NYT: Survivalism -- Not Just for Crazies Anymore!
Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 04:19:35 AM PDT
According to the New York Times, the face of survivalism is "that of a shaggy loner in camouflage, holed up in a cabin in the wilderness and surrounded by cases of canned goods and ammunition."
Thank goodness, then, that Alex Williams, writing for the newspaper's Fashion & Style section, has found that doomsday is for well-groomed middle-class folk too! Out with Mountain House dried food and in with seed, fertilizer and wine. Survivalism isn't just for apocalyptic paranoids anymore. It's gone middle-class.
That's a relief, because I look like hell in camo.
I am, however, a firm believer in preparedness of all sorts. I garden and can, freeze and dehydrate; I buy children's clothing at yard sales and put it in the attic until it will fit my kids; and my bookshelves are stocked with everything from "Raising Chickens" to the Army Corps of Engineers' guide to building to texts on self-sufficiency. This morning, we built a ramp so we could go pick up a refrigerator we found through the local Freecycle (hello, Frugal Friday diaries!) and I spent the afternoon making two loaves of honey whole wheat bread and shoveling mushroom soil for the garden.
It's been a long day (I am writing this late Saturday night), which may be why I was so annoyed by Williams' "Duck and Cover: It's the New Survivalism." I quote:
Faced with a confluence of diverse threats — a tanking economy, a housing crisis, looming environmental disasters, and a sharp spike in oil prices — people who do not consider themselves extremists are starting to discuss doomsday measures once associated with the social fringes.
They stockpile or grow food in case of a supply breakdown, or buy precious metals in case of economic collapse. Some try to take their houses off the electricity grid, or plan safe houses far away. The point is not to drop out of society, but to be prepared in case the future turns out like something out of "An Inconvenient Truth," if not "Mad Max."
Williams then gives a series of anecdotes told by perfectly respectable people -- yes, our kind, dear -- about what they're buying to prepare for impending disaster. He (she?) then cites several recent books on the subject and concludes with these words from a musician and paralegal: ""I think of survivalists as being an extreme case of preparedness," said Ms. Vontourne, 44, "people who stockpile guns and weapons, anticipating extreme aggression. Whereas what I’m doing, I think of as something responsible people do."
Something about the article's tone bothers me. Is it the emphasis on just me and my bomb shelter and screw you? The undertone of smarmy urban contempt for practices that have long been associated people of more limited means? Or the need to rationalize this movement as something -- anything -- other than living less profligately for its own sake?
I have come not to praise Alex Williams but to bury him, perhaps with the folding shovel I keep in my car's trunk, just in case. (For those of you interested in the technical how-to of disaster preparedness, go read our own AlphaGeek's marvelous series, "Are You Ready for Disaster?") Nowhere in this article is there any sense of community -- as if, let's say, the Amish never get together to rebuild a barn after a fire. As if there's no such thing as the Red Cross or volunteer firefighters or EMTs or the Mennonite Disaster Service. There's a basic assumption that if the nation falls to hell tomorrow, it's every man for himself and that attitude is not just okay for people who can afford to build panic rooms, but also for average, everyday folks.
As long as, you know, they're the right kind of everyday folks.
Recently, the NYT's Alex Salkin profiled hipsters-turned-farmers in "Leaving Behind the Trucker Hat," which began with these words: "Their Carhartts are no longer ironic. Now they have real dirt on them." (This piece also appears in Fashion & Style.) Dirty freakin' hipsters might just be our future as they turn their hands to labor, it seems. (Good discussion here.)
So you now have to be ex-Williamsburg or a reasonable doomsayer with a fat wallet to be legitimately concerned with the state of the nation and world?
Dear New York Times: Please consider it possible -- just possible -- that some people might become more self-reliant for reasons other than fashion and style or the ability to purchase cool survival gear. I LOVE my Muck Boots because they work. I garden and can because it gives me some control over the production and cost of what I feed my family. I make my own bread because it tastes wonderful. My chickens will be coming soon and I won't have as many worries about labor conditions at poultry plants, the fuel it takes to transport the meat to the store and what the birds are fed. (And really -- fresh eggs? Incredible.) My DIY ethic is about the joy of learning -- not the paranoia of what-if.
I'm not doing all of this to be fashionable or stylish or because the end is near. This is the way I live every day because it fits in with my values. How about covering that angle, MSM?
Besides, if TSHTF, we're all going to need one another.
Maybe Williams is right about the face of preparedness changing. Maybe it looks... like a progressive.
Permalink | 49 comments