Ecotage :: Environmental Activism Essays

Ecotage In recent decades, as environmental loss has grown as fast as our population, hundreds of plans, programs, groups and organizations have been established in order to uncover and solve the causes of world-wide environmental destruction. Many of these programs are initiated and funded by federal, state and local government and are mainly targeted at general problems and result in minimal success. Other groups have been formed by private parties who usually hold more compassion and concern for the causes they are working for. However, these organizations are easily hindered by political resistance and result in equally discouraging results. Of course, there have been many instances in which environmental groups have attained victory through political debates and litigation; yet the amount of failed attempts far outweighs the victories. Political debating is incredibly difficult due to the power and financial support given to politicians by special interest groups. However, there is one other form of activism which has had an incredible success rate, at least in gaining attention and forcing their voices to be heard. This form of activism, commonly referred to as ecotage, focuses precisely on the activities of companies and industries which seriously damage the environment. These actions are never aimed at harming individuals, while private property is for the destroying. One common act of ecotage is the driving of long metal spikes vertically through the base of trees. Subsequently, as the logger attempts to saw the 'spiked' tree, the chain on the saw snaps, thus delaying the murder of the tree as well as causing a financial burden for the individual or company. Other activities involve ruining bulldozers by adding sand or similar abrasives to the gasoline, which results in seized bulldozer engines. In times of increased urgency for the protection of our remaining ecosystems, organizations such as Greenpeace and Earth First! have proven their ability to be effective and have their voices heard regarding the permanent preservation of our dwindling environment. While Greenpeace has been the traditional radical environmentalist group of the 70's and 80's, modern, revolutionary type activists feel the 'peace' is now a higher priority than the 'green'. Earth First!, started by Dave Forman, has become the front-runner in civil disobedience and direct, non-violent environmental activism. Their principles are simple, "It is a belief in biocentrism, or Deep Ecology, and a practice of putting our beliefs into action" (Unclaimed, 1997 [see references]). Earth First! feels no regard for the well-being of anyone or thing except the environment and its natural inhabitants, thus the name Earth First!.

“What Do the Frankfurt School Contribute to Our Understanding of Popular Culture?”

The independent institute Frankfurt School was founded by Jewish intellectuals, Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer and Herbert Macuse within a Nazi empowered Germany in 1923. After relocating to various parts of America, gaining exposure from Los Angeles and Hollywood lifestyle, the school returned. They took a great concern in the analysis of popular culture and the Culture Industry that had affected Germany in the 1940s. Although these changes reshaped a nation over 70 years ago, Frankfurt School’s interpretation of popular culture still relates to our own understanding today. The question is why, Adorno in particular, criticised this new behaviour in Germany’s society. The Enlightenment was introduced, which expressed individualism instead of tradition but ultimately led the way to modern capitalism and the culture industry. â€Å"Frankfurt School perspective is an obvious variant of Marxism. † (Strinati, 2004) Despite disagreeing with the Enlightenment, Adorno and Frankfurt School agreed on the Marxist theory. According to Dominic Strinati, to understand Frankfurt’s views â€Å"the school can be seen as trying to fill in a part of the picture of capitalism Marx did not deal with. (2004, 48) This provides a reappraisal of popular culture which Marx did not comment on, which we will acknowledge and see how far that it is understood by society today. Interestingly, the school focuses on the culture, not the economy or political aspects of society. However Adorno has also been criticised for his unclear and inaccurate analysis of the to pic, which will also be discussed and questioned upon. To begin, we will establish how Capitalism is the foundations of the development of popular culture. Capitalism is the political and economic system which is controlled by the individual, and not by state. Frankfurt School considered Capitalism as their opposition due to their left-wing beliefs. Though it is noticeable that the Frankfurt School believed Capitalism was more stable than what it really is. Adorno fails to mention that capitalism also has it’s faults and popular culture was not formed on this system alone. Despite this, it certainly aided it effectively. Adorno declares that the working class accept this system unforced is because businesses, advertisers and other consumers make the product that is being retailed more appealing. It doesn’t take much effort from the consumer to submit to these influences and purchase the product. This makes them feel better about themselves because they now own said product and are part of the majority that does. He introduces the term â€Å"commodity fetishism† which â€Å"is the basis†¦ of how cultural forms such as popular music can secure the continuing economic, political and ideological domination of capitalism. † (Strinati, 2004) He shows us that consumers in the capitalist society value money more than appreciating what was purchased. This â€Å"defines and dominates social relations† (Strinati, 2004, 50) The same is true today – many of us would much prefer to spend a colossal amount of money on an well-known brand commodity, say a new car or handbag, than an affordable and sensible priced one. This presents ourselves to others as a much wealthier individual, which essentially makes us feel better about ourselves. Adorno quotes this well â€Å"the real secret of success†¦ is the mere reflection of what one pays in the market for the product. (Strinati, 2004, 49) This superficial attitude expressed most of us can relate to today because we all live in a capitalist society and have experienced this need for a certain commodity. Therefore Frankfurt School has successfully helped us be aware of the root of popular culture. According to the Frankfurt school, â€Å"the culture industry reflects the consolidation of commodity fetishism. † (Strinati, 2004, 54) When the public are satisfied, cap italism will continue to work and therefore other political systems will be unsuccessful. It’s only when a system does not work does the mass culture look for new power. With the simplicity and effectiveness of the Culture Industry, the Working Class will remain content consuming. â€Å"It is so effective in doing this that the working class is no longer likely to pose a threat to the stability and continuity of capitalism. † (Strinati, 2004, 55) The industry successfully moulds and alters the tastes of the masses to suit the industry’s needs. However, the Frankfurt School do not consider that the notion of popular culture has any radical potential at this time. Instead, Adorno found that popular culture was ‘imposed’ on the people, and warned that they should only welcome it insofar as they do not get imposed. (Strinati, 2004, 55) Of course, this working class at the time was not going to take notice of the school’s negative response when they find something so welcoming and appealing. Perhaps Frankfurt did not appreciate how diverse and hybrid popular culture was. One way of looking at this would be to see Adorno’s criticism as a warning to us about the effects of the powerful culture industry, something the masses of 1940s would not understand. We are able to understand and relate to this because we all know from experience of this captivating affect that popular culture has on our lives. The school’s theory discusses that by capitalism and the culture industry working together produces ‘false needs’ for the masses, which means â€Å"people can be reconciled to capitalism, guaranteeing its stability and continuity. † (Strinati, 2004, 52) In the pursuit of profit, the industry will be ruthless to promote consumerism – to make consumers buy things they essentially do not need. These goods are advertised so effectively to the mass culture, they are tricked to believe that they genuinely need it. Think of the example from earlier with the expensive car or handbag. These false needs are created and sustained through advertisements in magazines, television, the media and from other consumers’ opinions. Therefore the consumer purchases the item: increasing the success of the industry and fulfilling the false need. The customer buys what they think they need, however remain unsatisfied and wants more. Strinati puts it very well: The customer is not king, as the culture industry would have us to believe, but its object. † This is a disturbing truth that needs to be dealt with, but it appears that nobody is bothered by it, so why should it be changed? The school successfully makes it clear to us how this lifestyle is influencing us so powerfully. We are aware of this feeling of ‘false needs‘ from time to time, yet we share the same attitud e as the society in the 20th century and continue in bad habit. In particular, the school criticises the culture industry’s popular music, accusing it of two processes: standardisation and pseudo-individualisation. The customer is being fooled through the use of standardisation â€Å"popular songs are becoming more alike† (Strinati, 2004, 58) Traditional music at such as Beethoven or Mozart requires an attentive listen and expression of the imagination to hear every detail that has been put into the musical piece. Meanwhile, popular music, as described by Storey: â€Å"operates in a kind of blurred dialectic: to consume it demands inattention and distraction† (2009) which means that it requires little attention – which suits perfectly for customers with busy lives, who after a stressful day prefer to listen to something which requires less concentration. Popular music is ideal here and â€Å"satisfies the craving. † The pseudo-individualisation element of the song disguises it making it appear more unique and distinctive, often by adding a catchy chorus or beat. Frankfurt School makes us aware of this process, which still is regular in many pop songs today. Adorno compares the characteristics of both music styles and criticises the simplicity of the one dimension popular music. Here it is felt that he must be condemned for criticising with a lack of evidence or experience to prove his theory. This makes it extremely difficult for us to relate to the school because they fail to relate with us. On the other hand, it could be argued that he was writing in 1941, a time were popular music would be very different to listen to. The music industry has changed drastically in the past 70 years and the sound of ‘pop’ has been reshaped too. It has to be acknowledged that despite Adorno’s criticisms of the culture industry’s popular music, it indisputably proves to us that if we reflect on the music we listen to today we will see evidence of standardisation and pseudo-individualisation used. To conclude, it must be asked why the mass culture both then and now continues to gives into the power of capitalism and the culture industry. Adorno’s idea is â€Å"that most capitalist societies live limited, impoverished and unhappy lives† (Strinati, 2004, 61) and the reason for this is the submission from the power of commodity fetishism, escape from the real world and tragically, laziness. Strinati presses that â€Å"popular culture does not necessarily hide reality from people† but that it’s realised how difficult it is to change the world from this mindset so it becomes a matter of acceptance. It is surely â€Å"killing the desire that might let us imagine a better world. † (Storey, 2009) The Frankfurt brings to us an interesting outlook of how we could change our lives and prevent the power of capitalism and the culture industry from absolute control. Bibliography Strinati, Dominic (2004) An Introduction to Theories of Popular Culture London: Routedge Storey, John (2009) Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: An Introduction Harlow, England

Current Third Parties essays

Current Third Parties essays All throughout the American history of politics there have been two major parties, the Republicans and the Democrats. While most people can find a candidate from these groups who have the beliefs and ideals they look for in a candidate, there are always some people who want someone else to represent them in the presidential race. When enough interest is found, a third party is formed. These third parties have been a big part of American political history. Originally called the Association of State Green Parties, the Green Party was formed after the 1996 elections to fill a space in national Green politics. The American Green Party's platform is based on the following ten major ideals including ecological wisdom, community-based economics, grassroots democracy, decentralization, gender equality, personal and social responsibility, respect for diversity, nonviolence, global responsibility, and future focus. Greens are renewing democracy without the support of business donors. Initially, the partys goal was to help existing state parties grow and to promote the development of parties in all 50 states. The primary goal is still helping state parties, but also, they try to devote attention to establishing a national conservational presence in politics and policy debate while continuing to facilitate party growth and action at the state and local level. American Taxpayer Party presidential representative Howard Phillips was seen on the ballot in twenty-one states in 1992. Mr. Phillips again ran in 1996, this time appearing on ballots in thirty-nine states. At its national convention in 1999, the party officially changed its name to the Constitution Party and again chose Howard Phillips as its presidential candidate for 2000. The Constitution Party favors a government based a strict interpretation of the Constitution and the principals expressed in it by the Founding Fathers. They support a government limited in capaci...