If there's one thing I've gathered from talking to environmentalists here, it's that different sectors of the populace and different regions of the country vary in their comfort with the word "environmentalist."
Some of us wear that label proudly (or even use it as our handle).
Others eschew it -- and I am one, sometimes -- because of the negative associations that have been slapped on the word by anti-environmentalists, conservatives, and regular local folks too.
If we aspire to create the best, most effective possible Daily Kos environmental community, it might be important to consider the implications of the labels we choose.
Some background, links, and request for brainstorms on the flip.
The most popular alternative to "environmentalist" in our national lexicon is "conservationist." In my neck of the woods (Montana), the former is viewed with suspicion, whereas the latter is a word used to describe a significant majority of hunters, fishermen, snowmobile lobbyists, politicians, as well as more conventional enviros. What, precisely, is the difference between these two terms? Jane Elder, in the newsletter Biodiversityconnections, offers an excellent
analysis of the distinction. She characterizes the word "environmentalist" (as based on a survey of research into public impressions) as connoting greater ideological rigidity, extremism, gloom, self-righteousness, and non-local origins; "conservationist," on the other hand, connoted issue-based pragmatism, commitment to sustainable resource use, local origin, and an everyman quality. Well, jeez, who wouldn't rather be a "conservationist"? However, Elder offers the following caveat:
One might think from a comparison like this that it is a simple "no-brainer" to opt for the conservationist label in public communications, but it isn't quite that simple. The public perception is influenced by a level of discomfort with tactics they associate with environmentalists, but many will acknowledge that those tactics can be effective and sometimes necessary. So, in some cases, the public may not warm up to environmentalists but they respect the role environmentalists play. In other cases, tactics that the public views as extreme and inflammatory overshadow any message. As pollster John Russonello has pointed out in workshops this past year, for the environmental movement, the tactic often is the message, whether we like it or not. So just slapping a conservationist label on an environmental tactic won't succeed.
So, in other words, "environmentalists" are a necessary evil, personally unpleasant, but worth tolerating due to their willingness to fight, obnoxiously, for the clean water and air we all share, and the forests in which we enjoy recreating. But no one would want to, like, hang out with them.
As I implied above, the word "conservationist" can also be a problem when everybody, regardless of their principles and practices, adopts it: how do you distinguish a "conservationist" who will fight for what you believe in from one who won't?
It seems desirable to consider stepping outside this two-option box. The old-time opposite of "conservationist," "preservationist," has rather fallen out of favor, and is difficult to defend on more than a limited scale when the world population is requiring more and more resources. The question, from my point of view, is not whether we use land, but how. But what is left? John P. Wiley, in the Smithsonian Magazine, complains,
To use the word "enviro" to label anyone who has respect for all forms of life is to embrace a poverty of language that we don't have to tolerate. My old taxonomy of preservationist, conservationist and environmentalist is just about as pauperized.
I like "green," but the first response to my diary last night, which used "green" in the title, convinced me that "green" is dead out: it has become too enmeshed with the "Green Party," which incidentally I have nothing against, but some people do. To imply that environmental concern is correlated with Green Party membership would be a serious tactical error, I think.
And I must offer again this amusing link to an interview with fundamentalist Rev. Leroy Hedman, who prefers "creation carer." A nugget of wisdom:
Amongst my people, my parish and extended in our faith community, if they hear environmentalism they might think of extremism and so we use the word "creation carer" and we're very careful, there are extremists out there that are I think doing damage to the cause that call themselves green, but I would call them dark green, scary.
So what word could we use that would not scare these jittery people, these weird potential allies?
My favorite find so far is this quote from "Sandy M" on Gristmill, as part of a post called "Whither the environmental movement? III" by Dave Roberts.
"Environmentalism" is a dry, empty, and abstract word. My office is my environment; so is this drab city; so is the air I breathe and the water and land around me. The word has no innate appeal or positive meaning. Why don't we frame our fight in terms of the goal and in terms of human life, as every other successful movement for social change has done? Instead of the "environment," why don't we say we that ours is the movement for resource rights - air rights, water rights, land rights? Children have the right to breathe clean air; coastal fishing communities have the right to protect their waters from rapacious, destructive industries; all of us have the right to make decisions about resources we have no choice but to share.
"The movement for resource rights"-- excellent framing. What, however, would be a fitting set of adjectives and personal labels to go along with it? "Resourcefulists"? Any thoughts?
And in general, any brainstorms on the subject greatly appreciated.