Mark Powell over at BlogFish had a very interesting post on the role of desire - rather than guilt - in getting consumers aboard the sustainable seafood cause.
We tell stories of impending crisis so they’ll stop out of fear, or we try to make rules that stop the damage by denying people their desires. Conserve water or we’ll run out and you won’t be able to flush your toilet! Stop driving your SUV or we’ll all cook together on a warming earth! Etc., you’ve heard it before.
It’s a reasonable way to go, but it isn’t working. And perhaps even worse, it creates problems for the environmental movement. It casts us as the enemies of human desire, not a good role to be in.
Mark's essay speaks to a broader issue that food advocates confront, which involves changing habits. And the best way that can be done is by creating new desires - whether for new (sustainable) fish they haven't yet eaten, fresh local food, slow food or what have you. But I imagine the purveyors of guilt won't be happy with this message. I'm not sure I'm convinced either.
Maybe the point is, convincing people takes desire (a taste of that rich dark, fair trade, organic chocolate bar) but it works especially well when people see the flip side (of child laborers picking cocoa in the Ivory Coast).
- Samuel Fromartz
Sam, thanks for extending the conversation. I've been having a virtual dialogue with several people on this topic after putting up my post. That's been fun and thought-provoking, and it was the purpose of the post.
I will endorse a role for guilt in the "wake-up call" stage, where people learn about a new issue. Guilt can help spur learning and a search for alternatives.
But I think we've taken guilt too far when we tell people to "just say no" to unsustainable seafood. And we've really taken guilt too far when we get ocean advocates spreading guilt around the table when people they're with order seafood in a restaurant.
That's right, some marine biologists feel compelled to dispense negativity onto dinner companions, with lectures on fishing impacts and directives to avoid everything not fully sustainable from a purist's perspective (which means avoiding most seafood). How many of you have had that unpleasant experience? I've seen it happen to others.
Some ocean lovers even feel compelled to give up seafood completely (see links in my post and comments), and advise others to do the same.
I think staying connected to seafood will help sustain a commitment to improving fishing methods, to create more sustainable seafood products we can enjoy.
Something like the old transitional organic category of food would be good for seafood; a system designed to get people started on the road to sustainability since most seafood is currently not sustainably produced.
I think we need to turn the sustainable seafood movement into something more like Slow Food. It should be a celebration of an ideal AND a celebration of real food produced with those ideals in mind. The food need match the ideals perfectly in order to be worth celebrating.
What sustainable seafood shouldn't be is a guilt trip designed to push people away from most seafood.
Posted by: Mark Powell | February 20, 2008 at 09:15 PM