7 things that Greens and Conservatives have in common

I’m currently doing research on the overlaps between Green thought and conservatism, and how such overlaps are evident in the 2011 election policies of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand. Below is an excerpt from my dissertation. I’m chiefly concerned with ‘traditional’ paternalist conservatism here (not the more market-friendly ‘New Right’ conservatism), but for the sake of brevity I use the term ‘conservatism’. Also, I’m mostly concerned with environmentalist green thought (rather than more the radical ecologist thought), but for brevity I use the term ‘green thought’.

blue and green seem far apart, but they can fit together well

blue and green seem far apart, but they can fit together well

The words ‘conservative’ and ‘conservationist’ share a common etymological root- ‘conservare’, which means to “keep watch or maintain”. The two schools of thought share a fundamental desire to conserve that plays out in different arenas. While this impulse is largely restricted to environmental issues in green thought, and social and political arenas in conservatism, a surprising amount of agreement exists. Conservative philosopher Roger Scruton has even gone as far as saying the two are “aspects of a single long-term policy, which is that of husbanding resources”.[2] Political theorist Bruce Pilbeam detailed these overlaps in his article Natural Allies? Mapping the Relationship between Conservatism and Environmentalism. These include; respect for natural limits, scepticism of the supremacy of industrialisation, scepticism of unfettered capitalism, the belief that nature holds a moral value that can trump material values, preference for community over individualism, the belief that authority and regulation are necessary, and concern for (and obligation to) future generations.[3] This post addresses each of these briefly.

Firstly, Pilbeam argues the most obvious overlap is a shared fundamental desire to conserve and respect natural limits. In green thought this manifests as the ‘precautionary principle’, which effectively argues it is better to err on the side of caution in questions of environmental degradation.[4] In conservatism, this manifests as an appreciation of natural limits and the belief that the results of going beyond such limits are not fully knowable.[5]

Secondly, Pilbeam argues both schools of thought share a marked scepticism of industrialisation and unfettered technological progress. In the case of green thought, Pilbeam draws on the work of Jonathon Porritt, who has argued that “the super-ideology of industrialism”, and not capitalism itself, is the core danger facing the environment.[6] This suspicion is shared by many conservatives, who are often sceptical of the “alienating and dehumanizing effects of industrialization.”[7]

Thirdly, Pilbeam argues both schools of thought are, to an extent, sceptical about relatively unfettered capitalism. In green thought this is articulated in ideas of resource finitude and conceptions of a ‘zero-growth’ economy. Indeed, capitalist growth is often taken to be the core mechanism of ecological harm.[8] Similarly, conservatism holds concerns regarding the moral and social harm caused by the unsettling and change required by a dynamic market system. Conservatives often favour a paternalist role for the state in order to mitigate harm and guarantee certain moral goods.[9]

Fourthly, Pilbeam argues both schools of thought share a belief that nature holds moral value that can trump material values. Green thought and conservatism both disagree with the morality of liberal consumer capitalism, and sections of both schools ascribe a spiritual value to the environment.[10] In the former case, this stems from monist and new age beliefs, while in the latter it stems from a custodial role decreed by God.[11] However, the two schools of thought differ in the scale of their concern, For conservatism, concern is largely local, and often for specific sites, whereas green thought is concerned with both local and global scales.[12]

Fifthly, Pilbeam argues both schools of thought share a preference for community over individualism. Similar to the overlaps above, this is in part a reaction against liberal individualism.[13] Elements of both schools hold community to be an undervalued political unit, and advocate returning it to prominence.

Sixthly, Pilbeam argues both schools of thought share the belief that authority and regulation are necessary.[14] Similarly, both schools are sceptical of the neoliberal view of the small state model of self-regulating entrepreneurs, and argue state intervention is required to bring about growth and the ‘good’ life.[15] As such, both conservatism and green thought favour state involvement in the economy in areas concerning moral goods and employment. However, the two schools disagree on the pace and scope of change, with conservatives wary of radical, abrupt change.

Seventhly, Pilbeam argues both schools of thought share concern for (and obligation to) future generations. Both schools of thought take a “multi-generational” perspective, with green thought concerned with the long-term health of the planet. Similarly, the conservative worldview is often described in Burkean terms as “a partnership … between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born”.[16] This similarity is particularly striking considering the two schools’ views on issues relating to the family are generally considered to be different. Green thought is often associated with socially progressive politics, while conservatism distrusts changes to family structure. Despite these fundamental difference, the two schools agree that society has an obligation to future generations.

Other overlaps exist, but those stated are sufficiently illustrative. Perhaps the spirit of these overlaps is best summarised by Scruton, who claims both groups are chiefly concerned with “defend[ing] a shared but threatened legacy from predation by its current trustees.”[17]

[2] Roger Scruton, “Conservatism,” in Political Theory and the Ecological Challenge, ed. Andrew Dobson and Robyn Eckersley (Cambridge: Cambridge Universty Press, 2006), 8.
[3] Bruce Pilbeam, “Natural Allies? Mapping the Relationship Between Conservatism and Environmentalism,” Political Review 51(2003): 493-500.
[4] Ibid., 493.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid., 494.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid., 496.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Scruton, “Conservatism.”
[13] Pilbeam, “Natural Allies? Mapping the Relationship Between Conservatism and Environmentalism,” 499.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid., 500.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Scruton, “Conservatism,” 13.

Should I fight poverty by going hungry?

As you may or may not be aware, Live Below the Line has just finished. For those of you who don’t know what it is, it’s a recent food-related way to raise money for development, where people volunteer to live below the poverty line, by spending less than NZ$2.25 per day on food. It’s in the tradition of World Vision‘s ‘40 hour Famine‘. I’ve always felt a little uneasy about this kind of fundraiser, but never asked why. So I did a bit of research and gave the matter some thought.

Screen Shot 2013-10-04 at 2.38.22 AM

I have lived and volunteered for about a year each in Papua New Guinea and Tanzania. I feel like many of the subsistence farmers I met would’ve been a little baffled that people who have easy access to nutritious and delicious food would voluntarily go hungry. Slovenian Marxist philosopher Slavoj Zizek has an interesting observation on this. He claims this kind action basically stems from liberal consumerist guilt, and that we like our guilt because if we are guilty, then we have the power to change. That is, we have the power. Also, in doing so we give ourselves an ethical ‘pass’ for not radically challenging an inequitable system.

Screen Shot 2013-10-04 at 2.45.12 AM

1- The inevitable contrast
It supports a simplistic monolithic view of developing countries. Firstly, food-centred fundraisers inevitably invites contrast with hunger. Historically, Live Below the Line is influenced by the 40 Hour Famine, which stems from the Ethiopian famine. The famine shaped our views on development, but also a generation’s views on Africa and Africans. It seared Africa in western consciousness as ‘the starving continent’, a hellish monolith of helplessness and hunger that exists in contrast to the powerful and comfortable (and wasteful) West. It’s like Edward Said’s Orientalism- we make sense of ourselves as a culture by comparing ourselves to an ‘Other’. We create our ideas of this Other to feel better about ourselves. In this case, we create a contrast where we are powerful, generous, good-hearted and successful.

2- It’s all western
Secondly, both of these food-related events are fund-raising for western organisations. These organisations are based in the west, largely staffed by westerners, and are repositories of western values. Globally, development best practice now tends towards local ownership for a number of very good reasons. A couple worth mentioning are; local ownership is sustainable (because the project continues after the donors/volunteers leave), local ownership is more effective (because locals know what is applicable, appropriate and achievable within the culture), and local ownership is empowering (because it’s not western experts bringing the answers). Where are the NGOs from developing countries in these fundraisers? I know from experience that there are plenty of great NGOs based in developing countries. They know the culture, they know the problems, they know the people.

3- It’s self-interested
Another criticism can be made from a ‘rational choice’ perspective. People working at NGOs (such as World Vision) know that jobs of that kind are scarce, and that their jobs require fundraising. Thus this kind of fundraising is, to a degree, self-serving. That is, the challenges faced by some of the world’s poorest are being used to keep westerners in feel-good jobs that confer moral superiority.
Institutionally speaking, NGOs also have a strategic interest in placing themselves at the centre of development efforts, instead of developing country governments. I know grass-roots alternative development is all the rage, but enormous power to enact change in developing countries resides in the hands of national governments.  The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (signed by the OECD and developing countries) requires that ownership is handed over to aid recipient countries in a meaningful manner. Ideally, this takes the form of Budget Support, where funds are transferred directly to recipient governments.

4- It’s a bit narcissistic
At the individual level, it’s also a little narcissistic. The centre of focus is the person doing the famine/living below the line. It places their voluntary experience of hardship at the centre of the hardship-alleviation efforts. Definite ‘white martyr’ tones here.

Screen Shot 2013-10-04 at 2.42.33 AM

5- Hunger is not good
Ethically, There is a good argument to be made that we should not lionise hunger. Also, the famine and live below the line give a false impression of hunger and poverty, where one can claim ‘it was hard, but it was do-able’. The practice of ‘visiting poverty’, whether it’s in developing countries or the west, misses a crucial point: the desperation and crushing weight of hopelessness. The experience of waking up and feeling like ‘this is my life and there is probably no escape’ cannot be simulated, and this is one of the devastating effects of hunger and poverty. You are trapped, and so are your children.

I’m not saying no good comes from these fundraisers. Nor am I saying that being problematic means they are useless. As usual, I’m short on solutions. Generally, I think developing country leadership is the way, and that the role of development workers is to put ourselves out of a job. As such, capacity building and empowerment are a must. But since that is an enormous topic, I’ll have to save it for another blog.

I guess the relevant question is whether or not these fundraisers are; 1) making things better or worse in terms of development outcomes, and; 2) taking scarce resources away from more effective efforts. In regards to the first question, it seems likely these efforts are, on balance, doing good. Regarding the second question, I think it’s unlikely they are taking scarce funds from other efforts, due to the fact that most donations come via personal networks, and are supporting the person as much as the cause. So what am I saying, then? I guess it’s a typical post-modern argument: we need to be aware of the nested power-relations in our efforts. I know that’s a weak conclusion and a total anti-climax.

Welcome to development.