Sacrifice has become a dirty word in environmental politics. But we sacrifice all the time. Two-thirds of Americans have sacrificed their waistlines and lifespans for cheap food and high profits for food companies, often without actively making this choice. Is there a way to reclaim the word to get people to start “sacrificing” to sustain a healthy relationship with Earth—or to at least stop sacrificing to the modern god of growth?
In popular culture, sacrifice conjures up ugly images of human dismemberment and the like (personally, I’ve got a scene from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom in my head—Kalima!). But at its etymological root, to “sacrifice” means to make sacred. And the act of “giving up something” in that ritual context is not simplify to practice extreme altruism; rather, it begets something more—whether closeness to one’s deity or respect, honor, or gratitude.
During times of drought, the Olmeca-Xicalanca people made ritual sacrifices of children—something we believe we’re beyond today; however, we are actively (albeit often unintentionally) making children in other parts of the world into unwilling sacrifices of our worship of high consumption lifestyles (and all the externalities that these bring).
So why has sacrifice become a dirty word? Perhaps consumer cultures, which prioritize comfort above all else, have made us hesitant to sacrifice—and maybe even disgusted by the idea. The sacred act of sacrifice, ironically, has been made taboo by modern cultural norms.
Or perhaps the environmental community has failed to effectively describe just how much we currently sacrifice to maintain the consumer economy. I’m not just talking about long-term security, where climate change will inundate cities and coastlines at some point in the future. I’m referring to the sacrifices we make every day: to our physical health, as we grow fatter and sicker; to our mental health, as social isolation and chemicals in our environment trigger depression and neurological diseases; to our safety, as our mobile culture puts the rights of vehicles over pedestrians and as more drivers decide that it’s ok to text while driving even though studies suggest this is far more dangerous than driving drunk.
Is the solution as simple as encouraging people to “Stop Sacrificing”? In other words, encouraging people to no longer “sacrifice” their time by working long hours and commuting long distances so that they can afford more stuff, or sacrifice their money and health to boost the bottom lines of corporate purveyors of toxic products, from junk food and cigarettes to fancy cars and big homes. That approach seemed to work pretty well for thetruth.com, which aims to convince teens that cigarette companies are manipulative and therefore teens shouldn’t be companies’ sacrifice to profit, but not as well for the “voluntary simplicity” movement, which tries to get people to agree that less is more and to simplify their lives accordingly. (Maybe this variable success rate is simply due to their differences in tone.)
Or, is there an even deeper reason why the notion of sacrifice has become taboo? Maybe it’s because of the ongoing schism in the environmental community—between traditional environmentalists, who call on people to sacrifice their comfort and consumer freedom (a shift that is often interpreted as deprivation), and environmental optimists, who say that we just need to redesign how products are made and how energy is generated, and then we’ll be able to maintain our way of life as-is. When environmentalists say that all we need to do is tweak our energy systems and we’ll be able to maintain our consumer lifestyle, then why sacrifice?
Or, have we gotten so used to this way of living as consumers that although we make many sacrifices each day, they’ve become so naturalized that they don’t feel like sacrifices, whereas giving up our air conditioners and iPhones definitely would. Otherwise, why would Stan Cox, when writing about giving up AC in the Washington Post, receive death threats from unhappy District residents? But I’m living in D.C. without an air conditioner (or an iPhone for that matter) and I can say that it is not really even much of a sacrifice. Not in the big scheme of things—when considering all those living in abject poverty—nor even in the small scheme; our bodies naturally adjust to being warm all the time if we just let them.
Or perhaps we’re too far removed from the root of the word “sacrifice”—i.e., sacred—because of the rampant individualism that is embedded in consumer cultures. Maybe we are so completely disconnected from spirituality and a purpose higher than our own happiness that it’s hard to justify giving up any of the latest consumer comforts, because the only joy we now have is experiencing the newest product, TV show, or movie.
Honestly, I don’t have an answer. It’s probably a combination of all these factors, and many others (please add your thoughts in a comment below). But I do know that this question is thoughtfully and thoroughly discussed in The Environmental Politics of Sacrifice, from which I drew heavily to even ask the above questions. The book opens an important dialogue that the environmental community should actively continue—assuming that it truly wants to move people beyond unsustainable cultural systems centered on consumerism. But if we don’t deal with this word—by either reclaiming it or reframing it—then we won’t be able to usher in new, sustainable cultures: cultures that quite probably would resanctify certain types of sacrifice, while forbidding others. And if we fail to achieve this cultural shift? Well, then most likely we will have made Earth and future generations into our unwilling sacrifices. Kalima!
Excellent post, Erik. I fall somewhere in the middle of your Deprivation-(Re)Design continuum.
There is no way that Western societies can continue to consume at the current rate. Especially when non-Western societies (e.g., China, India) have growing middle classes heck-bent on modeling our Throwaway Culture of Convenience (as I like to call it). We’ll have to find some sort of common middle path to follow.
I have always said that ‘saving’ the planet from its woes — whether environmental, social or whatever — is not hard, it’s just inconvenient. As you point out, it will only be when stuff starts to hit the fan and directly impacts people’s wallets, livelihood and/or property (the stuff we have grown to value most) will most sit up and take notice. Let’s hope we’re not past the tipping point when that rolls around.
Thanks for the book recommendation. I’ll get it in queue at the library. Be well.
Ah… this is the juice… what we are approaching here is the psychological roots of all things dirty.
Where does one start? Lets start with the consumer. This society was shaped in certain directions by certain people to turn “We the People” into “We the Mindless Hedonist Consumer Robots” , and WHAT is consumed was also very engineered, lets start with:
—–> Edward Bernays, the father of Freudian psychological tactics in Propoganda, wrote Crystallizing Public Opinion, the groundowork for “PR” which IS propoganda with a different name, persuasive data, shaping data, a man of man behind media curtains.
—–> the Rockefellers
I mean really, we should all be driving electric fueled by composite renewable energy. You know the stats, we’ve got more than enough available to make it happen, even more so with a more minimalist philosophy. This man, and his family, and the oil men, killed the electric car.
I could keep going. All I am getting at is this:
It is not as though people PREFER gasoline over electric, car over rail, off white vs. bleach paper, and their neurotic consumer psyche. Well, people “do”, but only because of conditioning.
If the “in” and “normal” social philosophy and lifestyle was one rich in the arts and humanities and enjoying the outdoors and communal conservation practices,
that is what the people would prefer.
So, in my perspective, even the CONCEPT of “giving up” or the modernized “sacrifice” you imagine somebody “enduring” in 2010, groaning as they have to wash their bottles and throwing them in a blue bin instead of a green one and mumbling about the degredation of traditional American values and those “damned Austinite and Berkeley hippies taking over Amurrica” ,
is conditioned and culturally relative.
What needs to be SACRIFICED is a little time for our nation as a whole to rise up to this moment in time,
national READ THE CONSTITUTION DAY
national INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS ENLIGHTENMENT DAY
national EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY AND HOW THAT FITS INTO INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS DAY
national EARTH IS A CLOSED SYSTEM AND SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP IS A GOOD BUSINESS MODEL DAY
until the entirety of the American people are on roughly the same bio-philoso-nutritiono-historo-levelheadedpolitico- page, were still going to have Sarah Palin’s, Goldman Sachs, Apocalyptic every-conspiracy-theory-ever-tied-into-revelations ignorant extreme Right-wingers, ignorant blanket-Democrats, the same circumstances repeating themselves with different faces on.
We have the psychological, philosophical, astronomical, biological, environmental, nutritional, technological means to rise up to this boiling point and make human history. This is the paradigm of paradigms boiling, lets not let tyrant rulers hide behind curtains and lies and engineer confusion anymore.
it is not sacrifice we are speaking about and it is not loss. this has to be understood primarily.
it is independence and to become independent one has to be sustainable regarding his needs in life. sustainability is a gain as this dimension revives and restores the de-centralised approach which makes every person, village, city independent regarding their needs.
we need to care for ourselves instead of being a scapegoat to the centralised practice which offers only luxury and not comfort. comfort and luxury is predominently misunderstood terminologies.
no doubt the views reflects knowledgeable dimension.
vasan
My supporting voice to Vasan is: Sacrifice need not equate to suffering. Steps to self sufficiency can be a very spiritual and satisfying path.
Dare to be independent in thought, word and deed!
Very thought provoking. I was raised to live simply so to me things that many people would consider a sacrifice are to me, an unnecessary luxury. I’ve never made over 32,000 a year (I’m a social worker) and with a few exceptions I haven’t really struggled. Now I am on disability and am in a position where I need to make some sacrifices. These sacrifices to me aren’t much of a big deal, but I know other people who would be miserable to sacrifice even small luxuries. I find that when we have less, we appreciate what we do have, we use things sparingly and avoid waste, we repair rather than throw away, and we find more creative ways to entertain ourselves. Now, I’m not saying being poor is a barrel of fun, I’m struggling to pay my essential bills like rent and heat and foodstamps don’t make it through the month. I would like to not have to worry about these essentials, but I’ve also realized I can move to a smaller apartment and am considering moving out of the city. I love the re-frame of sacrifice as sacred rather than in terms of some kind of burden. One funny thing I’d like to add, when I went to apply for public assistance and the caseworker interviewed me about my assets and financial responsibilities, she asked how much I pay a month for Cable tv. I was floored! Cable averages 80.00 a month, in my opinion, if you are applying for aid to buy food, is it ok to pay 80.00 a month for cable? I know that sounds a little right wing for me, but really, no one NEEDS cable tv!
Jenny
[...] The Environmental Politics of Sacrifice puts “sacrifice” firmly into the conversation about effective environmental politics and policies, insisting that activists and scholars do more than change the subject when the idea is introduced.” Read: Erick Assadourian’s take on What Would You Sacrifice for a Secure Future? [...]
Ireland and South Africa (amongst others, I’m sure – but these two I know) were severely retarded by the Church before they managed to force a separation of Church & State.
With Capitalism as the new world religion, and malls as our cathedrals, it is time to force that same separation from state, and demand our leaders answer to the electorate rather than the wheels of industry.
This insanity has gone on long enough. We have reached the bottom of the barrel, and it is time to undo globalization and start reconnecting with our humanity and the humanity of those around us. It is time to simplify our lives and get off the gerbil wheel that we have been seduced into exchanging for a life of any meaning.
Moss
The question you ask seems to be this: is a sacrifice really a sacrifice if it is done ignorantly/unwillingly? I’d say, no, it isn’t. Cigarette smoking damaged a great many lungs but the marketing campaign behind it basically brainwashed people into thinking it would be a sacrifice if they stopped smoking. What North America seems to have created is a runaway consumer culture that doesn’t really believe everything the advertisement says but also doesn’t think critically either. So, the status quo is to purchase what is new and dispose of what is old. How can we get to a paradigm of fixing what is old and pondering deeply the value of anything new prior to mass production? It’s not getting any easier as jobs move further from cities making long distance transport more necessary and raw food is being processed 1500 miles from the dinner table. The balance is definitely in favor of dependency on expensive, resource rich, outside technology for our comfort which leaves us vulnerable and fearful. No, North America doesn’t have a smallpox epidemic but 1 in 3 Americans may have diabetes in 2050. It’s almost like cigarettes were used as an experimental profit model that has now evolved into prescription drugs. Cigarettes took healthy people and made them sick for a price. Synthetic insulin will take sick people and make them well for a price. But you have to have diabetics first and fast food has guaranteed that.
As far as redefining sacrifice, I think you are on the right track. Trans-formative-culture media such as this should concentrate on reversing the accepted paradigm. Thoreau would say that our gadgets aren’t saving us time, they’re stealing time from future generations who will have to clean up our mess. Maybe the mess cured small pox but it also eradicated honey bees which makes gardening impossible. A buddy of mine would say it all comes down to education and worldwatch is a leader in critical, humanist education. Keep asking the right questions and we will find the answers together.
Thanks for asking this question and your essay.
Part of the problem is that we really will be making sacrifices of our physical standard of living, which really will decline as a result of resource depletion, peak oil, climate change, and so forth. But part of the problem lies in the definition of “sacrifice,” which as you say can mean a variety of different things, carrying different costs, not all of them financial.
A lot of things that have real uses in the world do not make good commodities, i. e. are not common market place goods. Thus there has been discussion of using a “Genuine Progress Indicator” or “Happiness Index” or some such to replace GDP. There is really a continuum here between low commodity potential goods, medium commodity potential, and high commodity potential. Investment goes to things with high commodity potential — obviously, because that’s how you’re going to make money. People investing in low or medium commodity potential goods will, generally, fail or not do as well. Lipitor makes a great commodity, while “how to go vegan” advice (already readily available in books) does not. So what gets the attention of investors interested in treating heart disease? Jack Manno elegantly explores this problem in “Privileged Goods.”
So part of the problem is that we don’t even know how to answer the question. People can understand a financial sacrifice, but it’s harder to understand the low (or no) commodity potential things in our lives that have real utility but which don’t get anyone’s attention — there’s no money in it.
[...] in this cartoon portrayal of Christmas is that Santa ultimately is saved by everyone agreeing to “sacrifice” to help his cause—limiting themselves to just one present each so that he and his elves can [...]