Deconstructing Old Spice

I live in a house with a lot of people, so there's never a shortage of discussion-generating diversity (of ideas, opinions, backgrounds, etc.) This week I was taking a shower and noticed someone's Old Spice body wash, and I really can't help but comment. Here's what I'm thinking:

"3X Clean Net:" I'm not even sure what this means. Was there some sort of "clean net" that was included in this package? Are they trying to say that you're 3 times cleaner, by net weight? This is just confusing. Or, perhaps "net" means "clean" in French. Looking at this a little closer, perhaps that's it, but I'm not sure.

Next: "Doesn't leave you feeling dry or rob you of your dignity." So, it moisturizes your skin and reassures you of your ineffable human goodness? I'm not quite sure exactly how these two go together. However, one might be able to take a few leaps to assume that a loss of dignity might come from a flowery/fruity scent, which this is clearly trying to avoid, nonetheless providing desirable moisturization...

"Like wearing an armor of man-scent" -- Is this a good thing? So this "man-scent" armor protects you from what, exactly? Also, hat tip to Luke for pointing out that this is slightly homo-erotic, suggesting that a man (presumably heterosexual) might not want to be covered in man-scent, or, at least, wouldn't want to be judged by this type of thing in a heteronormative society.

Finally, "Drop-kicks dirt, then slams odor with a folding chair" Even though I've never seen WWF/WWE, I sense that this may be a reference to it. So now even your body wash is a pro-(fake)wrestler in the epic battle between dirt/odor and...old spice?

Ok, I just had a few questions in response to these Old Spice sayings that showed up in my shower.

Also, I can't help but be reminded of Hyperbole and a Half's awesome segment on making showers exciting again, there are many more hilarious cartoons here.

Environmental Justice

Every time I hear about the environmental justice movement I hear it contrasted to the environmental movement: while I was at Greenpeace, in some classes in college, and most recently at the US Social Forum. The environmental movement is mostly situated within middle-class white hegemony and seeks to reduce the problem by individualizing it - giving each individual the power to act, you know, like the good ol’ American Dream. Change your bulbs, save the world. Get a job, end poverty. Use birth control, reduce world population. That kind of thing.

The environmental justice (EJ) movement, on the other hand is grounded in the context of historical social injustice. EJ issues are generally also spatially grounded, and a generically recognized EJ issue is some sort of hazardous waste in the backyards of poor people of color. EJ points out that many of the problems of the environmental crisis lie in the roots of colonialism. So EJ is grounded both historically and socially, as well as spatially. In this context, the way to stop dumping hazardous waste is to stop having poor people.

This week I heard a lecture that talked specifically to the historical/spatial aspect, that of burying the past, of burying social inequity. The work of EJ then is to study the material wastes -- or “imperial debris” -- of the past, making visible social inequalities. EJ, then is the antidote to our “green consumption,” “greenwashing” rampage.

This new wave of “green” consumption is a response to a basic understanding that this treadmill of production and consumption is flawed. However, rather than making any significant changes, we make the superficial addition of “green” consumption, “green” production and continue on our way. Don’t worry that the whole system is flawed; at least it’s green now. Now you can feel good about driving.

Seriously. The slogan for Toyota's new Prius is: "Welcome to the 3rd generation Prius, where man’s wants and nature’s needs agree." (Source) And, "Harmony between man, nature, and machine" (Source) (Also, can't help but notice the repeated use of the gendered word "man.")

As for greenwashing, it’s usually used in this way - just paint the whole thing green. Greenwashing, says Wikipedia, is a portmanteau of "green" and "whitewash." So - make no structural changes, only superficial ones to change how people interpret it. “Green” cars, “green” coal, etc. However, it can also be looked at as a “whitening” of the movement, with regard to class participation. If to be green means to have the newest, greenest product, only those who can afford to buy it can be really green.

EJ provides a grounded antidote to greenwashing by unearthing historical inequities. Grounded in such a context, it becomes clearer that greenwashing is really just the same old symptomatic solution to the continuing problems.

I wonder, though, if it is possible that the environmental movement can provide any new tools to the continuing civil rights movements. Can the environmental movement make us more aware of the ecology of social movements? Or the cyclical nature of change? Can grounding ourselves in the natural world help us gain perspective and inform our work?

Books recommended at this week’s lecture: On Bullshit and There’s No Such Thing as a Natural Disaster

"Change starts with your underwear."

I haven't been posting much lately, but I have been buying underwear. Yep, that's right. I recently found a company that I like (so far). They produce organic cotton underwear AND support non-profits around the world. My first purchase was one that supported Wangari Maathai's Green Belt Movement in Kenya.

Anyway, if you're looking for a new pair of undies (for men and women), check out PACT!

Their ad's not bad either:

the cost of freedom

i've seen a few bumper stickers or whatnot declaring that "freedom is not free." i don't really understand this. at the korean war veteran's memorial in washington d.c. there is an engraving that says this, too.

i'm not sure if this is the truth (as something that would exist outside our (human created) society) or if it's a social creation. if it is the latter, is it created to make us feel more ok about war, about dying, using literally billions of dollars to promote this militant idea of freedom? if the former is true, what is the cost of freedom? lives lost? dollars spent? time? effort? is freedom part of what is natural and, perhaps to extrapolate that: innate? well, if it's not free, who sells it? is this something i can buy or barter for?

i personally believe that freedom (or lack thereof) is a creation, a state of mind or state of being. i believe that society can tell you that you are not free, and even physically restrain you (i.e. in jail), but then we get into different definitions of freedom. here's a poem, by ho chi minh:

Although they have tightly bound my arms and legs,
All over the mountain I hear the song of birds,
And the forest is filled
with the perfume of spring-flowers.
Who can prevent me from freely enoying these,
which take from the long journery
a little of its lonliness?

this is the freedom that i relate to. i do not yet understand the freedom which is not free.