desirous deeds
"Without modifications to the social and material environment, there can be no change in mentalities"
-Félix Guattari
This quote about Guattari's thoughts on the creations of an "ecosophy" that would link the environment, social and mental ecologies was intriguing to me. Typically one would think that the opposite of his statement is the truth: that change in mentalities drives change in society and the environment. After all, we humans are in control of these "modifications" and it is our desire for something leads to production. Guattari discussed this theory himself, stating that social production is driven by the human emotion of desire.
So which is it? Perhaps it is this more common way of thinking that has prevented us from making changes towards a more sustainable future. The desire is not there, so the productive actions are not there. Perhaps we do indeed need to "force" change on people, make them live a different life before they can truly change their mentalities and, in turn, desire that change. Or, maybe the change will become forced on us by the environment, and we will have no choice but to change our way of thinking.
I believe that one (extreme) way to address this problem is to take control of the situation and make these modifications to the "social and material environment," therefore, encouraging the individual change. The reason that people don't seem to care about climate change and fossil fuel depletion now is because we don't see the effects in front of us, and the ways to help are more difficult than doing nothing. The local dump requires so much effort for me to simply recycle garbage from my house, that so often I find myself just giving up and throwing that one plastic bottle in the trash. Clients and architects choose not to design LEED buildings because they are more expensive, require a lot of knowledge and more difficult to produce (Though I do give credit to LEED for making the system that much easier for designers). Incentives aren't really working, so maybe it's time for the opposite. Charge owners for having non-sustainable buildings. Make me pay to use the landfill as opposed to recycling (I sure would change real quick). Make all the parking for gas-guzzlers really far from the front door. Make it inconvenient for individuals, society, architects, anyone to harm the environment (natural or built) as opposed to making it difficult to help it. If we make these things the norm, if we penalize negative behaviors, people will adjust their behaviors. Didn't some psychologists study this once?
All in all, it takes one person to affect their society, and it takes the society to affect another person.
"There are no desiring-machines that exist outside the social machines that they form on a large scale; and no social machines without the desiring machines that inhabit them on a small scale."
-Félix Guattari & Gilles Deleuze in Anti-Oedipus
-Félix Guattari
This quote about Guattari's thoughts on the creations of an "ecosophy" that would link the environment, social and mental ecologies was intriguing to me. Typically one would think that the opposite of his statement is the truth: that change in mentalities drives change in society and the environment. After all, we humans are in control of these "modifications" and it is our desire for something leads to production. Guattari discussed this theory himself, stating that social production is driven by the human emotion of desire.
So which is it? Perhaps it is this more common way of thinking that has prevented us from making changes towards a more sustainable future. The desire is not there, so the productive actions are not there. Perhaps we do indeed need to "force" change on people, make them live a different life before they can truly change their mentalities and, in turn, desire that change. Or, maybe the change will become forced on us by the environment, and we will have no choice but to change our way of thinking.
I believe that one (extreme) way to address this problem is to take control of the situation and make these modifications to the "social and material environment," therefore, encouraging the individual change. The reason that people don't seem to care about climate change and fossil fuel depletion now is because we don't see the effects in front of us, and the ways to help are more difficult than doing nothing. The local dump requires so much effort for me to simply recycle garbage from my house, that so often I find myself just giving up and throwing that one plastic bottle in the trash. Clients and architects choose not to design LEED buildings because they are more expensive, require a lot of knowledge and more difficult to produce (Though I do give credit to LEED for making the system that much easier for designers). Incentives aren't really working, so maybe it's time for the opposite. Charge owners for having non-sustainable buildings. Make me pay to use the landfill as opposed to recycling (I sure would change real quick). Make all the parking for gas-guzzlers really far from the front door. Make it inconvenient for individuals, society, architects, anyone to harm the environment (natural or built) as opposed to making it difficult to help it. If we make these things the norm, if we penalize negative behaviors, people will adjust their behaviors. Didn't some psychologists study this once?
All in all, it takes one person to affect their society, and it takes the society to affect another person.
"There are no desiring-machines that exist outside the social machines that they form on a large scale; and no social machines without the desiring machines that inhabit them on a small scale."
-Félix Guattari & Gilles Deleuze in Anti-Oedipus
Comments
Post a Comment