Ecological Identity - by Mitchel Thomashow

I have not actually finished reading this book yet - but thought I would post a few thoughts/comments while I am reading . . .and add more later as necessary.

Overall the book is good, interesting reflections of an environmental educator on how to establish/understand ones own ecological identity. Some of the activities he describes that he does with his students sound interesting. However, I am not sure of how applicable most of it is to our question(s). He takes the existance of environmental problems as a given - and doesn't really explore the source of the problem - maybe b/c he doesn't feel that that is the subject he is addressing. I guess his most important contribution are his ideas on how to restore a connection to "nature" and to the broader "environment".

Property
One part that I really struggled with is his discussion of "property." By which it appears he means mainly land ownership - though he does discuss money as a consolidated form of property. Thomashow refers to property as both sacred and profane. It is the sacred part that I struggle with. I know that many people in our society feel the oposite - that property ownership is sacred, and would be unable to see it as profane. However, that just makes it worse for me. I am not saying that I don't understand how important property ownership can be to people in our society - and I can even admit to the desire to own things - even to own land. I just can't see that as sacred - more as a socially created need.

He mentions the "tradgedy of the commons" so maybe he is suggesting that property ownership is a method of protecting land (an idea I completly disagree with). Though he also admits that enclosure of the commons is the source of problems such as homelessness for people who do not own land.

What he talks about as sacred - I don't see as a function of land ownership per se rather I think that the sacred connection to land can be created by having a close relationship to a place - regardless of ownership. I can also see the idea of "home" and of having a personal private space to retreat to as being sacred - but again I don't see property ownership as a necessary prerequsite to the creation of "home." Here particularly I am forced to question - what about all the people who rent a living space, or people in various societies throughout human history who lived on shared "property"?

The good side
Despite this struggle I have with some of his ideas - or with understanding them I do think that this book has been helpful for me. It actually has a quite optomistic message. And, it has made me think a lot about alternatives. I found myself lying in bed - not reading, just thinking about alternative ways that goverment, power, land ownership - particularly community could be used to solve some of the problems we face. His discussion of community was interesting and thought provoking - in that it helped me to understand my own feelings arround community, and arround bioregionalism.

I will post more comments if I find more that I would like to discuss/am having trouble with.