I R Ranty
Where do our virtues lie in terms of the post-modern sacred? Are we actors (activists) or responders to the new moral conditions and imperatives? How does Al Gore become the face of environmentalism and as that face, does he have the role of moral saint or moral hero? Is his environmentalism one of life-politics or emancipation politics or both?
These are very interesting times for scholars of nature, scholars of technology and scholars of the sacred, it would seem. You cannot turn on a newscast without hearing about an environmental related story, or some sort of political rhetoric about such. All of the major political parties in Canada have developed a stance as we stream towards the next election. Suddenly nature and its sacredness has come into the forefront of the political agenda. So does that make Stephen Harper a moral saint, does it make Stephan Dion a moral hero or is there a third category missing from this list? Does it make them actors or responders? Is the key difference in their motivations, or does it really matter what their motivations are? Neither politician has made a lifetime's work of the cause, though they make it seem like they have. And neither of their lives would seem, on the surface, to be extremely arduous. So I guess, according to Giddens' definitions as told by Szerszynski, they would not fit the saint category. Does that then make them moral heroes, acting on happenstance?
Have we as people then re-sacralized nature to the point that we have made it a political vehicle? If so, then how does this post-modern ordering of the sacred fuel a moral, ethical, social and political agenda? The people who are speaking the loudest about environmental reform today are not doing so out of loyalty to a sacred idea, they are using a sacred idea as a way to influence the voters. Giddens needs a third category, I think, rather than just life-politics or emancipation politics. There should be a category of politics for the sake of politics, where moral rhetoric can be espoused without the fear of having to buy into it, where the usage of a public persona can be used to sell the concept of the sacred to the consumer based society we live in.
A federal election is rapidly approaching in Canada, and the parties will all spout environmental platforms, until the country is tired of hearing about its importance. The campaign will involve many non-biodegradable plastic signs, attached to wooden posts, scattered all over the landscape. Many cross-country jaunts will be taken, and I would be willing to bet, there will not be many of those on the campaign trail driving smart cars, or tour buses fueled by ethanol. And yet they will be campaigning about reducing green-house gases, and teaching us how to save the environment from ourselves. I guess that means that moral hero is out as a category too.
Where do our virtues lie in terms of the post-modern sacred? Are we actors (activists) or responders to the new moral conditions and imperatives? How does Al Gore become the face of environmentalism and as that face, does he have the role of moral saint or moral hero? Is his environmentalism one of life-politics or emancipation politics or both?
These are very interesting times for scholars of nature, scholars of technology and scholars of the sacred, it would seem. You cannot turn on a newscast without hearing about an environmental related story, or some sort of political rhetoric about such. All of the major political parties in Canada have developed a stance as we stream towards the next election. Suddenly nature and its sacredness has come into the forefront of the political agenda. So does that make Stephen Harper a moral saint, does it make Stephan Dion a moral hero or is there a third category missing from this list? Does it make them actors or responders? Is the key difference in their motivations, or does it really matter what their motivations are? Neither politician has made a lifetime's work of the cause, though they make it seem like they have. And neither of their lives would seem, on the surface, to be extremely arduous. So I guess, according to Giddens' definitions as told by Szerszynski, they would not fit the saint category. Does that then make them moral heroes, acting on happenstance?
Have we as people then re-sacralized nature to the point that we have made it a political vehicle? If so, then how does this post-modern ordering of the sacred fuel a moral, ethical, social and political agenda? The people who are speaking the loudest about environmental reform today are not doing so out of loyalty to a sacred idea, they are using a sacred idea as a way to influence the voters. Giddens needs a third category, I think, rather than just life-politics or emancipation politics. There should be a category of politics for the sake of politics, where moral rhetoric can be espoused without the fear of having to buy into it, where the usage of a public persona can be used to sell the concept of the sacred to the consumer based society we live in.
A federal election is rapidly approaching in Canada, and the parties will all spout environmental platforms, until the country is tired of hearing about its importance. The campaign will involve many non-biodegradable plastic signs, attached to wooden posts, scattered all over the landscape. Many cross-country jaunts will be taken, and I would be willing to bet, there will not be many of those on the campaign trail driving smart cars, or tour buses fueled by ethanol. And yet they will be campaigning about reducing green-house gases, and teaching us how to save the environment from ourselves. I guess that means that moral hero is out as a category too.