Simple living
The term ‘Simple Living’ is introduced in the text ‘Simple Living, Recession-Style’ by Elizabeth Scott. The idea is to “pare down and get rid of all the extra “stuff” that we think we need, but don’t.” By getting rid of what does not really serve us, one can enjoy the important things in life, such as relationships and family. By not getting distracted by unimportant things, one can focus on becoming a better person and getting “a better understanding of “who we really are.””
Elizabeth Scott is very positive to the idea of simple living. She was introduced to it in ‘Simple Abundance’ by Sarah Ban Breathnach. She says this way of living could result in less stress, stronger relationships, and a more meaningful life. It is not all, that choose this way of living themselves, a lot of people are opting it out of necessity. They need to save money, due to the fact of financial problems. She makes it clear that the experience of living with less, may feel hard when not voluntarily chosen, but family togetherness will still be the end result.
Judith Levine is also very positive towards the idea of simple living. She has written the book ‘Not Buying It: My Year Without Shopping’, in which she describes how she and her partner did not buy anything unnecessary for a year. In the interview she explains how thinking about ones choices also is a part of simple living, for instance instead of buying biodiesel one can buy biofuel made from plan cellulose. Judith Levine introduces that there is a positive side effect of simple living. That “there are consequences to our acts, and those consequences are environmental degradation.”
Derrick Jensen is not a supporter of simple living, comments on this. He claims that personal change does not equal political change. He gives irrelevant examples of for instance how personal actions haven’t changed the Voting Rights Act of 1957 or the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The main point and question of the text ‘Forget Shorter Showers’ is why “do so many people retreat into these entirely personal ‘solutions’?” But he loses focus throughout the text and only focuses on the side effect of simple living, helping the environmental, and not as Elizabeth Scott claims family togetherness. As a conclusion he points out that there are other options. To follow the activists who lived through difficult times. “Not to navigate systems of oppressive power with as much integrity as possible, but rather to confront and take down those systems.”
The language in Rachel Fudge’s article is very sophisticated. Both from the interviewer Rachel Fudge and author Judith Levine. Rachel Fudge has read Judith Levine’s book and it goes without saying, that she uses some of the words and expressions from the book. But she tries to simplify the language, so the readers of ‘Bitch’ will understand the used expressions. An example of this, is in the fourth paragraph where it says “There’s this idea that frugality means abstaining from pleasure - you certainly had to give up some things you really enjoy, like going to the movies.”
The language of the written interview reflects the spoken interview conducted by the journalist well. It is very well-formulated and linguistically on a high level. An example of this is the journalists comment: “But I also liked your idea that overindulgence can also be a socially important act” The response to the previous question is: “My great objection to the anticonsumerist movement is that it tells people that excess ecstasy, and appetite are immoral, and that the reason we have too much is that we have too much appetite; we just want, want, want.” It is again very sophisticated, but still she simplify that language and explains, so the readers understand.
I do not think simple living is a sustainable alternative to the Western lifestyle. I think the solution is a mix of both. Living the Western lifestyle affects the environment a lot, it causes a lot of carbon emissions. But as Derricks Jensen points out it should not only be personal changes and person consumption. It is not enough with changing light bulbs, inflating tires, taking shorter showers or driving half as much. He explains that the U.S. carbon emissions would fall by 22 only percent if every person in the U.S. did as the movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ surgest. But 22 percent is a lot, and compared to 0 percent which means doing nothing, it is unbelievably much.
Therefore it needs to be reflected in the political picture as well. It needs to be a political decision, not until that point will corporate companies and the industry change their way of manufacturing. Too many people and companies are too selfish give up their Western lifestyle, and live the simple life instead. But that doesn’t mean one not should try, or try to work together and get involved in politics, with the purpose to change the public opinion.