Beyond Hope
Derrick
Jensen
THE
MOST COMMON WORDS I hear spoken by any environmentalists anywhere
are, We’re fucked. Most of these environmentalists are fighting
desperately, using whatever tools they have — or rather whatever
legal tools they have, which means whatever tools those in power
grant them the right to use, which means whatever tools will be
ultimately ineffective — to try to protect some piece of ground, to
try to stop the manufacture or release of poisons, to try to stop
civilized humans from tormenting some group of plants or animals.
Sometimes they’re reduced to trying to protect just one tree.
Here’s
how John Osborn, an extraordinary activist and friend, sums up his
reasons for doing the work: “As things become increasingly chaotic,
I want to make sure some doors remain open. If grizzly bears are
still alive in twenty, thirty, and forty years, they may still be
alive in fifty. If they’re gone in twenty, they’ll be gone
forever.”
But
no matter what environmentalists do, our best efforts are
insufficient. We’re losing badly, on every front. Those in power
are hell-bent on destroying the planet, and most people don’t care.
Frankly,
I don’t have much hope. But I think that’s a good thing. Hope is
what keeps us chained to the system, the conglomerate of people and
ideas and ideals that is causing the destruction of the Earth.
To
start, there is the false hope that suddenly somehow the system may
inexplicably change. Or technology will save us. Or the Great Mother.
Or beings from Alpha Centauri. Or Jesus Christ. Or Santa Claus. All
of these false hopes lead to inaction, or at least to
ineffectiveness. One reason my mother stayed with my abusive father
was that there were no battered women’s shelters in the ’50s and
’60s, but another was her false hope that he would change. False
hopes bind us to unlivable situations, and blind us to real
possibilities.
Does
anyone really believe that Weyerhaeuser is going to stop deforesting
because we ask nicely? Does anyone really believe that Monsanto will
stop Monsantoing because we ask nicely? If only we get a Democrat in
the White House, things will be okay. If only we pass this or that
piece of legislation, things will be okay. If only we defeat this or
that piece of legislation, things will be okay. Nonsense. Things will
not be okay. They are already not okay, and they’re getting worse.
Rapidly.
But
it isn’t only false hopes that keep those who go along enchained.
It is hope itself. Hope, we are told, is our beacon in the dark. It
is our light at the end of a long, dark tunnel. It is the beam of
light that makes its way into our prison cells. It is our reason for
persevering, our protection against despair (which must be avoided at
all costs). How can we continue if we do not have hope?
We’ve
all been taught that hope in some future condition — like hope in
some future heaven — is and must be our refuge in current sorrow.
I’m sure you remember the story of Pandora. She was given a tightly
sealed box and was told never to open it. But, being curious, she
did, and out flew plagues, sorrow, and mischief, probably not in that
order. Too late she clamped down the lid. Only one thing remained in
the box: hope. Hope, the story goes, was the only good the casket
held among many evils, and it remains to this day mankind’s sole
comfort in misfortune. No mention here of action being a comfort in
misfortune, or of actually doing something to alleviate or eliminate
one’s misfortune.
The
more I understand hope, the more I realize that all along it deserved
to be in the box with the plagues, sorrow, and mischief; that it
serves the needs of those in power as surely as belief in a distant
heaven; that hope is really nothing more than a secular way of
keeping us in line.
Hope
is, in fact, a curse, a bane. I say this not only because of the
lovely Buddhist saying “Hope and fear chase each other’s tails,”
not only because hope leads us away from the present, away from who
and where we are right now and toward some imaginary future state. I
say this because of what hope is.
More
or less all of us yammer on more or less endlessly about hope. You
wouldn’t believe — or maybe you would — how many magazine
editors have asked me to write about the apocalypse, then enjoined me
to leave readers with a sense of hope. But what, precisely, is hope?
At a talk I gave last spring, someone asked me to define it. I turned
the question back on the audience, and here’s the definition we all
came up with: hope is a longing for a future condition over which you
have no agency; it means you are essentially powerless.
I’m
not, for example, going to say I hope I eat something tomorrow. I
just will. I don’t hope I take another breath right now, nor that I
finish writing this sentence. I just do them. On the other hand, I do
hope that the next time I get on a plane, it doesn’t crash. To hope
for some result means you have given up any agency concerning it.
Many people say they hope the dominant culture stops destroying the
world. By saying that, they’ve assumed that the destruction will
continue, at least in the short term, and they’ve stepped away from
their own ability to participate in stopping it.
I
do not hope coho salmon survive. I will do whatever it takes to make
sure the dominant culture doesn’t drive them extinct. If coho want
to leave us because they don’t like how they’re being treated —
and who could blame them? — I will say goodbye, and I will miss
them, but if they do not want to leave, I will not allow civilization
to kill them off.
When
we realize the degree of agency we actually do have, we no longer
have to “hope” at all. We simply do the work. We make sure salmon
survive. We make sure prairie dogs survive. We make sure grizzlies
survive. We do whatever it takes.
When
we stop hoping for external assistance, when we stop hoping that the
awful situation we’re in will somehow resolve itself, when we stop
hoping the situation will somehow not get worse, then we are finally
free — truly free — to honestly start working to resolve it. I
would say that when hope dies, action begins.
PEOPLE
SOMETIMES ASK ME, “If things are so bad, why don’t you just kill
yourself?” The answer is that life is really, really good. I am a
complex enough being that I can hold in my heart the understanding
that we are really, really fucked, and at the same time that life is
really, really good. I am full of rage, sorrow, joy, love, hate,
despair, happiness, satisfaction, dissatisfaction, and a thousand
other feelings. We are really fucked. Life is still really good.
Many
people are afraid to feel despair. They fear that if they allow
themselves to perceive how desperate our situation really is, they
must then be perpetually miserable. They forget that it is possible
to feel many things at once. They also forget that despair is an
entirely appropriate response to a desperate situation. Many people
probably also fear that if they allow themselves to perceive how
desperate things are, they may be forced to do something about it.
Another
question people sometimes ask me is, “If things are so bad, why
don’t you just party?” Well, the first answer is that I don’t
really like to party. The second is that I’m already having a great
deal of fun. I love my life. I love life. This is true for most
activists I know. We are doing what we love, fighting for what (and
whom) we love.
I
have no patience for those who use our desperate situation as an
excuse for inaction. I’ve learned that if you deprive most of these
people of that particular excuse they just find another, then
another, then another. The use of this excuse to justify inaction —
the use of any excuse to justify inaction — reveals nothing more
nor less than an incapacity to love.
At
one of my recent talks someone stood up during the Q and A and
announced that the only reason people ever become activists is to
feel better about themselves. Effectiveness really doesn’t matter,
he said, and it’s egotistical to think it does.
I
told him I disagreed.
Doesn’t
activism make you feel good? he asked.
Of
course, I said, but that’s not why I do it. If I only want to feel
good, I can just masturbate. But I want to accomplish something in
the real world.
Why?
Because
I’m in love. With salmon, with trees outside my window, with baby
lampreys living in sandy streambottoms, with slender salamanders
crawling through the duff. And if you love, you act to defend your
beloved. Of course results matter to you, but they don’t determine
whether or not you make the effort. You don’t simply hope your
beloved survives and thrives. You do what it takes. If my love
doesn’t cause me to protect those I love, it’s not love.
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.
When
you give up on hope, something even better happens than it not
killing you, which is that in some sense it does kill you. You die.
And there’s a wonderful thing about being dead, which is that they
— those in power — cannot really touch you anymore. Not through
promises, not through threats, not through violence itself. Once
you’re dead in this way, you can still sing, you can still dance,
you can still make love, you can still fight like hell — you can
still live because you are still alive, more alive in fact than ever
before. You come to realize that when hope died, the you who died
with the hope was not you, but was the you who depended on those who
exploit you, the you who believed that those who exploit you will
somehow stop on their own, the you who believed in the mythologies
propagated by those who exploit you in order to facilitate that
exploitation. The socially constructed you died. The civilized you
died. The manufactured, fabricated, stamped, molded you died. The
victim died.
And
who is left when that you dies? You are left. Animal you. Naked you.
Vulnerable (and invulnerable) you. Mortal you. Survivor you. The you
who thinks not what the culture taught you to think but what you
think. The you who feels not what the culture taught you to feel but
what you feel. The you who is not who the culture taught you to be
but who you are. The you who can say yes, the you who can say no. The
you who is a part of the land where you live. The you who will fight
(or not) to defend your family. The you who will fight (or not) to
defend those you love. The you who will fight (or not) to defend the
land upon which your life and the lives of those you love depends.
The you whose morality is not based on what you have been taught by
the culture that is killing the planet, killing you, but on your own
animal feelings of love and connection to your family, your friends,
your landbase — not to your family as self-identified civilized
beings but as animals who require a landbase, animals who are being
killed by chemicals, animals who have been formed and deformed to fit
the needs of the culture.
When
you give up on hope — when you are dead in this way, and by so
being are really alive — you make yourself no longer vulnerable to
the cooption of rationality and fear that Nazis inflicted on Jews and
others, that abusers like my father inflict on their victims, that
the dominant culture inflicts on all of us. Or is it rather the case
that these exploiters frame physical, social, and emotional
circumstances such that victims perceive themselves as having no
choice but to inflict this cooption on themselves?
But
when you give up on hope, this exploiter/victim relationship is
broken. You become like the Jews who participated in the Warsaw
Ghetto Uprising.
When
you give up on hope, you turn away from fear.
And
when you quit relying on hope, and instead begin to protect the
people, things, and places you love, you become very dangerous indeed
to those in power.
In
case you’re wondering, that’s a very good thing.
Derrick
Jensen is the author of Thought to Exist in the Wild, Songs of the
Dead, Endgame, Dreams, and other books. In 2008, he was named one of
Utne Reader’s “50 Visionaries Who Are Changing Your World.” His
Orion column is called “Upping the Stakes.”
Almost wholly in alignment with Tibetan Buddhist philosophy and shamanism. Do you know
ReplyDeletethe Dalai Lama has his own shaman? I love an image I just shared with Kevin Hester -- we
who no longer hope going bare-assed naked into the flaming sunset of our last day in human form. Buck up, my little cabbage as I once heard Prince Phillip whisper loudly to his Queen who was sick and tired of the pomp and pageantry on a royal visit to the Montreal
Olympics. Buck up, old boy! There are other worlds than this one.