Kristine H. Harper's Blog, page 9

Interview #5: local sustainability hero Zanzan

I have wanted to write about Zanzan and Omunity for a long time now, firstly because Omunity is a very special and inspiring example of sustainable eco-tourism, secondly because what Zanzan does for the local community in the secluded village of Sudaji and the mountainous northern Sawan district in the Buleleng region of Bali is an important story of commitment, deeply felt love of nature and a holistic approach to sustainability, and thirdly because Zanzan and his amazing wife Putu are very dear friends of mine and a big part of why my family and I decided to move to Bali.

This descriptive interview is partly based on conversations with Zanzan and a research paper on sustainable tourism village-development in Bali (with Omunity as case-study) by Interior Design Lecturer of Sekolah Tinggi Desain Bali, Putu Surya Triana Dewi (2019).

[image error]

Please enjoy Zanzan’s visionary thoughts on sustainability, spirituality, eco-awareness and the Balinese Tri Hita Karana philosophy of life – as well as some incredible images of the stunning, dramatic nature that surrounds Omunity.

***

What does sustainability mean to you?

To me sustainability is interlinked with nature and community.

I was born as a farmer; my dad was the chief of the farmers in our village, and he understood that we human beings are interconnected with nature; that it doesn’t really make sense to talk about humans as separated from our natural environment.

The way my dad lived and worked should be an example for other farmers to follow. In his era we did not see anything like today, where everything is wrapped in plastic, and chemical fertilizers and tractors are used. Organic fertilizers and natural remedies were used, and diversity was embraced and respected.

When I was young I spent a lot of time in nature, because my dad wanted me to learn everything about farming and about taking care of animals and preserving nature on a first hand basis. Actually, I sometimes hated him when I was a child and he would ask me to move all the cows to the shelter in the evening, because he did not give me a chance to play with other kids in the village; he always told me that I could freely play with them once I was done with my job. Now, I am grateful for his lessons on consistency, work ethics, and on handling animals and taking care of nature.

[image error]

***

How would you describe Omunity?

Omunity’s vision is a sustainable future: I envision a world without plastic, dangerous chemicals, and toxic fertilizers in which humans and nature thrive in symbiosis the way nature intended.

[image error]Zanzan’s mother doing daily offerings

With Omunity we are going back to the basics; to what our ancestors understood and practiced, and an environment that allows for tourists to be curious about culture and cultural roots. Through food, culture, and the traditional Balinese way of living, Omunity’s visitors can get to know new ways of living without destroying Bali’s greatest asset: Mother Nature.

We seek to educate and facilitate a cultural exchange between locals and visitors and to bridge the gap between environmental concerns and human interests through practical education and the involvement of the village of Sudaji’s community. The concept for Omunity is the experience of a local community with traditional customs and importantly; being in the middle of wild nature.

[image error]One of the many majestic waterfalls in the mountains in the region

Omunity’s vision is based on the philosophy of Tri Hita Karana. Tri Hita Karana is the traditional philosophy of life in Bali – and it translates to the “three causes of well-being” or “three causes of prosperity”. The three causes referred to are:

Harmony with God
Harmony among people
Harmony with nature or environment

The Tri Hita Karana philosophy promotes  communal cooperation and compassion, harmony with the God, manifested in numerous rituals and offerings to appease deities, and harmony with the environment; meaning the conservation of nature and the promotion of sustainability and the balance of the environment.

The principle of Tri Hita Karana guides many aspects of communal activities in Bali, and is furthermore reflected in the Balinese architecture. Additionally, it is reflected in the natural irrigation system in Bali, or the subak, which consists of a system of intertwined weirs and canals that draw from a single water source. Sharing and preserving is at the core of Tri Hita Karana

The concept of Tri Hita Karana contains the advice of human adaptation to the environment. Every human being in the world must always interact with his/her natural environment in order to maintain and sustain his/her life.

[image error]Omunity’s beautiful yoga shala
[image error]Sunset over the rice fields that surround Omunity

Tri Hita Kariana is a great guidance for me – well, for all of us Balinese people. It is all about living in harmony and respecting each other and nature. It teaches us to appreciate the environment and to value all human beings and all animals.

When you implement the concept of Tri Hita Karana you follow the path of spirituality because you are led by the three “H’s”: Head, Heart and Hand. And when you do things  based on spirituality, then you are essentially living sustainably. The real spiritual people are not greedy; they think about how to sustain life in all its forms.

[image error]The peaceful settings at Omunity always includes a new kitten or puppy to pet

***

What are you currently working on?

I am working on creating a glamping site in the mountains about 20 minutes drive from Omunity (glamping is a portmanteau of “glamorous” and “camping”, and describes a style of camping with amenities).

OM-Glamping is going to be a space for those who really want to be right in the middle of nature; the concept is all about simple living and about appreciating the amazing views in the high mountains, where you can see rice terraces, clove fields, waterfalls and the ocean, and where you can furthermore experience picking your own coffee beans, cacao, mangosteen, guava, avocado, salak/snakeskin fruit, durian, coconuts etc.

My vision is also to create a natural swimming pool with natural spring water, and of course to do trekking, natural water sliding, water jumping from cliffs and to investigate the seven secret waterfalls with the visitors.

At night the sky is full of the light from the stars and the moon. When you experience such immense natural beauty there is no way you will not feel united with your natural environment and that you will not want to take care of nature.

Om Shanti Om.

[image error]Zanzan’s youngest son at the glamping site in the mountains

Reference: Putu Surya Triana Dewi (2019),“Model of Sustainable Tourism Village Development in Bali (Case Study: OMunity Bali in Sudaji Village, Sawan Sub-district, Buleleng District)” in Equity, Equality, And Justice In Urban Housing Development, KnE Social Sciences, pages 642-657

Interview #4: Sustainable fashion consumption researcher Lauren Junestrand

I recently got connected with Lauren Junestand via Instagram. And it quickly became clear that our research-areas are interlinked. I am intrigued by Lauren’s focus on the post-consumer waste challenge and her determination to identify the obstacles that hinder reuse of discarded clothes.

Lauren is a Ph.d. candidate at London College of Fashion in the field of sustainable consumption with a specific focus on second-hand practices. She is particularly fascinated about the idea of converting ‘trash’ to ‘treasure’ and ‘old’ to ‘new’. Her platform CLOOP PROJECTS aims to promote ‘closing the loop’ in fashion through reuse.

[image error]

In this interview, Lauren talks about her research and about her view on the current most severe environmental challenges.

***

What does sustainability mean to you?

I find myself wondering almost everyday what the purpose of the current system is. I really find it contradictory how the current system has the purpose of growth, but surprisingly, it is significantly destructive.

We are undergoing an exponential human and climate crisis, and we only continue to aggravate it. We are borrowing and destroying the planets resources without asking and exploiting people around the world for the one and only purpose of growing our numbers. But what many people don’t seem to understand is that while those numbers grow, our natural and human systems are under a significant pressure. Only because we don’t see it with our own eyes, it doesn’t mean it’s not happening. Are we really going to wait until this is all over?

These facts have been scientifically proven, there are not just words. Yet, we don’t seem to tackle the problem.

I find it so important to, as humans, aim to find that connection with people and nature and bring this with us as a ‘backpack’ on our everyday, and try to adapt our lifestyle to these two essential pillars. I know myself that the current system doesn’t make it easy, and that it is constantly reminding us of doing the opposite, but it is only if we change, that the system (led by us) will change.

Behind the word sustainability I see so much. I see a connection with Earth and people and a deep understanding of why things need to be done in a different way. Putting our planet and our people at the center of every decision. It is only then that sustainability will be translated into action, and that it will adopt a real meaning.

For me, the word sustainability doesn’t mean anything when it’s on a label or on a company report. It becomes alive when I see that people are taking action and really understanding why it is necessary to take that action. Collaborating within and across sectors to fight this crisis, and to move beyond the current purpose.

***

What is the goal with your research? 

Linked to the aforementioned challenges, I embarked myself on a research journey to fight towards a more sustainable world. I am now a PhD candidate student at London College of Fashion, receiving the support of experts in the area of sustainable fashion.

Coming from a fashion background, I have always felt very responsible of the social and environmental impact of the industry. I didn’t want to belong to a sector that was destroying. I wanted to help this sector to live in conjunction with natural and human systems.

My research focuses on reuse. As everyone might know, the post-consumer waste challenge is one of the biggest environmental issues we are facing within the sector. These crazy amounts of discarded clothing end up incinerated or landfilled, resulting in emissions of polluting gases, a driving force towards climate change. I present reuse as a solution to post-consumer waste and anthropogenic pollution. But also, as a system that will avoid the environmental and social challenges involved in all the prior stages of the current supply-chain, from raw materials to garment manufacturing. It will avoid the production of new, and consequently: water use, water pollution, land degradation, health issues, sea and air transportation, unfair working conditions or the use of chemicals, among others.

[image error]A secondhand market in Bali, Indonesia, overflowing with discarded, unwanted clothes from first-world countries.

More specifically, in a reuse system an essential pillar is the user. The user is the one using again the garment of clothing. Without the potential user, this system won’t work. But, at the same time, consumers find so many barriers towards rewearing clothes. I am interested in identifying and understanding these barriers, because only by understanding them, can the fashion sector understand where there is a need to strategise to promote this system. I will explore consumers on a cross-national level: UK, Sweden and Spain. This will also help me understand if there are differences and similarities cross-nationally.

[image error]

***

What do you view as the biggest environmental problem? 

For me one of the biggest environmental problems is waste. Although, I am aware that there are many other environmental problems.

I have chosen waste because of all the consequences it brings with it. As mentioned before, landfilling and incineration involve the emission of polluting gases, that do not only harm the environment but also the health of the people involved in the process .

Climate change leads to global warming, hence to extreme weather conditions, ice-melting, sea-level rise, animal migration, land degradation, precipitation, etc.

Furthermore, waste is a localised problem that can cause extreme consequences, all the way from the North Pole to the South Pole.

 

 

Interview #3: Sustainable weaving innovator Lim Masulin

I first met Lim Masulin at the Future Design Week in May last year at Potato Head Bali, when I was also introduced to his company BYO living and their amazing work.

In December I met with Lim again, this time for a coffee-talk in Ubud to spare with him on sustainability-issues in relation to my upcoming book Anti-trend, Resilient Design and the Art of Sustainable Living. We had a fascinating talk about democratic sustainability, sustaining dying crafts-traditions through innovation, and about the main obstacles in the fight against climate change.

[image error]

In this interview, I ask him about his take on sustainability as well as the environmental challenges we are currently facing. I find his perspective on the current pandemic both touching and immensely inspiring. Enjoy!

***

WHAT DOES SUSTAINABILITY MEAN TO YOU?

Since 2008, sustainability for better well-being has been my life’s calling through scalable weaving innovation in the architecture and design communities. As climate change and waste problems build up to become a major risk towards our existence and future generations, it’s very hard to see any clarity, accountability and meaningful actions by any government, NGOs, associations, individuals that really tackle this imminent danger.

Our involvements with ASEAN, World Economic Forum, ministries and associations on any environmental programs are impossible to sustain in the longer terms. Unlike the ozone depletion problems during late 1970s, when the whole world agreed to ban the ozone depleting chemicals and the united action came to fruition, it seems that in relation to climate change and waste the world finds it hard to agree on the definition and on meaningful solutions.

And so, we often ask ourselves what we can do. Well, firstly, we know that we can’t do everything so we have to make the choice to focus on something, and for BYO Living that means weaving technology as the starting point.

Secondly, we can’t work with everyone, so we focus on the role-modelling communities and architects, designers and craftsmen who are within of our circle of trust.

Thirdly, we need to connect the past and future by fusing the know-how of environmental vernacular architecture/design heritage and evolving technology such as computational parametric design, environmental intelligence (data driven design on sun, wind, light, weather, noise, etc.), recycling/regrowing material technology and pop culture engineering.

Through these three focal points, we hope to inspire many by delivering circular solutions as well as real social impact, which also shows the proof of scalable win-win business results to our stakeholders.

[image error]

***
HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE YOUR WORK AND THE CRAFT-TRADITION YOU TAP INTO?

We are weaving technology providers. We solve problems by innovating our weaving process to meet with real life solutions.

Architects and designers usually come to us to solve their design challenges and implementations. Solar heat gain in the building contributes more than 30% of energy waste in US due to excessive air conditioning, weaving facade/building skin protects the building from the overheating. We work with architects to create the most efficient weaving facade with unique aesthetic feature.

[image error]

We tap into the Indonesian master-weavers tradition which has universal features to global acceptance and collaborations, and deep technical iterations to create limitless applications.

[image error]

Our team is comprised of +/- 30 professionals from architecture, interior design, industrial design, graphic design, civil engineering, project management, QC, finance, accounting backgrounds, +/- 20 master-weavers and +/- 50 junior weavers.

***

WHAT DO YOU VIEW AS THE BIGGEST ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM?

Our biggest environmental problem is mindsets. Complaining or voicing anger alone can’t solve climate change, so don’t waste the energy to promote victim mentality. Waiting for the bigger authority to work is going nowhere; it’s very hard for the leaders of the world to agree on the single definition of climate change or the urgency of actions. So, let’s not point fingers to them.

Negligence also doesn’t make climate change stop. Solving by putting out impossible or dreamy environmental programs will not work either. Solving environmental problems has to start from each one of us. It must start with us doing something, anything that we can within our reach, such as eating less meat or more vegetables, using no plastic bags and straws, reuse our things, saying no to fast fashion, etc.

If you choose to engage in environmental issues professionally, you can always start small, but embrace the possibility and the know-how on how to scale up the social impact significantly. Scaling up capability is common within the business realm, yet I believe the environmental communities could do it better and way more sustainably.

Capitalism is another big environmental problem. The world in majority is still maintaining the old world’s paradigm, which defines success and happiness as having more money to consume and to feel more secure. This paradigm keeps people stuck in the belief that they have to work and waste endlessly to improve their “quality” of life. 

The current COVID-19 pandemic shows a real case, which capitalism can’t solve by providing economic happiness or security. Having more money in urban Jakarta doesn’t provide one with better healthcare nor certainty during this time. Even the world leaders and royalty, who are considered at the top of the capitalistic food-chain can’t get any safety assurance or health certainty. Food security is furthermore a major issue in many cities and countries due to the stop of food supply export.

However, and as a remarkable contrast hereto, the Indonesian remote villagers are  feeling happy and secure due to their environmental, agricultural harmony.

[image error]Detail from a traditionally weaved house. I took this photo when visiting the Indonesian island Lombok last year

During this bleak pandemic, we have lost beloved creative friends and relatives. We are going through a crisis without any visible solution. But yet, somehow the world is allowed to see the clear sky, breath the pollution-less fresh air, experience a life of solitude with loved ones, engage in slow stressless daily activities, etc.

I keep hearing from creative communities that their output is much better in terms of quality and quantity by working at home. It is both ironic and a paradox.

I’m hoping the next normal after COVID-19 is a life in which fulfilment and meaning is more important than money. A life of thanksgiving and contentment. In such a world, achievements or success would concern improving the life of others without depleting the world’s goodness, unlearning the old ways of consumerism and replacing these with the new environmental efficiencies and habits.

Sustainability in its perfect form is a life full of contribution and sacrifice in love to others and God, the creator. Such a lifestyle would include using all given talents and resources efficiently to establish circular goodness and earth conservancy throughout many generations ahead.

***

WHAT ARE YOU CURRENTLY WORKING ON?

At BYO Living, we are currently developing architectural weaving in waste recycle and regrowable nature material for international infrastructure projects and five star hotels. We are also researching on new building materials from paper waste, cigarette butts, construction waste, concrete, fsc wood, plastic bottle recycle, etc.

[image error]Paper waste mixed with concrete

Our recent project in Bali, BYO Fab, is a world’s first prefabricated weaving architecture solution based on vernacular Javanese effective building traditions. Unlike conventional construction where most building ideations and processes are taking a long time to be developed, adjusted and machined on site, our fast prefab system is fully processed in the workshop, delivered to site and instantly installed. The whole solution is fully computerized in order to optimize building cooling features and minimize the usage of materials and the amount waste, which also cuts down the time waste from inefficient human error factor.

[image error]BYO Fab for Kengo Kuma

Interview #2: environmental idealist Sabrina Viitasaari

I met Sabrina in December at at café next to Green School Bali. At that point (before the coronavirus took over all conversational topics) we were still occupied with environmental issues and eager to engage in discussions on waste management and how to limit pollution in developing countries. We quickly got occupied with a discussion on green washing and sustainable living – and I was fascinated to hear about her company Nusa Sentara. Nusa Sentara is focused on bringing state of the art technology in the “waste to energy” sector to Indonesian communities that are suffering from waste management crisis as well as lacking clean and reliable energy sources to power their communities.

Sabrina founded and runs Nusa Sentara together with her brother and sister. Her brother Solomon Viitasaari is a marine biologist and a leading specialist in marine eco-system restoration methods, and has 15 years of experience with sustainable projects and research in Indonesia, especially relating to bio-technical solutions, marine eco systems regeneration, and renewable energy. Her sister Natasha Viitasaari holds a Master’s degrees in both Political Science and Public International Law from the University of Helsinki, and has always been motivated by possibilities of change through social analysis and grass roots adaptation. Sabrina herself has over 10 years experience with start-ups and network development as well as circular economy. The company is located in the Indonesian island Lombok.

[image error]

In this interview, Sabrina sheds light on her work, her company’s approach to sustainability, and discusses the biggest environmental problem we are currently facing.

***

What does sustainability mean to you?

Well, thats a tricky one since i’ve been following, observing and using that term for about 15 years now — and what it meant when I started working with it and what it means now seems quite different. But in short, I guess what sustainability means to me now is: Not Enough. Why do I say that? Well, because frankly we’ve gone past the point of “sustainable”; we cannot sustain the systems and the models that we currently have. We must move beyond those to other terms like regenerative and restorative and use these as guidelines when pursuing a cleaner environment and healthier society.

[image error]

***

How would you describe your company’s mission?

Our mission is to help solve the global pollution catastrophe we are currently facing.  We do this by ideating, designing, building and connecting waste to value eco-systems, which in practice means that the intelligence of our systems ensures that new materials and products produced are the ones which best serve the members of the localised ecosystem.

Our way of supporting the foundations of a true waste to value model goes like this: Use global technology to design a system which collects waste locally, processes it locally, converts into a new product to serve the local community.

Nusa Sentara is currently involved in several innovative environmental projects across the Indonesian archipelago. The projects include working with individual companies on identifying their side streams and helping turn them into lucrative revenue streams. For example our current project in southern Lombok will use the bio waste from the local fisheries’ production to generate high quality fish feed through a simple method of Black Soldier Fly production. This project doesn’t only deal with the difficulty of removing waste streams, but also provides the necessary protein and fat sources to make a high quality organic fish feed for sustainable aqua-culture.

Another project, which we are currently developing is the integration of small scale waste to energy facilities (pyrolysis system which can turn non recyclable plastics into a renewable fuel). This model doesn’t only provides the market with a cleaner diesel fuel, it also injects (potentially large amounts of) money into the local community through plastic buy-back models, which simultaneously gives an economic incentive for the collection and transformation of plastic waste on beaches and in oceans. Such a solution is currently lacking across most Indonesian islands.

[image error]

Nusa Sentara holds the ambitious goal to make this model mobile by mounting the system on a oceanic vessel, which can travel the archipelago reaching even extremely remote places. The goal is to provide remote, isolated islands with a waste management  technology that they would otherwise never have accessibility to. Because, despite being isolated, due to currents and tides masses of ocean plastic waste reach their remote beaches and harbours.

Nusa Sentara believes this model isn’t just suitable for Indonesia but all places in the world which are lacking proper waste management infrastructure. For this reason we are using sophisticated data analytics and machine learning software to use the data collected here to build the foundation for a model that can be scaled up or down and used anywhere in the world.

***

 

What do you view as the biggest environmental problem?

I don’t see environmental problems, I see human problems. In nature there is no such thing as waste, it is something that our socio-economic models have created. Waste is not a material, it’s a mindset. 

For the past few years our company Nusa Sentara has been a forerunner in developing waste to value eco-systems. In the beginning it was pretty tough because the general public (and most governments) didn’t really seem to think that we had a waste crisis. But then, I guess it was in early 2018 when China announced that they would no longer be accepting the world’s waste the house of cards which we called “recycling” began to topple. And so, now we are faced with the terrifying realisation that for the vast majority recycling has been only theory not practice, and we are drowning in our refuse. 

[image error]

So, now that we have this major demand for solutions from companies, communities and entire industries, who don’t know how to address their problems. We are looking to automate and scale some of the processes and models we’ve developed over the past couple of years into a new platform called Nu Cycle. We are currently testing it with our pilot partners and early customers but will be launching it publicly summer 2020.

In short Nu Cycle will be the first framework & platform for automating the offset and conversion of a company’s or community’s waste impact by creating local waste-to-value ecosystems and data driven incentive schemes.

 

Collaborative consumption: swapping, sharing and repairing

In these crazy and turbulent corona times, it is finally time for some news from my isolated jungle house. I have chosen to share an small extract from my upcoming book Anti-trend – resilient design and the art of sustainable living that I am currently in the process of editing. The themes seem more relevant than ever. Once the corona nightmare is over it is important that we don’t just return to the consumption-patterns that we have momentarily paused, and focus on getting the “wheels of consumption” to spin faster and faster once again. Let’s instead explore a new normal and incorporate new ways of consuming goods. And furthermore, let’s remember the community-spirit and willingness to alter habits and old ways of doing things that many experience right now.

This section is taken from the second last chapter in the book, called Three anti-trendy reasons for designing new objects in a world with (way) too many things. It is a part of the third reason for designing new objects, namely Encouraging sustainable living.

***

Instead of trying to convince consumers to buy less and focus on investing in better objects, maybe encouraging sustainable behaviour by nudging them into wanting to do so and to share and repair their things would be a better and more effectual and durable approach. Because, despite tangible facts on pollution and global warming and the link between these devastating scenarios and overconsumption, consumers don’t really seem to act or change their behaviour; or at least, not enough do, and not on a large enough scale.

There is still a large demand for cheaply produced goods, and the manufacturing industry still seeks to meet that demand by producing more stuff quicker and cheaper. The fast fashion industry emits more carbon than international flights and maritime shipping combined, more than 15 tons of textile waste is generated each year in the United States alone, and the number has doubled over the last twenty years (confirming the fact that increased pollution and global warming doesn’t scare consumers away from shopping cheap clothes), polyester clothing takes nearly 200 years to decompose (nylon is not much better) and it furthermore releases microplastic into the environment, and, it takes approximately 2700 litres of water to make a cotton t-shirt (which becomes an even scarier scenario when understanding that worldwide one in three people does not have access to safe drinking water).

In other words, the environmental impact of mass-produced clothes is huge, well almost immeasurable. And, obviously, the production of low-priced toys, kitchenware, interior accessories etc. is equally pollutant.

So, if alarming facts about pollution caused by fast fashion are not encouraging enough to alter clothes consumption habits (as well as the habits related to the consumption of other lifestyle products for that matter), perhaps the sustainable product designer’s main task is to seek new approaches to encourage sustainable behaviour. But, how do you make people want to change their ways, rather than inform or maybe scare them into doing so (which doesn’t seem to work)?

In general consumption needs to be reduced massively, and hence investing in long-lasting things, or perhaps sharing or swapping things rather than using and throwing them away, should ideally be the norm. However, what does the prospect of being a long-term investment require from design-objects? And – can any object be a sharing-object? The short answer to the latter question is: no, I don’t think so. And in this subsection, I intent to clarify why I don’t, and what it requires from an object to be swapped or shared and repaired.

[image error]This photo is from a very inspiring indigo workshop I attended a couple of months ago. I was invited by Britta Boyer as a part of her ph.d.-research field studies on the designer’s mindset and worldview. The workshop was facilitated by Pagi Motley Studio and Tian, Taru. The photo beautifully illustrates community-spirit an the joy of sharing.

Simply put, the main motive for overconsumption is the sensation that what one already owns is somehow obsolete. Maybe it is no longer functioning, and repair seems impossible (perhaps due to the design, or perhaps due to lack of access to the utensils needed), maybe it is weathered and worn out (and mending seems meaningless, because buying something new is much easier and even also often much cheaper), or perhaps it still works fine, in the sense that it is still usable or wearable, but it somehow feels wrong; it is perceived as obsolete. Now, I have previously discussed the concept of perceived obsolescence. The vast majority of the belongings of a 21st century person in a developed country are discarded due hereto, and hence not because they don’t work anymore and not because they are worn out, but because they are perceived as obsolete.

So, if perceived obsolescence is one of the big sinners when it comes to the endless landfills filled with unwanted stuff, what does it take to eliminate this mechanism? What are the characteristics of objects; clothes, furniture, interior accessories etc. that can continuously satisfy our need for newness? And, maybe even also other’s need for newness and hence be sharable or swapable. Or, are we looking at this up-side down? Should the question rather be: how can the constant need for newness be eliminated?

***

The cornerstone in relation to long-term investments and sharing economy that can jeopardise the use-and-throw-away ethos is a perspectival change. Rather than endless growth the focus needs to shift to human – and ecological – wellbeing. Rather than convenience and lightness we should be focusing on rawness and heaviness (in the nourishing sense of the term that I previously discussed). Inviting more heaviness into our lives involves taking responsibility. For actions as well as purchases. And taking responsibility for one’s purchases involves mending the things we invest in as well as passing them on to others, when we no longer need them — or maybe it even means sharing them with others.

Collaborative consumption could be a way of satisfying the need for newness that underpins perceived obsolescence. Collaborative consumption means owning things together with others, and it involves the opportunity of exchanging one’s “belongings” after a period of usage. Examples hereof are clothes libraries or sharing-wardrobes, which are phenomena that seems to be popping up in the majority of large cities lately, signifying that there is a growing desire to engage in sharing things and building communities. A clothes library typically works in the way that one, after subscribing and paying a monthly subscription-fee, can borrow a set number of items. This makes it possible to change one’s wardrobe often, without over-consuming — well, even without consuming at all. And furthermore, it makes it “legitimate” to “go through” clothes, and thus to not necessarily feel obliged to view every acquisition as an investment, because no purchase is actually being made.

But, if there are so many obvious benefits of not owning one’s clothes, but rather borrowing them for a while, then why is this not the new normal? Why is it only a very small crowd of sustainable first movers and immaterialists, who adhere to this concept? The answer is likely interlinked with the previous notion on societal status symbols and consumer habits; consuming in the sense of going through goods and hence buying and displaying brand-new things and discarding them when they no longer appear trendy or UpToDate is still vastly viewed as a sign of welfare. And furthermore, wearing second-hand clothes still to an extend connotes “not being able to afford new garments”, and the stale scent of “castoff” still seems to linger hereto.

Sharing one’s wardrobe with a kinfolk of likeminded, who have similar aesthetic preferences, and thereby collaboratively consume garments (if consuming is even the right term in relation hereto) makes extremely good sense, as it is both cheaper and more sustainable than owning clothes, and furthermore it contains the surplus benefit of creating a community-feeling and of satisfying one’s need to continuously look new and chic. And yet, we are so stuck in the consensus that one has to own clothes (as well as furniture, bicycles, interior products, books etc. etc.) instead of sharing that engaging in collaborative consumption is viewed as unusual and unorthodox.

***

Let us for a short while imagine a world, in which collaborative consumption is the norm. A world in which sharing clothes is normal, a world, in which owning very little stuff is status-providing, a world, in which purchasing something new involves responsibilities (to ensure that it is used well and passed on to others, when one is done with using it) rather than rights (to do whatever one wants with one’s belongings, and to throw them away when bored with them); a world, in which immaterialism rather than materialism governs consumption. In this world a range of new objects are needed. Objects that are sharable and collaboratively consumable, objects that can endure the extensive usage, that can be mended and updated, and that can circulate amongst and satisfy a group of owners due to flexibility and aesthetics.

In other words, not all objects can be collaboratively consumed or shared. It requires certain object-qualities to be resilient enough to be co-owned. But, what exactly does it require? Adaptability? Subtleness? Does a sharable object need to have a modular structure, so that single elements can be replaced if they no longer work, or if they get worn out? It most certainly requires a degree of hardiness, because when an object is used by many rather than one, it obviously wears more rapidly. And hence, there are requirements in relation to the materials used when creating sharable objects. However, robustness can also take the shape of wearability and fit, if talking about garments. Or of flexibility and size-adjustment, if talking about furniture. Or of subtle aesthetics that ensure mixability with other items. All of which are qualities that ensure longevity.

The strange thing, however, is that sometimes objects that possess none of the above-mentioned qualities are long-lived and are passed on through generations. Like the petroleum blue second-hand sofa, I bought at a vintage furniture-store in Copenhagen. It was visually loud (due to its blue colour and very distinct 50’s design shape; square, light and flared armrests), it was non-flexible, hard to clean, and the wooden legs would often have to be re-fastened, due to their wobbly composition. And yet, the sofa was snatched as soon as I finished the “for sale” listing, before us moving to Bali (and a few of my friends had even on several occasions said that if I wanted to sell that sofa, they were interested!).

[image error]I managed to find an old photo of the legendary blue vintage sofa.

At times the most long-lived objects that manage to survive stylistic shifts and tend to get more valuable when traces of usage mould them, are not the ones that are subtle and minimalistic, but rather the ones that that are “self-confident” in their expression in the sense that they are visually loud, bold, time-typical statement pieces.

However, investing in vintage furniture and passing belongings down through generations is essentially different than collaborative consumption and sharable objects, as the latter, rather than solely being linked up on permanency, is intertwined with a mindset on whether or not owning the things we surround ourselves with, use and wear is necessary. Vintage furniture could be sharable, as it by definition has the ability to continuously please and nourish its receiver and hence defies the need for newness that tends to lead to over-consumption. Yet, whilst investing in vintage objects and selling them on might be a way of minimising the consumption of new things, it is not the same as challenging the very core of consumption; namely the need to purchase and own stuff.

To be continued.

Collaborative consumption: swapping, sharing and repairing #1

In these crazy and turbulent corona times, it is finally time for some news from my isolated jungle house. I have chosen to share an extract from my upcoming book Anti-trend – resilient design and the art of sustainable living that I am currently in the process of editing. The themes seem more relevant than ever. Once the corona nightmare is over it is important that we don’t just return to the consumption-patterns that we have momentarily paused, and focus on getting the “wheels of consumption” to spin faster and faster once again. Let’s instead explore a new normal and incorporate new ways of consuming goods. And furthermore, let’s remember the community-spirit and willingness to alter habits and old ways of doing things that many experience right now.

This section is taken from the second last chapter in the book, called Three anti-trendy reasons for designing new objects in a world with (way) too many things. It is a part of the third reason for designing new objects, namely Encouraging sustainable living.

The extract from the book is much longer than my usual blog-posts, so it will be shared here at The Immaterialist in three parts. But even so, it is a rather long read. I think however that time is ripe for contemplation. So here we go.

***

Instead of trying to convince consumers to buy less and focus on investing in better objects, maybe encouraging sustainable behaviour by nudging them into wanting to do so and to share and repair their things would be a better and more effectual and durable approach. Because, despite tangible facts on pollution and global warming and the link between these devastating scenarios and overconsumption, consumers don’t really seem to act or change their behaviour; or at least, not enough do, and not on a large enough scale.

There is still a large demand for cheaply produced goods, and the manufacturing industry still seeks to meet that demand by producing more stuff quicker and cheaper. The fast fashion industry emits more carbon than international flights and maritime shipping combined, more than 15 tons of textile waste is generated each year in the United States alone, and the number has doubled over the last twenty years (confirming the fact that increased pollution and global warming doesn’t scare consumers away from shopping cheap clothes), polyester clothing takes nearly 200 years to decompose (nylon is not much better) and it furthermore releases microplastic into the environment, and, it takes approximately 2700 litres of water to make a cotton t-shirt (which becomes an even scarier scenario when understanding that worldwide one in three people does not have access to safe drinking water).

In other words, the environmental impact of mass-produced clothes is huge, well almost immeasurable. And, obviously, the production of low-priced toys, kitchenware, interior accessories etc. is equally pollutant.

So, if alarming facts about pollution caused by fast fashion are not encouraging enough to alter clothes consumption habits (as well as the habits related to the consumption of other lifestyle products for that matter), perhaps the sustainable product designer’s main task is to seek new approaches to encourage sustainable behaviour. But, how do you make people want to change their ways, rather than inform or maybe scare them into doing so (which doesn’t seem to work)?

In general consumption needs to be reduced massively, and hence investing in long-lasting things, or perhaps sharing or swapping things rather than using and throwing them away, should ideally be the norm. However, what does the prospect of being a long-term investment require from design-objects? And – can any object be a sharing-object? The short answer to the latter question is: no, I don’t think so. And in this subsection, I intent to clarify why I don’t, and what it requires from an object to be swapped or shared and repaired.

[image error]This photo is from a very inspiring indigo workshop I attended a couple of months ago. I was invited by Britta Boyer as a part of her ph.d.-research field studies on the designer’s mindset and worldview. The workshop was facilitated by Pagi Motley Studio and Tian, Taru. The photo beautifully illustrates community-spirit an the joy of sharing.

Simply put, the main motive for overconsumption is the sensation that what one already owns is somehow obsolete. Maybe it is no longer functioning, and repair seems impossible (perhaps due to the design, or perhaps due to lack of access to the utensils needed), maybe it is weathered and worn out (and mending seems meaningless, because buying something new is much easier and even also often much cheaper), or perhaps it still works fine, in the sense that it is still usable or wearable, but it somehow feels wrong; it is perceived as obsolete. Now, I have previously discussed the concept of perceived obsolescence. The vast majority of the belongings of a 21st century person in a developed country are discarded due hereto, and hence not because they don’t work anymore and not because they are worn out, but because they are perceived as obsolete.

So, if perceived obsolescence is one of the big sinners when it comes to the endless landfills filled with unwanted stuff, what does it take to eliminate this mechanism? What are the characteristics of objects; clothes, furniture, interior accessories etc. that can continuously satisfy our need for newness? And, maybe even also other’s need for newness and hence be sharable or swapable. Or, are we looking at this up-side down? Should the question rather be: how can the constant need for newness be eliminated?

***

The cornerstone in relation to long-term investments and sharing economy that can jeopardise the use-and-throw-away ethos is a perspectival change. Rather than endless growth the focus needs to shift to human – and ecological – wellbeing. Rather than convenience and lightness we should be focusing on rawness and heaviness (in the nourishing sense of the term that I previously discussed). Inviting more heaviness into our lives involves taking responsibility. For actions as well as purchases. And taking responsibility for one’s purchases involves mending the things we invest in as well as passing them on to others, when we no longer need them — or maybe it even means sharing them with others.

Collaborative consumption could be a way of satisfying the need for newness that underpins perceived obsolescence. Collaborative consumption means owning things together with others, and it involves the opportunity of exchanging one’s “belongings” after a period of usage. Examples hereof are clothes libraries or sharing-wardrobes, which are phenomena that seems to be popping up in the majority of large cities lately, signifying that there is a growing desire to engage in sharing things and building communities. A clothes library typically works in the way that one, after subscribing and paying a monthly subscription-fee, can borrow a set number of items. This makes it possible to change one’s wardrobe often, without over-consuming — well, even without consuming at all. And furthermore, it makes it “legitimate” to “go through” clothes, and thus to not necessarily feel obliged to view every acquisition as an investment, because no purchase is actually being made.

But, if there are so many obvious benefits of not owning one’s clothes, but rather borrowing them for a while, then why is this not the new normal? Why is it only a very small crowd of sustainable first movers and immaterialists, who adhere to this concept? The answer is likely interlinked with the previous notion on societal status symbols and consumer habits; consuming in the sense of going through goods and hence buying and displaying brand-new things and discarding them when they no longer appear trendy or UpToDate is still vastly viewed as a sign of welfare. And furthermore, wearing second-hand clothes still to an extend connotes “not being able to afford new garments”, and the stale scent of “castoff” still seems to linger hereto.

Sharing one’s wardrobe with a kinfolk of likeminded, who have similar aesthetic preferences, and thereby collaboratively consume garments (if consuming is even the right term in relation hereto) makes extremely good sense, as it is both cheaper and more sustainable than owning clothes, and furthermore it contains the surplus benefit of creating a community-feeling and of satisfying one’s need to continuously look new and chic. And yet, we are so stuck in the consensus that one has to own clothes (as well as furniture, bicycles, interior products, books etc. etc.) instead of sharing that engaging in collaborative consumption is viewed as unusual and unorthodox.

***

Let us for a short while imagine a world, in which collaborative consumption is the norm. A world in which sharing clothes is normal, a world, in which owning very little stuff is status-providing, a world, in which purchasing something new involves responsibilities (to ensure that it is used well and passed on to others, when one is done with using it) rather than rights (to do whatever one wants with one’s belongings, and to throw them away when bored with them); a world, in which immaterialism rather than materialism governs consumption. In this world a range of new objects are needed. Objects that are sharable and collaboratively consumable, objects that can endure the extensive usage, that can be mended and updated, and that can circulate amongst and satisfy a group of owners due to flexibility and aesthetics.

In other words, not all objects can be collaboratively consumed or shared. It requires certain object-qualities to be resilient enough to be co-owned. But, what exactly does it require? Adaptability? Subtleness? Does a sharable object need to have a modular structure, so that single elements can be replaced if they no longer work, or if they get worn out? It most certainly requires a degree of hardiness, because when an object is used by many rather than one, it obviously wears more rapidly. And hence, there are requirements in relation to the materials used when creating sharable objects. However, robustness can also take the shape of wearability and fit, if talking about garments. Or of flexibility and size-adjustment, if talking about furniture. Or of subtle aesthetics that ensure mixability with other items. All of which are qualities that ensure longevity.

The strange thing, however, is that sometimes objects that possess none of the above-mentioned qualities are long-lived and are passed on through generations. Like the petroleum blue second-hand sofa, I bought at a vintage furniture-store in Copenhagen. It was visually loud (due to its blue colour and very distinct 50’s design shape; square, light and flared armrests), it was non-flexible, hard to clean, and the wooden legs would often have to be re-fastened, due to their wobbly composition. And yet, the sofa was snatched as soon as I finished the “for sale” listing, before us moving to Bali (and a few of my friends had even on several occasions said that if I wanted to sell that sofa, they were interested!).

[image error]I managed to find an old photo of the legendary blue vintage sofa.

At times the most long-lived objects that manage to survive stylistic shifts and tend to get more valuable when traces of usage mould them, are not the ones that are subtle and minimalistic, but rather the ones that that are “self-confident” in their expression in the sense that they are visually loud, bold, time-typical statement pieces.

However, investing in vintage furniture and passing belongings down through generations is essentially different than collaborative consumption and sharable objects, as the latter, rather than solely being linked up on permanency, is intertwined with a mindset on whether or not owning the things we surround ourselves with, use and wear is necessary. Vintage furniture could be sharable, as it by definition has the ability to continuously please and nourish its receiver and hence defies the need for newness that tends to lead to over-consumption. Yet, whilst investing in vintage objects and selling them on might be a way of minimising the consumption of new things, it is not the same as challenging the very core of consumption; namely the need to purchase and own stuff.

To be continued…

The second sex

In her seminal book The Second Sex from 1949 my hero, the french existentialist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir, argues that a woman is per default considered “the other.” Women are defined as relative to men, and thereby as subordinate to men. Despite the fact that the book was written over half a century ago this point still seems to be topical.

As I have just written about deconstructivism in my upcoming book Anti-trend – Durable Design and the Art of Resilient Living, and hence diving into the deconstructivist theory of french postmodern Philosopher Jacques Derrida I have become increasingly aware of the benefit of critically analysing and dissecting the words we use without giving it further thought: words that might contain inherent oppression, hierarchies, or other unfortunate connotations. For example using the words like man or mankind in stead of human being or humankind seems objectively speaking odd. It emphasises de Beauvoir’s point on women being considered “the other” or “the second sex”.

“The woman is no victim of a mysterious fate: she should by no means assume that her ovaries condemn her to live eternally down on her knees.”

Simone de Beauvoir

In De Beauvoir’s writings feminism was part of a larger project of social justice and human rights. Oppression and inequality can have many faces, which are certainly not at all purely linked to gender-issues. But, nevertheless gender-issues and women’s inferiority to men is still an actual and important topic to shed light on and to discuss.

One of UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals is solely devoted to gender equality and contains goals like: ending all forms of discrimination against all women and girls, eliminating all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres, including trafficking and sexual and other types of exploitation, and ensuring women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic and public life. These goals emphasise the fact that even now, in year 2019, we are still dealing with immense inequality between men and women.

“Recent data from 106 countries show that 18 per cent of ever-partnered women and girls aged 15 to 49 have experienced physical and/or sexual partner violence in the previous 12 months. The prevalence is highest in least developed countries, at 24 per cent.”

Sustainable Development Goals No. 5

Nobody chooses an oppressive society, community, or culture; we are born into them and either enslaved or benefitted from them — depending on whether we are expectedly the oppressor or the oppressed due to our innate identity or societal status. However, no matter if we are born into privilege and hence benefitting from oppression, we have an obligation to fight it, or at least to question it.

Escaping oppression and fighting against injustice takes a lot of courage, as  one risks being expelled from the community and marginalised. Therefore, most people choose not to rebel. There is too much at stake.

Nevertheless, recently I met a real rebel: a women, who is willing to risk everything to fight for her case and oppose oppression. Meeting her felt like such a privilege that it has taken me quite some time to find the right way to describe her courage as well as digest the impact of her mission.

But here we go.

A couple of months ago I drove for several hours together with my friend Nungki to reach a small village in the dry region of Karangasem in east Bali. Our destination was a shelter for children and women with the Indonesian name “kelompok perlindungan anak dan perempuan” (“protection group for children and women”), which is founded and run by an amazing powerhouse of a lady, Ibu (Mrs.) Ni Wayan Suparni.

[image error]Ibu Surpani at the shelter telling me about all the vulnerable women and children she has welcomed here over the years. She speaks mainly Balinese and a little Indonesian (which I am only just starting to learn), so Nungki was translating her stories for me. At times Nungki was hesitant due to the violent content of the stories, but whenever she would pause, Ibu Surpani would say: “tell her, tell her.”

This is Ibu Surpani’s incredible story. It is a story of hardship, empowerment and unbelievable drive. The following is written in collaboration with Nungki, who has helped me interview Ibu Surpani in Balinese and translated everything for me.

Ibu Surpani is usually called Mamak Surpani or just Mamak (Mamak means mum in the local dialect). She was born in Buleleng in the northern part of Bali and grew up in a very traditional family. Her parents could not afford to give her an education; she would have to help with the household and only finished primary school. She got married to her husband when she was 15 years old. Her husband worked for the infantry army and was stationed in Buleleng at that time, and he is much older than her. Together they have three children.

When her children were still young her husband got stationed in Karangasem. As an army wife she followed her husband to rural villages, and she started talking to and making friends with many of the women who lived there. At first she just listened as a friend to their stories of domestic abuse and violence, but the more she heard, the more she felt inclined to do something. And hence, she started joining events held by the Social department in Bali – and here she met many inspiring people, who encouraged her to actively engage in protecting women and children.

Her first “case” was a pedophilia case in year 2002. She was drawn into the case, as it happened in Karangasem, and because the social workers from Denpasar needed someone familiar with the local culture and customs of the region in order to provide effective help. However, because Ibu Surpani at that time didn’t have an education she was only able to offer them her social and cultural assistance.

After that case, she started following around social workers who were active within women’s and children’s protection, and she became convinced that providing help for those in need was her destiny. But in order to be able to fully engage and make a real difference, she needed an education.

And so, since she had only gone to elementary school as a child, she needed firstly to graduate from junior high school and high school, before she could pursue a law degree. Now she is a fully qualified lawyer. In her own words:

“It was a hard and long journey, but I believe that if you put your mind in to it, you can do whatever you want. Just keep going. There will be sun after the rain.”

The shelter that she now runs was actually initially a present from MNCTV (one of Indonesia’s biggest TV channels). Ibu Surpani was interviewed by MNCTV about her activism and social work, and in June 2012 a team from Jakarta visited her in Karangasem to experience her in action.

A while hereafter she was informed that she was on the top 10 of MNCTV pahlawan Indonesia (MNCTV Indonesian Heroes). There had been 700 candidates! They invited her to Jakarta to be interviewed by the judges, and they also interviewed people who she was, or had been working with. And then, around October 2012, she was given the shelter as a gift.

[image error]One of the bedrooms in the shelter. The women and children generally prefer to sleep close together, as it makes them feel safe and protected. 

Since then, she has run the “protection group for children and women” by herself with the occasional help of volunteers. The shelter is open 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, as Ibu Surpani lives there herself. The shelter was created for women and children, who have been victims of abuse and domestic violence, but anyone who needs help is welcome. The victims can stay for free for as as long as they need too. Food and all of their needs are taken care of; all they need to do is to heal, as Ibu Surpani puts it. Both legal and psychological assistance is provided for them, while they are staying there, free of charge. Ibu Surpani mostly takes care of all the expenses herself. She gets a little help from the government as well, but it usually isn’t enough and it is only provided once a year.

[image error]The women’s bedrooms are protected by daily offerings to the gods and spirits.

In order to finance the shelter, Ibu Surpani works as a lawyer outside the shelter at times, usually with divorce cases. For a woman in need of a divorce, getting a lawyer in  the region of Karangasem is a challenge. So Ibu Surpani usually offers her service, and allow for the women to pay however and whatever they are able to. Once a women sent her a package of vegetables and  500.000 Indonesian rupiah (around $35) as payment.

It might sound corny, but for me it is not about the money. It’s about the feeling I get when seeing the look on their faces, when they understand that; yes, someone is there to help them!  That feeling for me is worth the hardship, and worth even more than one billion rupiah.

Victims of domestic violence are often reluctant to leave their abuser, because they don’t have anywhere to go, and they don’t have anyone to turn to. Ibu Surpani’s goal with the shelter is to encourage victims to save themselves and to let them know that there is a place to go, and that there is someone, who can help them get through the darkest time of their life.

When Nungki and I visited the shelter, there were three women and two children living there, but only a few months earlier there were six women staying there. Some of the women have now moved on, and have found good jobs in Denpasar. Ibu Surpani is not surprised that the women at the shelter are showing strength and independence, because, as she says; most of them were the main breadwinners of their families, which is actually often the reason for their husband’s abuse, because it makes them feel jealous and inferior.

However, some women need more time and more healing than others. One of the women, who has been at the shelter for a long time is Ibu Wayan in the below photo.

[image error]This is Ibu Wayan and little Mei mei (who totally stole my heart, by the way). Ibu Wayan has been as the shelter for two years now, and has been forced to leave her two sons (who are 11 and 13 years old) behind with her husband. She is slowly recovering from expansive abuse (both physical and psychological) from her husband and her family-in-law. In Bali a women typically moves in with her husband’s family when they get married, and they live their lives in family compounds together with the husband’s parents and brother(s) and their wives and children. There is a strong community-feeling in Bali, which can be extremely beneficial for the individual (children and elderly are taken care of, meals are shared, and ceremonies are conducted together), but simultaneously, in cases of abuse and oppression the victim is extremely vulnerable and isolated, as no-one from the outside gains insight into what is going on. Mei mei’s story is different: she was born by a very young woman, who was not able to keep her and left at the shelter for Ibu Surpani to take care of. Luckily, she experiences lots of love and warmth from the many women, who spend time at the shelter.

Being a women’s activist in a patriarchal culture can be challenging. And Ibu Surpani has faced her share of threats from the victims’ husbands’ families, who have felt that she interferes with their personal, domestic life. In Bali, anything that happens inside someone’s marriage is considered their personal business. And Ibu Surpan says that to an extent she agrees; except when force and violence is present!

“So yes, I’ve been threatened, insulted, and confronted a lot of times. I usually will not budge, but one time they (the victim’s family) tried to hurt my family, my husband to be exact, and I almost gave in. I won’t go into the details, but it involved the institution he was working for. I asked for a divorce so that he didn’t have to face this problem, but he chose to resign instead. At that time I was somehow surprised by his decision, because in our marriage, there have been many times when he didn’t support me, but I guess people can have a change of heart, and I thank him for his support.”

Ibu Surpani says that as a woman and mother, she always feels sorry for and worried about the children in a domestic violence case, because no children should see or experience anything like that. Furthermore, children copy what their parents do, and hence, the child could get the impression that abuse and the exploitation is normal behaviour. Therefore, the children of domestic violence victims should be getting psychological assistance alike their mothers. This is something that the shelter hopes to be better at providing in the near future.

[image error]Little Mei mei enjoying some cookies.

When Nungki and I asked Ibu Surpani about her hopes for the future, she answered that she feels a little worried, as she is getting older, and not many young people are interested in working in this field, as it provides very little money and enormous emotional challenges. Her hope is that the government will be more attentive and committed in relation to supporting women and children in the future. Because as she states: in Bali, women are the backbone of the economic sector, and the children are the future, so we have to protect them

In Bali there are no women’s shelters run by the government. But for many reasons there is a big need for sanctuaries like Ibu Suparni’s. I am still digesting the stories I heard and the images they put in my head, when I visited the shelter and spoke to the women that stay there. And, I am overwhelmed with gratitude that rebels like Ibu Suparni exist. She is brave, fierce, and willing to do whatever needs to be done, despite the fact that her actions most often lead to disapproval in and exclusion from the local community, which in Bali is immensely important to the individual.

Interview #1: art awareness activist Liina Klauss

Liina Klauss creates art installations with the purpose of raising awareness of the environmental crisis caused by plastic pollution. I was recently a part of one of her ‘curating the beach‘ events in Bali, and I can assure you: it is effectual! Facing the immense plastic pollution on a remote beach in a tropical paradise by collecting, touching and sorting mountains of flipflops, plastic bottles, toothpaste tubes, shampoo containers, tooth brushes etc. – and then turning all the ugliness into something beautiful is a hands-on experience of being able to make a difference.

By this interview with Bali-based German artist Liina Klauss I initiate a new series of talks with environmental changemakers at The Immaterialist.

[image error]

In the following, Liina discusses sustainability, consumerism, the power of thoughts, environmental challenges, and art.

I recommend reading every word, as I am blown away by her insightful, visionary thoughts.

***

What does sustainability mean to you?

Sustainability in nature is the cycle of nourishing all of life through constant change. Sustainability inherently means change, and change includes birth and death. Life can only manifest through creation and destruction.

The sustainability discussion today revolves mainly about the aspects of maintaining, about keeping things as they are. We are in a phase of sustained stagnation which we refer to as “sustainability”. We want to keep everything as it is: our comforts, securities, our take-away coffees and our airplane flights. We do not want to change the status-quo. We conveniently want to make consumerism/capitalism “sustainable”. Shopping our way to sustainability is not possible.

Deep down we know there is something fundamentally wrong. The system is wrong. Buying carbon off-set miles, consuming green products and using bio-plastic straws are just a patch for a wound that is much bigger, much deeper. A wound that is systemic, a wound that is not only on the outside, but is our own wound.

[image error]

I do not know how a truly sustainable life can look like in the modern age. We know how it looked like for indigenous people. Or at least we think we know. Their wisdom is almost lost. Our achievements in modern technology, medicine and science have been extraordinary.

Is there a way to combine both?

Wisdom of a harmonious relationship with nature, ourselves and sentient beings combined with the innovations of modern communications, medicine, and education extended on a global scale?

It could be amazing. And it could be sustainable. How far do we dare to dream?

“The present convergence of crises – in money, energy, education, health, water, soil, climate, politics, the environment, and more – is a birth crisis, expelling us from the old world into a new.” Charles Eisenstein

I feel that the birth crisis is an inner crisis that is mirrored on the outside. The crisis calls into question our old value system. We will need to be brutally honest with ourselves and our old ways and old goals. Do we still want what we used to want? Is it worth it? What does the world we want to live in look like? Do we want it to be sustainable? Sustainable for whom? For humans only? Or do we include sentient beings, animate and inanimate, rainforests and oceans, or the planet as a whole?

We need to be very clear on this, because we will create it. Thoughts are powerful. They are the seeds of what the future will look like.

***

How would you describe your art?

My art is not about pretty colours and rainbows. That is just the bait. You can only fully understand it when you participate in making it. You have to touch, feel, let yourself be touched.

These events are called ‘curating the beach’: physically showing up on a polluted beach, facing the man-made apocalypse, acknowledging our ignorance and destruction of nature and then doing something about it.

You will get dirty, sweaty and dig deep into the shadows of our throw-away society and consumerist culture. Yes, it is uncomfortable, disgusting and you might feel helpless, angry, you might start blaming others or yourself. Yet the presence of nature, of wild untamed nature, will transform the experience. Slowly these negative emotions change into curiosity, creativity and a sense of empowerment, sometimes even peace.

There is something in the process of facing and touching the dark sides of humanity and showing up vulnerable and innocent, of using your own hands and not looking away, that triggers healing and a deep connection, inside as well as outside.

[image error]

I would rather describe my work as an ‘experience’ than a finished art piece. It is more  like an inner creation than an outer one. I’m not even the artist. I’m only throwing you into unknown territory, exposing you to an untamed landscape, a wild and immersive experience of nature, changing your perspective from default to innocence and awe. The rest of the work is yours.

***

What do you view as the biggest environmental problem?

The interconnectedness, scale and complexity of environmental problems today makes it impossible to know which is the worst one. We tend to look from a perception of extinguishing fires.

Could we try not to look at the symptoms, but at the cause that created the symptom in the first place? I would like to try that in a little excursus here.

Are you with me that human thought is the starting point of every’thing’ we create? The smallest common denominator of any creation is thought. Everything has been a thought in someone’s mind before it became a thing in physical existence. Thought is the smallest unit of creativity.

As humans we have gotten into the habit of thinking in terms of ‘not enough’. The reasons might be evolutionary, they might be in our DNA or simply a mind-set that we can’t control. Whatever the reason, our society has an undertone of human life needing to be improved, an undertone of existence needing to be ‘easier, faster, richer, sweeter’. Dissatisfaction is the motivation making you buy more things, consume more services, work harder, and book more holidays.

This mindset fuels consumerist culture but has reached its physical limits. And also metaphysically: even though we have every’thing’ we are still not satisfied. We convince ourselves that ‘goods’ can satisfy our craving for a meaningful, connected and healthy life.

[image error]

Most of us would agree that capitalism and its throw-away culture has a high price on resources, fellow living-beings and the planet as a whole. But it also has a high price on human sanity.

In a monetised culture we might be rich, but we are poor in connection to nature, to other humans and to spirit. We have forgotten the stories of the elders, forgotten how to walk barefoot in the woods, how to read the flight of the birds and how to celebrate community, how to connect to spirit.

“We are shaped by our thoughts; we become what we think. When the mind is pure, joy follows like a shadow that never leaves.” Gautama Buddha

We are only slowly waking up to the reality that what we want does not come neatly packaged over the counter and that money is not part of the equation.  We are slowly waking up to the possibility that we might have to start looking inside for the solutions. And what a wake-up call it is!

In that sense I would say the human mind is the biggest environmental problem. And, even though it sounds illogical, the human mind will be the solution.

***

What are you currently working on?

I am currently working on a very exciting data visualisation project with marine scientist Skye Morét from the U.S. and data visualisation guru Moritz Stefaner from Germany. We have been chosen as finalists for National Geographic’s Plastic Challenge and are hoping to win and make it into the magazine.

At the same time I’m working on a book called “Involuntary Pairs” which is comprised of more than 500 found objects all collected on beaches in South-East Asia over the past 5 years. The objects look identical, yet one is man-made plastic, the other is natural. The pairs examine the merging of culture and nature to a point of inseparability. It’s very scary and beautiful at the same time.

And then there’s a new project with Potato Head in Bali which involves 10.000 salvaged flip-flops. I can’t tell you more. You will have to come to the opening of the new Desa Potato Head in March 2020.

Anti-trendy living

I am currently in the finishing phase of writing my new book on Anti-trend (with the subtitle; durable design and the art of resilient living), and as a part hereof I am spending a lot of time considering and challenging cultural assumptions that constitute obstacles when seeking more sustainable and resilient ways of life.

My overall hypothesis is that an anti-trendy lifestyle ought to be common or mainstream, as it is the most natural and fulfilling way to live.

Anti-trendy living is synonymous to living authentically and being true to whatever feels natural and right rather than following the “ought too’s” of society or cultural trends (well, sometimes “want to’s” and “ought to’s” might match, but often they seem not to). It is a way of accepting and consciously choosing and taking responsibility for both our reality and our opportunities — or what an existentialist would call: our facticity and our transcendence.

Why is following fleeting trends, consuming according to these, and spending most of our time rushing from one thing to the other the most mainstream or normal way to live in the post-industrial, capitalistic part of the world? Why is anti-trendy living considering an alternative, marginal or unconventional lifestyle?

When talking about my anti-trendy lifestyle choices — such as; very rarely buying new things or new clothes, challenging what it means to be well-dressed by allowing for my clothes to wear out, and by cherishing mends and holes, aiming to find peaceful moments every day to tune in to what I truly want to spend my time on, making a point only to work with stuff I am passionate about, saying “no thank you” to around half of the social activities and gatherings I am invited to attend, trying to teach my children the pleasure of durable skills that are not affected by the shifting breezes of life in the fast lane (like drawing, playing or listening to music, or finding pleasure in literature — as an antidote to only pursuing fleeting trend-based activities that reap instant admiration from other “trend followers”, or that are experienced as appealing due to their “instantly rewarding” anti-trivial qualities, and hence don’t require practice, repetition, or perseverance) – well, then I often experience a particular range of remarks from other people.

And they go somewhat like this:

“Oh but living like that is only for the privileged”, or “what’s wrong with wanting new things; I work hard, so I should be allowed to buy whatever I want”, or “aren’t you afraid of not getting invited another time?”, or “yes, I wish I too had time to teach my children things like that, but I am simply too busy and too tired when I get home from long hours at the office.”

[image error]I love it, when I manage to engage my kids in slow activities, like drawing or sitting down listening to a music album from start to end. And they love it too. When they manage to shut down their inner voices that nag about playing computer games, that is (!) However, no matter how annoying they might find my plea for slowness and concentration, I refuse to give up. Because, with all the “instantly rewarding” distractions that our time-era offers kids this plea is pretty damn meaningful.

Remarks like that make me wonder:

Are we really that induced by the “no pain no gain”-doctrine? And, are we that stuck in believing that our current reality is unchangeable, and that we aren’t free to choose how we act and how we live our lives? Has shopping become the new “opium for the people”? And particularly: what does it take to change the underlying basic assumptions that determine such responses? What does it take to understand that it is indeed ok to merely engage in passion driven professional activities, and that it is possible to limit consumption? And furthermore, that by doing so, we are actually getting closer to disregarding the assumption that hard work and discipline is the license to enjoyment — and importantly; that enjoyment and welfare equals shopping and consuming?

We could also put it this way: what if my response to the comments on my eager attempts to lead an anti-trendy lifestyle was that it is our own responsibility to reduce consumption, as well as to ensure a resilient and fulfilling lifestyle, both for ourselves but most certainly also for our children?

[image error]A beach, a sunset, a good friend, and dog; what else does a kid really need?

Obviously, I am not the only one that aspires to anti-trendy living. Anti-trendy living is related to slow living. And, slow living is a rising and growing tendency, which indicates a paradigm shift that was initially blooming in the early years of the 21st century and has its origin in the Slow Food Movement. It was a movement that was kick-started by the financial crisis in 2007-2009, as an antithesis or reaction hereto.

The slow living movement, in brief, is about celebrating slowness and challenging consumerism. The focus is on “little, but good” — and the idea that slowness results in an increased focus on one’s surroundings and the objects found here, and that this focus is a source of intimacy. Physical, sensuous intimacy, that is. A kind of intimacy that might disappear when living life in the fast lane, to use an obvious cliche. And, a kind of intimacy that can lead to sustainable behaviour, because it encourages cherishing and mending our physical belongings rather than replacing them.

As mentioned, I consider the slow movement and the intentions behind it as an expression of a paradigm shift, rather than as a passing trend like many others, due to the fact that it promotes a resilient, fulfilling lifestyle, which essentially appeals to us; to our core as human beings, because it is the most natural way for us to live. It speaks to our fundamental human need to be present and mindful, and to do what we are passionate about instead of the meaningless act of killing time, days, weeks, months, years in an uninspiring job so that we can buy more insignificant stuff (that we then, after a short time period struggle to get rid of).

[image error]A fraction of the many discarded garments and fashion accessories from developed countries that are shipped and sold here in a secondhand market in Denpasar, Bali. There are rows and rows of dresses, shirts, jackets, jeans, boots, bags etc. etc. When I went there recently, I felt a bit like I feel at an “all you can eat-buffet”: nauseous. 

On top hereof, the current global environmental crisis that we are all facing is water on the slow mover’s mill. Consuming less and living responsibly and consciously suddenly doesn’t seem so much like an alternative lifestyle, but rather like a rational and sensible way of life. Because, do we really have any other options, if we wish to mend the eco-systems?

Basic assumptions of a time era (or a culture) can change as a cause of fundamentally different living conditions – and hence the way people view the good life; time, status, consumption etc. can change and this can affect lifestyle tendencies and preferences. And I think this is about to happen.

But we are not quite there yet. Technology is getting there, though. Sustainable energy, the creation of various new, sustainable materials, material and waste recycling systems, design and architectural made out of waste materials, sustainable transportation etc. is already happening. The real obstacle is our cultural, societal and habitual patterns, and our constant strive for financial and material growth.

We are in need new status symbols and in need of new measurements of success. More hereon later…

Building resilience

I have previously written about resilience; resilient living and resilient aesthetics, and in this article I intend to dive a bit deeper into the concept.

Resilience is a term, which is often linked to ecosystems and permaculture. Ecological resilience refers to the ability of an ecosystem to respond to and recover from damage, disturbance or homogenization (often human led). The most resilient being; animal, plant — or human being for that matter — is a flexible, adjustable being. Simply put; if one is able to adjust to one’s environment: to get the most out of the nutrition available, regulate according to weather conditions, adapt to customs, enter communities, or if one can be both bendable and robust like the strong, tall, flexible bamboo that I am surrounded by here in Bali, well, then one is more likely to endure and thrive.

But how do you build your resilience? And how do you encourage and cultivate resilience in your children? Well, you could use the metaphor of a travel vaccination, which is given with the purpose of resilience; when you expose your system to a lot of different things (in the case of the vaccination-metaphor; bacteria), you become resilient to them.

In order to build resilience, it is of great importance to break the comfort zone of familiarity and everyday life. Of course, not all the time, as resilience includes balance and finding the golden mean between extremes, but nevertheless challenges are of great importance when seeking a resilient life. Hence, being able to bounce back to a strong core of stable values and grounded senses after being thrown off course, like the tall, slender palm trees that surround my house, requires exposing yourself to unfamiliarity and trials. Not in a stuntman kind of way; I am not suggesting that we should all throw ourselves into bungee jumping or skydiving, but rather that we need to consciously seek experiences that are challenging and disruptive.

Breaching the familiar or momentarily pulling yourself out of routines and the daily grind can be deeply edifying and build up resilience. In Edmund Husserl’s philosophy, disruption of the familiar, or Epoché as he calls it, opens our minds and senses and is a way of elimination assumptions and prejudices. The process of breaching or disturbing the well-known can be initiated by traveling or relocating to foreign regions and being challenged by newness in relation to sense-bombardments or cultural barriers, by art or fiction, or by critical or thought-provoking design objects.

But challenging yourself and thereby underlining your core strength, flexibility and adaptability shouldn’t be solely linked to exotic travels or thought-provoking art and design experiences. The desire to seek challenges and to expand horizons is the cornerstone in resilient living. This desire can manifest itself as pursuing big challenges, like moving to another country, accepting a work-related passion driven challenge, hiking through the wilderness or seeking exposure to radically different cultures. However, and importantly, building up resilience doesn’t require big dares! It can be reflected in small daily adaptability and open-mindedness manoeuvres. Cognitive resilience and flexibility can for example be cultivated by being open to and even embracing believes and standpoints that are I opposition to one’s own (if they are well-argued, of course), or by understanding that fear is a feeling meant to guide us, not to control us, and that calculated risks must be taken in order to grow.

Being resilient means being able to find your core shape again after being thrown off course by something or someone. The cultivation of resilience furthermore involves fighting against homogeneity. The antithesis to resilience is homogeneity. When people, environments, communities, cultures, societies, companies – as well as organisms and ecosystems – become homogeneous they become rigid, stagnant and/or weak, and hence unsustainable and unenduring.

But, if the most resilient environment is a heterogeneous one; i.e. an environment full of differences and dissimilarities, then why are we (still) so busy pushing everybody and everything towards “normalisation”, which basically means homogenizing? Globalisation and industrialisation have basically constituted a movement towards a homogeneous world governed by sameness and standardisation. The hangover from drinking too much of the same stuff has started to show though: whilst crafts-traditions start to die out due to the hard competition from cheap machine-made products, big city restaurants look similar and serve similar food everywhere, cultural differences are levelled, and more or less everything is accessible everywhere, handmade and locally, seasonally sourced and produced goods have started becoming the new luxury, confirming the number one rule of thumb when working with cultural tendencies, namely that if there is an overload of something (sameness, smoothness, convenience), people start romanticising its opposite (variableness, textures, slowness).

[image error]

Additionally, one could raise the following question; why do we celebrate tamed and weeded nature in the shape of designed forests, parks and gardens, even though we are deeply attracted to the wild, raw nature-experience? 

[image error]

Living resiliently is sustainable and enduring because it is a flexible, dynamic and adaptable lifestyle – and because it involves repetitions, or rather; because it involves finding pleasure in repetitions. However, nourishing repetitions are not draining and wearisome. Resilient living is not an ode to dishwashing! Resilient repetitions are linked to e.g. the usage of aesthetically nourishing objects, to the appreciation of the rhythms of nature, to steadily, gradually refining a skill, to the pleasure of slow creation (and the appreciation of slowly created objects), to creating momentous rituals with friends and family, and to finding a stimulating work-life balance and enjoying meaningful daily routines that allow for both efficiency and stillness.

Resilient repetitions are nourishing because they have been consciously chosen by the individual.