Interesting - but here's the thing...

Let me start off by saying that I thoroughly enjoyed Professor Maniate's lecture on the current state of the environmental movement and where it might be headed. It was a completely fresh perspective on these issues and I applaud his effort to reform the movement to be more functional and efficient.

When he first presented the "trinity of despair", I was initially excited by the fact that Maniates had developed a great, simple rubric for what to look out for when challenging the effectiveness of the environmental movement. However, I think the inherent problem with the "trinity" is the exact thing the professor is trying to fight against - it's too simple! After further thought, it really did surprise me that someone whose main mission it is to fight simplicity in the environmental movement would create such a simple framework for the assumptions environmentalists should not have. Isn't Maniates saying, then, that the problems keeping environmentalists from going in the right direction is only threefold? Is he not really giving us the "3 Things That Impedes the Environmental Movement from Working"? I feel that, after having read his work, he is now advocating for the same thing that he has made a career of fighting against.

I also have trouble believing that we can boil down all the complex human emotions involved with the environmental movement into three categories. Are humans self-interested? Perhaps, but I do not think the answer is an emphatic "no". It would make sense if there were still some reservations on this issue. Do we need everyone on board? I agree with Maniates that we do not, especially since the majority of social movements had a bunch of people opposed to it. Then, of course, do we make the environmental movement to simple? Sure, I agree with this too - we cannot assume that "collective simplicity" will lead to a reduction in our complex problems. In this same vain, we cannot assume that we can change the complex environmental movement with the simple understanding of three conditions - that movement is too intricate to boil down to three factors.

What about corporate counteractions? Of course, not every corporation hates the environment, but a decently-sized bloc do. What about human initiative? With the rise of TV and the Internet, people now spend more time at home. Clearly, the fight to save the outside is, well, outside. There are other factors, definitely more than just the three Maniates mentioned.

I truly do have great respect for the man and enjoyed our class very much. I was truly enriched by the experience and the knowledge I gained. Despite this, I cannot help but be mildly disappointed that what he came up with to save the environment is "simple" - the thing Maniates seems to fight against. While I think he is on the right track, maybe it's time to go back to the drawing board. Perhaps a "squiggly-line-going-all-over-the-place of despair"?