[Chapter_Fourteen] The Realth of Nations

[Rachel A. Buddeberg]

This sounds like a very interesting and rather important project, Antonio, and i am excited that you are sharing it here on the list.  It sounds like you are trying to figure out a way to hold together diverse movements without forcing them to give up their identity.  

Before i answer your questions, i'd like to share a question that kept running through my head while reading what you wrote:  How is realth different from other alternative indicators?  For example, Amartya Sen's Human Development Indicator (used by the UN) or the Gross National Happiness (here's a list of sustainability indicators: http://www.eoearth.org/article/Indicators_of_sustainable_development).  From what you wrote, i suspect the difference is that these indices measure something of a country whereas you are interested in measuring the impact of movements?  If so, how would you measure it, especially since many movements are defining "real wealth" differently... 

Now to your questions: 
> 1) Do you see relevance in this project? Does "realth" as a concept mean anything to you? Whether or not the neologism is necessary, can you see the concept of realth as helpful to activists examining their own activism?

Most definitely.  I've recently left corporate America because financial wealth had lost its luster for me a long time ago... But i would have to ponder what "realth" means to me before i would find that concept useful (so, unlike GDP/GNP, it's not something "top of mind" but that might be part of what you're trying to address...).  Also, i am not sure if it's one thing.  I suspect it would be a cluster of things: realth of nations could be the health of the soil; realth of people could be the amount of supportive friends we have, the amount of leisure that's available to spend with those friends.  Those definitions will depend, though, greatly on our situation in life: If i don't have enough food, i might not care much about leisure... So, realth could also "just" mean having enough food to eat... 

> 2) Is breaking down the divisions between diverse anti- and post-capitalists possible? Personally, I'm sick of arguing with communists about whether or not the proletarian revolution is coming, with anarchists about the unlikelihood of masses of people "dropping out" of society, and with new "green" capitalists about the historic benefits of capitalism. Is it worth trying to convince others that maybe these different ideologies aren't necessarily incompatible? That each has something to offer, as long as its adherents can remain self-critical and open to new ideas, and can collaborate with those with differing ideologies?

Iris Marion Young tried to formulate an umbrella definition for "oppression" because she was tired of one group arguing with another over who is more oppressed. Basically, she helps us see how many people are oppressed in at least one of five ways - and that oppression is really much more prevalent than these discussions suggest (since they seem to present people as oppressed or not...).  I don't think she got very far with that... BUT i think that these attempts are crucial because they help us experience diversity: just because i don't agree with your end goal, doesn't mean that we can't agree to work together on some things.  So, i think it definitely is "worth trying" to find the common threads.  Actually, the "Right" has been rather good at this, so maybe it's time for us to do the same - we can't move a mountain with one strategy alone.  

> 3) Part of my impetus for writing this was beginning my schooling at UC Berkeley, where there are so many young people who are being exposed to critiques of capitalism, without necessarily being offered clear ideas about how capitalism has been and could be challenged/altered/abolished/improved. In talking to classmates, I figured a simple, historically contextualized description of options could help some people define for themselves what they can do with their time to create social change. So, in that vein, I'm wondering if anyone has heard of similar books/projects, which I could look at to decide whether or not this is a project worth putting a lot of time into (if someone else has already done this...I'd like to know!).


Aside from the indicators i mentioned above, you might want to look at Young's work (I can email you the "Five Faces of Oppression," which is a chapter from her book "Justice and the Politics of Difference," which came out in 1990, so is a bit dated).  In her 1990 book, she sketches - rather vaguely, imo - an ideal city, which allows for diversity to thrive without demanding an artificial unity, something she accuses both liberals and communitarians of imposing.  The other book you might want to look at is David Schlosberg's "Defining Environmental Justice." He, too, is interested in using diverse definitions to bring together various movements to increase their impact but also to teach diversity (my suggestion in #2 is based on that).  There is also a chapter in Loretta Pyles book "Progressive Community Organizing," which deals with identity politics (chapter 10).  Essentially, she suggests that the most important thing is to keep them out in the open, acknowledge them, and use them as strengths (I found this book a bit superficial, so i am not sure how useful the chapter is...). 

If anything isn't clear, you'd like more details (or better cites), please let me know!  

I look forward to more discussion!

Rachel



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.beforebefore.net/pipermail/chapter_fourteen-beforebefore.net/attachments/20101227/fdfa9361/attachment-0003.htm>