Why is local (insert just about anything here) better? Today I will let Michael Pollan, New York Times Magazine writer and journalist, supply a response.
“Here, then, is a whole other meaning of the word monoculture. Like the agricultural practice that goes by that name, this one too—the monoculture of global taste—is about uniformity and control. Indeed, the monocultures of the field and the monocultures of our global economy nourish each other in crucial ways. The two are complexly intertwined expressions of the same Apollonian desire, our impulse, I mean, to elevate the universal over the particular or local, the abstract over the concrete, the ideal over the real, the made over the natural.” from The Botany of Desire, pg 228.
Rather than appease us with the illusion of control, as a monoculture does, a locally-oriented consumption actually affords more direct personal control. In a localized economy my continued consumption is important to a producer. My feedback and suggestions (and complaints) are much more likely to be heeded. If you, as a reader of this blog, can find no other reason to consider going local, please consider the implication of the privileging monocultures over your own culture.
No comments:
Post a Comment