Home | Rescue! History statement | Conference (Birmingham, April 2008) | Minutes
Publications, articles and resources | Blog
Participants:
Prof. Colin Feltham, Counselling, Sheffield Hallam,
Dr Penny Roberts, History, Warwick
Dr Richard Maguire Philosophy, UEA
Richard Jordan, History, Southampton
Dr Amanda Root, School of Health and Social Care, Oxford Brookes
Julie Cappleman-Morgan, ‘Sociologists Outside Academia'
Greg Neale, BBC History Magazine, Newsnight,
Dr Robert Johnson, History, Warwick
Dr Christopher Callow, History, Birmingham
Dr Jean-Francois (Jeff) Mouhot, History, Birmingham
Prof. Steve Wright, Praxis Centre, Leeds Metropolitan
Prof. Dave Webb, Praxis Centre, Leeds Metropolitan
Dr Mark Levene, History, Southampton
Chris Shaw, Sociology, Sussex
Jo Rathbone Ecocongregation, Stonleigh, Warwicks
Apologies: Louise Tattersall, Dr Deana Heath, Dr Marius Kwint, Annie Tunnicliffe, Tehmina Goskar Dr Brian Golding, Dave Musgrove, Anthony Rudolf, Dr Pertti Ahonen, Jo Overend, Dr Mark Roodhouse, Prof. Emma Clery
Morning session: What is the argument of Rescue!History and what are its objectives?
Discussant: Professor Colin Feltham:
It is difficult to grasp the complexities of the environment, especially for most amateurs and the analyses of the current crises’ origins are variously dated, some tracing back 6,000 years to a period that required greater human organization and exploitation of resources. The assumption made is that by understanding the origins of this process we might be able to correct our course. However, we should perhaps acknowledge that all things, including civilizations, come to an end. Some go so far as to posit that there is a determinism inherent in animal behaviour. Nevertheless, others argue that humans are inherently co-operative and that they have been changed by competition.
Does the source of our problems lie in our minds, our nature or in politico-economic factors? Are we more barbaric than in the past, or just more equipped to be more lethal? There are several crises being faced at the moment, including the environment, terrorism, and religious conflict, but some point to problems of greater deception in Western society which distorts an analysis. Therefore, to fully understand the problems we face, is a multi-disciplinary approach essential? CF offered some current works to illustrate the variety of interpretations of the world’s crises. These included:
McNeal’s Something New Under the Sun (a classic interpretation which appears to be neutral in its objectives);
Jameson (?), Endgame (which states that the current type of society is untenable and that what is required is the violent destruction of this order to a pre-industrial society: these views are based on the extreme notion that sustainable technologies are already too late);
Lomburg, Sceptical Environmentalist (critical of scare-mongering, the thesis here is that all the problems will be addressed in time)
Which genre is right? Who do we believe? Academics perhaps should take a lead here.
Mark Levene:
ML explained the reasons for issuing his manifesto, which he offered without being sure of the response it would receive. David Cromwell and Mark Levene had set up the Crisis Forum in 2002, but ML established Rescue!History to look specifically at the environmental aspects of the current world crises. He noted that environmental change is creating stress points elsewhere (such as energy issues). ML called for two questions to be answered: One, who is the audience of Rescue!History? and, two, where does Rescue!History go?
ML further queried: Are specific disciplines needed, or more?
For historians, ML suggested there are some philosophical problems to overcome, not least the fact that, if there is a serious malfunction occurring in the world’s environment and this is linked to human activity, leading to a catastrophe in the near future, shouldn’t we be taking account of that in our current historical research? ML believes that a crisis is now inevitable, but asks: how did we get here? Is it prehistoric, inherent or recent in origin? He also asks: what are the byproducts?
ML suggests we need more environmental history to address these questions.
Amanda Root:
Denial-inevitability arguments are curiously related, but action can be taken. In offering explanations, we need to acknowledge Ecological Organisation Theory. It is suggested that a combination of organization and technology can create a ‘win-win’ situation (it is good for business if the environment is respected), but this requires good management.
Steve Wright:
Too many variables (in assessing the environment) tends to deter analysis. Taking the example of empires, SW notes that they fight not just for resources but also for truths, ideas, and symbols of meaning. To overcome the deceptions of the deniers or reluctant states, we need to recognize our common ground. Co-operation across structures (such as statistical structures), and analysis of complex theory can give us the opportunity to understand processes and intervene at the micro-level to make a difference. We have to recognize we have limited time and energy so we would be best served by picking a way to make the system backfire on itself.
Richard Maguire:
RM rejects the idea of inevitability and decline, citing examples of humanity being able to deliver. Successes of the human condition should not be ignored. He suggests we need to understand the problem, trace the chain of the problem and offer solutions based on a causal dynamic. He argues that we certainly need experts from other disciplines, and take our inspiration from the Enlightenment thinkers.
Dave Webb:
DW asked: Is the situation now different, or the speed of change more difficult to cope with? He outlined the scope of the damage.
Jeff Mouhot
JM suggested that death and the decline of civilizations were inevitable, but offered a more optimistic proposal that history should move out of its current narrow confines. Contrasting the ‘popular’ histories written by journalists and the demand of his students for broader surveys, he lamented the way that academic histories tended to concentrate on the minutiae of the past. He concurred that there were too few environmental histories, and too few studies that demonstrated the environmental situation. He queried drawing ‘rules’ or ‘lessons’ from history, noting in an analogy that inequalities of wealth have not always sparked a crisis. He suggested we do need to look back into the past to see what has happened, but we need to address the popular or public questions, not simply examine the questions we, as academics, think up. Being more relevant and more responsive was the imperative. JM added that we need more than just a technical programme of solutions. Whilst technology is important, it is, in fact, a political issue.
Chris Shaw:
Is this a problem with academics? He referred to previous periods of academics being dissenters.
RM:
Students are potential activists and allies who appear disengaged with mainstream politics. We need to state our position clearly to enlist them.
SW:
The lazy option would be to acquire more academic data: we need to use it to fulfil our remit as ‘research activists’. SW cited the example of Mark Thomas who has used the medium of television to ‘set up’ politicians. He used humour and alternative thinking to engage with mass culture.
DW:
We need to convey that activism is acceptable, but acknowledge that inertia is problematic.
Greg Neale:
Comedians, like Mark Thomas, can grab our attention, but cannot offer a coherent agenda. He suggested that, in engaging the media, Rescue!History needs to avoid an overt political point of view which can alienate the audience. He recommended that conventional channels of media are used and that sometimes failure should be expected. He noted that there is a wave of current interest to be exploited. Changes in the environment are now evident to all. The media will look for the stories, both big and small. He suggested the group establish what it has in common, target other academics, examine where the greatest difference could be made and the methods that could be used. He urged the group to be pragmatic, and argued that a study of previous societies and crises would be our strength.
JM:
We need to understand how we got here (such as our use of energy) and acknowledge that our systems enslave. The motor car now provides the equivalent horsepower that hitherto would have required a large number of slaves. The transition from slavery has been possible because there was no change in lifestyle. JM calls for studies to be made with this sort of striking contemporary relevance.
ML:
We have common concerns, even if we are to disagree on detail: that is valuable. The oil industry and hydrocarbon economy is a very recent and very important development that needs further investigations. He suggests that the current academic regime in terms of funding coerces us away from experimenting with our research and perhaps from reaching a wider audience. However, we could offer a book to show our seriousness as academics. See book proposal reference.
SW:
We need to exploit the genre of story-telling (film makers are the new ones and are very effective).
He noted that we need to convey the Chinese view of technology, that it must be used in harmony with the environment.
He explained that he intended to show how, in his field, that the military-establishment are dominant in the media, and therefore cautioned how the use of media will be critical.
Rob Johnson:
Observing the previous discussion, RJ suggested that a study of former societies and their environments might be of interest to a wider audience (such as the fate of Aku-Aku or Easter Island) but we could balance this narrative of apparently endless disaster with studies of marginal societies that have made a virtue of living in difficult climates (Inuit, rainforest dwellers, mountain peoples). In terms of attracting the media, pre-prepared statements that are deployed as crises unfold would meet the criteria for informed, newsworthy material. To that we should add maximum use of new media – blog, on-line publishing, webpages, and email.
GN:
GN advises that we should appear to be disinterested, non-partisan and without fixed agendas.
Chris Callow:
CC suggests we work on our own institutions as much as the wider public audience.
Julie Cappleman-Morgan:
Academics can offer backing to the students who want to do something practical about the situation.
Jo Rathbone:
In trying to motivate action, the story needs to be told.
CS:
‘Global dimming’ thesis interesting because it suggests the impact of climate change influenced by man may actually be limited by nature’s response. An informed position is therefore vital.
SW:
We need to emphasize the costs and consequences of climate change.
RM:
Ideas can make a difference.
ML: Deskilling is a problem in the West: Many westerners are now unequipped to survive as their ancestors would have done. We can learn a great deal from marginal societies.
SW:
It is interesting to study behaviours when people are faced by imminent crisis. There are reactions of herd instinct, denial, blame, even depression and suicide. There are also survivalists who look to escape. We might look at examples of sixteenth century settlers who escaped persecution in Europe and established colonies in marginal conditions in north America; those who, facing genocide, fought back against their oppressors; or those who survived the ice-age.
Perhaps we should be suggesting the teaching of perma-culture practices in schools [I know of an Australian, John Hunwick, who is doing this already in Uganda: RJ] or survival skills too.
Points to take forward for the afternoon
Local level initiatives – how will climate change affect this village or that borough?
Could an audit of the environment be carried out by local authorities or even by small communities?
Could a televised piece show how ancient people (or marginal peoples) have lived, and how this contrasts with our Western lives with practical suggestions?
Afternoon Session: What is the agenda of Rescue!History?
Steve Wright suggested that another thread might be ‘Why History Matters to Science?’ He also suggested that a local focus might be productive, as did Chris. Mark asked what might appeal to a local audience. Julie thought something on rationing would be appealing. It was pointed out that history in the media tends to be anniversary driven - the anniversary of the Great Storm of 1987 was highlighted.
Jeff suggested that RH should not focus on environmental history conferences and publications exclusively and also that letter writing in the manner inspired by Amnesty International, to targeted policy makers might be an approach.
It was suggested that an open letter in a newspaper might be an alternative route, which would place the RH agenda and RH itself ‘on the map’. This should be quite gentle in approach, to ensure the widest support.
Richard M suggested (in line with comments from Greg in the morning session) that the main aim of activity initially might be the academy, by establishing an academic reputation the group would later be able to act more widely.
Many people focused on the need for an RH website.
On the conference Christopher suggested that funding might be available at Birmingham for a conference organised with other universities, Mark, Richard, Dave and Steve all thought they could bring their universities to the table in a joint project. It was suggested that outside funding might be forthcoming if a public lecture was organised and organisations such as the National Trust invited to participate.
On the issue of the journal, it was suggested by a number of people that History Workshop Journal might be a very good choice. Greg also suggested that the New Statesman or Prospect might be an alternative format. The possibility of creating a new RH journal was floated, however, the workload involved was thought to be too great at this stage of the project.
Amanda argued that it would be potentially very useful to attempt to incorporate climate change into the curriculum development programmes of HE.
Action. Richard M to draft the statement, agree this with Greg and then distribute it to members of RH for their comments. Once the statement is agreed RH members will distribute it to their own networks of colleagues asking them to sign up to it, in order that the numbers involved is maximised. Once signed it will be sent to media organisations, historical outlets, etc and placed on the RH website (see below).
Action. It was agreed to aim for the conference in about 12 months. Christopher will explore the funding options at Birmingham, Jeff will assist on this as required. Richard, mark, Steve and Dave will broach the subject of a joint conference at their own institutions.
Action. Everyone to consider possible options. Greg to speak with New Statesman.
Action. Jeff has agreed to manage the website when it is created. Steve’s son is involved in this business, he will arrange for hosting, and domain name and will pay for this. Rick J is to contact a friend re web design, Richard M will pay for it, Mark will also provide funds.