Dom Alhambra

Eco-activist Lierre Keith produced a chart for her 2013 Earth at Risk interview differentiating between the Beatnik-styled “alternative culture” and a resistance-based “oppositional culture” (seen below). Lierre describes alternative culture as a kind of impotent expression of individualism:

In the alternative culture, the focus is on individual change. That’s a hallmark of liberalism. Only individuals can change, so individuals are the only worthy project for change. Injustice becomes an excuse for narcissism. The idea of “personal example” is seen as some kind of activism. This is where you get all the emphasis on things like your personal carbon footprint. Am I the only one who has noticed? The only time that men try to prove they’re smaller is when they’re comparing carbon footprints. (Keith, Earth at Risk)

Her summarization of alternative culture is essentially that of a postmodern culture, one that seeks to push social boundaries within its cage rather than question it altogether. On certain points, I strongly agree with Keith’s extolment of her oppositional culture: the acceptance of a strong moral code, active political engagement, and understanding power structures in order to dismantle them are all key to meaningful change. However, I find that her dismissive ideation of alternative culture may throw out the baby with the bath water. Keith rejects alternative culture’s celebrated “personal example” methodology, which makes sense until she projects its failings onto the primacy of the individual.

And in all that time, over all those invasions, the face-to-face example of a sustainable, egalitarian culture has never once changed the invading culture. It has never once brought on an epiphany in the invaders. That’s never once, in ten thousand years. “Personal example” does not work. The dominant culture will not change because it beholds the beautiful nonviolent values that we hold in our hearts, and it will not change because it sees our life-affirming, free-range compost piles. There are no exceptions. We’re going to have to give this one up. (Keith, Earth at Risk)

I understand that Keith is coming from a framework of “which resistance culture gets things done?” Given Keith’s dichotomy of alternative and oppositional cultures, one will most likely opt for the latter. But Keith willfully ignores that culture is composed of individuals who find value in combining their strength to push an idea on others. If we are going to understand power structures, we should also apply it to Keith’s oppositional culture, who even lists “socializing the young” as an imperative to accomplish goals. “Get them while they’re young” is fundamental to retaining cultural power over people, and it is a direct admission that converting individuals is important for the group; there is no culture that exists that is not comprised of individuals unconvinced by its premises. Thus, I can’t think hat Keith is rallying against the individual but is rather arguing that Nietzschean self-styling is not enough to change the world. Of course it’s not, because Nietzsche’s goal for self-styling was only to validate one’s existence in the universe; Postmodernism appropriated the concept, promising that self-styling would become what Keith coined as the “personal example”, a lifestyle for others to behold and emulate once they see its objective value.

The damaging part of Keith’s chart is the separation of global change into two opposites: cultural/psychological and economic/political. I have no criticisms of her push to attack concrete institutions and power structures, but I want to defend the power of changing the world in terms of individual psychology and global culture. Coming back to “socializing the young”, Keith finds some value in alternative culture with regard to the participation of youth in resistance movements. “Of course, there is also a positive side to including teenagers in a resistance movement. The gifts of youth include incredible moral vigor, courage, passion, idealism. Every movement needs an infusion of those gifts, regularly.” By “socializing the young”, you are converting energetic, idealistic individuals to contribute to the oppositional culture. You are creating the psychological and cultural foundation of your oppositional culture. But you are also guiding them away from the irrationalities and pitfalls of Postmodern/“alternative” culture, by channeling their idealisms toward a moral goal instead of letting their unfulfilled idealisms turn into directionless alienation.

It is this wanting to channel ideals that caused me to balk at the name “oppositional” culture. A culture that only exists in opposition to the dominant one will always need the dominant one to survive. Unless Keith is purposefully narrowing her focus on the short and medium-term, an oppositional culture will inevitably disintegrate if its dominant half collapses. The oppositional culture will have no basis for existing if it accomplishes its goal of “opposition”. Keith’s oppositional culture presents a powerful “no” to the current state of affairs, but only cursorily determines what “yes” it wants, which she outlines as the second of her two-part goal:

Part 1: To disrupt and dismantle industrial civilization; to thereby remove the ability of the rich to steal from the poor and powerful to destroy the planet.
Part 2: To defend and rebuild just, sustainable, and autonomous human communities; and as part of that, to assist in the recovery of the land. (Keith, Earth At Risk)

Maybe Keith is much more descriptive of Part 1’s tactics than Part 2 because she wants to focus on the now, leaving later for others. Or perhaps, like many radicals, Keith enjoys the grandeur and drama of Part 1, which is why she brushes off Part 2 supporters as the “permaculture wing” or “voluntary simplicity people”. Maybe the crowd she imagines for the second phase are weekend warriors, but those most loyal to Part 2 will be the foundation of the future, the individuals who will actually carry out a sustainable society. Some portion of Part 1 supporters, just like the globe’s militaries, will be opportunists just looking to destroy something. It is important to recognize this so Part 1 doesn’t end up like every other revolution in the history of civilization, which has led us up to this moment in time, smothering out the powerful “yes” to sustainable human communities.

Keith created an alternative culture straw man that is inarguably less effective compared to her heroic oppositional culture. However, there are more nuanced forms of resistance cultures that might bridge the gap between the nihilism of alternative culture and the short-term thinking of oppositional culture. I won’t coin a name right now, but we know that it is one that knows cultures are comprised of individuals, and no resistance movement will exist without them.