Participant Observation of grad school, continued

Week seven, I think.

Rule #1 in grad school: there isn't enough time. Get used to it. Rule #2: When you use your Netflix account to get a break from grad school, be sure to intersperse some uplifting films in the queue every once in a while. This weekend we watched "The Road" here at home, and it just wasn't the RIGHT movie for this time during the semester. Sure, they did a pretty good job of adapting the film to the book. But the film itself was a bit bleak for a couple of grad students who don't get a lot of time to go outside and have fun away from computers and books. Noted.

Right now I am buried in seminars, writing up a research proposal, and doing TA stuff. It's the usual life of a mid-semester grad student. Suddenly all take-out and restaurant food sounds really good, all the time. This is the time of the semester when I feel like I need to go make coffee--or do something--in order to really start getting stuff done.

One big project that I am working on is writing up my dissertation proposal. Suddenly I am chasing down any article I can about the whole proposal process--articles about style, about methods, and about accepting the fact that a multitude of people will be going for the same grants. This site, by the way, has some pretty helpful stuff for any of you folks who happen to be working on dissertation or other proposals. I also have a renewed interest in all of my methods books. Now, I want to have H. Russell Bernard with me at all times.

In one seminar, which is basically about Power according to Michel Foucault, we just went through another interlude with the work of Lacan. Psychoanalysis: interesting, yes. But then what? I'm not really sure what to do with all of those ideas about "the real" and "the void" in a methodological sense. Ya, I get the basic idea that we exist in a symbolized world, and that our cultural and linguistic symbolizations can't really envelope all of reality. There are gaps in what we can explain, depict, and even recognize--and sometimes our little symbolic webs pretty much limit how and why we think certain ways.

Great. But how or why should I or anyone else assume that Lacan has THE right version of reality? Does it even matter? I mean, it seems like it all requires a leap of faith. Either you accept the starting assumptions that Lacan (and others) put forth, or you're a die-hard materialist reductionist who is blinded by the symbolic order/fish tank that you don't even know you're in. Who knows? I always wonder how Lacan is able to realize all of this--what makes him one of the people who able to realize that "the real" exists? Maybe that's just his own symbolic order conflating the issue. This is a tangent that I am going to walk away from, abruptly.

In another seminar the word of the week is "development." This has been the word of the week before, of course. This time around, I'm glad we're reading through James Ferguson's Anti-Politics Machine. Why? Because he makes the point that it might be a good idea to look at the unstated results of development. Don't just look at the stated goals of development projects, also look at all of the other consequences.

The news of the week: 22 tourists were kidnapped in Mexico. I think this happened in Acapulco. Not good. Did you know that almost 30,000 people have died in Mexico because of drug wars and related violence? Ya, this is a serious problem. Felipe Calderon has tried to battle the situation, but he has basically been outgunned on most counts. His newest plan is to revamp the entire police force of Mexico.

Finally, from the environmentalist front. Sometimes when environmentalists talk about human-environment issues, they forget about the human part. There is a real danger in this, especially considering people like the Discovery Channel gunman who go completely overboard. Another recent case occurred with the British environmentalist group 10:10, who released a new promo video called "No Pressure," which is supposed to encourage people to do something about the environment. Here's the video (graphic content warning):

Not surprisingly, there were tons of negative reactions, the video was pulled, and 10:10 issued a heart felt apology, saying they "missed the mark with this one" or something like that. You know, when you start alluding to killing people based upon political or social ideals, well, I think you've gone far beyond "missing the mark." While I certainly understand the reasons why people become passionate about environmental issues, I think it's pretty critical not to completely lose perspective. Kind of reminds me of the biography of the late Diane Fossey. Yes, it is important to rethink how we use the environment, and this is a serious issue. And yes, we need to think about how humans interact with the "natural" world around them. At the same time, it's critical not to turn the issue into some ideological nightmare by making polemic crap like this. Bad move, 10:10. All you've done with this is make yourselves look like extremists. Definitely not going to win any supporters with this sort of thing.

Plovers and ATVs in Hatteras

So, I just came across this post about the ongoing conflict over environmental conservation and off-road recreational vehicle use out on Hatteras Island. Since I grew up in a place where these kinds of issues are critical, and since my current research focuses on very similar issues, I am of course very interested in what is happening over in North Carolina. It's about a battle over endangered plovers, coastal resources, tourism, and local residents. It's also turned into an ideological battle between environmentalists, the National Park Service, and some of the local community members on Hatteras Island. Rick, the author of the post, recounts the fact that he recently visited the island and was confused about signs that declared areas closed for environmental reasons. But, he explains, once he saw this video, he understood the "driving forces" behind the issue and became enraged about what he calls "environmental tyranny." He encourages readers to watch the same video, get equally enraged, and make this issue "go viral".

Ya, that'll solve the problem.

First of all, I can understand why people are upset and angry about this issue. Clearly, people's livelihoods are being affected by this environmental conflict. And it is critical to seriously consider how conservation efforts affect local communities and economies. People matter. Blindly enclosing environmental spaces without taking account of the effects upon local communities is shortsighted and unjust. That's how I see it. I have had my fair share of experience with these sorts of issues, and it's definitely true that communities can be pushed aside when it comes to the management of cultural and natural resources. It definitely happens.

That said, I don't really think that getting "enraged" and passing around a 20 minute video about the issue is really the way to go. I'd rather see people get informed about this before they leap to any conclusions and start jumping on the nearest political bandwagon. I think there is more to the issue than this 20 minute video suggests.

I think it's time for the quote of the day. Michel Foucault once said this: "Never engage in polemics." I think that's good advice...in this case and in many others.

Anyway, back to the birds and off-road vehicles. The video definitely shows an important component of this issue, and illustrates the fact that some people are being severely affected by what is happening. I think a lot of the people make a good case, and that they have some solid points to consider. These are voices that should be heard. There are real, serious, long-term effects with these sorts of problems. But what else is going on in this case?

The most recent Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and ORV Management Plan, which is available online, clearly outlines the conflict and the fact that the National Park Service has to find a way to allow ORV use while still protecting/managing the coastal environment that draws the tourists in the first place. The EIS clearly illustrates the fact that NPS realizes that people need to use ORVs to get out to the beaches. The whole problem is that finding a way to allow access and still preserve the environment isn't exactly a quick, let alone easy, process. Add to that the fact that EIR processes can be slow-going, and it becomes even more clear why the situation can get more and more heated. While the process drags along, people's economic livelihoods hang in the balance.

See, that's the whole thing. When it comes to resource conservation/management, the difficulty lies in striking a reasonable balance between use and protection in order to avoid the absolute destruction of the place that everyone wants to see. If the place gets overrun with tourists and ORVs, the locals who make a living off those pretty beaches are out of luck on that count as well. And that's why situations like this aren't always as cut and dry as they might seem at first. The local people lose if there is TOO MUCH protection, yet they also lose if there isn't enough. Go look at places like Hawaii and see why it's important to balance tourism demands and environmental concerns.

So yes, people matter. But so does finding a way to avoid the absolute destruction of environmental resources--that's the whole reason why national parks were established in the first place. As I see it, more information and cooler heads can lead to better chances for conflict resolution. Especially in cases like this where there are multiple users and agendas involved.

Ultimately, it should come of no surprise that this issue has become incredibly political. Anybody who thinks that environmental issues can be apolitical haven't been paying attention for the last century. Read about the politics that surround Yosemite Valley. Or about environmental issues all through Mexico. In the case of Hatteras Island and the conservation of the National Seashore, the issues are politicized on various fronts. The issue of use vs. protection for this small strip of land has some serious economic implications for people who have deep historical and social roots in the area. At the same time, while it is imperative to deal with economic and social ramifications in a just manner, it is also critical to preserve the very things that we all want to enjoy--it's not just about today, but about having these kinds of places around for future generations.

Ya, I know. We've all heard that one before. But to me it makes perfect sense to weigh future costs with current needs. I'm certainly not someone who goes around pretending that there is such a thing as an ideal, pristine natural world that needs to be shielded from any and all human actions and behaviors. For me, it makes sense to avoid looking at this as simply another issue of humans versus nature. It might help to realize that humans are--and have been--a part of this environment for generations. Humanity isn't just some recent aberration; it have been around these kinds of places for thousands of years, shaping landscapes all the while. Now, by no means does that mean that NPS or anyone else should just allow the place to get trashed by ORV use. and tourism That's the last argument I am making.

What I am saying is that ALL of these issues have to be accounted for, and unfortunately there isn't just one big answer that can solve every case like this. Each one requires attention to local specifics and details. Maybe getting enraged will in fact garner some attention, who knows? But in this case my vote goes for more background, more information, and slightly cooler heads. From what I have seen, going the "enraged" route only leads to prolonged conflict, misunderstandings, high emotions, and endless political gridlock.