More on the necessity to practise deep transformation, not only study it
In my previous autoethnographic entry, I quoted from Max-Neef (1991). There is another quote from him that I would like to offer:
"At this stage of my life, I have reached the conclusion that I lack the power to change the world or any significant part of it. I only have the power to change myself. And the fascinating thing is that if I decide to change myself, there is no police force in the world that can prevent me from doing so. It is just my decision and if I want to do it, I can do it. Now, the point is that if I change myself, something may happen as a consequence that may lead to a change in the world. But we are afraid of changing ourselves. It is always easier to try to change others. The dictum of Socrates was "Know thyself," for he knew how afraid human beings are to know themselves. We know a lot about our neighbors, but we know little about ourselves. So, if we simply manage to change ourselves, something fascinating may happen to the world." (Max-Neef, 1991, p. 113).
This orientation toward the self and self-transformation (and self-awareness), in my view, is close to Bhaskar's spiritual turn (e.g., Bhaskar, 2000). This is the least popular part of critical realism. Likewise, considering agency (and especially one's own agency, i.e., that of a person in academia) as a source of change is perhaps the least popular strand of post-growth. It is likely that no one who advocates self-transformation would argue against change in systems. This is what all critical scholars want: a change in our systems. However, for those who advocate agency, direct actions, active and personal participation, anarchism etc., change in systems is closely related to (and even arises from) actions and practices. In my view, these actions and practices arise from a change in oneself, one's psyche. Apart from participating in change, it is essential to reveal the constraints one faces and various imperfections of one's own practice: where it works and where it fails. Otherwise, it is challenging to talk about something we have no experience of. In the social sciences we often can have experiences of the situations, policies, structures, practices, worldviews etc. that we talk and write about.
The imperfect practice of food consumption
At this time of the year (late July), European blueberries (bilberries) can be picked. Here in Northern Sweden they grow everywhere. At a recent conference someone asked me if picking wild berries interferes with food supply of wild animals. Here in Sweden one often hears that only 5% of blueberries are picked (by both humans and animals). I observe that not all blueberries and lingonberries are picked, one can often find lingonberries even in winters under the snow.
In contrast to consuming fresh, local and free food, here are apples in a supermarket:
These apples may be labelled "zero waste" since they come without any packaging. However, these are industrially grown apples. They are not organic and not local. Note that the size is uniform, the shapes are almost exactly the same. There exist thousands of apple varieties. The German farmer I spoke to recently told me that in his orchards he grows hundreds of apple varieties. In Swedish supermarkets, according to him, there are "yellow apples, red apples, green apples". This is true, see the picture above. At times, supermarkets stock Swedish apples, but they are not diverse, their supply is not regular. To engage in sourcing better produce, as a consumer, I need a lot more time than I currently have. Perhaps supermarkets need to source better produce. This is what the German farmer referred to as "the chicken or the egg" dilemma. Is it the consumer or is it the producer who is responsible?
References:
Bhaskar, R. (2000) From East to West: Odyssey of a Soul. London: Routledge.
Max-Neef, M. (1991) Human scale development: Conception, application and further reflections. London: The Apex Press.