The Rebirth of Environmentalism

Striking images of the wilderness surround us from the time we are young. From calendars to posters, photographs to films, we are inundated with the spectacular views of the natural world. And if the biophilia hypothesis is correct, these images as well as the landscapes they represent should move us and appeal to us purely by virtue of the way we are wired. As young children we are fascinated by our pets and as adults, we line our cubicles with Sierra Club calendars. In many ways, the campaign for the environment doesn't seem necessary because our whole lives are lined with environmental tendencies. At very least, the "green"movement should be one of the less controversial movements on the modern docket. But somewhere along the way, the cause started to crumble. It lost its connection with the public, the very people with whom it so desperately needed to stay in close contact. 

And most important in this cataclysm of communication, the language of the environmental movement took on a new lexicon, ripe with fear and warning about the potential for great loss. As stated by one of the authors of this week's readings, the new vernacular of green living became about a nightmare, not a dream. We speak of the environment in terms of all the things that could go wrong, all the things that we could lose. We hear about environmental catastrophes, climate upheavals and destruction. For a movement that strongly needs to call on the public for comraderie and a reevaluation of many lifestyles, language so dire does little to appeal to the masses. What we are hearing may very well be absolutely true. Our situation is in need of a great turn-around. But scientists, advocates, and environmentalists of all kinds are forgetting how to speak to people. It comes up in everything from basic child management to elementary communication: people do not like to be threatened, or told what not to do. This generalization has many exceptions, surely, but we are reminded of that feeling that we all got whenever our parents would tell us not to run in the house, or that we couldn't play until we'd finished our chores. Telling people that they cannot do something and threatening them with a dreadful alternative denies them a fundamental identification of respect. For when we tell someone what they cannot do, the language conveys that we have the authority to direct them because we know more, or know better.

So what, then, is the alternative? The language of environmentalism needs to change, therefore shifting the way in which the conservation community interacts with the public. We need to offer enticing visions of a world in which people live more sustainably. Offer them many options for how to accomplish this goal. Many families do not have the resources to trade in their vehicles for hybrids. But they do have the resources to use canvas bags when they shop and to support leadership that will make it affordable and possible for every family to contribute to a greener world. 

The environmental movement is extremely fortunate in that the rewards we have to offer for such choices are undeniably strong. The alternatives we offer shouldn't be dark or unforgiving. They should be the beauty of the wilderness, the benefit of urban nature and the spectacle of the untouched environment. With a movement that has such wonderful things at the end, these should be the landmarks we boast, instead of constantly threatening that they will be taken away.  

Personality Profiling

Over winter break, I went to Zoe's house where she was waiting with an yellowed Psychology book. She quickly encouraged me to take a Myers-Briggs personality test. After I finished, I announced that I was an ENFJ and she yelled, "I KNEW IT!" I assumed that since she had been one of my closest friends for almost ten years, she would naturally be able to pick my personality out of a list of profiles. I didn't dwell on the results much longer and admittedly forgot my four-letter combination until this week, when I had to take the test again, this time for Susan's class. After taking this iteration of the test, I found myself with the same profile: ENFJ (I double-checked with Zoe for accuracy). This time through, however, I read the full explanation of the personality type. And then Googled it to find more explanations, and read those too. Because I was shocked to find that although it wasn't perfect, ENFJ described me pretty damn well. The personality type was labeled as the "Teacher" or the "Giver."

Belief in my students? Check.

Look for the best in my students? Definitely.

Warmly outgoing? I try to be!

Expressive? Check

Dramatic flourishes? Often asked to take on a leadership role? Yes, and yes.

Settled, organized, scheduled, tolerate, able to pick up the characteristics, emotions, and beliefs of those around them...avoid being along, tendency to be hard on themselves and turn to dark thoughts when alone, refrain from expressing themselves sometimes...the list went on and on.

But better than all of that, I found that the personality description that had been assigned to me portrayed a person that I had always wanted to be. Caring, compassionate, with love as my strongest weapon. I was elated to discover that maybe what I have wanted to be all along really is just who I am. But did I create this person because these were characteristics I observed and valued in others? Or was this the person I was always destined to be, that would unavoidably, eventually, develop as it did? I don't know which I prefer. After taking the Myers-Briggs last week, Zoe and I talked at length about these subjects, over a 3000 mile phone connection. In the end, I decided that I would like to think that I was born this way. That in the Mariana Trench of my psyche, I am a good person who loves and cares for others above all else. 

I don't believe that this test works for everyone. Zoe pointed out that having her friends take this test helped her to understand them a little bit better, and ascribe to them a (albeit tenuous) basis from which she could understand them. After having a number of my friends take the test over the past week, I found several instances in which the results of the Myers-Briggs conflicted dramatically with what I knew of the person. In some cases, the two did not match up in the slightest. I'm interested to know the drawbacks and failings of a test such as this.

Because in the end, no personality test can understand us completely. We are who we are, whether created or born as such. I am glad, though, that I have a personality strong enough that it can be guessed by my closest friends. Perhaps that means that this really is who I am, and that my perception of myself the perception of those who know me well are one and the same.