As I was doing the ironing this morning and musing about this
conversation, I began to worry about the direction it may be taking.
Please hear me out and think about what I say, OK? Then go on your merry
way(s) as you will.
I'm wondering if some of us (me included to be sure) aren't heading
toward forming a self congratulatory mutual admiration society and
alienating or somehow excluding others on the list? The two public
resignations from the list yesterday make me wonder. Whatever we call
ourselves, it's the goal we're seeking that's important - no, crucial.
What I'd like to see is more of a support group in which everyone
recognizes (and celebrates) the differences here BUT realizes that we all
honestly are working toward the same goal - a sustaining and sustainable
environment on this earth.
As I see it, this support group could (as well as discussing metaphors
and semantics) could be a place of exchange of practical day-to-day ideas
and moral support for all of us in this struggle. For example, Bertina
could give us a problem she encountered today that has her at a loss and
we all could give her ideas that have worked for us. Or, if I can't get
to a library and need a citation, I could request it online and if
someone knows the answer I could get it.
Muddle this about and let's talk about it, OK?
Jacque
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Mar 24 19:17:05 MST 1995
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 21:17:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Swarr Amanda Lock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Idealism/Materialism
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Thu, 23 Mar 1995, Jayne S Docherty wrote:
> > > The distinction between materialism and idealism that I think Bertina
> > > referred to is the split between those who think that change will come
> > > about through changing material/institutional relations versus those who
> > > think change will come about through changing people's "heads" or
> > > ideas. [snip]
> > > In fact, both materialists and idealists can have a similar
> > > vision of the "end" they want to create. But, they disagree about
> > > "how" to "get there".
I think there is still some disagreement/confusion on the ecofem list
about the notions of materialism and idealism as they were presented by
Joel and others. My personal experiences and understandings differ
from Jayne's representation of the split between idealism/materialism
(shown above). While I think most people on the list understand the notion
of "materialism", the definition still seems to be unclear to some.
First, whether someone is a materialist or idealist (meaning whether or
not they believe in the existence of nonmaterial things -- not whether they
are "an idealist" about the future, as in "60's idealism") has nothing to
do with whether they think we need to change the structure of society vs.
people's ideas. People who are idealists (i.e. they believe in god(s))
may want to change the structure of society and people who are
materialists may want to focus on changing people opinions. So in fact
there is no relationship at that level.
I would classify this differences outlined by Jayne as materialism/idealism as:
*liberal* - loosely defined as changing offensive conditions and practices
through institutions such as government
vs. *radical,* meaning a commitment to extensive structural social change.
As a committed Radical activist, I am less willing to work through
existing social institutions than at a grass-roots level by changing
systems of belief and challenging dominant paradigms, and I think that
the liberal/radical discussion is an an interesting one. However, this seems
unconnected to the materialism/idealism split which is see centered
around the question of spirituality.
-amanda
