A response by Jesse Epp-Fransen
The current state of the world is worrisome and saddening indeed. Wars, poverty, pandemics and economic collapse all seem right around the corner. In the face of this, one response is to return to personal ethics. This premise suggests that in the face of seemingly-overwhelming circumstances, we can subvert and resist by being more careful and living well in our day-to-day lives. Actions such as buying fair trade, eating organic and serving in soup kitchens and shelters are highly valued in this philosophy and are certainly positive actions that have the ability to materially change the world for the local people involved. This is what I will refer to as ‘the return to the local.’ In order to resist the negative results of globalization, these activists idealize localism.
I certainly do not want to diminish the important work that is being done by these local activists, however I fear that in wanting to get away from the violence of global capitalism there is a tendency to reject too much of the bigger international picture. Localism starts with the notion that we cannot change the broader world, but only ourselves. At this point, localism turns into individualism and this is what I want to reject. We can change the world, and we can change it radically. A peaceful revolution does not need to embrace individualism, but rather should fully embrace community, to allow the multitudes to break out of the systems of oppression. These systems operate by separating us by our demographic categories of gender, religion, nation and wealth, so that our demographic categories also become our ideological categories. By only resisting locally, we may end up ignoring the groups outside our social strata and thus solidifying the goals of global capitalism.
Instead of this, we need to create a culture of resistance that categorically denies essentialist notions of categorization and seeks open communication with the other. We do not merely need to buy fair trade; we need to end unfair trade. It is not enough that we compost, we must be willing to give up our homes and live in more sustainable situations, which may mean much higher population density. Lucas Redekop raises many good points in his blog “Can We Live With Less? Do We Have A Choice?”. We can argue about whether or not we want to live in high-rises, eat food grown within one hundred miles and not own a car, but that choice is still a very comfortable one compared to the alternatives. If we do not come together, as a broad community (not pockets of individuals) and start changing the entire world (not just our rich North American corner) we will not get to choose our future. As Saint Paul said, “the appointed time has grown short.” With the state of the world today, “what can we do?” needs to become “what we are doing” or it will become “what we should have done when we had the chance.” The chance is now, revolt.
1 Comment(s)
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
I think there was a man, long ago, who pushed for a peaceful revolution: the Kingdom of God. But hey, what we got was the Church. The Church’s attempts at being a foretaste of that coming Kingdom are filled with holes and mistakes; yet I believe and trust that this body, nevertheless, participates in that peaceful revolution built upon the foundation of Christ.
What I think we need is a Church that reclaims the role as a herald/outpost/foretaste of that ‘original revolution’; a revolution that takes Luke 4’s platform statement as its key mission proclamation.