number of adherents.  This sound mostly like scolding 
impatience to me, as he looks forward to an impending apocalypse.

> But when
> relocalization efforts do become visible, and when society has collapsed
> to the point that relocalization begins to appeal to the masses, then you
> can be certain that government and corporations will do their best to
> stamp it out. Either that or subvert it so that it is made profitable to
> them."

He seems concerned that relocalization faces the same problems as 
organic - first it wasn't relevant, then, when it became relevant, there 
was enough money in it that it got watered down.

I don't know quite why he worries about it being watered down "when 
society has collapsed".  In that event, I don't think people will be 
chanting "relocalization, relocalization, pure relocalization please 
save us."  They'll be looking for ways to feed themselves.

That'll be easier if food can be produced locally, and if local 
economies find ways to be broadly self-supporting, but I don't think it 
will be a matter of choice, a movement that needs subverting.


> For those not familiar with this long time thinker/activist on the
> multiple crises that we face, the full essay and other Pfeiffer writings
> can be found here . 
> Along the same line of thinking as Pfeiffer's, I often wonder, reading
> all the talk about changing the light bulbs and green shopping bags and
> green buildings, what good that sort of thing does if at the same time
> such educational projects are not seriously designed toward building a
> powerful political movement as an ultimate goal. 

You're welcome to wonder.  You can see it either as situation in which 
real change is postponed through token efforts, or a situation in which 
underlying change is percolating slowly through the culture.  I tend to 
see the latter.

I also don't see "building a powerful political movement" as a goal.  In 
my own work, though I'm certainly involved in local politics, I see 
building community as a goal.  I see more hope in the potluck or the 
barbecue than in the revolution.

> I have concerns about lack of awareness of the depth of the crises we
> face, as well.
> Earlier this summer I attended a valiant effort to bring together a
> variety of 'green Ithacans' in a workshop exercise to think systemically
> about sustainable redesign for a neighborhood of the city that happens to
> be located in a vulnerable flood plain. Most wanted to put up 'green
> buildings' including residential. Only a minority pointed out that siting
> most buildings in such a location was the least healthy option, and that
> given the fertility of flood plains - what we farmers reverently call
> "bottom lands" - and the overwhelming importance of food production
> within urban communities in the coming decades, the best use of the
> neighborhood might be community gardens. But there was no overcoming the
> majority urge to just build something. The ideology of economic growth,
> economic profit, won the day. 

That ideology is deeply ingrained, and I suspect it will take a long 
period where growth doesn't happen for people to shift to viewpoints 
more focused on conservation.

(A simpler way to discourage use of those bottom lands might be to point 
out that in the long run they will become floodplains again, unless we 
put tremendous effort into drainage.  That argument hasn't always 
succeeded for me either, however.)

> There was strong representation at the workshop from EcoVillage. I
> support such efforts, particularly for their political educational
> function. But here is what Pfeiffer says in the same essay about
> ecovillages:
> "Ecovillages and retreats into the wilderness will face a number of
> problems in the coming years. If they are not successful in making
> themselves self-contained, then their economic connections to the outside
> world will be susceptible. If they manage to succeed they will attract
> attention as the surrounding society decays. It is possible that they
> might be viewed as a threat by the elite, in which case they will have to
> fight for survival or risk being subverted. They may have to defend
> themselves from brigands and starving, homeless masses. Or they may find
> that their land is appropriated for its resources. They had best be
> prepared to defend their ecovillage with whatever it takes." 

I have doubts about retreating into the wilderness myself - it seems 
that networks often prove more sustainable than single isolated points. 
   However, I don't particularly see ecovillages as completely 
disonnected from the rest of the world, and I'm not entirely sure 
there's anything particularly unique about the problems they would face 
in the situation you're predicting.

> Now, this can all be denied and rejected as 'gloom and doom'. Or, people
> in the relocalization movement can begin to look more deeply at the power
> structure of our society and the political implications down the road, of
> relocalization carried forth in that context. And reflect more critically
> on the chances of success of present strategies of change. Even such
> small attempts at wielding local power in the name of healthy local
> communities as fights against Walmartization have been easily crushed, in
> Ithaca, and again, just now, in Cortland. Aren't more sanguine political
> strategies needed to achieve relocalization in the face of that kind of
> power?

I suspect that what you're seeking would be better provided by people 
who are already focused on political strategies and power than by people 
who are looking to restructure their world to better connect - 
economically - with their neighbors.  A lot of people look at 
relocalization and see brave new political vistas that should come with 
that agenda - but I fear that those visions are different for everyone 
looking at the subject.

Personally, I see relocalization as a way to rebuild the community we 
lost as industrialization weakened the connections we used to have 
between makers and consumers.  The further we can go along that path, 
the better we know how to follow it, the better the chance I think we 
have of surviving the gloom and doom possibilities, but too much depends 
on how dark the gloom is.

Thanks,
Simon St.Laurent
http://livingindryden.org/