Posted By: Ashley Anderson on February 21, 2010 in Blog, Politics - Comments: 11 Comments »

By Derreck Jensen. Originally published in Orion magazine.

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.

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
  • Share/Bookmark

11 Responses

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  1. Cliff says:

    It is so depressing…while the scientists are privately saying we’re fucked, the deniers are claiming conspiracy.

    It is such absurdity. To a person, climate deniers cannot point to a single other place in their lives wherein they deny science.

    When their children get sick, they go to a doctor (science). When they get on an airplane, they put their full faith in science.

    When the eat food, they do so with the confidence that the chemicals used will not kill them.

    But when it comes to a scientific fact that may be at odds with their favorite Republican politicians, or our addiction to cheap energy, they start claiming conspiracy.

    So now WE are the endangered species.

    • Cliff,

      Part of the point of this article is that the deniers are not the problem. The problem is those of us who see the problem and hope that someone else is going to solve it. The most common form of passive inaction in Utah right now is the hope that once deniers get it, things will be ok. Worrying about what deniers think is just another way to avoid taking the necessary action to protect ourselves.

  2. [...] is passive.  Hope is what you have when you have exhausted all other options.  As Derreck Jensen writes, “To hope for some result means you have given up any agency concerning [...]

  3. [...] is passive.  Hope is what you have when you have exhausted all other options.  As Derreck Jensen writes, “To hope for some result means you have given up any agency concerning [...]

  4. Matthew says:

    I’m very disappointed that the fantastic nonviolent demonstration of love will not be occurring on March 15-18. I was so excited about Tim’s trial that I was about to pose as a music promoter in order to try to con Rage Against the Machine/Neil Young/Thom Yorke to play at his trial for more media coverage! Like you all in Utah, we’re also really desperate and somewhat consciously unaware of the scope of the problems that our generation faces, and we wanted to do all we could to help you out.

    This is a great article, Derreck. As Tim has pointed out in the past, inspiring yet harrowingly realistic articles like this are going to be a good first step to help people get out of their shells and onto the streets, including myself. All of us suffer from varying levels of despair and lethargy at times regarding the various ecological crises our planet faces, and we have to delicately balance realism – which often topples into despair – with a larger feeling of participation in a vibrant, young, and historically unparalleled movement for global environmental and socioeconomic justice.

    In terms of the spiritual tradition which I understand the best – Islam – there’s a lot related to this ethical imperative of “avoiding foolish hope.” There’s a fantastic quote from the Quran where it says that “God does not change a people until they change themselves.” It sounds simple, but it has a number of deeper meanings, and one of the most important meanings is that of divine grace granted to individuals who prove themselves better than their peers by holding fast to realism, even if realism is painful.

    In Islam, the purpose of this existence is merely a test to discern which individuals are more suited to a noble position in the hereafter due to their deeds and character in this life. Therefore, we must understand that there are all kinds of ostensibly appealing but ultimately deceptive traps that are set for us in this life – the “apples of Eden” – in order to discern whether we’ve passed the test, and to know if we actually deserve the blessings of God or if we’re just a bunch of hypocrites that want an easy way out. From the perspective of modern industrial civilization, consumer culture and high-kilowatt “green” culture is this apple that the evil one tempts us with. If we’re culpably intertwined with any coddling ideology which hides immense injustice by spoonfeeding us with opiates or placebos – whether they be shopping malls, Hummers, SUVs, clean coal, a few organic bagels, a “foolish hope” that somebody else like Obama will solve the problem, or anything else – it is imperative upon us to consciously break away from these placebos and tools of hypnotists, even if it is a painful process. God is not going to help us out until we “change ourselves,” or rip the rotten bark away from the stem which comprises our spiritual core. Once we admit to ourselves all of the subtle and often subconscious lies which ease the burden on our shellshocked consciences, we can then help individuals warm up to participation in real solutions – solutions which require hard work and struggle, such as community organizing, massive protests, civil disobedience, and disassociation from public and private individuals who discourage our own moral resolve for environmental peace. We are up against very, very evil forces who don’t give a shit about the planet, and they have a lot more money than we do. So we’re gonna have to get smart, and we’re gonna have to purify ourselves of all the bullshit and the foolish hope. God’s not gonna change our own state unless we wake up and smell the coffee ourselves.

    Not many people are pulling the spiritual imperative out of the climate change narrative at a level effective enough to punch the average Joe in the face. If we were able to do this, God willing, it could be an effective turning point in the struggle for climate justice. This is no joke – our generation literally deserves eternity in hellfire for the resource burden that we will bring upon later generations due to our own decadent waste of water, oil, air, etc. I believe, however, that if we begin to infuse the environmental justice movement with a strong spiritual component, we might be able to turn the tide in America and elsewhere. Remember that the civil rights and abolitionist movements both maintained some of their strongest support from spiritual communities. Climate change is a problem that will determine the trajectory of our own lives, the lives of many generations after us, and the lives of our souls in the hereafter. We must try to impart that to the American public.

    If, as many indigenous and prophetic traditions including Islam state, this world is just a test to separate the brave and the truthful from those that are diseased inside their souls, then most of us in the developed world are failing that test with flying colors. But if we strive for truth and disassociate ourselves from lies, God might choose to bring a victory in our time in order to break the ice-cold stillness in Congress on climate change.

  5. [...] She wrote: Hope is passive.  Hope is what you have when you have exhausted all other options.  As Derreck Jensen writes, “To hope for some result means you have given up any agency concerning it.” By placing our [...]

  6. John in rural NH says:

    I believe this post is full of excellent insight. I share Derreck’s focus on what is going wrong — my wife asks why I am negative, how can I stand it. Well, I think that if I can just grasp reality, I can be better prepared for it.

    But Derreck leaves me in the dust. I have turned my negativity into acceptance and cynicism rather than a spur to action. I imagine that we are reliving exactly what happened so many years ago on Easter Island – petty little selfishness, inability to cede a little of one’s own advantage for the common good. After reading this I will have to reconsider my passivity.

  7. Indigo says:

    What an excellent article. I particularly like the description of the liberating, even enriching feeling after the loss of Hope.
    What Derreck Jensen describes might even be described as the sixth stage of grief, although unfortunately, not all who grieve get to this liberating stage.
    Because of a different set of circumstances I too lost hope some 15 years ago. I can even remember the day I died.
    I now play by my rules.

  8. Albert says:

    What you’ve described is “wishful thinking,” not “hope.” The definition of “hope” that your audience gave you is misleading – real hope happens when you are engaged with what you hope in.

  9. Anna says:

    See this blog: http://www.bwea.com/pdf/RenewableUK_Manifesto2010.pdf

    “To hope for some result means you have given up any agency concerning it.”

    The implication is that by placing our ‘hope’ in Obama, in Congress, in the UN, we tacitly resign ourselves to the idea that the outcomes are out of our hands.

    I agree – but only if you define ‘Hope’ as a ‘passive’ thing.

    If you instead define hope in ‘active’ terms, as does David Orr (here: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/01/the_th_interview_david_orr_3.php ), you can reclaim the word ‘hope’ from its superficial campaign branding, and then discover a much truer definition of ‘hope’ – hope through action, and hope in the movement. It is when you understand deeply this definition of hope – as distinct from naive, passive optimism and faith – that you can truthfully use the ‘language of certainty’.

    I suggest that deep in his heart, even Derrick Jensen shares this ‘hope’ in the movement:
    “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.”

Leave a Reply

Tired of talking? Ready for action?
Learn more, stay informed, and get active:
Get Involved: Receive our Monthly Newsletter / Sign Up for Local Action Alerts

When you donate to Peaceful Uprising, your money is funding creative, hard-hitting, dynamic actions.

Subscribe by Email

Peaceful Uprising on Facebook

Categories:

Archives:

Photos

2010-01-08 CoalBird Action in Survivaballs!
IMG_0071.JPG
IMG_0182.JPG
IMG_0186.JPG
IMG_0150.JPG
411709760.jpg
IMG_0135.JPG