Partially in response to some complaints that his blog is sometimes too pessimistic, Dave Pollard looks at hope and its place in enviromental activism, in an article titled, Beyond Hope: The Radicalization of Derrick Jensen. He includes an excerpt from Derrick Jensen’s book, A Language Older Than Words, which includes the following:
“A wonderful thing happens when you give up on hope, which is that you realize you never needed it in the first place. You realize that giving up on hope didn’t kill you. It didn’t even make you less effective. In fact it made you more effective, because you ceased relying on someone or something else to solve your problems—you ceased hoping your problems would somehow get solved through the magical assistance of God, the Great Mother, the Sierra Club, valiant tree-sitters, brave salmon, or even the Earth itself—and you just began doing whatever it takes to solve those problems yourself.”
I recommend the article, and I’m interested in Jensen’s book because the way I see it is this:
I don’t entirely agree that hope is useless, but hope isn’t worth squat unless it’s the basis for action. I think too many people today hope someone else will save the world for them. They go on with their lives, too busy, too harried, too unconvinced of the enormity and urgency—and even the growing hopelessness—of the problem to do anything about it. They want everything to be as easy as it comes to them on TV.
It’s better to read Dave’s article, and all the words he shares from the excerpt of Jensen’s book.
1.
I think unrealistic hope and baseless optimism can be damaging. I’m a rather gloomy person, perhaps, but I try to be realistic about things.
Comment by Eric Mayer — May 27, 2006 @ 5:15 pm
2.
Hope may not be worth squat, but what about actions that are thwarted? When so, even they become meaningless with respect to intended goals. In a thwarting environment, hope is the only achievable goal of peaceful survivors.
The idea reminds of What Dreams May Come. Without hope, and in an action-thwarting environment, then one ends up wallowing in mud.
Comment by Ken — May 29, 2006 @ 12:06 pm
3.
Without hope, how hard would you try?
Comment by cas — May 30, 2006 @ 10:51 am
4.
Realistic, action-oriented hope and actions that aren’t thwarted are good things.
I think we do need hope. We just need to ensure we don’t stretch it beyond its usefulness.
You’re right, Cas. Without hope there are a lot of things I’ve done that I would never have begun. So I wonder in a way if the author defines hope differently than I do. But I haven’t read his whole book. Maybe there’s a deeper explanation of what he means in there somewhere. The fact that he wrote an entire book around this makes me think his meaning must be more complex than I’ve attempted to make it.
Comment by Barbara — May 30, 2006 @ 12:17 pm