In a newspaper article
showcasing a recent Natural Life Expo, the writer painted an
accurate and attractive picture of the event. She showed a
keen understanding of the objectives of the show and clearly
described the sorts of exhibitors participating in the Expo
and the seminars that visitors could attend. Then, she
finished off the article by wondering why, when she visited
our office to do the interview, she saw no evidence of either
granola or Birkenstocks.
Huh? Well, thank
goodness I’d stashed away evidence of breakfast and shoved
everybody’s shoes into the hall closet before she arrived. I
was saved once again from the horror of being portrayed as a
frumpy, tree hugging, herb tea guzzling, sandal-clad, aging
hippie.
Being seen as that
sort of person, I read in the front of a glossy new magazine
called Organic Style, is definitely not cool. The publication
has set itself on a mission to save the world by “smashing
the organic do-gooder stereotypes."
What is troubling to me
is that the magazine, which is just one in a flurry of new
titles exploiting the words “natural”, “simple” and
“organic”, is published by Rodale Press, the (formerly?)
highly trusted bastion of organic know-how. The rest of the
magazine’s pages are filled with advertising for lipstick,
skin firming cosmetics, men’s fragrance, designer clothing,
SUVs, hair color, gourmet kitchen appliances and foreign
travel destinations.
What is going on here?
Why do so many people apparently need to distance themselves
from the clichés about people who care about health and the
environment in order to embrace a “new” cliché of balance
and simplicity?
Is eating organically
and using natural materials in your home nothing more than a
shallow fad like pet rocks and misappropriated dreadlocks?
Or maybe those who
ridicule the “holier-than-thou” people who favor “hemp
caftans and bean curd” (more phrases from the pen of the new
Rodale publication’s editor) are those who want to make
money from this lifestyle.
And is that so wrong? I
have no argument with a business making money. (In fact, I’d
love it if this particular business made more of it.) And
although photos of “beautiful” (ie skinny) models wearing
organic cotton, and gushing prose about how some celebrity or
other lives in a “natural” house don’t interest me, I
don’t mind other people reading that stuff. Maybe such
magazines will alert a whole new group of people to the need
to live more simply and naturally.
Nor do I have an
argument with the mainstreaming of alternatives. When Rolf and
I launched Natural Life in 1976, we laughed about how the
measure of our success at providing information would be that
we put ourselves out of business. And over the years we have
seen many of the topics we write about move from fringe to
mainstream. The one that comes to mind most easily is
“natural food”, which in 1976 was a rare commodity, only
available in a few, hard-to-find health food stores.
So what am I going on
about, anyway? What troubles me is the danger of dumbing down
the words and images until they mean nothing. Until they can
be used to spin something bad into something that seems good,
especially to those who are still at the fad stage of
commitment to this new lifestyle.
There is a line between
making something palatable and selling out, and it’s called
greenwash. Greenwash occurs when companies use gorgeous scenes
of pristine nature to divert attention from how they pollute
to how they give money to charity. It happens when a
pharmaceutical giant publishes an ad in a magazine produced by
a company trusted by generations of organic gardeners.
For most of us, maturity
banishes the need to pose and preen, to worry about what
people think, to be hip to every new trend. Maturity allows us
the wisdom and confidence to cement our commitments and find
joy in family, community, wellness, balance and
sustainability.
Let’s hope this
“Martha Stewart Goes Organic” stuff is just an awkward
life stage in the transition to a better world, the brashness
of adolescence masking the insecurity that accompanies change.