AFFORD ABILITY THE
The introductory manifesto against the commodification of social movements, neoliberal hyperindividualism, and the systemic barriers which inhibit collective engagement in social, political, and environmental causes in North America.
NO. 1
AFFORD—ABILITY
FOR MORE INFO VISIT: AFFORD-ABILITY.COM HAVE MORE TO SAY? AFFORDABILITYVANCOUVER@GMAIL.COM OR FIND US ON INSTAGRAM @AFFORD_ABILITY
THE
AFFORD ABILITY WRITTEN BY KELSEY MCDONALD
INTRO
WHAT DOES IT COST TO CARE? CAN YOU AFFORD THE MORALS YOU HOLD? Have you ever been interested in joining an ethical or sustainable cause but felt that you wouldn’t be able to participate in it due to social or economic factors such as affordability or accessibility?
Many current sociopolitical movements are compelling, but the imposition of these ethical and moral standards can be classist and polarizing. Often, these movements reinforce the idea that those who cannot access or afford to live according to socially-determined sustainable or ethical behaviors, they do not deserve to be considered “good” people—despite their ethical and moral values. But why? Due to the complex ethical and moral nature of these issues, many people have become quick to judge a person’s moral character without considering the implications of the sacrifices one might need to make in order to adhere to such values. Living ethically isn’t always cheap. As a result of the way that we, as a
society, view complex social, political, and environmental issues as a moral and ethical choice that each person must take on individually, there is a complete lack of genuine responsibility on the part of governments and corporations concerning such issues. More so, there is an even greater lack of awareness and criticality from the public regarding the role that governments and corporations play in perpetuating and exploiting economic and political ideologies which promote hyper-individualism and the deterioration of a social collective. So, how can we be environmentally sustainable and ethical without the economic means to do so?
A CAMPAIGN TO LEARN FROM:
THE POOR PEOPLE’S CAMPAIGN: A NATIONAL CALL FOR MORAL REVIVAL via www.poorpeoplescampaign.org
01
SOCIO-POLITICAL MOVEMENTS ARE NOT FOR PROFIT. It should not cost too much to care. Practicing and enacting ethics, morals, and values should never need to be compromised due to social or financial restrictions. The “choice� to engage in practices of socially and politically complex issues of ethical living and sustainability is a luxury (that many cannot afford within the current socioeconomic system).
It should not cost too much to care. Our society has placed so much value in what is deemed “ethical living”, that we have begun to place blame on those who are not privileged enough to have the choice of whether or not to act within these supposed ethical and moral standards—effectively alienating those who would likely benefit from supporting causes (such as sustainable consumption) the most, while imposing shame and guilt for not being financially able to afford doing so. The imposition of these ethical and moral agendas is often classist and polarizing, as it reinforces the idea that those who cannot afford to live a certain lifestyle do not deserve to be considered “good” people—despite their ethical and moral values. While we shame people for shopping at businesses that have unethical business practices, the reality is that many likely cannot afford to buy what most would deem ethically sourced clothing, all the time. Concurrently, there are virtually no serious repercussions for governments and corporations that only further strengthen these barriers to affordable “ethical living”. The sociocultural/political pressures ranging from dress codes to unwritten social rules coerce people to dress certain ways in order to maintain or achieve social status, be accepted into a community, workplace, or other
organization—or forgo a number of basic rights, equitable treatment, and often certain privileges that come with projecting a particular ‘image’. In the long-term, it would be more beneficial to everyone involved to buy the less affordable, ethically/locally sourced clothing in support of safe working conditions, proper wages and local businesses while contributing less waste to landfills and contributing more to the local economy and supporting workers rights. So, while the affordable option is more ‘rewarding’ in the short-term (ie. Low cost, on-trend), it contributes to larger issues of outsourced production, increased transportation emissions, inhumane working conditions, and fastfashion waste, etc. The only problem is that many people cannot afford the larger upfront cost that comes with the practice of sustainable consumption. The value-action gap between “what I want to do” and “what I can do” can be affected by several factors including: behavioral economics (the effects of psychological, cognitive, emotional, cultural and social factors on the economic decisions of individuals and institutions and how those decisions vary from those implied by classical theory), socioeconomic status, and institutional discrimination (on the basis of race, sex, gender, class, etc.).
02
COMMODIFICATION OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS FOR CAPITAL GAIN IS CLASSIST & IMMORAL. The business practice of using personification and “brand as an identity” as an exploitative tool to appeal to the emotions of consumers. Borne out of the industrial age, the goals of increased revenue for decreased compensation continue to drive corporations to value productivity in pursuit of economic prosperity without care or concern for anything other than “the bottom line”.
Our role as consumers is often portrayed as one with considerable power over the ‘market’, yet as mentioned in the documentary “The Corporation”, the concept of “voting with our dollars” is an inherently undemocratic and classist ‘solution’ due to the fact that those with more money will always have more sway. So in part, voting with your dollars or loyalty to a brand, can be effective—although it shouldn’t have to come to that point in order for a corporation to act in the best interest of all people. Considering that “the corporation is legally bound to put its bottom line ahead of everything else, even the public good” it is not surprising that social responsibility is only taken into account when it is marketable (“The Corporation”). In fact, the public perception that corporations have moral values and even personalities to identify with are marketing tactics to appeal to consumers and maintain an image of a curated personified entity. People of colour and other minorities have been exploited for the gain of those more privileged for centuries. During the Civil War era, corporations exploited the 14th amendment for more economic and political power. The amendment,
which granted African American people (many of whom were recently freed slaves) equal rights, in which “no state can deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law” (“The Corporation”). It was intended to protect and empower minorities. But instead, with the help of the Supreme Court, the amendment was exploited by corporations to attain the status of a legal person, to essentially enact a new form of covert, legal slave labor which we now recognize in the form of thirdworld sweatshops and the like. Many corporations manipulate the law to get what they want, and when they can’t get what they want they ignore the law. In seeing how easily governmental institutions can be swayed by the power of the corporation, it is clear that the law is not an accurate guide for morality. From their perspective, the decision of whether to obey the law is a simple business decision or “a matter of whether it’s cost effective…if the chance of getting caught or the penalty are less than the cost to comply” (“The Corporation”). For corporations, morality is only a part of the equation if it adds up to more money. But ultimately, is a decision still ethical or moral if its motive is corrupt or prompted by fear?
03
COLLECTIVE POLITICAL POWER IS MORE EFFECTIVE THAN INDIVIDUAL PURCHASING POWER. Voting with your dollars (aka. purchasing power) is inherently undemocratic and classist due to the fact that those with more capital have the privilege of inflated and imbalanced political power.
The stigmatization of compassion has frayed our collective bonds.
When we shame people for not “buying right”, without considering that they may not have any real sense of agency or choice in the matter, we ignore the systemic barriers that can affect people of lesser privilege than ourselves. So, “of course we need people to consume less and innovate low-carbon alternatives — build sustainable farms, invent battery storages, spread zero-waste methods. But individual choices will most count when the economic system can provide viable, environmental options for everyone— not just an affluent or intrepid few” (Martin Lukacs, “Neoliberalism has conned us…”). In reality, our “individual choices will most count when the economic system can provide viable, environmental options for everyone— not just an affluent or intrepid few.” (Martin Lukacs, “Neoliberalism Has Conned Us Into Fighting Climate Change As Individuals”). Although eco-consumerism may mitigate your personal guilt, mass movements hold the true power to alter the behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs
which dictate the trajectory of the sustainability crisis. In short, we must first do one thing: stop thinking like individuals. In this cultural moment, it is not uncommon to advertise your beliefs. We have become so accustomed to the capitalist system along with its ideals of consumption and excessive accumulation as a sign of both social and literal capital. Businesses capitalize on our habit to put our beliefs on display, with fast-fashion, sweatshopmade shirts that say something like “save the planet!”. Especially in the West, we are “steeped in a culture telling us to think of ourselves as consumers instead of citizens, as self-reliant instead of interdependent” so “is it any wonder we deal with a systemic issue by turning in droves to ineffectual, individual efforts?” (Martin Lukacs, “Neoliberalism has conned us…”). So how can we begin to combat this? Most likely: by doing it together.
04
GOVERNMENT AND CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY ARE NECESSARY CONDITIONS, TOO. Governments shape citizen behaviour through civil infrastructure. As a result of the way that we (society) view complex social and environmental issues as a moral and ethical choice that each person must take on individually—in the sense that we are all individually responsible for fighting, for example, climate change—there is a complete lack of genuine responsibility on the part of governments and corporations.
While we acknowledge that the power of the individual and the collective are both vital factors that play into the viability, functionality, and effectiveness of sustainable systems design, it is clear that the public can not achieve the necessary scale of these complex operations on their own. Thus, it is absolutely necessary that governments and corporations provide citizens with accessible infrastructure to support sustainable behaviors as a society. Too often, the public is bombarded with guilt-laden messages that tell us that we must each personally take on the burden of climate change and sustainability. ..“Take cold showers”, “Stop eating ‘X’”, “Buy better products”. And while these requests may be wellintentioned, they ignore the systemic barriers that individuals might face, while effectively ignoring the role that governments and corporations play in perpetuating harmful cycles of consumption and production. So although “these pervasive exhortations to individual action” may “seem as natural as the air we breathe.. While we busy ourselves greening our personal lives, fossil fuel corporations are rendering these efforts irrelevant,” in fact, “...the breakdown of carbon emissions since 1988? A hundred companies alone are responsible for an astonishing 71%. The freedom of these corporations to pollute—and the fixation on a feeble lifestyle response—is no
accident. It is the result of an ideological war, waged over the last 40 years, against the possibility of collective action” (Martin Lukacs, “Neoliberalism has conned us…”) Lukacs’ suggests that, “at the very moment when climate change demands an unprecedented collective public response, neoliberal ideology stands in the way. Which is why, if we want to bring down emissions fast, we will need to overcome all of its free-market mantras: take railways and utilities and energy grids back into public control; regulate corporations to phase out fossil fuels; and raise taxes to pay for massive investment in climateready infrastructure and renewable energy—so that solar panels can go on everyone’s rooftop, not just on those who can afford it” (“Neoliberalism has conned us...”). Ultimately, “Governments shape housing provision in all societies in many ways by establishing the preconditions...through measures such as grants, subsidies and tax expenditures” (Sustainability Citizenship in Cities: Theory and Practice, Ralph Horne, John Fien, Beau B. Beza, Anitra Nelson). So while, individual action is important, it has much more success when there is a system in place that supports such action (especially for those who cannot afford to take on the socioeconomic burden of individual action.)
05
INFRASTRUCTURE IS IMPORTANT. “If affordable mass transit isn’t available, people will commute with cars. If local organic food is too expensive, they won’t opt out of fossil fuel-intensive super-market chains. If cheap mass produced goods flow endlessly, they will buy and buy and buy. This is the con-job of neoliberalism: to persuade us to address climate change through our pocket-books, rather than through power and politics.” (Martin Lukacs, “Neoliberalism Has Conned Us Into Fighting Climate Change As Individuals”)
Public Transit in Luxembourg : Luxembourg is set to become the world’s first country to make all of its public transportation free. The newly re-elected prime minister Xavier Bettel and the coalition government have announced that they will lift all fares on trains, trams and buses next summer. Taking aim at long commutes and the country’s carbon footprint, the new move hopes to alleviate some of the worst traffic congestion in the world.
The structural problems of an inherently exploitative system are not a personal deficiency. Our civil infrastructure and other “designed artefacts provide a material answer to questions of how to act and how to live in the world” and without the proper means, many people are forced to repeat cycles of consumption that are both directly and indirectly harmful to themselves and the environment (Craig Badke, “Design Sleepwalking”). Within this cycle of consumption, “through our choices and use of objects we tacitly condone and reinforce the conditions of their production and distribution and their environmental and social impacts” whether we intend to or not (Craig Badke, “Design Sleepwalking”, p.3). This is why it is so important that affordable and accessible options are made available to the general public. The quality and character of our built environment should be a reflection of the lived values and priorities of our society. But instead, “our response is often limited to opting for greener
products rather than questioning the quantity, value, and meaning of the things we acquire,” because “… sustainable consumption implies not only opting for greener products, but also consuming less as well” (“Sustainability and the Weakness of the Will” Marchand, Badke, Walker). “Of course we need people to consume less and innovate lowcarbon alternatives – build sustainable farms, invent battery storages, spread zero-waste methods. But individual choices will most count when the economic system can provide viable, environmental options for everyone— not just an affluent or intrepid few.” — Martin Lukacs In general, the “political and economic agenda’s in industrialized countries seek to increase, rather than decrease, levels of consumption in order to maintain economic growth” (Anne Marchand, “Why Sustainable Consumers Don’t Care That Much About Green Products”, p.4).
Chicago "L" Elevated Line: Operated by the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA), it is the fourth-largest rapid transit system in the United States in terms of total route length, at 102.8 miles (165.4 km) long as of 2014, and the second-busiest rail mass transit system in the United States, after the New York City Subway. The “L� provides 24-hour service on some portions of its network, and is one of only five rapid transit systems in the United States to do so.
WORKS CITED
SOURCES. “American Public Transportation Rider Reports Year End 2014” (PDF). Apta.
com. Retrieved February 20, 2019.
Badke, Craig, and Stuart Walker. “Design Sleepwalking: Critical Inquiry in
Design.” The Handbook of Design for Sustainability.
Bakan, Joel. “The Corporation”. YouTube, YouTube, 21 July 2012, www.youtube. com/watch?v=Y888wVY5hzw. Baldwin, Eric. “Luxembourg Becomes First Country to Make All
Public Transit Free.” ArchDaily, VELUX, 24 Dec. 2018, www.archdaily.
com/908252/luxembourg-becomes-first-country-to-make-all-public-transit free?fbclid=IwAR21WCLNVyhkHlZQvQ_vQnD3uvjioOvknJuJyBMqXQnHYRMd1 9NcroIsqis. Cosslett, R. L. (2014, October 17). Living ethically isn’t cheap, Vivienne
| Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/
commentisfree/2014/oct/17/vivienne-westwood-living-ethically-
cheap- food-fashion
“CTA Facts at a Glance”. CTA. Spring 2014. Retrieved February 18, 2019. Horne, R., Fien, J., Beza, B. B., & Nelson, A. (Eds.). (2016). Sustainability,
citizenship in cities: Theory and practice. London: Routledge.
Lukacs, Martin. “Neoliberalism Has Conned Us into Fighting Climate Change
as Individuals | Martin Lukacs.” The Guardian, Guardian News and
Media, 17 July 2017, www.theguardian.com/environment/true-
north/2017/jul/17/ neoliberalism-has-conned-us-into-fighting-climate-
change-as-individuals. Marchand, A., Badke C., Walker S. (n.d). “Sustainability and the ‘Weakness of
the Will’”.
Marchand, A. (n.d.). “Why Sustainable Consumers Don’t Care That Much About
Green Products.”
“A National Call for Moral Revival.” Poor People’s Campaign, www. poorpeoplescampaign.org/.
FOR MORE ABOUT THE WRITER & DESIGNER VISIT: WWW.KELSDANIELLE.COM WANT TO GET IN TOUCH? CONTACT ME VIA EMAIL @ KELSEY-DANIELLE@HOTMAIL.COM
AFFORD—ABILITY