I’m a growing fan of George Monbiot. In a recent essay for The Guardian he got me thinking about all the nature programs I’ve watched on TV and how they aren’t so different from garden books and articles:
"It is not proselytising or alarmist to tell us the raw truth about what is happening to the world, however much it might discomfit us. Nor do I believe that revealing the marvels of nature automatically translates into environmental action […]. I’ve come to believe it can have the opposite effect.
For many years, wildlife film-making has presented a pristine living world. It has created an impression of security and abundance, even in places afflicted by cascading ecological collapse. The cameras reassure us that there are vast tracts of wilderness in which wildlife continues to thrive. They cultivate complacency, not action."
Do gardens cultivate complacency or compassion and activism? Are flowers, and nature in general, primarily here to provide a sanitizing illusion that makes us feel better about our role on this planet? Or are gardens a radical call to action to revive justice for all of us? Even more complicated -- can they or should they be both illusion / art as well as passionate voice for social justice?
Maybe that’s too much for a newsletter, but I get a lot of my best thinking done in winter when I have time to reflect and read -- I’m guessing you’re the same. So may your holidays and new year be filled with good people, good talk, and good books; and thank you for letting me be a voice in your head.
Prairie up!
|