The Story of Change

Annie Leonard
YES! Magazine / Video Report
Published: Wednesday 18 July 2012
“Can shopping save the world? Put down your credit card and start exercising your citizen muscles with Annie Leonard's new film.”

I used to think the truth would set us free. Like many who care about the environment, I spent years thinking that information would lead to change. If only people realize the mess our planet is in, I thought, things will change. So I wrote reports, gave speeches, even testified before Congress. 

Some things changed. Sadly, the big picture didn’t.

For a long time I couldn’t understand why. Now I’ve realized we don’t need more data, white papers or documentaries to tell us we’re in trouble. Every day, the news is full of extreme weather disasters, toxic chemical scares and the cruel consequences of economic inequality. At this point, most people know.

And the good news is that most people care. Most of us want a safe and healthy environment. Most of us are horrified by the idea of babies born with harmful chemicals in their blood. Most of us would rather see investments in clean energy than billion-dollar subsidies for fossil fuel fat-cats. Most of us would prefer to live in a just society.

So, if people know, and if people care, why aren’t we generating the level of change needed to turn things around? My new movie, The Story of Change, argues it’s partly because we’ve gotten stuck in our consumer mode.

I’ve come to see that we have two parts to ourselves; it’s almost like two muscles—a consumer muscle and a citizen muscle. Our consumer muscle, which is fed and exercised constantly, has grown strong: So strong that “consumer” has become our primary identity, our reason for being. We’re told so often that we’re a nation of consumers that we don’t blink when the media use “consumer” and “person” interchangeably.

Meanwhile, our citizen muscle has gotten flabby. There’s no marketing campaign reminding us to engage as citizens. On the contrary, we’re bombarded with lists of simple and easy things we can buy or do to save the planet, without going out of our way or breaking a sweat.

No wonder that, faced with daunting problems and discouraged by the intransigence of the status quo, we instinctively flex our power in the only way we know how—our consumer muscle. Plastic garbage choking the oceans? Carry your own shopping bag. Formaldehyde in baby shampoo? Buy the brand with the green seal. Global warming threatening life as we know it? Change our lightbulbs. (As Michael Maniates, a professor of political and environmental science at Allegheny College, says: “Never has so little been asked of so many.”)

Now, all of those are good things to do. When we shop, it’s good to choose products without toxic chemicals and unnecessary packaging, made by locally based companies that treat their workers well. On the other hand, shunning products that are unhealthy for workers, communities and the planet sends a message to companies that are still stuck in the dinosaur economy. Sometimes not buying—making do with what we have or sharing with a friend – is the best option of all.

But our real power is not in choosing from items on a limited menu; it is in determining what gets on that menu. The way to ensure that toxic, climate-disrupting choices are replaced with safe and healthy alternatives—for everyone, not just those who can afford them—is by engaging as citizens: working together for bigger, bolder change than we could ever accomplish on an individual consumer level.

Look back at successful movements—civil rights, anti-apartheid, the early environmental victories—and you’ll see that three things are needed to make change at the scale we need today.

First, we need a Big Idea of how things could be better—a morally compelling, ecologically sustainable and socially just idea that will not just make things a little better for a few, but a lot better for everyone. Millions around the world already have that idea: an economy based on the needs of needs of people and the planet, not corporate profit.

Second, we need a commitment to work together. In history’s most transformative social movements, people didn’t say, “I will perfect my individual daily choices,” but “We will work together until the problem is solved.” Today, it’s easier than ever to work together, online and off.

Finally, we need all of us who share that Big Idea to get active. We need to move from a place of shared concern, frustration and fear to a place of engaged citizen action. That’s how we build the power to make real change.

We have to aim high, work together and act boldly. It’s not simple, and it certainly won’t be easy. But history is on our side. Let’s get to work to make the kind of change we know is possible.

Annie has committed almost twenty years to investigating and organizing on environmental health and justice issues. Annie is the author and host of The Story of Stuff and the director of the Story of Stuff Project. She is also the creator of The Story of Cap & TradeThe Story of Cosmetics,The Story of Bottled Water, and The Story of Electronics.



Get Email Alerts from NationofChange
ABOUT Annie Leonard

Annie Leonard has committed almost twenty years to investigating and organizing on environmental health and justice issues. Annie is the author and host of The Story of Stuff and the director of the Story of Stuff Project. She is also the creator of The Story of Cap & TradeThe Story of Cosmetics, The Story of Bottled Water, and The Story of Electronics.

Top Stories

2 comments on "The Story of Change"

majorpayne

July 20, 2012 4:34pm

"Aim high, act boldly, work together, and get active." This kind of exercise does no good after the body has become flabby and diabetes has set in. As I said in my comment to Goldstein's essay, everyone needs to start young. Older folks who have "exercised ourselves" can help as role models, but getting the young to pay attention is a real problem.

I taught engineering and math in three "spurts" separated by years in engineering jobs. The first time (at a military academy) was relatively easy, but even there most students went to "easy-A" majors. The second time was in a community college in California, where I had to do a little fancy footwork to make students pay attention. The third time, where I live now, was dismal. One of 13 students who started in my last class passed the course because he followed instructions, did his homework, and asked for extra help. He also tutored his wife, who was taking the same course in another college and was a week behind us. (He wasn't in her class because her college told him he wasn't qualified to enroll!)

JoeWeinstein

July 18, 2012 4:05pm

Annie Leonard's article, 'The Story of Change', half misses the point in Allan Goldstein's parallel article 'The Revolution Equation'. Leonard agrees that we need a big new idea. However - despite her correct complaint that we tend to be effective consumers but not effective citizens - for her the cure, the obvious big new idea, is to get a better ECONOMY (never mind POLITY).

Contra Leonard, Goldstein is quite correct: with or without the economy too, what really must be fixed is politics. In fact there's no hope of getting (or anyhow sustaining) a more dynamic and democratic economy if the polity - i.e. the system whereby public policies are made - remains like the present republican oligarchy (per the 1787 US federal constitution and its copycats). This setup promotes public decisions which are neither democratic nor reasoned. It uses a populist veneer of elections - costly mass popularity contests - but its essence is to concentrate policy-decision power in a small oligarchy of long-term-serving special officers, who are free to make decisions - including decisions to pillage the economy! - in whimsical disregard of scientific canons of reason. [As a result of this setup, Leonard's finding that we are better consumers than citizens is not surprising: the great majority of us - being politically dis-empowered even if we spend gobs of time and energy as 'activists' - have little incentive to work hard at being citizens.]

The solution is to demand a more democratic and deliberative POLITY: de-concentrate and distribute policy decision power to many teams ('juries') of ordinary citizens, and to ensure that their decision-making rules call for due deliberation in accord with scientific-age canons of argument and decision.

As noted in Trish House's comment to Goldstein's article, for a well-functioning ECONOMY we need widespread distribution of inherent economic power, along the lines promoted in another era (in accord with the vision of Jefferson et al) by the US Homestead Act. Land and resource holdings - and the right and duty to manage them sustainably and responsibly - must be de-concentrated. Many modest but adequate parcels can be distributed to great numbers of ordinary citizens and families.

By the same token, for a well-functioning POLITY, political power - the power to make public decisions, and the concomitant duty to make them deliberatively - can and must also be de-concentrated and shared out in modest portions, to many short-term small teams ('juries') of ordinary citizens. [In more detail: for the sake both of due pro-action and due pre-caution, some teams will create proposals, others will decide on proposals, and yet others will review - and confirm or veto - passed proposals.]

Is such 'deliberative direct democracy' our truly needed 'new big idea' (per Leonard)? Does it give us new political expectations to trigger a revolution (per Goldstein)? Well, in any event it is a profoundly meaningful idea that is now reasonable to expect and start demanding within each political jurisdiction.